" a piss ant blog" -Rikimaru

"Dethtron, you are...an asshole" - 38% of Dick Move Readers

" I probably won't read unless I'm bored as shit at work" - A. Hack

"I cannot bring myself to actually read this drivel"- anonymous

"pox riddled post coital stain of a blog"- anonymous

Friday, March 12, 2010

Friday Night Internet Fight, Round 2

Mawloc debate over? Well unfortunately until GW issues an official FAQ for this it certainly isn't, even though it should be painfully obvious if you read the rules correctly that you can choose to deep strike wherever the fuck you want- even on top of a unit. It's where you land that matters. If you land on a unit it's deep strike mishaps time; that is unless you're a Mawloc. Then it's omm nom nom time.

Thank god GW hasn't issued a FAQ yet, though. If they had we wouldn't get super awesome debates with people misquoting rules and being generally thick-headed in the futile attempt to try and distinguish between what Rules as Written (RaW) and what the Rules as Intended/Interpreted (RaI) are. Bear witness to the searing pain of this Warseer rules debate. The real thread (link above)is 4+ pages long, so I'm just taking the highlights and editing them together in a way that I hope will make people look even worse :). As always, the names have not been changed to protect the innocent, but their avatars have been for my own amusement.

Toddznidz: Does the recent WD Tyranid Tactica article re: use of Lictors to guide Mawlocs definatively end the debate of "does it have to scatter"? ~For the record a lot of us didn't even need this article to know the debate should be over.

Hypaspist: I would suggest it would nail any RaI debate~true, but would still fall short of being definitive for RaW case ~read your book closely...more on this later. FAQ probably needed for that. ~how not to debate rule 1- don't use weak words like probably rule 2- provide no evidence to support your position.

Jaws900: OK after looking at the rules for both the Mawloc and the Lictor i would have to say this;

- A Mawloc who deep stikes within 6" of a Lictor does NOT scatter and will emerge there. ~stay on target
- The Lictor must be there BEFORE the turn the Mawloc emerges as per the "Pheromone Tail" Speciaol rule eg. If both arrive on turn 2 then it will still scatter. ~stay on target
- a Large blast maker is 5" wide(If memory surves). This will mean you will HAVE to deep stike it 6"~except template diameter is 2.5" and you can be closer than 1" to a friendly unit, so you really just need to be > 2.5" away...stay on target away other wise it will Nom nom nom on your Lictor as well(a prity expensive insurance)

I personaly think it's not worth it. ~It came from behind!!!!!....I'm glad you don't think it's worth it. Thanks for sticking to the question that was asked. With such a large change ~I think you meant chance, because everyone knows that Lictors only carry small change of your Lictor getting eaten in the prosses and the fact that he has to be on the field at least 1 turn before the Mawloc then he will get shoot down quickly(T4 and only a 5+ save. Say a units of Scouts could take him down in 1 turn). Your better of just using the Lictor for what he does not for a Homing becon for your hungry hungry worm.

jspyd3rx: Omfg. People really want to say that the guy who wrote the codex is playing the unit he created wrong? Nice ~I do believe they are saying that. Fucking crazy, right?!?

SPYDER68: Its very possible for him to have wrote how the unit works one way.. and then in his head it should work the other way. ~ow, my brain

Which very well could have been the case.

Tzeentch2003: Given that (1) there is a valid interpretation within RAW allowing it to deepstrike onto a unit (intend to arrive versus arrive) and it is now ~wouldn't an interpretation of RAW be RAI? Oh well, you still are the first person to almost bring a valid point to this shit fest. (2) 100% clear what RAI is, the debate certainly should be closed. It won't be, but it should. ~agreed- should be, but won't be

blurrymadness: The debate is NOT about how the games will be played, or even ruled at tournaments; it's about being correct on the English wording of it and hence that is why so much of this subforum is pedantic. ~SAT word win? So we have a pedantic semantics argument on our hands here...

Culven: So, you feel that setting the Mawloc model on top of other models (such as illustrated in Juicifer's avatar) fulfills the "set the model on the table" requirement? ~listen dickhead; if you want to nitpick then putting a model on top of a model that is on the table is still putting a model on the table That is the bit that I have issues with per RaW. As I understand the rules for Deep Strike, the model must be set upon the table ~just wait, this issue is about to blow up. That is to say, the model must be sitting on the surface of the table, not above it atop other models. By RaW, it doesn't seem to allow the Mawloc to intentionally come up under other models. RaI seems to be that it is supposed to be able to do so. GaP, players seem to allow it to do so. ~by RaW it doesn't seem that your argument holds up

Axel: Well, since RAW is at worst ambigious (it does not say you cannot place your template so that it mishaps to start with) any debate on that base is pretty petty. ~indeed it is

Cheeselord: Yeah, we usually pult a tablecloth on the table. that means nothing is placed directly on the table. As for on top of a hill or some other piece of terrain with non-zero thickness... ~also, my rudimentary knowledge of particle physics makes me believe that nothing actually touches anything else...ever, so it is not possible to put anything on the table directly for any reason.

On the other hand, in common usage of english, saying something is "On the Table" usually can refer to something on top of something else (ad infinitum) as long as they are chiefly supported against gravity by the table. ~damn straight!

God help you if you play on the floor! ~oooh the thought of the rugburn involved makes me cringe


I also saw a photo in Battle Reports of someone playing on a sheet of hardboard on a Bed!!! Obviously the were angling for some rules advantage for their army by having no Table anywhere in sight. ~this made me lol out loud

Also there are several tables mentioned in the rules, for example the vehicle damage table (unless they are referred to as charts in which case I humbly apologise - I will look it up tonight). ~yo dawg yo, I heard you like tables, so we put a table on your table so you can game while you're gaming How do we know deepstriking models are not placed on that? As for Rolling on the tables ... I suggest laminating them first to prevent damage.

toddznidz: As per the Codex that over-rides the BRB, you place a LB template, not the model.

IMO, the "RaW" arguments against using the Mawloc as obviously intended are just sour-grape attempts to keep the Mawloc out of "official" games for as long as possible. ~why would anybody want to keep the mawloc out of games? It's not so great...just OK

You're arguing that place 'on the table' means exactly, literally that. The model must be placed to be in physical contact with the table, or the Deep Strike is illegal. By the same token, then, you must place your blast marker over the base of a model. Not hold over, or near, or point to. 'Place over the base,' as the rulebook states.

Culven: I suppose that years of playing have altered my perception of "the table". ~Meth is a hell of a drug I applogise for not being as pedantic ~arg, not you again, pedantic about it as I should be. I have come to interpret "table" to refer to the gaming surface including the tabletop, table cover, and lowest levels of terrain pieces. With this interpretation of "table", then the rulebook makes sense. ~super glad your RaW argument now includes your interpretation of something you fucking fuck

forkbanger: So you are simultaneously agreeing that a model may Deep Strike to any location, but disagreeing because locations cannot be brought into direct physical contact with the unsupported base of the model? ~I know, I'm as confused as you are. But not as confused as Culven. Therefore by extension, and the application of logic (which is sorely missing in this argument), Culven is more confused than forkbanger.

Culven: I am saying that the first model in a unit using Deep Strike can be placed anywhere that meets the Deep Strike requirements. ~good, so he can be placed on a model. thanks for clarifying In this case, the only requirement is that the model be placed on the table. Trying to place it on top of other models doesn't meet this requirement. ~umm, yes it very fucking well does Whether the model needs to be supported is irrelevant. My only mention of unsupported models was in reference to the fact that in most cases, gravity and the table will be sufficient to support the model. I never said that placing the model in a position where it doesn't need to be supported is a requirement. Players can feel free to place the model so that its centre of gravity is beyond a cliff face or even the table edge, as long as the model is placed on the table.

After inital placement and scatter, other rules may govern whether the model/unit may be placed in that particular position, and define whether the initial placement was a good place to put it, but nothing restricts the inital placement beyond that the model be "on the table". ~great so your evidence supporting your case actually proves that you are wrong. Score!

toddznidz: That is certainly NOT how the Codex is worded. It only states that if the Mawloc deep strikes under another model, don't use the mishap table, use these rules instead.

By your own definitions, is a model not "on the table"?

Your repeated declarations that your opinion is RaW does not make it so. Especially in the face of such overwhelming RaI.

forkbanger: p13 "Remember that other models also count as impassable terrain."

p13 "Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want... In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed it's 'actual' location."

So you can aim where another model is and then by the rules on the same page not place the model there, so long as your opponent knows where you are placing it. ~oh fuck, somebody finally brought real evidence to the party. That should put a nice little lid on this right....right?

Culven: Perhaps I am misremembering ~well you have certainly misremembered English the Mawloc rules. As I recall, the Mawloc follws the Deep Strike rules. Only if the Mawloc's final position is amongst other models does the Large Blast come into play. Is this not correct? ~ it's not not correct

I never said that my opinon is RaW. except for when you implied it... which i interpreted to mean you intended for us believe that your statements are RaW, but please continue backpedaling I have stated my interpretation of RaW. ~oh shit, now you're interpreting RaW again. I think my head is going to explode I'm not sure what RaI has to do with a RaW debate. ~then stop bringing it up fucktard Just because we have sources which indicate how the writers wanted something to work, that doesn't change how the rules as written tell us to do it. All that Rules as Intended (RaI) can do is inform players as to intent so that they can implement house rules to follow that intent. Thus leading to the game as played (GaP).

toddznidz: the Mawloc has the option of following the "Terror from the Deep" rule, and that rule implicitly states that the Mawloc can (and should) target enemy models when deploying. That implication is overwhelming supported and confirmed by the fluff, the RaI, and other GW publications.

To continue to declare your opinion as RaW in order to undermine the rule is, at best, detrimental to the discussion. ~no it is at best fucking hilarious

Culven: Since we are discussing RaW, what the rule implies is irrelevant. ~my god, you made a valid point! We need to consider what it explicitly states. Does it include a provision to override the normal Deep Strike initial model polacement rules? I do not recall such a provision, but I do not have the codex to hand at the moment to verify the wording. Going from memory, "Terror from the Deep" states that if the Mawloc ends up over/under another unit, then the Large Blast marker is placed, the unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of models under the Marker, and the survivors are moved out of the way to allow the Mawloc model to be placed. So, the rules (as I remember them) only address what happens instead of using the Deep Strike Mishap chart, but nothing explicitly states that the model may initially be placed over the unit.

Originally Posted by toddznidz
That implication is overwhelming supported and confirmed by the fluff, the RaI, and other GW publications.

Yes, I believe that everyone understands how "Terror from the Deep" is supposed to work, just like everyone understand how Shrike is supposed to work. Thus they house rule it to work. That doesn't change the fact that by the rules it doesn't work as intended. ~except for the fact that the rules do make it work as intended...

Originally Posted by toddznidz
To continue to declare your opinion as RaW in order to undermine the rule is, at best, detrimental to the discussion.

And repeatedly claiming that I am putting forth my opinion as RaW doesn't help either. ~then stop implying that your opinion is RaW. I would love nothing more right now than to punch you.

Axel: >"place one model anywhere"

If we get even more silly, we could argue that the model to be placed must not necessarily be the Mawloc, since its not THE model, or ONE OF THE DEEPSTRIKING models. ~I could also put the mawloc in the dice tray attached to the table, since it's part of the table. Would that make him roll a deep strike mishap? Oh GW why have you not accomodated for every minute detail in the known universe? WHY? So you place A model (on the table, or whatever counts for it), proceed until you know where the Mawloc comes down with a template and then follow the special rules. Viola ~viola indeed!, no more problems regarding RAW.
There you have it. Be sure to vote on this week's winner.


Chumbalaya said...

I agree, shallow and pedantic.

Justin said...

Nicely played, Chumbalaya.

Voting, I had to go with cheeselord, since his post made my head not want to explode. Got a good laugh out of Spyder68's 'avatar', so it was a close second.

Dethtron said...

haha, i tried so hard to find a family guy clip to link pedantic to in the post, but due to fox shutting down video clips pretty quickly, couldn't find a vid that worked.

Hoagy said...

Christ, couldn't it just be 'On the field' instead of 'on the table'? firstly because its a battlefield, not a battle table ffs, and secondly because it would make inane, retarded debates like the one Dethy has highlighted here, redundant. Having said that, it would make them even more retarded, and then even funnier. Dammit.

The_King_Elessar said...

Want some tasty cool wHip?

Hoagy said...

wait... what did you just say?

The_King_Elessar said...

You can't have a pie without cool wHip!

Hoagy said...

why are you putting emphasis on the 'h'?