OMG: Please tell me this isn't right? - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    jboweruk
    Guest

    OMG: Please tell me this isn't right?

    A pal of mine at our club called the GW helpline regards the Mawloc rules, this is what he got told:

    a: You ALWAYS get a 4+ cover save against the terror from the deep attack
    b: if the Mawloc misses the unit it's terror striking, it has to roll on the mishap table

    What? They have got to be joking. If not, anyone want a Mawloc? I know the spaz mehrins have to win all the time, it's the law, but come on, this is some kind of sick joke surely.

    If this is right, the whole point of a Mawloc just got junked right out of the window. In any other army if a unit isn't selling they beef it up (Void Missile anyone?) But no, this thing is a pure marine puree maker so what... they nerf it?


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss eiglepulper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Age
    57
    Posts
    2,841
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    596 (x8)

    From the Nids FAQ:
    Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule?
    A: Yes.
    Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from the Deep attack?
    A: Yes.

    Well, clearly the second FAQ question answers yours about cover saves, but I don't know about the answer to your second question. Certainly the Mawloc can DS onto an enemy model - that's clearly stated in the FAQ - whereas this would normally *cause* a DS Mishap for other models, but whether or not the Mawloc suffers a Mishap if it MISSES its target I don't know because I don't have access to the current Nids codex and therefore can't read the exact rules for the Mawloc.

    I'm sure someone else with more knowledge will be along in a moment to help further.

    E.
    "Tau Commandment #226: Participants who use Velocity Trackers in the Tau Clay Pigeon Tournament will be disqualified"

  4. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    24 (x1)

    I would imagine that cover from the Mawloc attack is determined the same way as with ordnance barrage (from the center of the template). I would agree with the GW employee that you CAN take cover saves, but not that you ALWAYS get a cover save.

    For example, take a row of low ruins. The Mawloc deepstrikes, trying to emerge directly beneath the unit in the ruins. It scatters to the other side of the ruins, but still covers some members of the squad. In that case, you'd get a cover save from the Mawloc attack.

  5. #4
    Son of LO Heirodule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,138
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    344 (x8)

    No and No respectivly, the info is totally wrong. Theres nothing at all to say either of those things apply. The first point simply doesnt apply, you get cover if your in cover, end of.

    As for the second, that simply impossible. Such a rule would have to be written directly into the rule of terror from the deep (which it isnt) otherwise all that is would be a succesful deep strike!
    Your friendly neighbourhood gargantuan creature

  6. #5
    jboweruk
    Guest

    That was kind of our point, if you miss you suffer anyway, as everything just turns around and shoots 7 bells of hell out of you. I know they chose to allow cover saves, which we still can't understand, after all, how the blazes can you go to ground against something that's coming up right underneath you. It's bad enough it scatters, to me it shouldn't when you read the fluff about it... "... unerringly strikes its target", to me that should have the same rule the BA's got, d6 scatter only.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Archon Charybdis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    579
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    108 (x3)

    It almost sounds like the helpline person (who of course are always known for their reliability and knowledge) was conflating the Terror from the Deep rule with Storm Raven/Valkyrie rule about deepstriking while going flat-out.

  8. #7
    Senior Member SkyDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    604
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    74 (x2)

    a, That does make sense to me, it's coming up through the ground, it has to push a lot of earth out of the way. I picture a giant mole hill poping up and mounds of earth and rock providing cover to the models on the ground.

    b, That's just silly, they must have ment it roll's on the mishap table if it scatters into impassible terain it can't tunnel through. An automatic mishap even if it scatters into open ground is just stupid.

  9. #8
    Son of LO Heirodule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,138
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    344 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyDog View Post
    a, That does make sense to me, it's coming up through the ground, it has to push a lot of earth out of the way. I picture a giant mole hill poping up and mounds of earth and rock providing cover to the models on the ground
    With respect it may make sense but that doesn't make it so. Your given cover if over 50% of your unit is obscured from the firing weapon. In this case, id say your only going to get cover when properley in some terrain, otherwise thats very hard to do. Whilst from a fluff perspective you might get some, there is absolutly nothing in the rules that agrees with you.
    Your friendly neighbourhood gargantuan creature

  10. #9
    Senior Member SkyDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    604
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    74 (x2)

    Whilst from a fluff perspective you might get some, there is absolutly nothing in the rules that agrees with you.
    I don't have the Nid codex so it's just speculation but if that's the case what's up with the GW help line comment?

  11. #10
    Son of LO Heirodule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,138
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    344 (x8)

    The GW helpline certainly isnt infaliable, its the person on the end of the lines' interpretation of what he thinks the rule is. Heck ive been told that you can only use a trygon in apoc games by someone on the end of one of those before now (and this was after the release, when trygons were in the codex itself.)

    Unless its in an FAQ or other similar document, its not offical even if it is from GW. And sadly, they're not always right. Also consider what if the guy on the line was like yourself and didnt have the nid codex? Or maybe he had it but wasnt a nid player? either way theres tonnes of ways someone could muck up the rule and thats exactly whats happened here.

    Heck id go so far to say your better off judging a rule by what LO'ers tell you, than by listening to a GW helpline person, or even on occasion members of staff in store.
    Your friendly neighbourhood gargantuan creature

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts