Welcome to Librarium Online!
Well I was just wondering if, now that they have been faq'd, will anyone be using mawlocs in their lists.
I'm still kind of torn on the subject. On the one hand you can now deepstrike into units, on the other, enemy units can still get cover saves against the large blast template.
Then there is still the fact that mawlocs share slots with the amazing trygon. I cant decide if I want to get a mix of mawlocs and trygons for my 1.5k list and what that mix should be.
"I am the architect of fate!"
I would use the mawloc in casual games. What stopped me from using them originally was the controversy over whether you can place them on top of enemy units. Now that that's been cleared, I will start using them again. They are actually kind of fun and scares the heck out of some opponents (at least psychologically). Though it's somewhat annoying, I don't mind giving my opponent the cover save. I think it's actually pretty hard to get a cover save from it unless they are in area terrain.
It does give some tactical flexibility to your army. See those long fangs taking pot shots at your TMC's from way yonder? Or that manticore hiding behind that building firing indirectly? They think they're safe? Guess again. While the mawloc normally won't deal a whole lot of damage, it is a great disruption unit and gives your army a psychological edge. The fact that it is 6W monstrous creature also doesn't hurt.
I still live for the day that my mawloc comes up onto a land raider filled with an uber-killy-ultra-expensive unit with HQ and it has no place to go due to being surrounded by other vehicles.
But in competitive play, I'd take the trygon hands down.
Record: Win - Loss - Draw: Hive Fleet Pandora (New) 32-6-6 Space Wolf 7th Co. 52-11-6
Blood Angels 12-4-2 Daemonhunters 20-8-3
Imperial Guards 12-5-2 Daemons 8-3-2
I will definitely be trying one mawloc and the deathleaper in a couple of games. they're simply very strong when it comes to contesting objectives, it will probably help us win a lot of games.
"I have seen you humans, trying to forge an Empire in the name of a corpse"
I used one anyway, biggest model in my army among a throng of hormagaunts.
Fantasy: Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Beastmen and Tomb Kings.
LotR: Misty Mountains and Rohan
Mawlocs were fine before the FAQ and, really, very little has changed since the FAQ. I did argue that for competitive tournament play we shouldn't force people to allow the mawloc to land right on enemy models. We should instead expect to have to get a lucky scatter. The pre-FAQ RAW really was consistent, clear, and obvious ... if also clearly against the intention of the model. But that's what you get when you let GW write rules. Force them to write them clearer is our best recourse!
Fortunately, they took care of the deep-strking with the FAQ.
The cover save is somewhat of a nerf, but more troubling because it kind of opens the door for people to argue how the cover save is applicable since the mawloc isn't shooting. And the BRB explicitly connects cover saves with shooting and nothing else.
So how do you take a cover save against non-shooting?
My guess is that the FAQ intends for any infantry in area terrain to get a cover save since against shooting you would always be given a cover save if you're in area terrain.
It's dicier when you have models that are given cover saves based on the direction of the shooting. For example, if you've got dudes behind a wall, you'd get cover from enemies shooting from the opposite side but not from enemies shooting from the same side. Does this apply to the mawloc's chomp? If so, how? From what direction does the mawloc's template come? Should we handle it like an ordnance and the "direction" radiates outward from the central hole? Or is it just one big-ass template without any specific direction and unless you're in area terrain you get nothing?
It's not really clear how this should be handled, and it's shameful that GW answered the question ... but still managed to make it just as confusing as before.
Be sure to discuss with your opponent ahead of time. Or only play with area terrain.
And of course, do vehicles get cover saves from the mawloc's chomp ... well, ever? Can you ever say that a vehicle's hull is obscured from the point of view of the mawloc? Again, GW should have addressed this.
It's a pretty big can of worms that needs help.
All this aside, these issues were extant before the FAQ. Sadly, they're still with us after the FAQ, too.
Provided you're happy with cover saves even being possible -- and it's not really so troublesome -- then there's no reason to give up using mawlocs now. They always worked best in pairs or triplets before and nothing about that has changed with the FAQ.
ninjabackhand: point and click, again, really? even after i give you an military term "shock tactic" you still call it point and click.
RIP Warhammer 40,000: 21 Sep 1998 - 24 May 2014
Yep, I'll use one. They only really can get cover in area terrain against the attack, not a huge hit; annoying, but no huge.
Want to use against a castling IG player I know. Ill very politely ask him to move all those tanks. Think of rolling a hit and forcing a Russ or two off of the table.
Yes, eat, eat, eat! I'll be using one. The Mawloc is cool and can wreak havoc on a packed up enemy very well. Also it's terror from the deep is not a shooting attack so it can aim at any unit it wants, anywhere. If an enemy unit is surrounded they can be destroyed because they can't move when it comes up. This will work well on tank squadrons.
Last edited by Leech; July 5th, 2010 at 20:03.
Here's a new question that jy2's post brings up. Do you all consider the mawloc to be more of a competitive choice, or more of a fun one that you use in normal friendly games?
Also, how to take them? Can it be useful on its lonesome if I want to take two trygons? or do you think it works better if I went with 1 trygon and 2 mawlocs?
"I am the architect of fate!"
I personally think that the cover save is designed to balance a unit that can be argued as too powerful. If the unit couldn't target when deepstriking then none of us would ever use it.
I disagree with the cover save because its a little stupid and completely inconsistent with previous rules. This creates a dangerous precedent for future rules debates.
I never considered the consequences of a unit being unable to move from the attack. Does this really mean that it gets auto destroyed? Is there any support for this rule anywhere in the rulebook?
If there is then this strikes me as the ultimate solution to the leafblower!!!
3 mawlocs deployed and burrowing all emergin in a co-ordinated attack can coral the opponents towards table edges and ideal spots. Something to think about