Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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?
 

·
The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,138 Posts
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!
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,138 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
604 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,138 Posts
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.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top