Mawloc deepstrike clarified

The guy who wrote the nid codex has a tactics article up in new White Dwarf. Guess what? The guy who wrote the book says Mawloc deepstrikes onto units specifically. Remember this is coming from the guy WHO WROTE THE CODEX!

Just off the top of my head- the Autarch Tactica for Eldar states he has a BS of 5.

The codex states that he has a BS of 6.

I should take the tactica over codex?

remember its FAQ>Codex>Rules. Tactica isn't involved.


edit: I read the tactica again to make sure and I also discovered another thing.

"...(though to make sure your Autarch isn't left stranded in subsequent rounds, he really needs an honour guard of Shining Spears that have an Exarch with the Withdraw ability to get him out of the ensuing angry swarm of Tyranids)."

Except that the Autarch can not benefit from Withdraw (Hit and Run) as per the BRB. The Eldar codex does not allow it; only some specific exarch abilities.


That is just ONE tactica from ONE army.

This is the guy who wrote the codex! we aren't talking about eldar either. Also it is on the website tactics and this new article WRITTEN by the guy who created this unit. As far as I read it in the codex it is as well. Their is no number change here either so your example does not work. The RAW states it goes on units. Your argument is that because you can't place the model on a unit, it can't be done. Codex overrides BRB here as you place the blast marker first do your deed then place model. I understand how threatning this is and possibly broken. Sorry, but now I believe strongly that you are wrong. Your interpetations do not hold weight against the guy who wrote the book and the company itself. No disrespect though, you know I hold your rules interpretations with the highest amount of respect; just not in this case

No hes right, articles like that have no bearing to the rules. If it's not in the rules or faq, it means nothing.

The spirit of the rules is perhaps conveyed in the article, but for a competitive environment, it has no meaning.

btw, Phil Kelly wrote that article on the Autarch. He's the author of the Eldar Codex. It is also a 5th edition tactics article.

The Autarch and withdraw scenario is a damn good comparison to the Mawlock thing.

Except that it can be interpreted that way from the codex alone. Here we are arguing over how to interpret the rule as written in the codex. It is vague and actually can be taken either way. The only reason as to why we don't do it here is because we look to Chris to interpret stuff for us. There is no contridition in anything depending how you may interpret this unit. There is still issues with his unit though. Do you get cover saves from this attack. Yes if it is a shooting attack and no if it is an assault. Yet, if it is an assault do you roll 2d6 for armor penetration. Can't tell if it is either since it happens in the movement phase. If you are at least looking for a rules clarification on something that has no FAQ, do you look to the company's website for clarification and the actual guy who wrote it or some random player in a wargamming club. In an official tournament in our store, the guy running the show has final say on all things including rules change. Sorry, but without a FAQ the guy who wrote the codex absolutely has more weight than someone in a gaming store.Personally, I will most likely be getting rid of mine because all his arguing is getting old and I have two more armies that need my attention. So even though I won't be playing them anymore I will defintely argue in the Mawlocs favor.

It is disallowed as per a combination of codex and BRB.

Same with the Autarch & Withdraw.

Not taking the BRB into account the Autarch can use withdraw (as per eldar codex), and the Mawloc can Tunnel onto units. It is when we take into account the BRB we notice that the rules do not permit it to happen.

Also, cover is specifically disallowed in certain instances (close combat being one of them). Cover isn't only granted to shooting (a general mistake I made in the past). A tunneling mawloc is neither assault nor shooting and follows its on ruleset if it deepstrikes on top of someone. and yeah- cover saves against mawloc

I'm heading out, see ya guys at the store

can't bring white dwarf to a game's workshop grand tournament as cannon.

Leviticus wrote:can't bring white dwarf to a game's workshop grand tournament as cannon.

You make me Lulz matt you really do. heh

Actually read the what the stuff up on warhammer world concerning rules for U.K. GT like was suggested to me. White dwarf is specifically mentioned and used. Snap! Will put link up tomorrow. On vacation at moment and supposed to be sleeping. Wife gonna kick my ass if she sees me doing this; hehe. iPhone rocks!

People who don't think the Mawloc can voluntarily Deep Strike onto enemy models need to read the rules for Deep Striking carefully, then read the rules for Terrain carefully (enemy and friendly models count as impassable terrain), THEN need to read the Wobbly Model Rule (same page) carefully, THEN need to admit to themselves that a model placed on a piece of terrain is considered "on the table", and finally, need to realize that the "cannot be within 1'' " rule only applies to models actually on the board, and not models being "placed" for an initial Deep Strike -- after all, if a model was "there" as soon as you set it down, it would instantly have to take Dangerous Terrain tests before you even rolled a scatter dice, if you placed it on, say, a wreck..

The intent is clear, the BRB allows it, and if anyone told me I couldn't do it, I'd probably slap them with the Mawloc, and pack up my things.

As for CC attacks never having an AP value, that's not true either -- Case in point? Rending. A rending attack on a 6 has an AP value of 2, regardless of whether or not it came from shooting or CC. Claiming that the blast template is a shooting attack because it has an AP value is flawed logic -- It's not a projectile, it's not a gun, it's not an aura, and it happens in the movement phase. Get real, guys. The Mawloc is deepstriking on your shit, and he's owning you. If you QQ about it, don't play with me.

I swear to God, some people wouldn't be satisfied unless Robin Cruddace had "Mawlocs deepstrike on enemy models" tattooed to his dick, and shoved up their asses.

Mawloc deepstrike hit not being either CC or shooting has to do with the fact that it is written as neither, not that it has an AP, and follows its own rules as laid out in its description.

"Wobbly Model Syndrome" is also a funny rule in that it is entirely up to BOTH players, making the rule pointless; the opponent must yield its 'actual' location.


If you want to play with "Wobbly Model Syndrome" as canon with impassible terrain infantry, then I will stack my skimmers 10 tanks high with jump infantry and jet-bikes, safe from assault, on top as they can fly onto impassible terrain.

I, personally, would be satisfied with a half decent codex.

Skimmers can fly over impassable terrain, but cannot end their move inside it, so that's invalid too.

There's some murky wording in the Codex, but the Mawloc is pretty clear. It's not even opinion, really. I'd really hope you wouldn't rule in favor of having a Mawloc pray for a lucky scatter in a random direction, in a tournament scenario. I don't even play 'Nids as a tournament army, but I'd be inclined to boycott a tournament on those grounds, all the same.

I'd vote for using the INAT FAQ until updated FAQs have been released for all new Codexes.

to be completely honest the mawloc is more of a throw-away unit than a devastating unit, its really not that big of a deal. Mawloc deepstrikes into enemy lines, pops a tank or two, then gets shot to shit. Oh well.

NurgleNick wrote:Skimmers can fly over impassable terrain, but cannot end their move inside it, so that's invalid too.

Double checking, skimmers can end their move on impassible terrain. It merely takes a dangerous terrain test. Same for Jump infantry and Jetbikes.

I stand corrected -- Yeah, I'd actually allow you to do that, but I'm not sure what purpose it'd serve. Loads of dangerous terrain tests, anyway. :-p

well, for one it would allow a seer council (they dont' have to worry too much about dangerous terrain) to sit on top of wave serpents- really close to the enemy and not allow them to get assaulted.

What's so bad about that? The Serpent would have to hold still for them to stay on top without moving with it, and it's nothing they couldn't do with a regular piece of impassable terrain. The only stipulation is that the models are able to be placed on top of it -- I could see Jump Infantry or Council Bikers being somewhat able to balance, and I wouldn't mind the WMR on that situation, provided there was room enough on the skimmer itself for the entire council. I'd say it's creative, not broken. You could still shoot them to pieces.

Yeah there's no way that'd fly in a GT

Wouldn't make much difference to me -- I find gunning Seer Councils down a lot easier than bothering with the tarpit they present in melee. Hang out on a stationary Wave Serpent all day, for all I care. :-p

Yea, but imagine this scenario. First pretend your not an overly competive American (America #1 YEA!!!) and some laid back Brit playing the unit properly.
Turn one, you burrow 3x mawlocs. Turn 2 they come up on some dude's wave serpents or a space wolf player's rhinos. They hit rear armor so that tells me it's a close combat attack giving you 2d6 rear pen. This happening in one turn automatically before an assault or shooting phase, possibly three times is broken. It truly is hard to believe GW would do this, yet look at JOTWW or recent Deff Rolla ruling. GW is trying to speed the game up and looking for a way to do this while looking for you to increase your playable army. I will convert an ork boy in drag if the mawloc isn't FAQ'd in this abusive way.
Deep Strike on models with 2d6 pen to rear. It's coming guys, get used to it.

There is litterally -no- reason it would get an additional pen die against a vehicle. However, there is very little doubt in my mind that in the coming FAQ Mawlocs will be clarified to be placed on top of enemy units and Doom will not effect units in transports.



Also, seer council will not be stationary(6+ serpents)- and a seer council is stronger at shooting than melee (3x+ heavy flamers, Str9 Spears, & TL catapults +doom). Tying it up with plague marines, ten man marine squad, or terminators is far more effective imho.

I will see your 6x wave serpents w/ seer council and raise you 3x battlewagons with deff rollaz, nob bikers and 15x deff koptas. :p

JotWW and Deff Rollas aren't very crazy. Both require you to get really close, and a healthy amount of luck.

I won't be suprised if GW did write that mawlocs sure can do it. Either way, a smart player probably wouldn't care too much.

I almost would not care a single bit, just spread your stuff out. There is only a 1/3 chance of the mawloc landing exactly where the nid player wants it to. Ok, so let's say you get lucky and kill a rhino (because it's no CC attack, you will only be hitting side armor....at which point you'd need a 5 to glance and a 6 to pen...not that crazy...). Your 170 point creature took out 40 pts of rhino. Nice. Now it will be shot to pieces. Or killed in CC due to it's crappy CC capability. And that's against AV 11, good luck popping AV 12 :p.

The Deff Rolla thing is alright at best honestly (Good against vehicles, not so great against infantry..almost not good at all actually.). It has to get extremely close to melta range, and any long range fire could definitely put a BW down easily (open-topped and what not). And if they mass BW's...then it's probably only filled with boyz, which is not very crazy either.

I think we are all getting hyped up over no reason honestly. So if it works...wow...cool....again you took out my rhino! There are plenty of other scarier thing in the Nid book. Such as tervigons spewing out objective holders like water, crazy cool zoanthropes, and hive guard shooting blindly granting no cover.