Mawloc question

[bigpig]

Not sure if this is asked and answered already. I was unable to find anything, but....

What happens if using Terror from the Deep and the Mawloc is unable to deploy within 12" and meet all other requirements?

1. Does the damage still happen?
2. Does the Mawloc remain burrowed?
3. Can it choose to come in someplace else this turn?
4. Is the Mawloc destroyed?

My thoughts based on reading the sequencing of the rule is that the damage occurs, then you attempt to deploy. Nothing in the rule states the damage is dependent on successful deployment. To be fair.... this is a 24" diameter circle to deploy in, unless striking a castle on the back line or in a corner, so the opponent would have to work hard and commit a lot of resources to do it, but "nature survives" and I could just see it sometime coming up. I am unaware of a rule which says it would be destroyed unless its turn 5. Most times when a unit would be destroyed, this is specifically stated and it is not in this case. Now this last point is more gut feeling than rule interpretation; It remains burrowed and I would think you are limited to this deployment for this turn so cannot redeploy till next?

Thoughts? Edge case scenario I know, but knowing the answer could help with planning and make those tight corner or board edge strikes possible

[hivefleetkerrigan]

I'd say nothing happens. The downside is that if you were trying to strike in on turn 3 the mawloc would be destroyed as it could not deploy.

[bigpig]

Help me understand why you think nothing happens at all and the mawloc stays underground with no damage step from the rules. I totally think that errata is needed for it, but I had some edge cases today where I could have forced it to happen if I had placed the marker closer to a board edge or corner, so it can come up

[hivefleetkerrigan]

Apr 24, 2022 7:25:10 GMT bigpig said:

Help me understand why you think nothing happens at all and the mawloc stays underground with no damage step from the rules. I totally think that errata is needed for it, but I had some edge cases today where I could have forced it to happen if I had placed the marker closer to a board edge or corner, so it can come up

Generally my ruling come down to fairness. Rereading, I can see the argument for the damage happening but the mawloc not being set up

[bigbadbalou]

Well.. the question we would have to ask is, what happens normally to a unit that must be set up on the board, when it cannot do so due to any landing restriction? The only difference here is that, by using terror from the deep, you commit yourself to set it up the next turn instead of deciding in the reinforcement step if it enters this turn, no?

So personally at first sight, I would say that if it cannot be set up, the dmg still applies since the ability would resolve, but the model would be considered destroyed...? At least I would consider it that way.

But in all honestly, if you can't find a tiny spot in a 24' circle where your mawlok only has to touch the border of that circle (it's not "wholly within"), and be more than 1' away from any enemy unit ("not in engagement range)... that is indeed a pretty big edge scenario...

[piersonsmuppet]

I would say the damage still happens as it is not dependent on the Mawloc being set up. I can’t find anything in the rules that says otherwise, so the Mawloc just isn’t set up if it can’t come in w/in 12” of the marker and would only be destroyed if it hasn’t entered when the 3rd battle round ends.

One thing I think is interesting is that there is no mention that a Mawloc can’t set up one marker T1, then a second in T2, and then enter from reserves near M1 T2 or M2 T3. RAW, one Mawloc can drop two markers since it stays underground until set up on the battlefield. Probably something GW might errata/FAQ or TOs may disallow, but legal unless otherwise stated.

[bigbadbalou]

hahahaha, good catch pierson! But that could open a whole new can of worm... Like... if the rules permit to set a 2nd marker for TFtD on command phase turn 2 for the same mawlok, how do you set it on the battlefield the turn 3 if it's already on the battlefield? Since it doesn't says "set it up from underground / reserve... Instant teleportation! hahaha

Also, rereading mawlok's ability... I think it will be hard to be able to use the ability more than twice actually (without the gimmick stated above let's say)... Whatever the number of mawlok in reserve, you only chose one in the command phase to place the marker each turn. So, let's say you have 3 mawlok in reserve (and let's assume 1 mawlok can only laid 1 marker for the example's sakes)... 1st turn you set the marker for 1 mawlok, which will come up on turn 2. On turn 2, you set the marker for 2nd mawlok, which will come up on turn 3. If you select the 3rd mawlok in reserve to use TFtD and set the marker on the 3rd turn, the mawlok will be set on the battlefields at turn 4. Isn't all the models in reserve destroyed if still not on the table by turn 4?

(please keep in mind I don't pretend this is how it's supposed to work and I would never use a rule to instant teleport a mawlok across the table hahaha. This is mostly food for though and funny rule reading.)

[piersonsmuppet]

They really needed the marker to be placed at the end of the movement phase, command phase was a poor choice with the current wording.

[mattblowers]

The real question is why bother with a mawloc. I can find no reasonable purpose for one in a codex that is this deep. TFTD used to be an awesome rule.

[piersonsmuppet]

Apr 28, 2022 14:22:21 GMT mattblowers said:

The real question is why bother with a mawloc. I can find no reasonable purpose for one in a codex that is this deep. TFTD used to be an awesome rule.

This is a sad reality. I would give up being able to charge with TFtD in a heartbeat to lose the marker and go back to a smaller radius for MWs around the model.

[bigpig]

Apr 28, 2022 14:22:21 GMT mattblowers said:

The real question is why bother with a mawloc. I can find no reasonable purpose for one in a codex that is this deep. TFTD used to be an awesome rule.

I don't disagree, but I am willing to play it in a fun game or two hence the question

[mattblowers]

Apr 28, 2022 14:59:23 GMT piersonsmuppet said:

Apr 28, 2022 14:22:21 GMT mattblowers said:

The real question is why bother with a mawloc. I can find no reasonable purpose for one in a codex that is this deep. TFTD used to be an awesome rule.

This is a sad reality. I would give up being able to charge with TFtD in a heartbeat to lose the marker and go back to a smaller radius for MWs around the model.

Back in 7th I had a real fun 6 mawloc list to counter all the invisible death stars. It worked moderately well, or at as well as the rest of our lists of the time. One of my funnest lists I've ever played.

[bigbadbalou]

Apr 28, 2022 18:24:40 GMT mattblowers said:

Apr 28, 2022 14:59:23 GMT piersonsmuppet said:

This is a sad reality. I would give up being able to charge with TFtD in a heartbeat to lose the marker and go back to a smaller radius for MWs around the model.

Back in 7th I had a real fun 6 mawloc list to counter all the invisible death stars. It worked moderately well, or at as well as the rest of our lists of the time. One of my funnest lists I've ever played.

Those damned invisible death stars... If only there was a way of seeing them or making them visible... ;P

[genefather]

Look out for Space Marine Infiltrators and their 12” deep strike deny. They just need to move onto the centre of the marker. Take D1-3 mortals then the Mawloc is stuck underground.
All needs the FAQ I think. If you could actually repeat the marker placement if you are unable to surface. That would be quite strong perhaps.

[trashcan01]

Still no news on "not able to set up" Mawloc as he strikes from below? FAQ?? Anything?