|
|
Post by dc0315 on Feb 12, 2023 10:59:04 GMT
Hi guys quick question if my opponent has soace marine infiltrators, do they stop the mawloc from coming up? How does it happen? Does he do the MWs?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by dkng on Feb 12, 2023 12:42:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Feb 12, 2023 18:45:08 GMT
Hi guys quick question if my opponent has soace marine infiltrators, do they stop the mawloc from coming up? How does it happen? Does he do the MWs? Thanks. The Infiltrator's rule takes precedence over the Mawloc's rule; see Rare Rules section "Preventing Reinforcement Units from Setting Up". MW's still go off as they originate from the marker and occur before the Mawloc is set up. Whether the Mawloc dies or not is unclear. |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Feb 17, 2023 3:00:05 GMT
Whether the Mawloc dies or not is unclear. It absolutely does. It's an instruction, with no ability to choose not to do it. So if you can't do so because of infils: |
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Feb 17, 2023 3:55:07 GMT
That is a statement from Unit Coherency for when adding models to a unit in your army, applying it to a singular reinforcement unit is pretty far out of context. Reinforcement units have no such rule saying they are destroyed except for if they aren't on the battlefield at the end of the 3rd battle round, or end of game for mid-game reserved units.
For example, you cannot set up partial reinforcement units.
|
|
|
|
Post by hivefleetkerrigan on Feb 17, 2023 16:33:10 GMT
I agree with no one here. The model cannot be set up, therefore it is counted as destroyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbalou on Mar 7, 2023 14:51:49 GMT
Although that's not what the rule no one posted says...
The rule posted specifically says either impossible to set up "all models from a unit", which is not the case with the mawlok since it's a single model unit. If it applies, and since it's only 1 model, then that rule could never permit a single model unit be set up since it will never be all modelS from a unit... It's different from just impossible to set up "a unit"). Or the second point to set up "all the models so that they are in unit coherency", which again doesnt looks like it's intended to use on a single model (is there such thing as coherency on single model units?) and anyhow, I would guess a single model unit is always in coherency with itself, so...
I mean, this is where the uncertainty is, right? Usually, when you decide to set up a unit, you always can (although sometime not at the place you want), but this situation is not covered since it's not intended for the infiltrator to destroy a unit arriving on the board, and it's not intended for the Mawlok to not be able to be set up. You cannot take a rule and say "well, it looks like close enough so that's what it is, 100% sure, no questions asked. Its a weird rule interaction that needs a FAQ and should be treated as such and discussed with your opponent. If three is no FAQ, then talk about it before the game if it's possible it happens. It's not that there is good points to support either side, but rather that there is NO points to support either side... So we are left in the fog...
|
|
|
|
Post by hivefleetkerrigan on Mar 7, 2023 16:22:52 GMT
I disagree. The mawloc is all models in the unit. If you can't set up the model, it's destroyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by No One on Mar 8, 2023 1:28:23 GMT
Usually, when you decide to set up a unit, you always can You cannot always set up a unit: for the most pertinent to actual gameplay, completely screening out disembark from a destroyed transport. The game doesn't enter some 'N/A, guess they exist in some limbo but not destroyed'. They can't be set up, they're destroyed. *Points at rules I posted to support my side* Sure, if you ignore the other side then there's no support either way. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbalou on Mar 8, 2023 19:11:59 GMT
Personally, I think there is differences between "a unit" and "all models in a unit". And I don't think that a single model is the same as a unit with multiple models in it, or that you can freely decide that a single model can be considered plurals in a rule's sentence. "All model(s) in a unit" would be more close to what you say Kerrigan. But if you consider that this part of the rule as posted is for adding models in an existing unit, than it makes perfect sense that a single model unit is not considered to be part of that rule and the writing is correct as it is when it is used in it's right context.
As for the transport being destroy, I was more thinking about reinforcement arriving rather than disembarking units. You don't get to decide if or when your transport is destroyed. But you get to decide usually if a reinforcement arrives or not. Hence the "when you decide to set it up, you can".
But that situation does have ressemblance to the mawlok not being set up. But if i'm not mistaking, the rule about disarmbark specify that if you cannot set up a model in the unit, it is destroyed... Just like the adding models to a unit rule specify it too, as posted. But that point is not within the Mawlok's rule. Nowhere does it says it is destroyed if it can't be set up. So why do we destroy it when it can't be set up if nowhere does it mention it, yet everywhere else where it's possible it is written? Sure, you can always take a similar rule out of context and consider it should apply as a point for your argument. But since it's a rule not related to the situation at hand, then it's not what I would call a good point.
And this is where there is ambiguity and need a FAQ or at least being discussed before hand. Both side are ok as long as both players and/or TO is ok with it either way before the game start. One can argue that in similar other situation (but different ones), the model would have been destroyed. So we should consider that the mawlok's rule is lacking and modify it to destroy the model to do as in the other situations to be more in line with usual ruling. And another could argue that nowhere in the Mawlok rule it says it is destroyed if it is not set up. In the first situation, you apply a rule out of its context and do "as is" and the model is destroyed. In the second situation, you can apply all the rule concerning the situation without adding anything and without broking any rules. You do the damage, you try to set up the model but you can't for X reason so it just can't be setup and stays where it is in reserve, you remove the marker. But it seems somewhat strange to do. But it's not a glitch or in limbo. The rule don't say to destroy the model if it can't be set up, and neither that you "must" set it up.
Seems a bit like a conflict from RAI vs RAW. It might be a mistake that GW forgot to add in the mawlok's rule. Or it might be intended that the mawlok cannot be destroyed by preventing it from being set up on the board. If you cannot see the possible ambiguity or the arguments from both side, it's you call. But I'm really on the fence as there is really no clear answer as the rules are right now. And i'm not arguying one side is the right one over the other. But honestly, you can't say that it is 100% sure it is destroyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by hivefleetkerrigan on Mar 9, 2023 12:54:51 GMT
GW had shown time and again that they don't care about pluralization when they write their rules, so I don't think the "it's a single model" holds much weight. The argument for the mawloc being destroyed comes from the base rules about setting up a unit from deep strike.
I'd recommend writing to GW and asking for a FAQ.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Mar 9, 2023 13:15:40 GMT
GW had shown time and again that they don't care about pluralization when they write their rules, so I don't think the "it's a single model" holds much weight. The argument for the mawloc being destroyed comes from the base rules about setting up a unit from deep strike. I'd recommend writing to GW and asking for a FAQ.  OH, GW! Aren't you cute? Continually make rules interactions that are downright silly. I haven't played much (as in 1 game) this edition so my rulefu is super bad. However, going on rule precedence GW always give Special Marines the rules benefit, so the mawloc is probably dead. This argument over singular/plural reminds me of all the arguments at the beginning of 8th that argued over keywords. I remember when a carnifex was indeed not a <CARNIFEX> and the broodlord although a genestealer wasn't a <GENESTEALER> and so didn't benefit from his own aura. The longer I am away from 40K, the more I realize what an abusive spouse she is. She makes the most batshit crazy rules (like pheremone trail strategem not actually have any scenario where it could actually be used and the ripper swarm strategem costing 3 CP when you could just take the ripper swarms as part of your list for zero CP and have the same effect) and then gaslights you for complaining. Their stock has recently rebounded after tanking in 2022 so I don't expect any real changes anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Post by infornography on Mar 9, 2023 14:06:25 GMT
I suspect their stock price rebounded mostly because those holiday big boxes were amazing! Best batch of holiday boxes to date I think.
As to the argument at hand, I agree, GW has consistently ruled that pluralization does not matter on rules like this. If you are not careful about where you pop your mawloc, it totally can be destroyed due to not being able to deploy.
I understand that it doesn't make much sense that this giant alien lizard snake thing that can eat a small tank gets confused by some infantry nearby and dies suddenly, but to be honest, the disembark rules make the same lack of sense. They are rules in a game that punish poor planning. For better or worse, I don't see ANY ambiguity here and the attempts to read ambiguity into it require mental gymnastics I don't think would fly with anyone who has been playing this game for multiple editions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbalou on Mar 9, 2023 14:16:32 GMT
Hahahaha! Yeah, the pheromone strat was the worst, I remember. Even while actively trying to use all the battle to try to use it just once for fun, it was just not enough to use it because it was just not possible at all to do it as the rule was written. That was some major bad rule writing here hehehe.
But honestly, I'm kind of in the same situation as you Matt. Me too I didn't manage to play a lot during the last years even. With family, kids, work, gaming partners and life in general, it's easier to play more social tabletop games rather than 40k. And it's always hard to place a game and manage to coordinate with my friends who still play. I try to keep up with the rules mainly for fun and to keep myself aware of the state of the game and where it is at. Personally, I like dissecting rules and trying to find what works and what not. But hardly ever see situation when those conflict arrives in real gameplay. And I think one should not focus entirely on this too during live playing. I like to discuss those things in forums like here, but when I was playing for real, I would never bring theses debates in the game. I would usually flip a coin with my opponent if we had a disagreement and get on with it quick. If it was something important, we would discuss it together after the game and get informed more deeply (in forums like here hahaha).
But sadly, you are probably right about GW itself. In this case, would there be a FAQ or a confirmation from GW, it would probably be in favor of their precious Space marines as always. But since it's for a VERY specific case, affecting only one tyranid model vs only one other model... I doubt they will even bring their attention to it at all...
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbalou on Mar 9, 2023 14:35:02 GMT
And just for information, the main point was not the plural thing. The main thing was that the rule posted was out of context. It's not "the deepstriking rule", it's only a part of the rule specified for when you are adding new models to existing units. And that the plural, when taking into account the previous sentence of it and its context, was making it all correct as it was written since it is refering to units with multiple models.
But I was not making the point that the rule is wrong because of the plural. The point was that the rule was not written to apply in situations where only one model is in a unit, which is the case here.
And honestly, I find the gymnastic worst to try to find a rule ressembling and applying it to the situation. And you also modify it's rule to make it works by adding the destruction of the model. For me, it's simpler to follow the rules as written and not add anything. The point of contention is that the rule for the mawlok says "set it up", so what happens if you cannot? Well the rule says nothing about it and as written, it is not implied it is a do or die option. (aka: it's not written that you must set it up or destroy it). So you try to set it up. If you can't because another rule take precedence, then you don't set it up. It's quite simple and respect every rule without modifying anything.
|
|
