VonMerrick Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I have a question about the Mawloc's AP2 attack when it deepstrikes. In a game today I had a Long Fang squad on the second and third floor of a ruin. Per the SW forum, the Mawloc's attack does not reach the second or third floor as the model cannot be placed there. Is this right that only models on the ground can be hit or is this like a template attack as the Nid player argued today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 IIRC it can only affect models on the ground level as it comes up from underground.. also cover saves may be taken against his attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkGuard Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 This should really be in OR... But, I just checked the Mawloc's C:T entry. Now it doesn't say anything about it being ground floor only, but it must be placed where it chooses to surfaces. Therefore, it would appear that the Mawloc can use Terror from the Deep on a unit high up in the building as long as you can place it there afterwards, no hitting models on the top floor and then deploying on the ground floor. Also remember it will take a dangerous terrain test if it deep strikes into cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleDV8 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 BRB pg. 95 Units Deep Striking into ruined buildings are placed on the ground floor. It's a deep strike rule not a Mawloc rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticaria Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 BRB pg. 95, Units Deep Striking into ruined buildings are placed on the ground floor. +1 to this. All deepstrikes must occur on the ground floor. The Mawloc can at least assault the 2nd and 3rd floor of the building in successive turns. Your friend is also "no longer" correct about the attack being a template. According to the most recent FAQ: Errata: "Page 51 – Mawloc, Terror from the Deep" "This rule refers to using a large blast template. The word “template” should be changed to “marker” throughout the paragraph." It also cleared up this argument.... thankfully, 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? (p51) A: Yes. If a Mawloc does catch you on the bottom floor, you can still take a cover save: Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from the Deep attack? (p51) A: Yes. -Myst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Coversaves shouldnt be a question at all, it says it has AP2 and no mention of ignoring cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Something Wycked Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Coversaves shouldnt be a question at all, it says it has AP2 and no mention of ignoring cover. Shouldn't being the operative word; some people don't have a complete grasp of the big gun rules and think that cover can always be negated by a Large Blast Template, depending on where the hole in the center is in relation to the affected models and their cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticaria Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Coversaves shouldnt be a question at all, it says it has AP2 and no mention of ignoring cover. Shouldn't being the operative word; some people don't have a complete grasp of the big gun rules and think that cover can always be negated by a Large Blast Template, depending on where the hole in the center is in relation to the affected models and their cover. That and the fact that the Mawloc is coming up from UNDER the cover... how do you 'duck and cover' from a giant alien that is burrowing up from underneath you trying to swallow you whole? Why would hiding behind a rock prevent being swalloed whole when standing in the open doesn't prevent that? From a FLUFF perspective it makes absolutely no sense to take cover saves from this... Anyway, it's not a shooting attack, and it feels like a MC close combat attack (hence the AP2) so that's where people were coming up with the "can't take cover" bit. Now we don't have to worry about it because it's been spelled out. EDIT: Thought of one more old argument... What WOULD you get a cover save from it? It's not a shooting attack... closest equivilent is the battlewagon (which doesn't allow coversaves) so... Like I said before, now we don't have to worry about it because it's been spelled out. -Myst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azatoth Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 We use a houserule that buidlings that are under the marker are hit in the same way as a unit, making it possible for the Rocketworm to collapse it. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morollan Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 it feels like a MC close combat attack (hence the AP2) CC attacks don't have an AP so it sounds more like a shooting equivalent, hence cover save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Coversaves shouldnt be a question at all, it says it has AP2 and no mention of ignoring cover. Shouldn't being the operative word; some people don't have a complete grasp of the big gun rules and think that cover can always be negated by a Large Blast Template, depending on where the hole in the center is in relation to the affected models and their cover. That and the fact that the Mawloc is coming up from UNDER the cover... how do you 'duck and cover' from a giant alien that is burrowing up from underneath you trying to swallow you whole? Why would hiding behind a rock prevent being swalloed whole when standing in the open doesn't prevent that? From a FLUFF perspective it makes absolutely no sense to take cover saves from this... Anyway, it's not a shooting attack, and it feels like a MC close combat attack (hence the AP2) so that's where people were coming up with the "can't take cover" bit. Now we don't have to worry about it because it's been spelled out. EDIT: Thought of one more old argument... What WOULD you get a cover save from it? It's not a shooting attack... closest equivilent is the battlewagon (which doesn't allow coversaves) so... Like I said before, now we don't have to worry about it because it's been spelled out. -Myst Its 40k, you even get a coversave when 1 model is shooting at another model in terrain only 1" from each other. Dont try to apply realworld logic to a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Ipsa Loquitur Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Its 40k, you even get a coversave when 1 model is shooting at another model in terrain only 1" from each other. We call this the Leslie Nielsen rule; two guys ducked behind dustbins a few feet apart shooting at each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Its 40k, you even get a coversave when 1 model is shooting at another model in terrain only 1" from each other. We call this the Leslie Nielsen rule; two guys ducked behind dustbins a few feet apart shooting at each other. Damn dustbins all the time... :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.