4948
Post by: Cogito
There is now a tactic where you park a unit of gaunts on a objective and have them lurk the whole game(getting +1 to thier cover save), on turn 6 they stop lurking and hold the objective. My question is on that turn they stop lurking do they have to test or can you just stand there?
In one reading they must test because they are not lurking and the lurk rule is given as an alternative to 'moving.'
On another reason you may simply not move them and therefore they don't have to test. My question is, is there a 3rd option that is not in covered in the instinctive behavior rules. Can you just stand there not lurking(and not taking an objective) but not test as you don't want to move?
Cogito
60
Post by: yakface
Yes, by the RAW you have the option to not move the unit without lurking it and doing so would not require an IB test.
However, I would imagine that such a maneuver will feel like a cheap shot to some players so I would bring it up far before the last turn so they know what is coming and have a chance to counter it.
'Springing' it on your opponent in the last turn is a sure way to get your sportsmanship scores dinged (or lose some friends).
But yeah, it's totally legal by the RAW.
4308
Post by: coredump
eh... I think that is debatable.
The second bullet point uses the term "Alternately..."; which I think gives the rules a strong 'either/or' aspect. It is not rock solid, but I think it is strong enough that you can't say for sure that you have a third option.
5164
Post by: Stelek
yakface wrote:
Yes, by the RAW you have the option to not move the unit without lurking it and doing so would not require an IB test.
However, I would imagine that such a maneuver will feel like a cheap shot to some players so I would bring it up far before the last turn so they know what is coming and have a chance to counter it.
'Springing' it on your opponent in the last turn is a sure way to get your sportsmanship scores dinged (or lose some friends).
But yeah, it's totally legal by the RAW.
Anything that is legal by RAW has nothing to do with YOUR sportsmanship score, but HIS inability to accept and play by the rules--in effect, HE is being a poor sport because HE doesn't care for what you are doing.
This behaviour should not be encouraged nor tolerated.
Should one inform your opponent that your drop pod hasn't arrived yet but will automatically enter on turn 5?
Of course not.
If GW did not want players doing this, they should have changed the rules when 5th edition was released.
They haven't, it's legal, and if they can't figure out your TROOPS squad in the back is going to take the objective they get what's coming.
4308
Post by: coredump
Sportsmanship is just that, being a good sport. That *is* different than following the letter of the rules. No one blames you for tackling someone in (american) football, but you are a 'good sport' when you help them up. There are a lot of things that are 'legal' in sports, but doing them will earn you a rep for being 'unsportsmanlike'.
Of the several dozen Nid players that I interact with, I have never heard this interpretation of the rules presented. So to go to a game, knowing you are trying to 'sneak' this into the game; is not showing good sportsmanship. And yes, sneak is the correct word, even if it is RAW (Which I will disagree with).
Yes, everyone is expected to know the rules; but when you know that 99.9% of the people play it differently, and you are trying to take advantage of that fact.... that is simply poor sportsmanship.
5023
Post by: Democratus
Sportsmanship is dealing with it when someone shows you a rule you didn't know before a battle. Poor sportsmanship is getting angry and marking down someone's score because they knew a rule you didn't.
If it's legal by RAW and you don't like it get angry at GW, not your opponent. That's just childish.
8252
Post by: Krevads
Democratus wrote:Sportsmanship is dealing with it when someone shows you a rule you didn't know before a battle. Poor sportsmanship is getting angry and marking down someone's score because they knew a rule you didn't.
If it's legal by RAW and you don't like it get angry at GW, not your opponent. That's just childish.
so right.
786
Post by: Sazzlefrats
I don't see this as being much of a tactic, what prevents lurking tyranids from claiming an objective?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Stelek wrote:
Anything that is legal by RAW has nothing to do with YOUR sportsmanship score, but HIS inability to accept and play by the rules--in effect, HE is being a poor sport because HE doesn't care for what you are doing.
This behaviour should not be encouraged nor tolerated.
Should one inform your opponent that your drop pod hasn't arrived yet but will automatically enter on turn 5?
Of course not.
If GW did not want players doing this, they should have changed the rules when 5th edition was released.
They haven't, it's legal, and if they can't figure out your TROOPS squad in the back is going to take the objective they get what's coming.
This attitude may be a reason for your self avowed poor scoring on the sportsmanship front.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Sazzlefrats wrote:I don't see this as being much of a tactic, what prevents lurking tyranids from claiming an objective?
The Tyranid codex. Page 28, in the section describing the rules being discussed.
I had never read the Instinctive Behaviour rules as optional, though - as the rules state otherwise.
Out of Synapse + not falling back + not in combat = Instinctive Behaviour.
Instinctive Behaviour = Leadership check to move or Lurk. There is not a third option. There is a third Bullet Point describing fall back moves made by Tyranids but I am not sure how that is related.
I keep re-reading the page now trying to figure how to follow the RAW people are quoting. I see a line saying to "apply the following rules" when IB comes up - but I only see two options listed.
Shrug
221
Post by: Frazzled
Same
5873
Post by: kirsanth
yakface wrote:
Yes, by the RAW you have the option to not move the unit without lurking it and doing so would not require an IB test.
However, I would imagine that such a maneuver will feel like a cheap shot to some players so I would bring it up far before the last turn so they know what is coming and have a chance to counter it.
'Springing' it on your opponent in the last turn is a sure way to get your sportsmanship scores dinged (or lose some friends).
But yeah, it's totally legal by the RAW.
Ok.
I still do not get that. How is that RAW?
I do not see that as an option, let alone a "maneuver".
I only play Tyranids, and if I am really missing this, I need to know. ^^
5164
Post by: Stelek
Nah jfrazell, see...I don't spring things on anyone.
I tell people exactly what I am going to do, then I do it.
That's what irks people.
I haven't figured out how to not be honest.
Disingenuous is what I need to figure out, but I just can't seem to do it. Dishonest is dishonest.
Not knowing the rules is stupid in a tournament, and calling me the pot when others kettle is also right up there in the smarts category. Whose fault is it you don't know a troops unit can (gasp) score? I mean really.
6872
Post by: sourclams
What stops a flamer template from burning them out of existence?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
What rule lets you override IB without a LD roll, synapse, close combat, or Fall back rules?
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
I personally don't feel that this really is RAW at all, it seems to be like the leadership test should apply to having them stand still and not lurk outside of synapse, that said, I think it would be pretty lame to get cut up over it since any other army can do the same thing with a unit that's gone to ground until the last turn.
6500
Post by: MinMax
It seems like an under-handed tactic to me, if only because most people aren't aware of this loop-hole.
"If you want to move a Brood that turn for any reason, it must take a Leadership test at the start of its Movement phase. If this is failed, the unit must fall back..."
Looking at this, it's very clear. IF you want to move the Brood, you'd need to take the Leadership test.
Thus, you can avoid the problem of Insinctive Behaviour entirely by electing to NOT move. If you don't intend to move, you don't need to make a Leadership test.
60
Post by: yakface
kirsanth wrote:
Ok.
I still do not get that. How is that RAW?
I do not see that as an option, let alone a "maneuver".
I only play Tyranids, and if I am really missing this, I need to know. ^^
Basic game rules allow a unit to move and give you the option to not move a unit.
The instinctive behavior rules state that if you wish to move the unit for any reason you must pass a Ld test to do so.
Alternatively a unit can lurk.
However, if a player chooses not to move a unit it would not have to make an IB test and there is nothing in the rules stating that you MUST lurk with a unit, just that you have the option to do so.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
yakface wrote:kirsanth wrote:
Ok.
I still do not get that. How is that RAW?
I do not see that as an option, let alone a "maneuver".
I only play Tyranids, and if I am really missing this, I need to know. ^^
Basic game rules allow a unit to move and give you the option to not move a unit.
The instinctive behavior rules state that if you wish to move the unit for any reason you must pass a Ld test to do so.
Alternatively a unit can lurk.
However, if a player chooses not to move a unit it would not have to make an IB test and there is nothing in the rules stating that you MUST lurk with a unit, just that you have the option to do so.
that is what I do not get.
I read it as an entirely different set of rules. if/then
shrug. I will ask more.
4948
Post by: Cogito
By they way, when I brought this up to my local gaming group this is almost exactly the same argument that sprang up.
I agree with Yak's read, however I also feel that it is not a very friendly tactic and would not do such in a friendly game. On the other hand, in a competitive game I would do this in a heartbeat.
8252
Post by: Krevads
but there is actually no if/then anywhere, if you look
4308
Post by: coredump
Well, that is the issue.
It says to apply these rules:
If you want to move, do...
Or you can do...
The issue is if that is all the options you have, or only 2 of 'many' options. I understand the assertion that it is 2 of many, I just don't agree. I believe it is an either/or situation. (Or more accurately, and either/alternatively situation.)
515
Post by: snooggums
If you choose to move you test. Alternatively you may have them lurk. This is the only alternate option available so it is either move and test or lurk (unless falling back). Standing and not testing is cheating.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Krevads wrote:but there is actually no if/then anywhere, if you look
IB has its own rules.
They are printed in their entirety in the Tyranid Codex.
They give only two options, and modify the Fall back rules.
There is no need for an either or. Every option available to the player is presented. Exactly like the rest of the rules.
Picking another option because it does not say you cannot is presumptive and wrong - this has been argued to death on these forums itself. Why is it ok here?
746
Post by: don_mondo
Agreed. You test or you lurk, there are no other options available. Choosing not to move and not to lurk is not an option as the codex overrides the main rulebook "choice" to not move with the IB rules.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Exactly. I'm not seeing why this is an issue.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Stelek is correct. I missed the "if" in the statement, and did not intend to actually make the statement. Deleting the post.
Stelek if you wish to have me removed as MOD, please email Yakface. We can discuss the efficacy of your posts as well.
786
Post by: Sazzlefrats
This assumes everyone has the tyranid codex... just paraphrase please.
kirsanth wrote:Sazzlefrats wrote:I don't see this as being much of a tactic, what prevents lurking tyranids from claiming an objective?
The Tyranid codex. Page 28, in the section describing the rules being discussed.
I had never read the Instinctive Behaviour rules as optional, though - as the rules state otherwise.
Out of Synapse + not falling back + not in combat = Instinctive Behaviour.
Instinctive Behaviour = Leadership check to move or Lurk. There is not a third option. There is a third Bullet Point describing fall back moves made by Tyranids but I am not sure how that is related.
I keep re-reading the page now trying to figure how to follow the RAW people are quoting. I see a line saying to "apply the following rules" when IB comes up - but I only see two options listed.
Shrug
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Sazzlefrats
I did. . . and you quoted it. Ummm?
221
Post by: Frazzled
I am getting Q's on the side and I am not the rules lawyer type. Respectfully, can we get some Nid players on here with the codex to opine?
746
Post by: don_mondo
Nids are one of my armies, do I count. See post above.......................................
4308
Post by: coredump
I am a nid player, with the codex.
I know Yak plays nids, and has the codex....
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
I also play Tyranids and own a copy of Codex: Tyranids. You only have two options for Instinctual Behaviour: either take the Leadership test and risk falling back (but also risk being able to act as normal and capture the objective), or Lurk and be unable to capture the objective.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Wait.
As I read this, Tyranid players seem to think Tyranids need to use only the IB rules when IB applies, and people who do not play Tyranids think that IB is optional when IB applies?
Is this just me or is that . . . different? Or telling?
221
Post by: Frazzled
As a sometime player I'd argue you'd always have to follow the Nid dex on the rules for when and when not to use IB/synapse. These are special rules for Nids themselves
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Oh Oh Oh Oh!!!!
I get it!
And I still disagree with the "RAW" posited.
The options are listed as non-exclusive. They do not specifiy that other rules do not exist, as they do, and most still apply.
However, the IB rules themselves are listed to show what IB is. Chosing to stand still and not lurk is NOT IB. It may be something not excluded from a list, but it is not INCLUDED. The IB rules say that applicable models must be chosen and have the following rules apply to them.
I get that you can think of a (come on now, this is not the ONLY other thing you can think of is it?) posibility of something else that could happen, but the rules say "will revert" and to "apply to following rules".
While chosing to follow OTHER rules is not disallowed, I still cannot read that as a legitimate excuse to suddenly think this set is permissive.
Happy to have finally gotten WHY people think that way in anycase! Thank you jfrazell and Nurglitch.
shrug
8365
Post by: shintaibane
This is rules lawyering 101 at its finest. The rules say if I am not in synapse and I want to move I have to make an LD roll to check for instinctive behavior. If I fail I lurk, if I pass I can move and act freely or I can do unwritten rule number three, stand and not lurk in order to avoid making an IB roll and claim an objective point because it wasn't written that I can't do that.
However is it an action to claim an objective? What do the rules say or more importantly don't say about that? That is really the heart of the matter. Does a gaunt have to pass an LD test for IB in order to claim an objective?
515
Post by: snooggums
No the heart of the matter is that Nids out of synapse are subject to IB, and there are only the two choices, roll LD or lurk. There are no other options including doing nothing.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
shintailbane:
Your description of Instinctive Behaviour is incorrect. The rule says that if a unit is not in synapse range, falling back, or locked in combat, then it has two options. The first option is to take a Leadership test. If the test is passed, the unit may act normally and capture objectives. If the test is failed, the unit falls back. The second option is to Lurk. If the unit lurks, then it can shoot normally, but it cannot move and cannot capture objectives.
8365
Post by: shintaibane
Nurglitch: Thanks for the kind correction. I didn't have a rulebook handy. But your answer seems to cut to the heart of the matter that there are only two possible choices as stated by snoogums too. test for IB or Lurk... I do not see a choice for option three which is I choose not to Lurk.
I am wondering where everyone else is getting this idea that they can choose to do nothing. Is it because GW didn't state that if you are out of synapse range you have one of two possible choices? Granted it would make the situation clearer but I guess we all want to maximize what an army can do so we come up with unstated option three.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
It is beacuse outsideof the IB rules, that is entirely valid.
Of course it is also irrelevant, but that was largely my confusion.
6778
Post by: newbis
It always amazes me that people want to win so badly they are willing to dig out the tiniest loopholes in the rules. It's pretty obvious the intention is that if you don't take the Leadership, your models can only choose to lurk.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
To be fair, these rules are written for 10 year old users. If it truly was obvious, then this thread wouldn't exist.
786
Post by: Sazzlefrats
Ummm... lurking tyranids can't hold objectives... that answers my question on why someone would even try to ruleslawyer this tactic. I haven't had access to my codex for the last week as it was being borrowed.
kirsanth wrote:Sazzlefrats
I did. . . and you quoted it. Ummm?
Anyhow my take is... Take a leadership test to do what you want, or Lurk. I can kinda see the arguement for not taking a leadership test because you aren't going to move and don't want to be lurking, but whether you choose to move the models or not is an option you have if you aren't lurking, therefore take the leadership test or go IB.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
newbis wrote:It always amazes me that people want to win so badly they are willing to dig out the tiniest loopholes in the rules. It's pretty obvious the intention is that if you don't take the Leadership, your models can only choose to lurk.
Rather telling is still the fact that most of the players arguing AGAINST this . . . "tactic" . . . play Tyranids.
shrug
221
Post by: Frazzled
yes indeed.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Here I feel I am in disagreement with Yakface pertaining to RAW:
Relevant language: Codex Tyranids
"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement phase more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not falling back or already in combat, it will revert to IB. Choose each brood in this situation in turn, and apply the following rules:
*If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason, it must take a leadership check at the start of its Movement Phase. If this is failed, the brood will fall back as it had failed a morale test. If it is passed, the brood may act as normal.
*Alternatively the brood may Lurk. This means it will remain stationary that turn but may fire its weapons as normal. Lurking units that are not Monsterous Creatures add +1 to any cover save they may benefit from. Lurking Tyranids may not claim objectives or hold table quarters."
Tyranid FAQ: (paraphrase) Fearless units do not succumb to Instinctive Behaviour.
First Tyranid units do not test for IB, they automatically succumb to if they are more than 12" away from synapse (with a few exceptions).
Second, while Yakface is correct that basic game mechanics allow units to choose to move or not move, IB, which is a special codex rule, overides the basic mechanics of the game.
Third the use of the term "Alternatively", which in the English language means "in place of" or "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities", naturally precludes any third option being possible.
Accordingly the actual RAW would be "you may Lurk in place of taking a leadership test to move". The option of not moving without lurking is excluded by the RAW  .
Therefore, I would have to support Kirsanth  and Nurglitch  in this matter.
10069
Post by: Eza
wyomingfox wrote:Here I feel I am in disagreement with Yakface pertaining to RAW:
Relevant language: Codex Tyranids
"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement phase more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not falling back or already in combat, it will revert to IB. Choose each brood in this situation in turn, and apply the following rules:
*If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason, it must take a leadership check at the start of its Movement Phase. If this is failed, the brood will fall back as it had failed a morale test. If it is passed, the brood may act as normal.
*Alternatively the brood may Lurk. This means it will remain stationary that turn but may fire its weapons as normal. Lurking units that are not Monsterous Creatures add +1 to any cover save they may benefit from. Lurking Tyranids may not claim objectives or hold table quarters."
Tyranid FAQ: (paraphrase) Fearless units do not succumb to Instinctive Behaviour.
First Tyranid units do not test for IB, they automatically succumb to if they are more than 12" away from synapse (with a few exceptions).
Second, while Yakface is correct that basic game mechanics allow units to choose to move or not move, IB, which is a special codex rule, overides the basic mechanics of the game.
Third the use of the term "Alternatively", which in the English language means "in place of" or "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities", naturally precludes any third option being possible.
Accordingly the actual RAW would be "you may Lurk in place of taking a leadership test to move". The option of not moving without lurking is excluded by the RAW  .
Therefore, I would have to support Kirsanth  and Nurglitch  in this matter.
The problem with that logic is, of course, that it says "Alternatively, the brood may lurk..." Alternatively obviously implies that it is another option aside from testing for leadership in order to move and act normally. As a second option they may, as in optional, choose to lurk. This option is so they can at least have the option to shoot as oppose to doing nothing, but at the cost of not being able to capture an objective. If lurking was mandatory, as in a typical "either/or" situation, it would say: "Alternatively, the brood will lurk..." There really isn't any other way I can think of to interpret plain English.
The first option is there for a brood outside of synapse to at least have a chance to move, shoot, and assault as per normal. But they can always choose to do nothing. There is nothing under the IB rules in the Tyranid codex that explicitly says the brood in question has to choose one or the other. It simply says: "...and apply the following rules." These rules that you would apply, if you read them clearly, are there for if you actually need/want to do something with that brood. No where does it state that IB forces the brood to act.
270
Post by: winterman
This is a bit of a necro post, but this is probably better then rehashing this in a new thread.
As a second option they may, as in optional, choose to lurk.
The meaning of may is not always optional, it can also mean 'are allowed'; 'can' or something similar.
"May I be excused?" "Yes you may."
10069
Post by: Eza
winterman wrote:This is a bit of a necro post, but this is probably better then rehashing this in a new thread.
As a second option they may, as in optional, choose to lurk.
The meaning of may is not always optional, it can also mean 'are allowed'; 'can' or something similar.
"May I be excused?" "Yes you may."
True, but it most certainly does not imply it is a mandatory alternative. It is saying you have the possibility of that thing happening. What is does not say is that particular thing is definitively going to happen.
Not only that but when it says apply the following rules, it never indicates specifically that you have to choose one. In fact, the rules it presents are conditional. As with option 1: If you want to move... or with option 2: The brood may lurk... Since there is no context to back up that the word "may" is indicating it as mandatory, it would be reasonable to assume that it is optional, because in most circumstances where the word "may" is being used, it is referring to something that is voluntary and optional.
And now that I think about it, don't "can" and "are allowed' usually indicate that you have the option of either doing it or not doing it as well.
Check this out: http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/May.htm
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
The use of the term "Alternatively", which in the English language means "in place of" or "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities", implies that you must choose one or the other. Or in otherwards, it is manditory that the player makes a mutually exclusive choice.
More to the point, the root "alter" is Latin for "the other of two", which is why the term "alternative" is usually used in cases involving two options...when it refers to more than 2 options, either the options themselves or number of options are normally indicated. Since only two options were listed, it is reasonable to infer that Alternative in this case is defined as "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities".
Now given that the term "Alternatively" preceeds the use of "may," it can be inferred that the term "may" in this context refers simply to an allowance of an action, in this case "lurk" which is the alternative. It would be unreasonable to assume that "may" opens up a third unlisted option given the context of "Alternatively" proceeding it. Again, the option isn't manditory, having to choose from two mutually exclusive options is what is manditory.
Therefore, you can move or alternatively you may lurk.
10069
Post by: Eza
wyomingfox wrote:The use of the term "Alternatively", which in the English language means "in place of" or "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities", implies that you must choose one or the other. Or in otherwards, it is manditory that the player makes a mutually exclusive choice.
More to the point, the root "alter" is Latin for "the other of two", which is why the term "alternative" is usually used in cases involving two options...when it refers to more than 2 options, either the options themselves or number of options are normally indicated. Since only two options were listed, it is reasonable to infer that Alternative in this case is defined as "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities".
Now given that the term "Alternatively" preceeds the use of "may," it can be inferred that the term "may" in this context refers simply to an allowance of an action, in this case "lurk" which is the alternative. It would be unreasonable to assume that "may" opens up a third unlisted option given the context of "Alternatively" proceeding it. Again, the option isn't manditory, having to choose from two mutually exclusive options is what is manditory.
Therefore, you can move or alternatively you may lurk.
The definition of "Alternative" being mutually exclusive between two options is only one of many definitions of the word.
Ex.
a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility
The assumption that it is using the definition you gave is just that. "Alternative" can just as likely be the possibility of one event happening over another. It does not list them as two options, one of which has to be chosen. IB is listed as a set of condition based rules to be followed and not neccessarily as courses of action to be chosen from. In fact, it actually lists 3 separate rules and because of that, it is just as reasonable to assume that the second rule is not a mandatory choice if the first rule is not used. And as I have stated before, it does not explicitly indicate that you have to choose anything that is listed thereafter. "Apply the following rules" without clarification could just as easily be read to mean quite simply, "Use these rules." The word "apply" does not in anyway, in my mind, indicate/infer/imply or otherwise translate to "Choose one of the following." And even if it did, it wouldn't make sense because the third bullet point is another conditional rule, one of which is not based on your choice at all.
When it says apply the following rules I take it to mean, just as in the core rule book, that given a certain condition arises, such as the player wanting to fire the weapons of a particular unit, you follow those rules.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:wyomingfox wrote:The use of the term "Alternatively", which in the English language means "in place of" or "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities", implies that you must choose one or the other. Or in otherwards, it is manditory that the player makes a mutually exclusive choice.
More to the point, the root "alter" is Latin for "the other of two", which is why the term "alternative" is usually used in cases involving two options...when it refers to more than 2 options, either the options themselves or number of options are normally indicated. Since only two options were listed, it is reasonable to infer that Alternative in this case is defined as "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities".
Now given that the term "Alternatively" preceeds the use of "may," it can be inferred that the term "may" in this context refers simply to an allowance of an action, in this case "lurk" which is the alternative. It would be unreasonable to assume that "may" opens up a third unlisted option given the context of "Alternatively" proceeding it. Again, the option isn't manditory, having to choose from two mutually exclusive options is what is manditory.
Therefore, you can move or alternatively you may lurk.
The definition of "Alternative" being mutually exclusive between two options is only one of many definitions of the word.
Ex.
a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility
The assumption that it is using the definition you gave is just that.
wyomingfox wrote:Actually the definition I presented is the traditional and most common interpretation of the word "alternatively"
"Alternative" can just as likely be the possibility of one event happening over another.
wyomingfox wrote:Seeing as only one option is presented prior to the "alternative" option, the context of the language points to the definition I presented being the most plausible. In order for the your interpretation to be correct, the additional options would need to be presented in context in order to adhere to correct gramar. Example.
Def 1: You may walk to school. Alternatively, you may ride the bus. (only two choices are presented therefore definition 1 applies)
Def 2: You may walk or drive to school. Alternatively, you may ride the bus. (three choices are presented so Definition 2 applies)
Def 2: You may choose A or the following three alternatives. (4 choices are presented so again Definition 2 applies)
The language in IB follows the first example
It does not list them as two options, one of which has to be chosen.
wyomingfox wrote:The use of the word alternative always means a choice must be made between two (usually two) or more mutually exclusive options
IB is listed as a set of condition based rules to be followed and not neccessarily as courses of action to be chosen from.
wyomingfox wrote:Again, the use of the word alternatively implies otherwise.
In fact, it actually lists 3 separate rules and because of that, it is just as reasonable to assume that the second rule is not a mandatory choice if the first rule is not used.
wyomingfox wrote:The 3rd rule is involentary while the first two involve a mutually exclusive choice if I remember correctly.
And as I have stated before, it does not explicitly indicate that you have to choose anything that is listed thereafter. "Apply the following rules" without clarification could just as easily be read to mean quite simply, "Use these rules." The word "apply" does not in anyway, in my mind, indicate/infer/imply or otherwise translate to "Choose one of the following." And even if it did, it wouldn't make sense because the third bullet point is another conditional rule, one of which is not based on your choice at all.
When it says apply the following rules I take it to mean, just as in the core rule book, that given a certain condition arises, such as the player wanting to fire the weapons of a particular unit, you follow those rules.
wyomingfox wrote:Given the context in which the term "alternatively" is used, the definition would be "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities"
746
Post by: don_mondo
Can't believe someone resurrected this...............
Wanna move, you gotta test. Don't wanna move, you're gonna lurk. That's it, bottom line.
10069
Post by: Eza
Actually the definition I presented is the traditional and most common interpretation of the word "alternatively"
According to what? I've looked up the word in multiple dictionaries and thesauruses and the most common I've seen is simply stating that it indicates the possibility of two or more options and doesn't say anything about mutual exclusivity. Even arguing that these are "options" one of which has to be chosen, you always have the option not to choose. I don't understand how people are interpreting opting to do nothing counts as this magical "unlisted third option."
If you go to the baker and you ask what you can get and he responds, "You can get jelly, creme, or custard filled. Alternatively, you can get a muffin." Just because those are my only options doesn't mean I have to choose any of them. I can simply choose to do nothing, by not buying anything.
Seeing as only one option is presented prior to the "alternative" option, the context of the language points to the definition I presented being the most plausible. In order for the your interpretation to be correct, the additional options would need to be presented in context in order to adhere to correct gramar. Example.
Def 1: You may walk to school. Alternatively, you may ride the bus. (only two choices are presented therefore definition 1 applies)
Def 2: You may walk or drive to school. Alternatively, you may ride the bus. (three choices are presented so Definition 2 applies)
Def 2: You may choose A or the following three alternatives. (4 choices are presented so again Definition 2 applies)
The language in IB follows the first example
I disagree. No offense. Those examples are assuming that the person deciding wants to go to school. He could simply choose not to.
The use of the word alternative always means a choice must be made between two (usually two) or more mutually exclusive options
In what definition of alternative are you referring to that states that an option must be chosen? You don't have to choose anything.
Again, the use of the word alternatively implies otherwise.
Again, according to what? An assumption of what it implies, without explicit clarification?
The 3rd rule is involentary while the first two involve a mutually exclusive choice if I remember correctly.
Two options does not neccessarily imply "mutually exclusive" unless indicated. Besides, "mutually exclusive" just means that if you choose one, you cannot choose any of the others, it doesn't mean you have to choose one.
Given the context in which the term "alternatively" is used, the definition would be "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities"
And what context is that? What wording in there are you referring to that indicates mutually exclusive? The fact that there are 2 rules that you are able to choose from does not explicitly translate to "mutually exclusive" or necessitating mandatory choice. And the combination of the word 'alteratively" and "may" can just as easily by used to show 2 options that are not exclusive or that you do not have to chose. Sure it is possible for it to mean that, given explicit wording, but I see nothing there to back up such an assumption.
don_mondo wrote:Can't believe someone resurrected this...............
Wanna move, you gotta test. Don't wanna move, you're gonna lurk. That's it, bottom line.
Yes, and Jesus said it was so!
Where's your evidence to support this claim?
1309
Post by: Lordhat
How about a quick litmus test on how you should play it?
Go find the biggest meanest player you can. Try using a third option besides moving or lurking. If your nose subsequently breaks due to a high velocity impact with your opponent's fist, you know that's not how this rule is played.
All joking aside, KNOWING that G.W. writes their rules in a conversational bent instead of an "If x, then y" manner (Like a good game system SHOULD be) just think of what would be said if this rule was SPOKEN to you. Analysis without the benefit of close scrutiny should give you the proper 'reading' of this rule.
I know this argument is not precisely YMDC grade, but this topic has been beaten to death so much it's not even a dead horse anymore.
YES the word may does NOT mean must. YES technically, you have the option of doing neither. YES it is blatantly obvious (on first glance even) that the (gasp!) intent was an either/or situation.
I'm not usually one to spout about rules lawyering, but it's time to STFU about this and realize that this is an intended WEAKNESS for the army. Play it as such and move on to rules debates that are actually unclear in intent AND execution.
10069
Post by: Eza
Who the heck knows what they intended. This is about as concrete as discerning the meaning of life. RAW vs. RAI, whatever. My entire point is not to support my argument, but to show that neither side is definitively correct. People punching you in the face for making a logical interpretation that is not outside the realm of reasonable possibility? I wouldnt want to play against these nutcases anyway.
Secondly, IB is already a weakness in how it applies to the broods that follow it. You're very unlike to move at all, so that excludes Movement phase, running in the shooting phase, and even assaulting. And even if you want to shoot, you are still stuck there and cannont capture an objective. Opting not to do anything with the unit being left behind to capture an objective is already a weakness. To say it cannot is just an assumed plausibility people use who either dont like tyranids, or who do but dont want to admit to possibly being wrong about the rule they've used for so long.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:
According to what? I've looked up the word in multiple dictionaries and thesauruses and the most common I've seen is simply stating that it indicates the possibility of two or more options and doesn't say anything about mutual exclusivity.
wyomingfox wrote:Yes it does mention mutually exclusive choices:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternatively
al·ter·na·tive (ôl-tûrn-tv, l-)
n.
1.
a. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.
b. A situation presenting such a choice.
c. Either of these possibilities. See Synonyms at choice.
2. Usage Problem One of a number of things from which one must be chosen.
adj
1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things.
a. Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle.
b. Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards.
3. Usage Problem Substitute or different; other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al·terna·tive·ly adv.
Usage Note: Some traditionalists hold that alternative should be used only in situations where the number of choices involved is exactly two, because of the word's historical relation to Latin alter, "the other of two." Despite the word's longstanding use to mean "one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen" and the acceptance of this usage by many language critics, a substantial portion of the Usage Panel adheres to the traditional view, with only 49 percent accepting the sentence Of the three alternatives, the first is the least distasteful.·Alternative is also sometimes used to refer to a variant or substitute in cases where there is no element of choice involved, as in We will do our best to secure alternative employment for employees displaced by the closing of the factory. This sentence is unacceptable to 60 percent of the Usage Panel.·Alternative should not be confused with alternate. Correct usage requires The class will meet on alternate (not alternative) Tuesdays.
Even arguing that these are "options" one of which has to be chosen, you always have the option not to choose. I don't understand how people are interpreting opting to do nothing counts as this magical "unlisted third option."
If you go to the baker and you ask what you can get and he responds, "You can get jelly, creme, or custard filled. Alternatively, you can get a muffin." Just because those are my only options doesn't mean I have to choose any of them. I can simply choose to do nothing, by not buying anything.
wyomingfox wrote:Because nothing is a choice and no you don't always have that option
I disagree. No offense. Those examples are assuming that the person deciding wants to go to school. He could simply choose not to.
wyomingfox wrote:No, the language infers that you are going to school and you must make a choice on how to get there
In what definition of alternative are you referring to that states that an option must be chosen? You don't have to choose anything.
wyomingfox wrote:The first definition of the word states the two choices are mutually exclusive, also note that the second definition (involving more than 2 options) states that only one choice can be made
Again, according to what? An assumption of what it implies, without explicit clarification?
wyomingfox wrote:Again, both definitions of the word "alternative" imply mutual exclusivity
4681
Post by: gaylord500
I think the intent is pretty clear.
Anyway, you're allowed to move 0" in the movement phase. So, moving 0" and having these Tyranid models act regularly afterwards means you have to pass the LD test. If moving 0" is the same as doing nothing, does that mean the movement phase didn't happen if no unit moves 0"? Since it can't mean that, it doesn't.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
gaylord500 wrote:I think the intent is pretty clear.
Anyway, you're allowed to move 0" in the movement phase. So, moving 0" and having these Tyranid models act regularly afterwards means you have to pass the LD test. If moving 0" is the same as doing nothing, does that mean the movement phase didn't happen if no unit moves 0"? Since it can't mean that, it doesn't.
Well that is definately a new take on this arguement
4681
Post by: gaylord500
Yep. I don't see "doing nothing" label as particularly meaningful. So the rule doesn't mention something that it doesn't define, and is therefore wanting? "Doing nothing" is renaming something that's already covered: Acting (e.g. holding objectives) and moving normally. A 0" move is a normal move. There's no loophole if it's a situation already covered by the rule.
So if you want to do that outside of synapse range, you need to pass an LD test.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:To say it cannot is just an assumed plausibility people use who either dont like tyranids, or who do but dont want to admit to possibly being wrong about the rule they've used for so long.
Lets see, I count... what?.... 5 tyranid players who disagree with the theoretical "do nothing" option. And no, I disagree with it because I see it as a faulty attempt to rules lawyer a loophole into existance.
8896
Post by: Timmah
Your just applying the following rules to the brood: Note the codex says these are rules the brood must follow, not options it must choose. If you want to move you must make a LD check. Alternatively you MAY lurk... It doesn't say I have to choose one of the options, these are just rules I must follow. So I don't move, hence I don't need to make a LD check. And I choose not to Lurk because it says "may" I have now followed both rules and my unit counts as scoring. Not that hard really.
10069
Post by: Eza
Yes it does mention mutually exclusive choices:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternatively
al·ter·na·tive (ôl-tûrn-tv, l-)
n.
1.
a. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.
b. A situation presenting such a choice.
c. Either of these possibilities. See Synonyms at choice.
2. Usage Problem One of a number of things from which one must be chosen.
adj
1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things.
a. Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle.
b. Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards.
3. Usage Problem Substitute or different; other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al·terna·tive·ly adv.
Usage Note: Some traditionalists hold that alternative should be used only in situations where the number of choices involved is exactly two, because of the word's historical relation to Latin alter, "the other of two." Despite the word's longstanding use to mean "one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen" and the acceptance of this usage by many language critics, a substantial portion of the Usage Panel adheres to the traditional view, with only 49 percent accepting the sentence Of the three alternatives, the first is the least distasteful.·Alternative is also sometimes used to refer to a variant or substitute in cases where there is no element of choice involved, as in We will do our best to secure alternative employment for employees displaced by the closing of the factory. This sentence is unacceptable to 60 percent of the Usage Panel.·Alternative should not be confused with alternate. Correct usage requires The class will meet on alternate (not alternative) Tuesdays.
The part you highlighted in red about the Usage problem is referring to the noun usage of the word. Secondly, the adj. usage as you even quoated yourself says, "1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things." The context does not imply neccessity.
And the part about the usage note doesn't really prove your point. It just shows that, traditionally, the word has been used to include two options, and that is all. It says nothing about having to choose one.
Because nothing is a choice and no you don't always have that option
No where does it state that you lack this as a choice.
No, the language infers that you are going to school and you must make a choice on how to get there
I disagree. Without more definitive context, you cannot accurately infer that.
The first definition of the word states the two choices are mutually exclusive, also note that the second definition (involving more than 2 options) states that only one choice can be made
Mutually exclusive does not mean having to choose one. That definition apparently applies to the noun. Secondly, choosing to use neither of the two listed rules is not invalid without it clearly stating you must chose one of the following.
Again, both definitions of the word "alternative" imply mutual exclusivity
Again, mutual exclusivity does not mean you are forced to choose one.
10069
Post by: Eza
wyomingfox wrote:Eza wrote:To say it cannot is just an assumed plausibility people use who either dont like tyranids, or who do but dont want to admit to possibly being wrong about the rule they've used for so long.
Lets see, I count... what?.... 5 tyranid players who disagree with the theoretical "do nothing" option. And no, I disagree with it because I see it as a faulty attempt to rules lawyer a loophole into existance.
I would say the same about the point you are arguing.
4681
Post by: gaylord500
Timmah wrote:Your just applying the following rules to the brood:
Note the codex says these are rules the brood must follow, not options it must choose.
If you want to move you must make a LD check.
Alternatively you MAY lurk...
Why the focus on moving? Holding the objective is what you really want to do.
If you want to hold the objective, you have to make the LD test. Because otherwise, the unit lurks and does not.
10069
Post by: Eza
gaylord500 wrote:Timmah wrote:Your just applying the following rules to the brood:
Note the codex says these are rules the brood must follow, not options it must choose.
If you want to move you must make a LD check.
Alternatively you MAY lurk...
Why the focus on moving? Holding the objective is what you really want to do.
If you want to hold the objective, you have to make the LD test. Because otherwise, the unit lurks and does not.
Because the part about "otherwise the unit lurks" is a pretty massive assumption.
4681
Post by: gaylord500
Not really. It's something that's written.
The idea that it can be avoided is also an assumption - I think the bigger one of the two, if there's a choice. After all, moving 0" and being able to hold an objective is covered by this rule. The opposite claim is that there is a situation called 'not moving and holding an objective' defined as 'doing nothing', and since this rule doesn't address specifically use the words 'do nothing,' this rule doesn't apply. 'Doing nothing', while well-understood, is not rules language and is added to confuse something that should be pretty clear: the rule already covers 'not moving and holding an objective' as moving 0" after passing an LD test.
So I say by RAW and RAI, there's no loophole or flaw to fit the alternate theory. As the loophole's situation is addressed by the current rules, there should be no difficulty following them.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
The parts that are not written down are not rules.
Synapse rules are in the codex. Those include the rules for lack of synapse.
The "tactic" described is not in those rules.
RAW is Rules As Written, still.
Not Rules As Wrangled/Wished/Wanted/Willed/Wiled/Wielded etc.
Saying it does not say one cannot is not the same as saying one can.
Still.
10069
Post by: Eza
gaylord500 wrote:Not really. It's something that's written.
The idea that it can be avoided is also an assumption - I think the bigger one of the two, if there's a choice. After all, moving 0" and being able to hold an objective is covered by this rule. The opposite claim is that there is a situation called 'not moving and holding an objective' defined as 'doing nothing', and since this rule doesn't address specifically use the words 'do nothing,' this rule doesn't apply. 'Doing nothing', while well-understood, is not rules language and is added to confuse something that should be pretty clear: the rule already covers 'not moving and holding an objective' as moving 0" after passing an LD test.
So I say by RAW and RAI, there's no loophole or flaw to fit the alternate theory. As the loophole's situation is addressed by the current rules, there should be no difficulty following them.
Actually it not written where it explicitly says you must choose one of the two.
You can't move 0" because that contradicts the definition of the word "move."
Choosing to do nothing is NOT a third unwritten option/tactic/rule or whatever you want to arbitrarily call it. Here, let me break it down:
"* If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason it must take a Leadership test at the start of its Movement phase. If this is failed, the brood will fall back as it had failed a Morale test. If it is passed, the brood may act as normal."
Ok, by opting not to move the brood, I have still adhered to this rule.
"* Alternatively the brood may Lurk. This means it will remain stationary that turn but may fire its weapons as normal. Lurking units that are not MC add +1 to any cover save they may benefit from. Lurking tyranids may not claim objectives or hold table quarters."
Ok, since "may" indicates choice, I'm going to choose to have the the brood not Lurk and have still adhered to this rule.
"* Tyranids always fall back towards the nearest Synapse Creature if possible, if there are no SC on the board they wiill fall back towards the nearest Tyranids table edge."
Circumstantial. Easy enough to follow.
Preceding statement before these rules are stated is as follows:
"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement phase more than 12" away from a SC, and that unit is not falling back or already in combat, it will revert to IB. Choose each brood in this situation in turn, and apply the following rules:"
Well I went through each rule seperately and made choices while still following the restrictions for each rule. I have subsequently applied the rules.
10069
Post by: Eza
kirsanth wrote:The parts that are not written down are not rules.
Synapse rules are in the codex. Those include the rules for lack of synapse.
The "tactic" described is not in those rules.
RAW is Rules As Written, still.
Not Rules As Wrangled/Wished/Wanted/Willed/Wiled/Wielded etc.
Saying it does not say one cannot is not the same as saying one can.
Still.
This "tactic" is not outside the realm of the given rules. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand.
RAW: Yes, and since it does not explicitly state that at least one rule has to be chosen, used, or whatever, my argument still stands.
As for your last statement, that is just as bad as saying something very important and specific in a set of rules is explicitly implied through context, when it clearly isn't.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:Yes it does mention mutually exclusive choices:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternatively
al·ter·na·tive (ôl-tûrn-tv, l-)
n.
1.
a. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.
b. A situation presenting such a choice.
c. Either of these possibilities. See Synonyms at choice.
2. Usage Problem One of a number of things from which one must be chosen.
adj
1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things.
a. Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle.
b. Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards.
3. Usage Problem Substitute or different; other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al·terna·tive·ly adv.
Usage Note: Some traditionalists hold that alternative should be used only in situations where the number of choices involved is exactly two, because of the word's historical relation to Latin alter, "the other of two." Despite the word's longstanding use to mean "one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen" and the acceptance of this usage by many language critics, a substantial portion of the Usage Panel adheres to the traditional view, with only 49 percent accepting the sentence Of the three alternatives, the first is the least distasteful.·Alternative is also sometimes used to refer to a variant or substitute in cases where there is no element of choice involved, as in We will do our best to secure alternative employment for employees displaced by the closing of the factory. This sentence is unacceptable to 60 percent of the Usage Panel.·Alternative should not be confused with alternate. Correct usage requires The class will meet on alternate (not alternative) Tuesdays.
The part you highlighted in red about the Usage problem is referring to the noun usage of the word. Secondly, the adj. usage as you even quoated yourself says, "1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things." The context does not imply neccessity.
And the part about the usage note doesn't really prove your point. It just shows that, traditionally, the word has been used to include two options, and that is all. It says nothing about having to choose one.
Because nothing is a choice and no you don't always have that option
No where does it state that you lack this as a choice.
No, the language infers that you are going to school and you must make a choice on how to get there
I disagree. Without more definitive context, you cannot accurately infer that.
The first definition of the word states the two choices are mutually exclusive, also note that the second definition (involving more than 2 options) states that only one choice can be made
Mutually exclusive does not mean having to choose one. That definition apparently applies to the noun. Secondly, choosing to use neither of the two listed rules is not invalid without it clearly stating you must chose one of the following.
Again, both definitions of the word "alternative" imply mutual exclusivity
Again, mutual exclusivity does not mean you are forced to choose one.
Well seeing as Alternatively has two meanings:
alternatively
adverb
in place of, or as an alternative to; "Felix became a herpetologist instead"; "alternatively we could buy a used car"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Cite This Source
The word either means "in place of" or "as an alternative to".
If you interpret the definition as "in place of", then you can interpret the rules to be written as "in place of X", where "X" refers to the preceding rule regarding moving, the brood may Lurk...which is why several people have interpreted the second rule to be defined as "A brood may lurk in place of moving"
If you interpret the definition as "as an alternative to" then we are not referencing the adjective form of the word but the noun form. Therefore, you must apply the sentence as meaning a choice between two or more mutually exclusive options.
The note (in red) referencing "alternative (noun)" being traditionally defined as meaning two choices of which only one can be chosen, is just that...it defines a situation that has only two mutually exclusive choices; doing neither would be a third choice not permitted.
10069
Post by: Eza
wyomingfox wrote:Eza wrote:Yes it does mention mutually exclusive choices:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternatively
al·ter·na·tive (ôl-tûrn-tv, l-)
n.
1.
a. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.
b. A situation presenting such a choice.
c. Either of these possibilities. See Synonyms at choice.
2. Usage Problem One of a number of things from which one must be chosen.
adj
1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things.
a. Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle.
b. Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards.
3. Usage Problem Substitute or different; other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
al·terna·tive·ly adv.
Usage Note: Some traditionalists hold that alternative should be used only in situations where the number of choices involved is exactly two, because of the word's historical relation to Latin alter, "the other of two." Despite the word's longstanding use to mean "one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen" and the acceptance of this usage by many language critics, a substantial portion of the Usage Panel adheres to the traditional view, with only 49 percent accepting the sentence Of the three alternatives, the first is the least distasteful.·Alternative is also sometimes used to refer to a variant or substitute in cases where there is no element of choice involved, as in We will do our best to secure alternative employment for employees displaced by the closing of the factory. This sentence is unacceptable to 60 percent of the Usage Panel.·Alternative should not be confused with alternate. Correct usage requires The class will meet on alternate (not alternative) Tuesdays.
The part you highlighted in red about the Usage problem is referring to the noun usage of the word. Secondly, the adj. usage as you even quoated yourself says, "1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things." The context does not imply neccessity.
And the part about the usage note doesn't really prove your point. It just shows that, traditionally, the word has been used to include two options, and that is all. It says nothing about having to choose one.
Because nothing is a choice and no you don't always have that option
No where does it state that you lack this as a choice.
No, the language infers that you are going to school and you must make a choice on how to get there
I disagree. Without more definitive context, you cannot accurately infer that.
The first definition of the word states the two choices are mutually exclusive, also note that the second definition (involving more than 2 options) states that only one choice can be made
Mutually exclusive does not mean having to choose one. That definition apparently applies to the noun. Secondly, choosing to use neither of the two listed rules is not invalid without it clearly stating you must chose one of the following.
Again, both definitions of the word "alternative" imply mutual exclusivity
Again, mutual exclusivity does not mean you are forced to choose one.
Well seeing as Alternatively has two meanings:
alternatively
adverb
in place of, or as an alternative to; "Felix became a herpetologist instead"; "alternatively we could buy a used car"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Cite This Source
The word either means "in place of" or "as an alternative to".
If you interpret the definition as "in place of", then you can interpret the rules to be written as "in place of X", where "X" refers to the preceding rule regarding moving, the brood may Lurk...which is why several people have interpreted the second rule to be defined as "A brood may lurk in place of moving"
If you interpret the definition as "as an alternative to" then we are not referencing the adjective form of the word but the noun form. Therefore, you must apply the sentence as meaning a choice between two or more mutually exclusive options.
The note (in red) referencing "alternative (noun)" being traditionally defined as meaning two choices of which only one can be chosen, is just that...it defines a situation that has only two mutually exclusive choices; doing neither would be a third choice not permitted.
This is a classic example of a non sequitur. Here's another common example. The labels "warrior" and "pacifist" are mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean everyone is a warrior or a pacifist.
Yes, it can mean "in place of" or "an alternative to," but I dont think you understand the definition of mutually exclusive. Here, let me help:
–noun
of or pertaining to a situation involving two or more events, possibilities, etc., in which the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other: mutually exclusive plans of action.
This does not mean the mandatory occurrence of at least one of the possible events.
As for your first bullet point, the rule isn't you choosing to move the brood. The rule is, if you want to move the brood, apply this rule(taking a leadership test). You're misrepresenting that rule entirely. If you choose to have the brood lurk, then yes, you are lurking "in place of" testing for leadership. But once again, this does not indicate it as a mandatory choice. This applies to your second bullet point as well.
As for your last statement, choosing neither is not a "third option." It is one making a decision to not test for leadership because one wishes not to move the brood. It is also one choosing not to lurk because one has the option to. This is actually two choices that are being made. You are also treating both those rules as if they are one, when they are clearly not, hence two separate bullet points.
4308
Post by: coredump
Okay, my eyes tend to glass over once dictionary references start getting quoted and debated.....
But I wanted to add that I agree with WFox,
I play Nids, and only Nids, and I do not hate Nids.... and I think you have only 2 options.
THe 'may' is because you could have taken the first choice.
You can stay home.
Or alternatively, you may leave.
270
Post by: winterman
The 'do nothing' argument hinges on the definition of two words, if we take an alternate deifinition of these words then one could argue either side of the interpretation.
In those cases the morally appropriate thing to do is default to the interpretation that 1) is less advantageous and 2) one that requires less addition of rules. I think 'doing nothing' violates at least 1), if not 2).
I'd also point out that the vast majority of people will play the test or lurk way and would probably take issue with just doing nothing. As a Tyranid player I see no reason to belabor the issue.
10069
Post by: Eza
Wow, did you guys read my post at all? I feel like I'm talking to the wall.
Yes, and I play nids primarily and like nids. I have always played it where you dont have to choose and the people at the 3 different game stores I play at, agree.
Yes, "may" is because you could have taken or not taken the first choice, but for the hundredth time, this does not indicate you having to choose the later choice. That is a logical fallacy.
Furthermore, the rule to "do nothing" as people keep calling it, it not an addition to the rules or anyway outside the norm. In the core rule book, in all three phases you are given the ability not to act. So unless, there's a specific rule explicitly saying you can't do that, logic and reason would dictate that it still applies without necessarily indicating you can.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Nice try Eza, but no.
Read the line above the Bullet Point in your codex:
"Choose each brood in this situation in turn, and APPLY THE FOLLOWING RULES:"
Bullet 1: If you want to move roll Ld. We have been over this, word for word quote is unnecessary.
Bullet 2: Lurk Option.
Bullet 3: Fall Back Option.
So, if you are not Lurking, and not falling back, you MUST roll the Ld check to just sit there. Otherwise, you have not applied any of the rules which the codex just told you to apply. That is IGNORING a rule, not loopholing around it. That is called cheating where I am from.
If you are out of Synapse range, one of those bullet points must be met. Not doing one of them is ignoring Synapse and IB, and thus ignoring a rule.
I also play Tyranids, and say the Ld check MUST be made.
8358
Post by: Drummerboy
I have gotten more laughs out of this thread than ever before on Dakka. This whole debate is based on playing the words in the tyranid codex. The rules say you must do one of the following which Mattlov already stated.
Applying all this analysis to this is way over the top for the situation. If we were reading a program or a complicated math statement then sure, this much debate over word meanings and such would be reasonable. Let's face it we're not, even the tyranid players (I'm one of them, be it a new one in 5e) say that the way Eza is playing the words is wrong.
Eza I hope you don't use this rule [sic] on people that you play with...people that do this type of stuff aren't generally accepted at our LGS.
Anyways I play where the LD check must be made...just my 2 cents.
10069
Post by: Eza
I think this is hilarious too because you guys can't even support your argument with evidence. The word "apply" doesn't equal "use at least 1 of the following." By opting not to move the brood and not test for leadership, I have thus met the condition for that rule and in turn applied it. Again, the rule doesn't say I have to move the brood and test for leadership. By doing this, I am not ignoring or loop holing anything. You guys are hell bent on wishful thinking.
No, this is not word play. This is applying the correction definitions to their respective words. Once again, apply does not equal "must." And the whole thing about supporting your argument by saying the the majority play otherwise is debatable. Not only that, majority doesn't indicate correctness. After all, at one point, everyone thought the world was flat. I was actually showing this thread to some friends of mine at my LGS and they laughed hysterically. They agree with my assessment.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Eza wrote:I think this is hilarious too because you guys can't even support your argument with evidence. The word "apply" doesn't equal "use at least 1 of the following." By opting not to move the brood and not test for leadership, I have thus met the condition for that rule and in turn applied it. Again, the rule doesn't say I have to move the brood and test for leadership. By doing this, I am not ignoring or loop holing anything. You guys are hell bent on wishful thinking.
No, this is not word play. This is applying the correction definitions to their respective words. Once again, apply does not equal "must." And the whole thing about supporting your argument by saying the the majority play otherwise is debatable. Not only that, majority doesn't indicate correctness. After all, at one point, everyone thought the world was flat. I was actually showing this thread to some friends of mine at my LGS and they laughed hysterically. They agree with my assessment.
It is word play. Otherwise there is no point to Synapse and IB.
How do you deal with that same unit in the same circumstance wanting to shoot something?
10069
Post by: Eza
It is word play.
Care to explain how it is? Otherwise that's an assumption.
Otherwise there is no point to Synapse and IB.
lol, wow. That's just ridiculous. Of course there is still a point to Synapse and IB. The unit that reverts to IB is still severely limited. If you test for LD, especially in the case of gaunts, you will most likely fall back and potentially off the table. If you lurk, you are limited to shooting only and cannot move, assault, or capture an objective. If you choose to leave the brood alone, well, you're forfeited their right to act. Which means they will be more vulnerable from being attacked.
How do you deal with that same unit in the same circumstance wanting to shoot something?
You choose to lurk...
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
Eza wrote:No, this is not word play. This is applying the correction definitions to their respective words. Once again, apply does not equal "must."
In this situation it certainly does. Out of Synapse range -> apply IB as detailed below. There is no option for "doing nothing" as the critters are too stupid to banter rules or apply semantics.
4308
Post by: coredump
You may do A
or
You may do B
These rules replace the rules in the BRB, there are two options. You *may* do either... but there are only 2 options.
10069
Post by: Eza
Really? Where does it say "You must use at least one of the following"?
Furthermore, where does it specifically state which rules it is replacing?
The little critters aren't arguing over semantics. The Hive Mind told them before they left, "sit here and don't move." And the little critters are stupid but obedient so they just sit while being shot at and not seeking cover.
5121
Post by: mrdabba
Quick question.
A unit that lurks get +1 cover. do you get another +1 for going to ground?
thats a 2+ cover save when you lurk+go to round
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Eza wrote:It is word play.
Care to explain how it is? Otherwise that's an assumption.
And how is your interpretation NOT an assumption as well?
If these are assupmtions, I am going by how the rules ARE written, not a way rules COULD be interpreted.
746
Post by: don_mondo
1. You can do this (IB).
2. alternatively, you can do this (lurk).
There are no other alternatives............................................
It's really that simple, sorry you're having problems with it. And yes, I play Nids.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
Eza wrote:Really? Where does it say "You must use at least one of the following"?
By your own argument, where does it state you may choose to do neither?
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Since the codex came out nobody in my community has understood this rule in a diffirent way than Eza explains it. Ok, I will admit that its only 50 people or so and english is not the first language here but still...
I think the below quote from Eza explains quite well how I interprit the rule but I will throw in some aditional points for good measure:
1) I agree with the statement that "does nothing" is meaningless since it is not a game term. I find it however a moot point since it has no relevance to this rules argument. What this argument is about is the definition of not moving since the wording of the rule is: "If you want to move..." The unit of Gaunts does therefor choose not to move instead of choosing to do nothing.
2) Not moving is a option that does not equal 0" move. For example, a unit that decides not to move in lieu of firing a Heavy Weapon is counted as not moving while a unit that rolls for Difficult Terrain and decides to move 0" is counted as moving. Therefor I could chose to roll for Ld and move 0" OR chose not to move and not roll for Ld. There is an distinction between those two terms as can be seen in the rule book. There is however no definition that I am aware of that says that not moving = 0" move.
3) The not moving option is embedded into this rule: " If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason it must take a Leadership test at the start of its Movement phase..." Furthermore, IF I chose to move a unit of Gaunts this rule is applied, if not: "Alternatively the brood may Lurk." I can not see where it says the unit must Lurk.
4) If the IB rule was an either/or situation it would have to have the word must in one of the choices (referring to the choice of which option to take). The rule would have to read something like this: "You can chose to move, if not you must Lurk". By reading the text and applying your interpretation it goes like this: "You can chose to move, if not you can chose to Lurk." That does not make any sense unless those are both options that can be chosen to ignore.
1. You can do this (IB).
2. alternatively, you can do this (lurk).
There are no other alternatives............................................
It's really that simple, sorry you're having problems with it. And yes, I play Nids.
Actually it should read:
1. You chose can do this ( IB).
2. alternatively, you can chose do this (lurk).
I do not see how that forces you to do one or the other.
Eza wrote:gaylord500 wrote:Not really. It's something that's written.
The idea that it can be avoided is also an assumption - I think the bigger one of the two, if there's a choice. After all, moving 0" and being able to hold an objective is covered by this rule. The opposite claim is that there is a situation called 'not moving and holding an objective' defined as 'doing nothing', and since this rule doesn't address specifically use the words 'do nothing,' this rule doesn't apply. 'Doing nothing', while well-understood, is not rules language and is added to confuse something that should be pretty clear: the rule already covers 'not moving and holding an objective' as moving 0" after passing an LD test.
So I say by RAW and RAI, there's no loophole or flaw to fit the alternate theory. As the loophole's situation is addressed by the current rules, there should be no difficulty following them.
Actually it not written where it explicitly says you must choose one of the two.
You can't move 0" because that contradicts the definition of the word "move."
Choosing to do nothing is NOT a third unwritten option/tactic/rule or whatever you want to arbitrarily call it. Here, let me break it down:
"* If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason it must take a Leadership test at the start of its Movement phase. If this is failed, the brood will fall back as it had failed a Morale test. If it is passed, the brood may act as normal."
Ok, by opting not to move the brood, I have still adhered to this rule.
"* Alternatively the brood may Lurk. This means it will remain stationary that turn but may fire its weapons as normal. Lurking units that are not MC add +1 to any cover save they may benefit from. Lurking tyranids may not claim objectives or hold table quarters."
Ok, since "may" indicates choice, I'm going to choose to have the the brood not Lurk and have still adhered to this rule.
"* Tyranids always fall back towards the nearest Synapse Creature if possible, if there are no SC on the board they wiill fall back towards the nearest Tyranids table edge."
Circumstantial. Easy enough to follow.
Preceding statement before these rules are stated is as follows:
"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement phase more than 12" away from a SC, and that unit is not falling back or already in combat, it will revert to IB. Choose each brood in this situation in turn, and apply the following rules:"
Well I went through each rule seperately and made choices while still following the restrictions for each rule. I have subsequently applied the rules.
10069
Post by: Eza
InquisitorFabius wrote:Eza wrote:Really? Where does it say "You must use at least one of the following"?
By your own argument, where does it state you may choose to do neither?
In the main rule book, you can always choose to do nothing with any unit. And since the Tyranid codex doesn't deny this as an option explicitly, it still holds true. Its really not that hard of a concept guys...
Thank you arnaroe for supporting logic and reason over stubbornness.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
Does the codex allow this, because the codex trumps the rulebook.
4681
Post by: gaylord500
arnaroe wrote:I do not see how that forces you to do one or the other.
Look at the line before the bullet points. "...apply the following rules." You're required to apply the rules that are there. That statement overrides the general rules any other force could use in the same situation. The ability to have no movement and hold an objective is not one of the options given to Tyranids subject to the penalties of Instinctive Behavior ( IB).
The movement talk is interesting. I believe it's there to get to the juicier objective holding bits. So let's not forget the objective holding part is what the movement discussion getting at.
While I would allow 0" movement following an LD test (and thereby objective holding), even if I go along with your interpretation, it doesn't provide an out. If you're going to say 0" is no movement, the IB rule says no movement means you lurk. And objectives cannot be held by lurking Tyranids. So this really strict RAW interpreation would be that >0" movement is required to hold an objective. Not that the IB rule doesn't apply. There are no exceptions given to applying IB if the models fail to be in synapse range. Which makes sense as IB is a penalty effect for being out of synapse range.
If you want to not move and hold an objective, stay in synapse.
10069
Post by: Eza
Does the codex allow this, because the codex trumps the rulebook.
The codex doesn't have to allow because its already in the main rule book. It would have to deny the option in order to "trump" the main rule.
gaylord500 wrote:arnaroe wrote:I do not see how that forces you to do one or the other.
Look at the line before the bullet points. "...apply the following rules." You're required to apply the rules that are there. That statement overrides the general rules any other force could use in the same situation. The ability to have no movement and hold an objective is not one of the options given to Tyranids subject to the penalties of Instinctive Behavior ( IB).
The movement talk is interesting. I believe it's there to get to the juicier objective holding bits. So let's not forget the objective holding part is what the movement discussion getting at.
While I would allow 0" movement following an LD test (and thereby objective holding), even if I go along with your interpretation, it doesn't provide an out. If you're going to say 0" is no movement, the IB rule says no movement means you lurk. And objectives cannot be held by lurking Tyranids. So this really strict RAW interpreation would be that >0" movement is required to hold an objective. Not that the IB rule doesn't apply.
Which makes sense as IB is a penalty effect for being out of synapse range.
"Apply the following rules" does not mean you have to use at least one. Where are you reading this? You apply each rule separately. Neither of those rules say you must choose one.
The whole argument for "having to choose at least one" is such a gross misinterpretation of language.
4681
Post by: gaylord500
Apply the following rules means you have to use the following rules. Don't want to apply them? Don't be in a situation where they apply. Which means 12"+ from a synapse creature. These rules disallow the situation as you've defined and described it - that's what these rules are there for: to provide restrictions on Tyranid units.
10069
Post by: Eza
gaylord500 wrote:Apply the following rules means you have to use the following rules. Don't want to apply them? Don't be in a situation where they apply. Which means 12"+ from a synapse creature. These rules disallow the situation as you've defined and described it - that's what these rules are there for: to provide restrictions on Tyranid units.
Yes, and choosing to do neither still adheres to both rules.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Eza wrote:
Yes, and choosing to do neither still adheres to both rules.
Perhaps, though I do not agree.
However, you are not applying "the following rules".
You are backtracking and applying a seperate rule that is not mentioned in the section explicited cited as the location of the rules needing to be followed.
Or if you prefer, it is easily seen as claiming it is not illegal so therefor must be legal. This is incorrect also.
10069
Post by: Eza
kirsanth wrote:However, you are not applying "the following rules".
Actually, I am. Neither rule specifies that you must choose one or the other.
kirsanth wrote:You are backtracking and applying a seperate rule that is not mentioned in the section explicited cited as the location of the rules needing to be followed.
No, I'm not. Choosing not to test leadership is not a separate rule, this is why it says "if you want to move the brood." This is also why it says you "may" lurk.
kirsanth wrote:Or if you prefer, it is easily seen as claiming it is not illegal so therefor must be legal. This is incorrect also.
That is not my claim. The main rule book allows you not to act with a unit, and the IB rules in the Tyranid codex do not deny you this option.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Fine. You want to argue interpretation? I'll throw this at you:
First line under Instinctive Behavior: "Beyond the immediate reach of the Hive Mind, lesser Tyranid creatures will often revert to their basic, animalistic instincts."
"Will often revert" refers to failing the Leadership Test.
Standing in the middle of combat, not using cover when you have the option to do so is not a basic, animalistic instinct.
But I'm sure you'll throw that out as semantics. But you can't throw this out, Bullet Point 3 of IB (emphasis mine):
"Tyranid creatures ALWAYS fall back towards the Synapse Creature/Table edge blah blah blah..."
So if you are not Lurking, and not making a Leadership test, you MUST fall back. Simple as that. "Always" has no interpretation. If you are not doing the other 2 options, you WILL be doing that one.
End of discussion. But I'm sure you'll argue more anyway...
8915
Post by: arnaroe
gaylord500 wrote:arnaroe wrote:I do not see how that forces you to do one or the other.
Look at the line before the bullet points. "...apply the following rules." You're required to apply the rules that are there. That statement overrides the general rules any other force could use in the same situation. The ability to have no movement and hold an objective is not one of the options given to Tyranids subject to the penalties of Instinctive Behavior ( IB).
It it true that "apply the following rules" means that all the rules must be applyed. The first two rules, that must be applyed, are rules that one can chose to use, as can be seen in the wording. The key words/phrases are "If you want to" and "the brood may Lurk". As a result a unit of Gaunts that is outside synapse MUST chose if to move or not. If it choses not to move it MUST chose whether to Lurk or not. It can however not chose to apply the Synapse rule since the wording does not permit it.
The ability to "not move" does not need a permission from the codex since it is a default option (see page 11 of the rule book). To disallow it would need an direct ruling that would specifically say that a unit can not "not move". The same goes for holding objectivs and that is only forbidden if the unit Lurks.
gaylord500 wrote:While I would allow 0" movement following an LD test (and thereby objective holding), even if I go along with your interpretation, it doesn't provide an out. If you're going to say 0" is no movement, the IB rule says no movement means you lurk. And objectives cannot be held by lurking Tyranids.
You seem to be misunderstanding my point (or I am your point), I am saying that there is a diffirence between 0" movement and no movement, the former being movement. Also, the IB rules does not say that if a unit does not move it Lurks, it says that if a unit Lurks it does not move. Therefor a "not moving" gaunt is not subject to the Lurk rule should the player chose not to Lurk. Ergo, it can hold objectives.
gaylord500 wrote:So this really strict RAW interpreation would be that >0" movement is required to hold an objective. Not that the IB rule doesn't apply. There are no exceptions given to applying IB if the models fail to be in synapse range. Which makes sense as IB is a penalty effect for being out of synapse range.
Here you are just applying your understanding of the rules. Since there is no real argument in this statement my answer is simply: "No."
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:Fine. You want to argue interpretation? I'll throw this at you:
First line under Instinctive Behavior: "Beyond the immediate reach of the Hive Mind, lesser Tyranid creatures will often revert to their basic, animalistic instincts."
"Will often revert" refers to failing the Leadership Test.
Standing in the middle of combat, not using cover when you have the option to do so is not a basic, animalistic instinct.
But I'm sure you'll throw that out as semantics. But you can't throw this out, Bullet Point 3 of IB (emphasis mine):
"Tyranid creatures ALWAYS fall back towards the Synapse Creature/Table edge blah blah blah..."
So if you are not Lurking, and not making a Leadership test, you MUST fall back. Simple as that. "Always" has no interpretation. If you are not doing the other 2 options, you WILL be doing that one.
End of discussion. But I'm sure you'll argue more anyway...
You are referring to fluff and not the rules themselves. This isn't even a valid argument.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
So you just ignore the second part?
Here is another hole in your argument:
Second Paragraph of IB, lines 3 and 4: "...it WILL revert to Instinctive Behavior."
The word "will" does not allow for interpretation. One of the 3 Bullet Points must be applied. If just standing there was an option, it would be listed.
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:So you just ignore the second part?
Here is another hole in your argument:
Second Paragraph of IB, lines 3 and 4: "...it WILL revert to Instinctive Behavior."
The word "will" does not allow for interpretation. One of the 3 Bullet Points must be applied. If just standing there was an option, it would be listed.
The second part of the argument didn't even make sense.
"...it WILL revert to Instinctive Behavior." doesn't say "if you choose not to move the brood, you must lurk the brood." Where does it say this?
Standing there is not only an option supported by the IB rules but also by the main rule book. You are simply wrong sir. No offense.
4681
Post by: gaylord500
Instictive Behavior rules must be used as they're written in the situations stated. Not moving is either moving 0" after taking and LD test and then being able to hold objectives or lurking and then unable to hold objectives. The order doesn't matter, as to get one you need the other. There's no other option given, and no reason to believe your option is ever a default option, especially as these special rules were given to override the default situation; codex trumps the rulebook. You are told right off the bat that a Tyranid unit subject to Synapse outside of Synapse range does not use ordinary rules. The 0" move is a red herring because both sides of IB can tell you what to do depending on how you want to interpret what that is. As there is no ability to make that kind of move and hold an objective without the LD test, a successful LD test is necessary if you want to hold an objective.
To get to hold an objective for a unit subject to IB, the route is an LD test. Objective holding is otherwise denied by the entire language of these rules.
Iirc, all other uses of the word apply are applied the same way. The doubt that you bring up is not sufficient, as it seems to be quite a stretch.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
This tactic feels "gamey". Having played Nids for years and knowing how Synapse worked in the past and now, it feels like an omission or oversight. Hardly seems sporting.
That said if the RAW hammer were swung, you would be in the right. Of course I'd completely ding you for sportsmanship in a tourney setting, but that's just me. Good sportsmanship is NEVER "springing" trick interpretations or loopholes on someone. While you might technically be inside the letter of the law, you'd also be a gakky sport.
My .02. Your mileage may vary. Not for internal use. If rash develops, consult a doctor.
10069
Post by: Eza
gaylord500 wrote:Instictive Behavior rules must be used as they're written in the situations stated. Not moving is either moving 0" after taking and LD test and then being able to hold objectives or lurking and then unable to hold objectives. The order doesn't matter, as to get one you need the other. There's no other option given, and no reason to believe your option is ever a default option, especially as these special rules were given to override the default situation. You are told right off the bat that a Tyranid unit subject to Synapse outside of Synapse range does not use ordinary rules. The 0" move is a red herring because both sides of IB can tell you what to do depending on how you want to interpret what that is. As there is no ability to make that kind of move and hold an objective without the LD test, a successful LD test is necessary if you want to hold an objective.
To get to hold an objective for a unit subject to IB, the route is an LD test. Objective holding is otherwise denied by the entire language of these rules.
Iirc, all other uses of the word apply are applied the same way. The doubt that you bring up is not sufficient, as it seems to be quite a stretch.
Again, you give no explicit evidence to support you argument. Let me remind that this logic you are using is a non sequitur, or logic fallacy. I'll quote once more.
Eza wrote:
The labels "warrior" and "pacifist" are mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean everyone is a warrior or a pacifist.
The Green Git wrote:This tactic feels "gamey". Having played Nids for years and knowing how Synapse worked in the past and now, it feels like an omission or oversight. Hardly seems sporting.
That said if the RAW hammer were swung, you would be in the right. Of course I'd completely ding you for sportsmanship in a tourney setting, but that's just me. Good sportsmanship is NEVER "springing" trick interpretations or loopholes on someone. While you might technically be inside the letter of the law, you'd also be a gakky sport.
My .02. Your mileage may vary. Not for internal use. If rash develops, consult a doctor.
Ding away. You're assumption that I would "spring" this on someone is insulting though. Given the lack of clarity, I would inform my opponent of my plan.
I've also played nids for years and among my circles this understanding of IB has always been the accepted one.
Oh, and the part about it being an omission or oversight is a shot in the dark at best. Without actually talking to the creator of the rules, we have no way, wthout clarification, of knowing their intent.
All this fuss about it not being sporting or losing sportmanship points is nonsense. Granted, since misconception seems rampant, It would be a good idea to inform your opponet, but otherwise, I see this as fair game. Or maybe i'll put it this way. Because the rules are poorly written, I'm a bad sport for following them? Makes perfect sense.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Mattlov your icon is the main reason I keep reading this.
"Actually, I am. Neither rule specifies that you must choose one or the other. "
The IB rules do.
They do not state "Apply the IB rules and then add in all the other things you find convenient."
They refer to one section of one codex.
That section does not list your "tactic". It only lists the options available to units falling under IB.
The understanding of various gaming circles shows more often how things are argued more than how they are read. The most persuasive speakers tend to be "right" more often.
This is why pointing out where the rule is stated is more important than pointing out what is missing.
10069
Post by: Eza
kirsanth wrote:Mattlov your icon is the main reason I keep reading this.
"Actually, I am. Neither rule specifies that you must choose one or the other. "
The IB rules do.
They do not state "Apply the IB rules and then add in all the other things you find convenient."
They refer to one section of one codex.
That section does not list your "tactic". It only lists the options available to units falling under IB.
The understanding of various gaming circles shows more often how things are argued more than how they are read. The most persuasive speakers tend to be "right" more often.
This is why pointing out where the rule is stated is more important than pointing out what is missing.
You're reading the rules like a run-on sentence. Each rule needs to be interpreted separately. Apparently I'm going to have to repeat myself forever. Neither rule says that if you don't use it, you must use the other. Thus, you are wrong.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Repeating your self does not help, and you should not.
The words you have used are insufficient. Quoting the section of rules for IB that allow the "tactic" would be sufficient. They are entirely listed in the Codex: Tyranids for your perusal.
The rules are written as a set, not a run on sentence. Which is how I read them. Thus, you are wrong.
10069
Post by: Eza
kirsanth wrote:Repeating your self does not help, and you should not.
The words you have used are insufficient. Quoting the section of rules for IB that allow the "tactic" would be sufficient. They are entirely listed in the Codex: Tyranids for your perusal.
The rules are written as a set, not a run on sentence. Which is how I read them. Thus, you are wrong.
They have been quoted...numerous times. You, apparently, just refuse to read them. Here I'll quote myself once again.
Eza wrote:
Choosing to do nothing is NOT a third unwritten option/tactic/rule or whatever you want to arbitrarily call it. Here, let me break it down:
"* If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason it must take a Leadership test at the start of its Movement phase. If this is failed, the brood will fall back as it had failed a Morale test. If it is passed, the brood may act as normal."
Ok, by opting not to move the brood, I have still adhered to this rule.
"* Alternatively the brood may Lurk. This means it will remain stationary that turn but may fire its weapons as normal. Lurking units that are not MC add +1 to any cover save they may benefit from. Lurking tyranids may not claim objectives or hold table quarters."
Ok, since "may" indicates choice, I'm going to choose to have the the brood not Lurk and have still adhered to this rule.
"* Tyranids always fall back towards the nearest Synapse Creature if possible, if there are no SC on the board they wiill fall back towards the nearest Tyranids table edge."
Circumstantial. Easy enough to follow.
Preceding statement before these rules are stated is as follows:
"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement phase more than 12" away from a SC, and that unit is not falling back or already in combat, it will revert to IB. Choose each brood in this situation in turn, and apply the following rules:"
Well I went through each rule seperately and made choices while still following the restrictions for each rule. I have subsequently applied the rules.
And no, you are not reading them as a set because if you were, you would understand them as explained above.
"Thus, you are wrong." Clever response there, repeating what I said. Real original.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
kirsanth wrote:Mattlov your icon is the main reason I keep reading this.
Thanks, I think.
Eza:
The key word is "alternatively" here. For your ease, I have included the direct link to the root word "alternative" from Dictionary.com.
Alternative means you have 2 options, no more, no less. The IB description is set up badly to use this word properly, but it is still used correctly. Here is how it works in this rules section:
1: Tyranids out of synapse always fall back. (Bullet Point 3)
2: You have the option (the alternatives) of either attempting a Leadership Check, or Lurking. There are no other options since the definition of alternative does not allow any.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alternative
I can see where you want to believe your argument. However, the language of it actually defeats you. There would be less confusion if the IB section read this way:
Bullet 1: Fall Back
Alternatively, you may:
Bullet 2: Leadership Check
Bullet 3: Lurk
Does this make more sense for the argument?
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
Eza wrote:Ding away. You're assumption that I would "spring" this on someone is insulting though. Given the lack of clarity, I would inform my opponent of my plan.
I've not assumed *YOU* would do anything. I was throwing the statement out in general. Anyone who springs trick rule interpretations out at the last moment is a jerk. If that applies to you, then you are a jerk. If not, then you are not.
Eza wrote: Oh, and the part about it being an omission or oversight is a shot in the dark at best. Without actually talking to the creator of the rules, we have no way, wthout clarification, of knowing their intent.
Of course not we have no way of *knowing*. That's why I used the word "feels" and "seems". I'd assumed since you were so good at parsing words like "may" and "alternative" that you'd pick up on that. Sheez.
Eza wrote:All this fuss about it not being sporting or losing sportmanship points is nonsense.
Sportsmanship, in fact, is *SUCH* nonsense that GW has built it into the rules and gives numerous examples of it in the explanation sections of the rulebook and categorizes a whole portion of play to be judged in tournaments based on it. What the hell was *I* thinking?
Eza wrote:Granted, since misconception seems rampant, It would be a good idea to inform your opponet, but otherwise, I see this as fair game. Or maybe i'll put it this way. Because the rules are poorly written, I'm a bad sport for following them? Makes perfect sense.
I already admitted that a strict RAW interpretation would support the notion you could do what is being suggested. I'm just saying that it seems gamey and more like a loophole than anything, and to spring such a loophole at the last minute would be unsportsmanlike despite being legal. Is that so hard to understand? It's not the the rule... it's not clarifying an otherwise ambiguous rule with your opponent before using it that's being questioned here.
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:
Alternative means you have 2 options, no more, no less.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alternative wrote:1. a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility:
Did you even read this? lol..
Really, I mean not to insult you.
Besides, this was already covered on the previous page when I disproved wyomingfox.
10069
Post by: Eza
The Green Git wrote:
I've not assumed *YOU* would do anything. I was throwing the statement out in general. Anyone who springs trick rule interpretations out at the last moment is a jerk. If that applies to you, then you are a jerk. If not, then you are not.
The Green Git wrote:
That said if the RAW hammer were swung, you would be in the right. Of course I'd completely ding you for sportsmanship in a tourney setting, but that's just me.
Really, doesn't seem that way to me... But I'll give you that maybe I jumped the gun. Sorry.
The Green Git wrote:
Of course not we have no way of *knowing*. That's why I used the word "feels" and "seems". I'd assumed since you were so good at parsing words like "may" and "alternative" that you'd pick up on that. Sheez.
Of course. Naturally I would have the ability of knowing what you know without you telling me.
I was simply saying that you're feeling does not play into the argument over the rules interpretation. And I mean that not to imply that your feeling is any less valid because of that, only that I disagree.
The Green Git wrote:
Sportsmanship, in fact, is *SUCH* nonsense that GW has built it into the rules and gives numerous examples of it in the explanation sections of the rulebook and categorizes a whole portion of play to be judged in tournaments based on it. What the hell was *I* thinking?
You took this out of context. I was not calling "sportmanship" nonsense, only the act of penalizing me for "springing" this on someone last minute. But I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at.
The Green Git wrote:
I already admitted that a strict RAW interpretation would support the notion you could do what is being suggested. I'm just saying that it seems gamey and more like a loophole than anything, and to spring such a loophole at the last minute would be unsportsmanlike despite being legal. Is that so hard to understand? It's not the the rule... it's not clarifying an otherwise ambiguous rule with your opponent before using it that's being questioned here.
I agree wholeheartedly on everything except it seeming like a loophole.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Spore Mines running is a loophole, this is reading too hard while the understanding is soft.
^^
4681
Post by: gaylord500
To keep the discussion moving, hopefully a new point rather than the rehash of the old ones.
The line before the apply line.
"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not already falling back or already in combat, it will revert to Instinctive Behavior."
Under Instinctive Behavior, you hold an objective only after making a successful LD test; all models must use Instinctive Behavior if they fall under that line's categories. Where is holding an objective and not moving defined as Instinctive Behavior? Not in the basic rulebook, and not in the Codex. Therefore, it is not the Instinctive Behavior these models are required to exhibit under the above; the models will revert to it.
10069
Post by: Eza
gaylord500 wrote:To keep the discussion moving, hopefully a new point rather than the rehash of the old ones.
The line before the apply line.
"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not already falling back or already in combat, it will revert to Instinctive Behavior."
Defenders say that not holding and objective and not moving is allowed by the bullet points because the basic rules let you do that. However, the line above shows another restriction on these models. Where is holding an objective and not moving defined as Instinctive Behavior? Not in the basic rulebook, and not in the Codex. Under Instinctive Behavior, you hold an objective only after making a successful LD test; all models must use Instinctive Behavior if they fall under that line's categories.
You are able to do this as per the main rule book, and IB does not deny you this. You show me where does.
9345
Post by: Lukus83
I personally dont see the confusion. If you start more than 12" away you will revert to IB. Choose 1 of the following rules and apply them to each unit that has reverted to IB.
Either take the test or lurk. I can see how not moving puts a spin on things, but clearly it seems more like something they missed rather than trying to give nid players a loophole. If you could take the objective without having to take the LD test then why bother putting in the rules for instinctive behaviour. Seriously people...i feel this thread is in some serious need of some common sense.
And Eza...please stop trying to justify your claim using the "because it doesnt say you cant!" type rant. It also doesnt say you can.
10069
Post by: Eza
You should read the rest of the thread. This has already been covered.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Eza wrote:gaylord500 wrote:To keep the discussion moving, hopefully a new point rather than the rehash of the old ones.
The line before the apply line.
"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not already falling back or already in combat, it will revert to Instinctive Behavior."
Defenders say that not holding and objective and not moving is allowed by the bullet points because the basic rules let you do that. However, the line above shows another restriction on these models. Where is holding an objective and not moving defined as Instinctive Behavior? Not in the basic rulebook, and not in the Codex. Under Instinctive Behavior, you hold an objective only after making a successful LD test; all models must use Instinctive Behavior if they fall under that line's categories.
You are able to do this as per the main rule book, and IB does not deny you this. You show me where does.
Codex rules trump the rulebook.
The Unit will revert to Instictive Behavior. There in the codex are all the rules for Instictive Behavior. These are the only rules for IB. They override situations in the rulebook.
Standing there is not an option under IB. Therefore, you can only do that if you the pass the Ld test. I am done with this thread as you obviously cannot figure this out. There ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS UNDER IB other than what is in the codex. Your attempted justification is WRONG.
746
Post by: don_mondo
Eza:
Yes, it has been covered and you keep misapplying the rule.
Alternatively, sure the definition says two or more, the rule in question only offers two. Only two options (ie alternativees) offered, then only two alternatives available. And you can forget about applying the rulebook since codex overrules rulebook and the IB rule will supercede any possibility of "not moving".
You have been shown, numerous times, and in fact you keep quoting the rule yourself.
As for in a tourney, I know what the US GT and Games Day judges would say. You're wrong. So your opponent wouldn't have to ping you.....................
10069
Post by: Eza
Actually, I've already proven you both wrong. You just don't understand English apparently. Just saying something is a certain way and that you are just right, doesn't make it so. You need proof, and since you have yet to give explicit evidence to prove otherwise, that would make you wrong. Besides, Yakface(a GW FAQ writer) has already declared it RAW.
Nice try though.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:Actually, I've already proven you both wrong. You just don't understand English apparently. Just saying something is a certain way and that you are just right, doesn't make it so. You need proof, and since you have yet to give explicit evidence to prove otherwise, that would make you wrong. Besides, Yakface(a GW FAQ writer) has already declared it RAW.
Nice try though.
1) Yakface is not part of the GW games development team
2) Yakface is not employed by GW
3) While GW has referenced Yakfaces interpretations in the past in thier FAQ, his interpretations are in no way final nor do official FAQ always rule as he does.
4) Yakface has said such in numerous threads after some one stated "Yakface said so".
10069
Post by: Eza
wyomingfox wrote:Eza wrote:Actually, I've already proven you both wrong. You just don't understand English apparently. Just saying something is a certain way and that you are just right, doesn't make it so. You need proof, and since you have yet to give explicit evidence to prove otherwise, that would make you wrong. Besides, Yakface(a GW FAQ writer) has already declared it RAW.
Nice try though.
1) Yakface is not part of the GW games development team
2) Yakface is not employed by GW
3) While GW has referenced Yakfaces interpretations in the past in thier FAQ, his interpretations are in no way final nor do official FAQ always rule as he does.
4) Yakface has said such in numerous threads after some one stated "Yakface said so".
1. Never made that claim
2. Never made that claim
3. Never made that claim
4. Yes, and he agrees.
Still yet, where is your evidence?
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
You still haven't proven anything other your own interpretation of a sub-set of the rules.
10069
Post by: Eza
InquisitorFabius wrote:You still haven't proven anything other your own interpretation of a sub-set of the rules.
That's your interpretation of what I did. I disagree.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
Its amazing how often you need to edit a simple response. It makes me wonder what else you type before you have to correct yourself.
10069
Post by: Eza
InquisitorFabius wrote:Its amazing how often you need to edit a simple response. It makes me wonder what else you type before you have to correct yourself.
Or maybe I'm a bad at typing and frequently have to correct typos.
746
Post by: don_mondo
Eza wrote:Actually, I've already proven you both wrong. You just don't understand English apparently. Just saying something is a certain way and that you are just right, doesn't make it so. You need proof, and since you have yet to give explicit evidence to prove otherwise, that would make you wrong. Besides, Yakface(a GW FAQ writer) has already declared it RAW.
Nice try though.
Actually, you haven't proven anything except an ability to misread a simple rule. To quote you, "Just saying something is a certain way and that you are just right, doesn't make it so."
You've been given proof, you've just chosen to disregard it. Codex supercedes rulebook. Codex has a special rule that replaces, in it's entirety, what a Nid unit can do in the given circumstance. Others have already addressed the "Yakface (a GW FAQ writer)" bit.................
Anyways, you'll not convince me, I'll not convince you. We'll just keep going around in circles witht he same arguments. So be it, I'm outta here.
8915
Post by: arnaroe
InquisitorFabius wrote:Its amazing how often you need to edit a simple response. It makes me wonder what else you type before you have to correct yourself.
I really do no see how this has got anything to do with anything. Just looks like a cheep shot to me...
Although I agree with Eza regarding this rule I must admit that after reading this thread I think the other side to this issue has a point. The rules do indeed look like they where intended to force the Tyranid player to chose either move or Lurk. There is a good amount of evidence supporting that. The problem is that only a small part of that evidence can be found in the text of the rules them self ("Apply the following..." being the only one I can accept) while most of the evidence for Ezas interpretation in in fact found there.
That being said I will, for the sake of friendly play, use the more penalizing version until this gets cleared up (most likely never).
8896
Post by: Timmah
don_mondo wrote: Actually, you haven't proven anything except an ability to misread a simple rule. To quote you, "Just saying something is a certain way and that you are just right, doesn't make it so." You've been given proof, you've just chosen to disregard it. Codex supercedes rulebook. Codex has a special rule that replaces, in it's entirety, what a Nid unit can do in the given circumstance. wait where does it say this? It does not say this rule replaces all other rules, it just says apply these rules (also) The alternatively means it can also lurk or do its other choices, moving (with IB rules) not moving with BRB rules. No where does it say you no longer apply BRB rules it just says APPLY THESE RULES, not apply ONLY these rules.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
It does not need to say that.
It lists the alternatives available under IB rules.
Oddly, in the place it tells you to look when IB is needed.
It does not need to reference the main rule book, so it does not.
8896
Post by: Timmah
no these are not alternatives.
They are rules you apply. It does not say throw out the BRB and only use these rules.
It just says these rules apply.
10069
Post by: Eza
Timmah wrote:no these are not alternatives.
They are rules you apply. It does not say throw out the BRB and only use these rules.
It just says these rules apply.
Thank you. Another person with a sense of logic and rationality.
4681
Post by: gaylord500
Timmah wrote:It just says these rules apply.
In case it was missed, it also says "If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not already falling back or already in combat, it will revert to Instinctive Behavior." (My emphasis; errata includes fearless as an exception, too.)
So the codex says these models will revert to IB. This + apply strongly indicates what can and can't be done. The move and hold without a roll idea is not an example of Instinctive Behavior - at best, it is called an option available from the basic rulebook. That's convincing to me. Like many special rules, IB was written to override the basic rules.
8896
Post by: Timmah
Yes the unit is effected by IB And when in IB these rules apply. according your arguement gaylord, a unit that moves and passes their leadership cannot shoot because it does not say they can. It says they can lurk and shoot or move. So please go tell all those people who pass leadership and move their gaunts that they cannot shoot/assault... No offense but this is getting redic. Its like are just arguing to argue and aren't reading/following the rules.
4681
Post by: gaylord500
Timmah wrote:according your arguement gaylord, a unit that moves and passes their leadership cannot shoot because it does not say they can.
Read the rule. If it passes the LD, the IB does say it can act normally (such as hold an objective or shoot). So this criticism is incorrect, and I stand by my position that the IB rules stand clearly against the neither idea.
8896
Post by: Timmah
Note it says if you pass a leadership test it may act as normal. It says nothing of the sort that IB is then ignored. It may act as normal per IB, as it is still under the effects of IB. That means it can Lurk. As that is the only option of acting normally under IB. Heck it can't even move according to you now. it just reads, if you WANT to move it you make a leadership test. (obviously to punish people stupid enough to want to move units outside of synapse) If you pass the leadership test you can Lurk, if you fail you flee to synapse/board edge. Lulz
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
Timmah wrote:
Note it says if you pass a leadership test it may act as normal. It says nothing of the sort that IB is then ignored.
It may act as normal per IB, as it is still under the effects of IB.
That means it can Lurk. As that is the only option of acting normally under IB.
Heck it can't even move according to you now.
it just reads, if you WANT to move it you make a leadership test. (obviously to punish people stupid enough to want to move units outside of synapse) If you pass the leadership test you can Lurk, if you fail you flee to synapse/board edge. Lulz
Actually it says if the LD test is passed, it may act as normal, if it is failed the unit falls back. Then goes on to state that alternatively the unit may choose to Lurk. Your own argument is flawed as IB is not an action its a circumstance for being out of Synapse.
Your last statement is how YOU want to read it. If you pass the unit may move, shoot and assault as normal. If you CHOOSE to lurk, then the unit may only shoot as normal but gets +1 to cover unless it is a MC. Your next statement is a personal attack.
8896
Post by: Timmah
Yes if you pass the LD test you act as normal, (as a unit under IB would normally act). As you stated in your argument units in IB do not get the options from the BRB. Units under IB only are allowed the 2 options listed. (Note when they act as normal, it does nto state they are no longer effected by IB, So they are still under the effects of IB.) So they only have the 2 options available to them. Therefore they are restricted to the options given in the codex, according to your argument.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:wyomingfox wrote:Eza wrote:Actually, I've already proven you both wrong. You just don't understand English apparently. Just saying something is a certain way and that you are just right, doesn't make it so. You need proof, and since you have yet to give explicit evidence to prove otherwise, that would make you wrong. Besides, Yakface(a GW FAQ writer) has already declared it RAW.
Nice try though.
1) Yakface is not part of the GW games development team
2) Yakface is not employed by GW
3) While GW has referenced Yakfaces interpretations in the past in thier FAQ, his interpretations are in no way final nor do official FAQ always rule as he does.
4) Yakface has said such in numerous threads after some one stated "Yakface said so".
1. Never made that claim
2. Never made that claim
3. Never made that claim
4. Yes, and he agrees.
Still yet, where is your evidence?
Clearly you were inferring that Yakface has some authority on this matter. If you were not infering these claims, why even bother bringing Yakface up. He is not authoritative so you are just wasting your breath when you say Yakface agrees with you. If you can quote a games designer employed by GW that agrees with you, then that would be another matter.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:InquisitorFabius wrote:Its amazing how often you need to edit a simple response. It makes me wonder what else you type before you have to correct yourself.
Or maybe I'm a bad at typing and frequently have to correct typos.
To be fair, I often go back to correct my grammar, spelling, or to add something that I had forgotten.
4681
Post by: gaylord500
Timmah wrote:Yes if you pass the LD test you act as normal, (as a unit under IB would normally act).
If that's your position, we're sufficiently in agreement. The thread was trying to say that the IB rules let you not move and act as normal without going through an LD test.
8896
Post by: Timmah
No the thread was saying you could not move and count as scoring without passing a LD which is correct.
If you are correct with your argument then even if a unit that does pass its LD test cannot do things normally allowed by the BRB. Because ANY UNIT that is considered on instinctive behavior only has 2 options allowed. A unit that passes its LD test is still considered to be under instinctive behavior. So with your argument you would have to say that even after they pass their test all they can do is lurk and not move. (no other options available to you)
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza, you use a diferent definition of alternatively than I do. I have quoted mine previously:
alternatively
adverb
in place of, or as an alternative to
This definition refers to the noun form of "alternative":
al·ter·na·tive (ôl-tûrn-tv, l-)
n.
1.
a. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.
b. A situation presenting such a choice.
c. Either of these possibilities. See Synonyms at choice.
2. Usage Problem One of a number of things from which one must be chosen.
By the first (underlined) definition, you have a choice between two possibilities. Only 2 possibilities. In the case of IB, these two possibilities are listed as Rule 1# "Make LD check to move" and Rule 2# "Lurk" (which in context is the alternative to Rule #1). Under this definition, you could not choose neither option as that is a separate choice (option, possibility or if we need to go into verb form...opt, choose, wish to...ect) in and of itself.
Note, I kept on emphasizing the term "mutually exclusive" because 1) it seamed that you were denying that the choices were mutually exclusive and 2) the two IB rules (possibilities) are by nature mutually exclusive...which grants the context IMO that the 1st definition of Alternative should be used.
As noted previously, "may" could simply refer back to "Lurk" being a valid alternative.
I will admit that the second definition of alternative, which you support, is plausible.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:Timmah wrote:no these are not alternatives.
They are rules you apply. It does not say throw out the BRB and only use these rules.
It just says these rules apply.
Thank you. Another person with a sense of logic and rationality.
BTW, if you don't want to get slandered then you shouldn't use language that would easily offend your opposition. (While this statement compliments Timmah, it also implies that those who don't agree with you lack a sense of logic or rationality).
8896
Post by: Timmah
Ok here.
Argument against not moving IB units and making them scoring without passing leadership
Normal actions of tyranids
1. Units out of synapse revert to IB
2. Units that are IB must choose one of the following options during their turn.
Make a leadership test and then can act normally (note they are still considered on IB as nowhere does it say they aren't)
Lurk
3. Units under IB can not choose options out of the BRB as these 2 are their only options
Now I ask you, according to your argument, how a unit with IB does anything besides lurk.
After you pass your leadership you may act normally. So where does it say you can move in those 2 rules, where does it say you can assault? You have to choose one of those to options for units that are on IB. As you have stated previously.
So IB units must be able to take actions out of the BRB or they are only ever allowed to Lurk.
Now if you say when a IB unit acts normally they can take actions out of the BRB then they are always able to as long as they follow the 2 rules listed under IB.
That brings us to our argument for IB units just becoming scoring.
1. The unit stays still.
2. If the unit wants to move it must test LD ect.
It chooses not to move.
3. Alternatively the unit MAY lurk.
It chooses not to, may allows us a choice.
I have now followed both the rules, the unit is scoring and I did not make a LD test.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
You looked at both rules, then did something other than the alternatives listed.
Correctly positing that succeeding in LD check technically leaves them under IB does not correctly posit prevention of normal action. In fact moving "normally" is part of the basis of this argument.
IB or not, there are Fall Back moves, and Normal moves for tyranid units (as they have no vehicles, where some movement mods get added in). As they passed the LD check, they have the option to move normally. Failing that a Fall Back move is made.
Alternatively the brood may lurk.
Maybe all this means that Hive Tyrant Guard are immune to IB and Synapse as well!
8896
Post by: Timmah
As was previously agreed on by the against crowd. THESE 2 RULES REPLACE THE BRB RULES FOR ACTIONS. So in your argument there is no BRB as the codex supercedes it. Therefore acting normally is taking a LD test (and doing nothing) or Lurking. The unit, while free to move normally is still under IB as you agreed with me on. kirsanth wrote: Correctly positing that succeeding in LD check technically leaves them under IB Therefore it can only use the two options allowed by the codex. As once again and agreed upon by the "against crowd" the IB RULES SUPERCEDE THE BRB AND NOTHING IS ALLOWED TO BE USED OUT OF THE BRB IF THE UNIT IS UNDER IB. If you want your unit to be able to move/assault after passing the LD test you must agree that the IB rules are IN ADDITION to those in the BRB. And hence the unit can also choose actions out of the BRB as long as it follows the IB rules. So the unit is allowed to not move as its turn as per the BRB.
9345
Post by: Lukus83
Ok Timmah. In your case where you don't move and don't take an LD test, where have you applied IB? Thats right, you haven't.
And "acting normally" means (in my opinion) its stops reverting to IB and can use BRB rules again. Its not a difficult concept to grasp. Take a unit thats out of synpase range, apply 1 of the following rules. If you want the unit to act normally (move/claim objectives) then just take the stupid leadership test. If you dont want to then lurk.
Sorry for the rant guys but I really think that its just a simple error by GW, and some guys will do anything to exploit a loophole. Behaviour like this in a game will give nid players a bad name.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Except the majority of the Tyranid players speaking up have cried shennanigans.
shrug
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Shennanigans
10069
Post by: Eza
don_mondo wrote:Eza wrote:Actually, I've already proven you both wrong. You just don't understand English apparently. Just saying something is a certain way and that you are just right, doesn't make it so. You need proof, and since you have yet to give explicit evidence to prove otherwise, that would make you wrong. Besides, Yakface(a GW FAQ writer) has already declared it RAW.
Nice try though.
Actually, you haven't proven anything except an ability to misread a simple rule. To quote you, "Just saying something is a certain way and that you are just right, doesn't make it so."
You've been given proof, you've just chosen to disregard it. Codex supercedes rulebook. Codex has a special rule that replaces, in it's entirety, what a Nid unit can do in the given circumstance. Others have already addressed the "Yakface (a GW FAQ writer)" bit.................
Anyways, you'll not convince me, I'll not convince you. We'll just keep going around in circles witht he same arguments. So be it, I'm outta here.
Really? Where's this so called "proof" that I have supposedly disregarded? I've pleaded my case with evidence repeatedly. I've yet to see actual evidence presented by the opposing side to prove otherwise that hasn't already been disproved.
"Codex has a special rule that replaces, in it's entirety, what a Nid unit can do in the given circumstance. "
This is an assumption. Which text explicitly states this?
As far as referencing Yakface, It was simply to show that someone, who GW trusts enough to have write FAQs for them, agrees. I never stated that his declaration was, in anyway, a final ruling.
wyomingfox wrote:Eza wrote:wyomingfox wrote:Eza wrote:Actually, I've already proven you both wrong. You just don't understand English apparently. Just saying something is a certain way and that you are just right, doesn't make it so. You need proof, and since you have yet to give explicit evidence to prove otherwise, that would make you wrong. Besides, Yakface(a GW FAQ writer) has already declared it RAW.
Nice try though.
1) Yakface is not part of the GW games development team
2) Yakface is not employed by GW
3) While GW has referenced Yakfaces interpretations in the past in thier FAQ, his interpretations are in no way final nor do official FAQ always rule as he does.
4) Yakface has said such in numerous threads after some one stated "Yakface said so".
1. Never made that claim
2. Never made that claim
3. Never made that claim
4. Yes, and he agrees.
Still yet, where is your evidence?
Clearly you were inferring that Yakface has some authority on this matter. If you were not infering these claims, why even bother bringing Yakface up. He is not authoritative so you are just wasting your breath when you say Yakface agrees with you. If you can quote a games designer employed by GW that agrees with you, then that would be another matter.
No, I was not inferring that. Read above.
wyomingfox wrote:Eza, you use a diferent definition of alternatively than I do. I have quoted mine previously:
alternatively
adverb
in place of, or as an alternative to
This definition refers to the noun form of "alternative":
al·ter·na·tive (ôl-tûrn-tv, l-)
n.
1.
a. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.
b. A situation presenting such a choice.
c. Either of these possibilities. See Synonyms at choice.
2. Usage Problem One of a number of things from which one must be chosen.
By the first (underlined) definition, you have a choice between two possibilities. Only 2 possibilities. In the case of IB, these two possibilities are listed as Rule 1# "Make LD check to move" and Rule 2# "Lurk" (which in context is the alternative to Rule #1). Under this definition, you could not choose neither option as that is a separate choice (option, possibility or if we need to go into verb form...opt, choose, wish to...ect) in and of itself.
Note, I kept on emphasizing the term "mutually exclusive" because 1) it seamed that you were denying that the choices were mutually exclusive and 2) the two IB rules (possibilities) are by nature mutually exclusive...which grants the context IMO that the 1st definition of Alternative should be used.
As noted previously, "may" could simply refer back to "Lurk" being a valid alternative.
I will admit that the second definition of alternative, which you support, is plausible.
I'm not going to argue that specific part anymore. I've already shown that you're using a logic fallacy to try and prove your argument.
wyomingfox wrote:Eza wrote:Timmah wrote:no these are not alternatives.
They are rules you apply. It does not say throw out the BRB and only use these rules.
It just says these rules apply.
Thank you. Another person with a sense of logic and rationality.
BTW, if you don't want to get slandered then you shouldn't use language that would easily offend your opposition. (While this statement compliments Timmah, it also implies that those who don't agree with you lack a sense of logic or rationality).
No, it does not necessarily imply that they lack a sense of logic or rationality. I used the word "another." You really need to stop making such assumptions. If anything, it would imply not that they lack it, but are simply not applying it. A very mild and indirect slander at best. If anyone did take offense, however, I apologize.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Eza wrote:Eza wrote: You really need to stop making such assumptions.
answer in the. . . blind assertion?
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
John Spencer, Private Email wrote:Hello,
Answers to your questions are below.
Thanks!
John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist
Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!
Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060
Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST
Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custserv@games-workshop.com
Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nurglitch [mailto:Nurglitch]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:19 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: A couple of questions
Hey,
I was wondering about the following things:
1. Can Tyranids following Instinctive Behaviour do something besides Lurking or taking a Leadership test to move?
Kinda. If you pass your leadership test to move, the brood may act normally. So they may shoot and assault and do everything else a unit can normally do.
2. Does the Power of the Machine Spirit enable a Land Raider that has used its Smoke Launchers to fire one weapon?
Nope, if a Land Raider uses its Smoke Launchers it cannot fire.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:No, it does not necessarily imply that they lack a sense of logic or rationality. I used the word "another." You really need to stop making such assumptions. If anything, it would imply not that they lack it, but are simply not applying it. A very mild and indirect slander at best. If anyone did take offense, however, I apologize.
If that were the case, you should have stated "another person who applies logic and reason" (the opposite of "with" is "without a sense of logic or reason"). Either way, it is insulting. And if you don't want me to make these assumptions, then don't make statements that can easily be construed as "mildly" and "indirectly" slanderous. Otherwise, expect people in disagreement to treat you in a like way.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
No Eza, what you have done is habitually ignore the definition regarding thier being but two possibilites, which I have quoted numerous times, while making an illogical conclusion that doing neither is not a separate possibility.
Your example of the warrior and the pacifist was loaded to begin with. You would not be able to come up with your assessment in the situation addressed by the 1st definition of "alternative". By the first definition of the word, one would be making a choice between two possibilites (not three which is the case you presented). Therefore, one would either choose to be a pacifist or a warrior. You couldn't be neither as that is not one of the two possibilities.
"You may live, or alternatively you may die" would have been an accurate comparison of my arguement.
10069
Post by: Eza
wyomingfox wrote:Eza wrote:No, it does not necessarily imply that they lack a sense of logic or rationality. I used the word "another." You really need to stop making such assumptions. If anything, it would imply not that they lack it, but are simply not applying it. A very mild and indirect slander at best. If anyone did take offense, however, I apologize.
If that were the case, you should have stated "another person who applies logic and reason" (the opposite of "with" is "without a sense of logic or reason"). Either way, it is insulting. And if you don't want me to make these assumptions, then don't make statements that can easily be construed as "mildly" and "indirectly" slanderous. Otherwise, expect people in disagreement to treat you in a like way.
Yes, because two wrongs make a right. You could always choose to ignore it. I don't need you to lecture me on what I should expect from people if I act a certain way. Either way, this is off topic. Move on.
wyomingfox wrote:No Eza, what you have done is habitually ignore the definition regarding thier being but two possibilites, which I have quoted numerous times, while making an illogical conclusion that doing neither is not a separate possibility.
Your example of the warrior and the pacifist was loaded to begin with. You would not be able to come up with your assessment in the situation addressed by the 1st definition of "alternative". By the first definition of the word, one would be making a choice between two possibilites (not three which is the case you presented). Therefore, one would either choose to be a pacifist or a warrior. You couldn't be neither as that is not one of the two possibilities.
"You may live, or alternatively you may die" would have been an accurate comparison of my arguement.
Doing neither does not need to be a separate possibility listed as an option because it's included in both SEPARATE rules. I haven't ignored any definition. What I have done is shown how you've misapplied the definition and used false logic to do so.
Loaded? I don't understand what you mean by this.
"Alternative" is not necessarily the same as "alternatively".
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Or you could read Nurglitch's post that boils down to this:
Eza is wrong.
No offense, but GW says my point and the rest of us arguing it are right.
Sorry Eza. Can't fight that one.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
GW does not write rules that give you a nice bonus only if you can unlock a hidden option by thinking of the listed ones in a certain way. IB gives you a choice... Lurk or roll LD in order to act normally. There is no other choice available as then the unit wouldn't actually be affected by IB.
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:Or you could read Nurglitch's post that boils down to this:
Eza is wrong.
No offense, but GW says my point and the rest of us arguing it are right.
Sorry Eza. Can't fight that one.
If you actually read the email, you would have noticed that the question was never actually answered. That's GW for you. Besides, I've asked GW rules questions multiple times before and gotten different answers.
Spetulhu wrote:GW does not write rules that give you a nice bonus only if you can unlock a hidden option by thinking of the listed ones in a certain way. IB gives you a choice... Lurk or roll LD in order to act normally. There is no other choice available as then the unit wouldn't actually be affected by IB.
That is just wrong. Its not an unlockable "hidden option." The individual rules for IB do give you a choice. Read the rest of this thread. Read the rules.
8896
Post by: Timmah
This is just redic. No where in the IB rules does it say you ONLY apply these rules. It just says you apply these rules. So as long as I follow those 2 rules I see no problem with counting a unit as scoring that didn't move.
please show me in text where it say only apply these rules...
Until then theres no possible way you could argue against this.
The alternative say "alternatively to moving you may..." IT DOES NOT SAY IF YOU DON'T MOVE YOU MUST.
It does not say that this is the only other option you are allowed or anything.
And no where does it state you may not use options for actions out of the BRB.
Until one of you guys arguing RAI can show me, IN WRITING, where it states ONLY APPLY THESE RULES or YOU MUST CHOOSE ONE OF THESE OPTIONS FOR A UNIT UNDER IB.
Then you are doing exactly that, arguing RAI.
8358
Post by: Drummerboy
Eza you playing the rules like this makes you look like a 5 year old. The rules are clearly written and most of the people (especially tyranid players) agree. You are the only one that is fighting this lost cause.
Play the game the way it is meant to be played and stop looking for loopholes. You have like 40 posts and they are all on this silly thread. This thread should've been done about 5 pages ago.
I'm sure you mean well, but please do us all a favor and stop dragging this out. If your LGS wants to play that loophole then go for it, but stop trying to justify it and quit dragging this silly thread out more than it should be.
10069
Post by: Eza
Drummerboy wrote:Eza you playing the rules like this makes you look like a 5 year old. The rules are clearly written and most of the people (especially tyranid players) agree. You are the only one that is fighting this lost cause.
Play the game the way it is meant to be played and stop looking for loopholes. You have like 40 posts and they are all on this silly thread. This thread should've been done about 5 pages ago.
I'm sure you mean well, but please do us all a favor and stop dragging this out. If your LGS wants to play that loophole then go for it, but stop trying to justify it and quit dragging this silly thread out more than it should be.
I'll argue this until someone can definitely prove otherwise. It's not silly. The people arguing your side who cannot supply sufficient proof are the ones who look asinine. The fact that all my posts are on this thread is irrelevant. Who exactly am I doing a favor? Do you speak for everyone? I must of missed that. It's not a loophole the way me and my LGS are playing it. We just prefer to try and be accurate by using strict definitions and not assumptions as to the intent of the creators.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
I have already shown how alternative (n) and alternatively (adv) are related.
I have also explained how your application of the Warrior and Pacifist scenario did not apply to the first definition of alternative. I also supplied you with an appropriate application (life and death). Therefore, you were the one guilty of faulty logic.
Doing neither is not part of either rule. In your own words, you "choose" not to move and therefore don't apply rule #1; you "choose" not to lurk and therefore don't apply rule #2. Therefore, you are using a third possibility not addressed by either rule.
Given that you are ignoring the 1st definition of the word alternative, which stipulates a choice is made between two possibilities, you are argueing RAI as much as anyone else.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Well, I guess we will keep argueing this till you definately prove otherwise...and so far you haven't.
10069
Post by: Eza
wyomingfox wrote:
I have already shown how alternative (n) and alternatively (adv) are related.
No, you were trying to say that they are one in the same, which of course is incorrect.
wyomingfox wrote:
I have also explained how your application of the Warrior and Pacifist scenario did not apply to the first definition of alternative. I also supplied you with an appropriate application (life and death). Therefore, you were the one guilty of faulty logic.
Actually you did not show that. Because it does apply. You're using the word "alternative" not "alternatively" which is the word used in the rules text. Your "life and death" scenario is also incorrect. In your scenario, without getting into existentialism or spirituality, there are only two possibilities given or otherwise. You can only ever be alive or dead. In the rules we are discussing, there are(without going into the different combinations) technically 4 possibilities.
1. Testing for Ld. in an attempt to move the brood.
2. Not testing for Ld.
3. Having the brood Lurk.
4. Not having the brood lurk.
Once more(maybe I should start keeping a tally), "alternatively" does not indicate mandatory choice. Nor does this imply use of 1 if all others are not used.
wyomingfox wrote:
Doing neither is not part of either rule. In your own words, you "choose" not to move and therefore don't apply rule #1; you "choose" not to lurk and therefore don't apply rule #2. Therefore, you are using a third possibility not addressed by either rule.
Eza wrote:
Doing neither does not need to be a separate possibility listed as an option because it's included in both SEPARATE rules.
Choosing not to move is still applying rule #1 because rule #1 doesn't say you must test for Ld. to move if you do not lurk.
wyomingfox wrote:
Given that you are ignoring the 1st definition of the word alternative, which stipulates a choice is made between two possibilities, you are argueing RAI as much as anyone else.
Covered. Read above. And no, I'm arguing RAW.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:wyomingfox wrote:"
I have already shown how alternative (n) and alternatively (adv) are related.
No, you were trying to say that they are one in the same, which of course is incorrect.
No I was showing how they were related, you are incorrect again. The definition of alternatively is "as an alternative to", this references alternative (noun). I have already shown that, maybe I could keep a tally.
wyomingfox wrote:
I have also explained how your application of the Warrior and Pacifist scenario did not apply to the first definition of alternative. I also supplied you with an appropriate application (life and death). Therefore, you were the one guilty of faulty logic.
Actually you did not show that. Because it does apply. You're using the word "alternative" not "alternatively" which is the word used in the rules text. Your "life and death" scenario is also incorrect. In your scenario, without getting into existentialism or spirituality, there are only two possibilities given or otherwise. You can only ever be alive or dead. In the rules we are discussing, there are(without going into the different combinations) technically 4 possibilities.
Actually I did show that. The definition of alternatively references the word alternative (noun).
4681
Post by: gaylord500
Unreasonable 'references' the word reasonable, but they don't mean the same thing.
9345
Post by: Lukus83
Eza, please show me, in the case of you not moving and not taking the leadership test, where have you applied IB to that brood? Thats all I really want to know. The codex states..."apply the following rules". By not applying them you are in violation of the rules. Im trying to be polite so please tell me how have you applied the IB to the brood.
10069
Post by: Eza
Lukus83 wrote:Eza, please show me, in the case of you not moving and not taking the leadership test, where have you applied IB to that brood? Thats all I really want to know. The codex states..."apply the following rules". By not applying them you are in violation of the rules. Im trying to be polite so please tell me how have you applied the IB to the brood.
You show me where it says if that I don't test for Ld. Im not applying that rule. Same goes for lurking. The rule doesn't stipulate you having to do anything. That's the whole point.
10069
Post by: Eza
gaylord500 wrote:Unreasonable 'references' the word reasonable, but they don't mean the same thing.
This is one thing I agree with you on. Likewise, "alternatively" references "alternative" but they're usage is not the same.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alternatively
–noun
1. a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility: You have the alternative of riding or walking.
adverb
in place of, or as an alternative to; "Felix became a herpetologist instead"; "alternatively we could buy a used car"
In any case, it does not mean "one of two things" or "the mandatory choice of one thing from a list of things."
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
Eza wrote:Lukus83 wrote:Eza, please show me, in the case of you not moving and not taking the leadership test, where have you applied IB to that brood? Thats all I really want to know. The codex states..."apply the following rules". By not applying them you are in violation of the rules. Im trying to be polite so please tell me how have you applied the IB to the brood.
You show me where it says if that I don't test for Ld. Im not applying that rule. Same goes for lurking. The rule doesn't stipulate you having to do anything. That's the whole point.
Show me where it gives the option to do neither.
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
To define alternatively, we must define alternative:
alternatively
adv.
in place of, or as an alternative to
This definition refers to the noun form of "alternative":
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternative
al·ter·na·tive (ôl-tûrn-tv, l-)
n.
1.
a. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.
b. A situation presenting such a choice.
c. Either of these possibilities. See Synonyms at choice.
2. Usage Problem One of a number of things from which one must be chosen.
Alternatively = as an alternative to
Alternative = The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities (1 of 2 definitions)
Alternatively = as an ( the choice between two mutually exclusive possibilites) to
Or another way to break it down is that "as an alternative to moving, a brood may lurk". What does an "alternative" mean? The first definition of "alternative" would define it as one of two mutually exclusive possibilities for a given choice. What is the choice? How you apply IB to your brood. What are the two mutually exclusive possibilities? Lurking and moving.
In responce to your example of unreasonable, again, we need to know the definition of reason since it is referenced:
Unreasonable = Not governed by reason
Reason = Good Judgement (1 of 7 definitions)
Unreasonable = Not governed by ( good judgement)
8723
Post by: wyomingfox
Eza wrote:In the rules we are discussing, there are(without going into the different combinations) technically 4 possibilities.
1. Testing for Ld. in an attempt to move the brood.
2. Not testing for Ld.
3. Having the brood Lurk.
4. Not having the brood lurk.
Really, I see two:
1. Rule # 1: move and make a leadership test
2. Not moving and not taking a leadership is handled by Rule #2 (or Rule #2 excludes moving and making a leadership check)
3. Rule # 2: alternatively the brood may lurk
4. Not lurking is handled by Rule #1 (or Rule #1 excludes lurking)
So I can just simplify this to:
1. Rule #1
2. Rule #2
8896
Post by: Timmah
sorry could you please show me where Rules to be applied = choices to be taken? really your trying to justify your position that you must choose one by using the word "alternatively" that has as proven several different meanings that could justify both sides. All the rest of the proof in the rule, for example the IB rules being stated as rules and not options favor the option that the brood just needs to obey them. Continuing with your argument: Acting normally for a unit under IB is to choose one of the options. Correct? 2 possibilities, you say yes; so you choose to move. You roll leadership and are now allowed to act normally. However as you agreed the unit is still under IB. (any unit outside of 12 inches of a synapse creature reverts to IB) So we go back to how a unit under IB acts normally. We get a loop that makes all IB units only able to Lurk. option 2 you say no, acting normally is using an option out of the BRB while applying the IB rules. So you choose to move, pass your LD test and then can take an action out of the BRB. This also means that not moving is perfectly legal as it is "acting normally" for the brood, you just have to satisfy the rules. i.e. test for ld if you want to move, lurk if you havent moved and want to. Therefore your argument is shown to be rediculous unless you can come up with a different option, like passing the LD removes IB (dont see how you can prove this with RAW)
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Hey Timmah, could you re-write your post using English? It's rather difficult to follow in its current state.
8896
Post by: Timmah
little bit of flaming there? its pretty easy to understand. A unit reverted to IB is always considered reverted to IB as long as it is 12 inches out of synapse. You will notice that passing a LD test does not state it ignores IB, it just states that it can act normally. The beginning So how does a unit under IB normally acting: 2 Arguments: It must choose one of the 2 Rules and follow it, those are its only options. I must follow the 2 rules but can do anything that a unit could normally do out of the BRB. Ok so say we wish to move the unit. According to the first argument: We choose to move, we roll a LD test, if we pass then the unit can act normally. - note it is still a unit reverted to IB. therefore it acts as a unit reverted to IB usually acts. It is given a choice of what to do, Test LD or lurk. No movement ect. This gives us an unending loop of tests or a Lurk conclusion. Argument 2: The unit can do anything a normal unit can do as long as it follows the IB rules. So a unit that has past its leadership can choose to move, an option NOT found in the IB rules, but found in the BRB. A unit may also do nothing, a rule found in the BRB, and not be forced to Lurk or make a LD test as it is choosing a valid option out of the BRB, that a IB unit may normally do, while applying the additional rules. Did it move? No, then no test is needed. Do you wish to lurk? No Rules followed, option is chosen from the BRB (which we are allowed to take rules from). Basically the against crowd is claiming options cannot be taken out of the BRB until unit passes its LD test. I am saying that no where in the IB rules does it state a unit is allowed to take options out of the BRB after making a LD test which would mean that your only option after passing a LD test is to Lurk. Which is obsurd. So we must believe argument 2 to be correct.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Timmah, I'm not flaming you, I'm just finding your posts difficult to read. The constant mispellings, strange punctuation, and flow-of-consciousness structure all make for a barrier to clear expression, all of which puts your reading of the rules into doubt.
8896
Post by: Timmah
Where are my mispellings (not even a word), and strange punctuation?
I would say both of my outlines of the arguments flowed pretty well.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
The whole basis of your argument is how the term "alternatively" is used in this instance.
The term is used to state that if you do not wish to take the LD test, and possibly fail it, the brood may Lurk.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Oops, it's 'misspelling'. Anyhow, a bit of editing:
So, some quotes of yours:
"little bit of flaming there?"
You need to capitalize the beginnings of sentence and proper nouns.
"its pretty easy to understand."
Aside from lack of proper capitalization, "its" is misspelled. You want the contraction of 'It is', 'It's'.
"A unit reverted to IB is always considered reverted to IB as long as it is 12 inches out of synapse."
What are you trying to express with this sentence?
"You will notice that passing a LD test does not state it ignores IB, it just states that it can act normally."
What is this 'passing a LD test', and where does it make this statement? Remember the difference between what a text says (exact wording) and what a text states (its meaning).
"The beginning
So how does a unit under IB normally acting:"
What are you trying to say here?
Seriously, your posts go on and on like this. You're obviously saying something, but I can't decode it using the rules for written English.
10069
Post by: Eza
InquisitorFabius wrote:The whole basis of your argument is how the term "alternatively" is used in this instance.
The term is used to state that if you do not wish to take the LD test, and possibly fail it, the brood may Lurk.
Yes, and that's all it says. It simply gives you some suggested possible courses of action. Not a mandatory choice.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
Eza wrote:InquisitorFabius wrote:The whole basis of your argument is how the term "alternatively" is used in this instance.
The term is used to state that if you do not wish to take the LD test, and possibly fail it, the brood may Lurk.
Yes, and that's all it says. It simply gives you some suggested possible courses of action. Not a mandatory choice.
So you agree with my interpretation that you must do one or the other.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
InquisitorFabius wrote:Eza wrote:Yes, and that's all it says. It simply gives you some suggested possible courses of action. Not a mandatory choice.
So you agree with my interpretation that you must do one or the other.
Actually no... his whole argument is that he can choose to do neither since it's not expressly forbidden.
But I'll remember the "suggested possible courses of action" next time I need to roll a morale check. After all, it's not like I have to do it, it's just a suggestion. It's perfectly normal for units to not check morale, many of them don't do it during the whole game.
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
Spetulhu wrote:But I'll remember the "suggested possible courses of action" next time I need to roll a morale check. After all, it's not like I have to do it, it's just a suggestion. It's perfectly normal for units to not check morale, many of them don't do it during the whole game.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure when the rulebook gives me a list of choices for when a model suffers an unsaved wound which includes only "remove model from the table" that's a suggested possible course of action so I might not be doing that one anymore
10069
Post by: Eza
Actually, those aren't suggested. Those are mandatory if you wish not to break the rules. Now you guys are being asinine.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
No, we are just applying your logic to the rules.
10069
Post by: Eza
InquisitorFabius wrote:No, we are just applying your logic to the rules.
Misapplying*
10069
Post by: Eza
Spetulhu wrote:InquisitorFabius wrote:Eza wrote:Yes, and that's all it says. It simply gives you some suggested possible courses of action. Not a mandatory choice.
So you agree with my interpretation that you must do one or the other.
Actually no... his whole argument is that he can choose to do neither since it's not expressly forbidden.
But I'll remember the "suggested possible courses of action" next time I need to roll a morale check. After all, it's not like I have to do it, it's just a suggestion. It's perfectly normal for units to not check morale, many of them don't do it during the whole game.
Actually, its not a suggestion.
Pg. 44 of the BRB:
TAKING MORALE CHECKS
Units normally have to take a Morale check in the
following situations:
A) Casualties
A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a
single phase must pass a Morale check at the end
of that phase, or else it will fall back. Do not count
casualties caused by close combat attacks, as they
are covered later in C) Losing an Assault.
A unit that is locked in close combat does not have
to take Morale checks for taking 25% casualties.
Example: A unit of five troops suffers two casualties
from enemy shooting, so it takes a Morale check,
which it promptly passes. Next turn, the unit, now
three strong, suffers a single casualty from
shooting, which is now enough for it to have to
take another Morale check.
B) Tank Shock
Units that are overrun by an enemy tank may wisely
decide it’s time to abandon their position and fall
back. If a tank reaches an enemy unit’s position
then the unit must take a Morale check to see
whether or not it falls back. For a more complete
explanation of how tank shock works, see the
Vehicle rules on page 68.
C) Losing an Assault
Units that lose a close combat (ie, they suffer more
wounds than they inflict) must pass a Morale check
to hold their ground. If they fail, they must fall back.
Units taking this Morale Check suffer a -1 Ld
modifier for each wound their side has lost the
combat by.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
The term "alternatively" doesn't even apply to this situation. It is stated after the important part:
"WILL revert to IB."
We all know that the codex rules trump the rulebook.
The codex has all the rules for IB. That's it. Those are your options. There are no other alternative options from the rulebokk, you can only apply the options under IB. Standing there without a Leadership check is not one of those rules. Standing there is not applying IB. If you choose to just stand there you must make the Check, or fall back as normal. You could choose to Lurk instead.
I honestly don't see what you don't understand about this. That is how the rules are written. If you had more options, they would be under the IB rules.
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:The term "alternatively" doesn't even apply to this situation. It is stated after the important part:
"WILL revert to IB."
We all know that the codex rules trump the rulebook.
The codex has all the rules for IB. That's it. Those are your options. There are no other alternative options from the rulebokk, you can only apply the options under IB. Standing there without a Leadership check is not one of those rules. Standing there is not applying IB. If you choose to just stand there you must make the Check, or fall back as normal. You could choose to Lurk instead.
I honestly don't see what you don't understand about this. That is how the rules are written. If you had more options, they would be under the IB rules.
I don't honestly understand how you can so consistently misinterpret common words. "Will revert to IB..." is just indicating you will be restricted in what you can normally do. We all get this. You then must then read the actual rules for IB. That is what is being debated. Is that so hard to understand? IB rules are limiting you in a specific way, not in an all inclusive way. You are specifically limited in regard to things involving moving, shooting, assaulting etc. No where does it say you are in turn denied the option to have the brood not act. The first rule is a rule restricting from moving freely as you would normally. It's specifically worded to relate to things that involve moving. The second rule gives you an option of something else you can do if you don't move. It does not list things you cannot do. It does not, anywhere in there, indicate a mandatory action by the player to have the brood do something.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
So for you do something it has to explicitly be listed as an restriction or you get to choose something else?
That is your argument?
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Eza wrote:
I don't honestly understand how you can so consistently misinterpret common words. "Will revert to IB..." is just indicating you will be restricted in what you can normally do. We all get this. You then must then read the actual rules for IB. That is what is being debated. Is that so hard to understand? IB rules are limiting you in a specific way, not in an all inclusive way. You are specifically limited in regard to things involving moving, shooting, assaulting etc. No where does it say you are in turn denied the option to have the brood not act. The first rule is a rule restricting from moving freely as you would normally. It's specifically worded to relate to things that involve moving. The second rule gives you an option of something else you can do if you don't move. It does not list things you cannot do. It does not, anywhere in there, indicate a mandatory action by the player to have the brood do something.
Actually, it does. The third rule. They will ALWAYS fall back if possible. That is what you have to do if you don't roll Leadership or don't Lurk. Unless there is solid, impassable terrain around you they will fall back.
You can't argue the "alternative" option and ignore the ALWAYS rule.
8896
Post by: Timmah
InquisitorFabius wrote:So for you do something it has to explicitly be listed as an restriction or you get to choose something else?
That is your argument?
If that something else is usually allowed per the rules, like not taking an action with a unit, then yes.
8583
Post by: InquisitorFabius
Timmah wrote:InquisitorFabius wrote:So for you do something it has to explicitly be listed as an restriction or you get to choose something else?
That is your argument?
If that something else is usually allowed per the rules, like not taking an action with a unit, then yes.
Explain how you come across the the ability to use something that is "usually" allowed when those "usually" allowed are replaced with a special rule.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Only within synapse or after a successful LD check do any of the "usually allowed" rules become relevant.
Expressed = allowed.
Not expressed = not allowed.
See dakkadakka threads ad naseum.
8896
Post by: Timmah
Where does it say these rules replace the main rules? Oh that's right it doesn't. You are claiming it does because it doesn't specifically state you can do something out of the main rule book. You can ALWAYS do things out of the main rulebook unless the codex specifically denies it. kirsanth wrote:Only within synapse or after a successful LD check do any of the "usually allowed" rules become relevant. Where does it state this? It says if you WANT TO MOVE, then only after a successful LD check is the unit allowed to act normally. kirsanth wrote: Expressed = allowed. Not expressed = not allowed. See dakkadakka threads ad naseum. If this is the case then I guess no one in my marine army can move because it doesn't specifically state they can move in their unit entry. Once again it is expressed in the BRB. Please show me the rule that states options out of the BRB are forbidden for units in IB.
10069
Post by: Eza
Timmah wrote:
Where does it say these rules replace the main rules?
Oh that's right it doesn't. You are claiming it does because it doesn't specifically state you can do something out of the main rule book.
You can ALWAYS do things out of the main rulebook unless the codex specifically denies it.
kirsanth wrote:Only within synapse or after a successful LD check do any of the "usually allowed" rules become relevant.
Where does it state this? It says if you WANT TO MOVE, then only after a successful LD check is the unit allowed to act normally.
kirsanth wrote:
Expressed = allowed.
Not expressed = not allowed.
See dakkadakka threads ad naseum.
If this is the case then I guess no one in my marine army can move because it doesn't specifically state they can move in their unit entry.
Once again it is expressed in the BRB. Please show me the rule that states options out of the BRB are forbidden for units in IB.
Yes, I would like to see this as well.
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:Eza wrote:
I don't honestly understand how you can so consistently misinterpret common words. "Will revert to IB..." is just indicating you will be restricted in what you can normally do. We all get this. You then must then read the actual rules for IB. That is what is being debated. Is that so hard to understand? IB rules are limiting you in a specific way, not in an all inclusive way. You are specifically limited in regard to things involving moving, shooting, assaulting etc. No where does it say you are in turn denied the option to have the brood not act. The first rule is a rule restricting from moving freely as you would normally. It's specifically worded to relate to things that involve moving. The second rule gives you an option of something else you can do if you don't move. It does not list things you cannot do. It does not, anywhere in there, indicate a mandatory action by the player to have the brood do something.
Actually, it does. The third rule. They will ALWAYS fall back if possible. That is what you have to do if you don't roll Leadership or don't Lurk. Unless there is solid, impassable terrain around you they will fall back.
You can't argue the "alternative" option and ignore the ALWAYS rule.
Actually, I can.
That rule says:
Tyranids always fall back towards the nearest SC if possible - if there are no SC on the board they will fall back towards the nearest Tyranid table edge.
This is just showing what creatures, who have reverted to IB, do when falling back. It doesn't say if that you did not test for Ld. or Lurk, that they will then fall back. Because otherwise, the brood would be under Synapse and therefore would never fall back, because they are Fearless.
746
Post by: don_mondo
You've both been shown, numerous times. Sorry you're not willing to accept the truth.
8896
Post by: Timmah
Really? Where? I have yet to see it. I just see the people claiming the word alternatively mean you MUST make 1 of the 2 listed choices. But I see no proof that alternatively can't mean you make one of many (the IB choices and the BRB choices). Here is a question for you. As long as I throw the BRB out the window with IB. When I lurk can I shoot with the unit as many times as I want? I am not allowed to use rules from the BRB and it (the IB rules) do not limit the amount of times I can shoot in the shooting phase. Only the BRB does, but since the IB rules trump those rules, I guess my gaunt squad can fire 5x times. Right? I mean because there are no rules for shooting, the IB rules trump and ignore them...
8915
Post by: arnaroe
The Gaunt "Jimmy" is standing all alone on top of a hill. Herman the Hive Tyrant is somewhere down the road but it is not clear how far.
"If all models in a Tyranid Brood begin their movement phase more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature [...] it will revert to Instinctive Behavior. Choose each brood in this situation in turn and apply the following rules:" (page 28 of Codex: Tyranids)
Herman the Hive Tyrant is 13" away from Jimmy so he reverts to IB. In other words Jimmy is now under the influence of the IB rules.
The first rule of IB is:
"If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason, it must take a leadership check at the start of its Movement Phase. If this is failed, the brood will fall back as it had failed a morale test. If it is passed, the brood may act as normal." (page 28 of Codex: Tyranids)
As the underlined words show Jimmy faces two options, to move or not to move (that seems to be the question...). If he choses to move a Ld test is required and everyone is happy (except Jimmy of course, after all he depends very much Herman). If he choses not to move, as page 11 of the BRB declares an option ("...or decide not to move at all.") and the wording "if you want to move" implies, the next rule in the list triggers. In other words Jimmy does not meet the Ld qualifications of the first rule since he decided not to move. Therefor we look at the next rule.
The second rule of IB is:
"Alternatively, the brood may Lurk. This means it will remain stationary that turn but may fire its weapons as normal. Lurking units that are not Monsterous Creatures add +1 to any cover save they may benefit from. Lurking Tyranids may not claim objectives or hold table quarters." (page 28 of Codex: Tyranids)
Jimmy is again faced with two options, now he can Lurk or not Lurk. The fact that he can choose from these two options is supported by the word "may". Since 40k is a permissive rules set some indication would have to be shown that these two options are the only options available (move or lurk). The word "must" or something similar has to be an requirement if one is forced to chose from a limited amount of options that are suppose to supersede the rule book. Since both rules present Jimmy with a choice it is hard to see how they can be the only available options, options that take away Jimmies rights to chose options from the BRB. Special rules like these (we can all agree that IB rules are special) need a direct wording to take away any options otherwise the options are still available. The way special rules are structured is that they change key elements of the basic rules while all other aspects of the rules apply. For instance, look at the Movement section of the Skimmer entry in the BRB, it gives you a lot of special rules that govern Skimmer movement. In the Vehicle Movement section the basics are covered for all vehicles, including how pivoting on the spot is not movement. Since the rules for Skimmer movement do not cover pivoting can a Skimmer then not pivot freely? The same goes for IB, if not moving is not an option and if Lurking is forced in response to not moving the wording of the rules would have to say so specifically. The way "alternatively" is defined will not change the fact that "not moving" is not forbidden.
Jimmy choses not to Lurk.
Jimmy's thought on RAI:
It seems that some people think that it is an advantage to do nothing (i.e. not move) since it allows non-Synapse units to hold objectives. Keep in mind though that the Codex was written in 4th ed when capturing objectives meant little. I think the RAI was (and this is how I understand the text) that the real penalty for being outside of Synapse was that Jimmy could not do anything without an Ld test. To keep things fair the designers presented Jimmy with an third option to allow him some degree of survivability, Lurking! Lurking is then an option similar to Going to Ground where Jimmy sacrifices some function for added survivability. It will always be hard to argue RAI but at least here is an alternative view (pun intended).
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Timmah wrote:Really? Where? I have yet to see it.
I just see the people claiming the word alternatively mean you MUST make 1 of the 2 listed choices. But I see no proof that alternatively can't mean you make one of many (the IB choices and the BRB choices).
Here is a question for you. As long as I throw the BRB out the window with IB. When I lurk can I shoot with the unit as many times as I want? I am not allowed to use rules from the BRB and it (the IB rules) do not limit the amount of times I can shoot in the shooting phase. Only the BRB does, but since the IB rules trump those rules, I guess my gaunt squad can fire 5x times. Right? I mean because there are no rules for shooting, the IB rules trump and ignore them...
No, now you are just being an ass. It says: "May fire it's weapons as normal." So you use the normal fire rules. Look, another hole shot in your argument.
The codex rules trump the rulebook. There are no rules for IB in the rulebook, so you use the rules listed for IB in the codex. Those are the rules for IB. There are no other rules for it, and no other options.
The funniest part of this is that you guys can't refute that, and yet you try. When you are under IB, there are no rules available to you than the rules under IB in the codex.
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Mattlov wrote:
The codex rules trump the rulebook. There are no rules for IB in the rulebook, so you use the rules listed for IB in the codex. Those are the rules for IB. There are no other rules for it, and no other options.
The funniest part of this is that you guys can't refute that, and yet you try. When you are under IB, there are no rules available to you than the rules under IB in the codex.
arnaroe wrote:For instance, look at the Movement section of the Skimmer entry in the BRB, it gives you a lot of special rules that govern Skimmer movement. In the Vehicle Movement section the basics are covered for all vehicles, including how pivoting on the spot is not movement. Since the rules for Skimmer movement do not cover pivoting can a Skimmer then not pivot freely?
Its the same thing. The Movement section of the BRB covers basic movement, the IB are special rules that give alternate rules for movement IF a unit wants to move. That is why it says: "If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason..." If IB will eliminate the possibility of doing nothing then a Skimmer can not pivot freely.
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:Timmah wrote:Really? Where? I have yet to see it.
I just see the people claiming the word alternatively mean you MUST make 1 of the 2 listed choices. But I see no proof that alternatively can't mean you make one of many (the IB choices and the BRB choices).
Here is a question for you. As long as I throw the BRB out the window with IB. When I lurk can I shoot with the unit as many times as I want? I am not allowed to use rules from the BRB and it (the IB rules) do not limit the amount of times I can shoot in the shooting phase. Only the BRB does, but since the IB rules trump those rules, I guess my gaunt squad can fire 5x times. Right? I mean because there are no rules for shooting, the IB rules trump and ignore them...
No, now you are just being an ass. It says: "May fire it's weapons as normal." So you use the normal fire rules. Look, another hole shot in your argument.
The codex rules trump the rulebook. There are no rules for IB in the rulebook, so you use the rules listed for IB in the codex. Those are the rules for IB. There are no other rules for it, and no other options.
The funniest part of this is that you guys can't refute that, and yet you try. When you are under IB, there are no rules available to you than the rules under IB in the codex.
You're right, those are the only rules for IB. But you, apparently, have no idea how to read them.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Really? Where exactly am I wrong with what I've said?
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:Really? Where exactly am I wrong with what I've said?
Just go back and re-read the thread. I've quoted and responded to pretty much everyone's argument.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Eza wrote:Mattlov wrote:Really? Where exactly am I wrong with what I've said?
Just go back and re-read the thread. I've quoted and responded to pretty much everyone's argument.
But you have yet to use actual rules and logic. Your argument boils down to: "It doesn't say I can't."
However those arguing against have several pieces of information that say: "If it doesn't say you can, then you cannot."
We have evidence as described using logic and knowledge of game systems. You have not done either.
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:Eza wrote:Mattlov wrote:Really? Where exactly am I wrong with what I've said?
Just go back and re-read the thread. I've quoted and responded to pretty much everyone's argument.
But you have yet to use actual rules and logic. Your argument boils down to: "It doesn't say I can't."
However those arguing against have several pieces of information that say: "If it doesn't say you can, then you cannot."
We have evidence as described using logic and knowledge of game systems. You have not done either.
No, it has been quite the opposite. And no matter how many times we prove you wrong, it seems, you will continue to think otherwise.
6872
Post by: sourclams
And I thought our Calgar thread was stupid.
8896
Post by: Timmah
I love that Arnaroe's post explains it perfectly and yet you guys ignore it.
Bye.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
arnaroe:
Do the rules for Instinctive Behaviour allow a Tyranid Brood to move if it lurks?
8896
Post by: Timmah
Of course not. It says that the brood remains stationary when it Lurks.
1986
Post by: thehod
Arnaroe does have a good point of RAW allowing for no IB test but the RAI doesnt allow for it. Its an issue you need to bring opponent's consent about.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Timmah:
Tell me if I'm getting this right then.
According to Instinctive Behaviour, the Brood has the options to:
1. Take a Leadership test if the player wants the Brood to move.
2. Remain stationary and Lurk.
3. Do nothing.
6641
Post by: Typeline
Nurglitch wrote:
1. Take a Leadership test if the player wants the Brood to move.
2. Remain stationary and Lurk.
3. Do nothing.
That seems to be what people are saying. Sounds right to me.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Okay, so far so good. Now what were the choices that arnaroe pointed out?
1. Move or don't move
2. Lurk or don't lurk
3. Do nothing
Is that what he was saying?
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Nurglitch wrote:Okay, so far so good. Now what were the choices that arnaroe pointed out?
1. Move or don't move
2. Lurk or don't lurk
3. Do nothing
Is that what he was saying?
No, you have only 2 options (move, lurk) and each option has 2 options (do it or do not do it) as you stated. It has been pointed out that "doing nothing" is meaningless unless it refers to "not moving" and then it is a part of option nr. 1 ("I chose not to move the unit" as per page 11 of the BRB).
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
the problem with this idea of two entirely seperate decision processes giving three options is they cant be independant, you cannot choose to lurk and also to move, this means, depending on the order of the choices, either choosing to move precludes the choice to lurk, or choosing to lurk precludes the choice to move.
By the same token it's entirely possible for the choice to not move to preclude the choice to not lurk or vice versa.
It really gives no more credence to the chosen interpretation as it's no better demonstrating the function of the rules than the very words the rules themselves consist of which have been interpreted to both allow the motionless non-lurking unit and disallow it.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
I wonder how this has spun so far out of control here, there are only 2 options under the rule and you have to choose one of them. Seems pretty clear.
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Drunkspleen wrote:the problem with this idea of two entirely seperate decision processes giving three options is they cant be independant, you cannot choose to lurk and also to move, this means, depending on the order of the choices, either choosing to move precludes the choice to lurk, or choosing to lurk precludes the choice to move.
By the same token it's entirely possible for the choice to not move to preclude the choice to not lurk or vice versa.
It really gives no more credence to the chosen interpretation as it's no better demonstrating the function of the rules than the very words the rules themselves consist of which have been interpreted to both allow the motionless non-lurking unit and disallow it.
There are only two options and each option has two options. There is no secret option nr. 3 since not moving and not lurking is embedded in the rules with the words "may" and "want". When your friend comes up to you and asks: "Do you want to drink this glass of coke or do you want to drink this glass of pepsi?" does it mean that you have to drink form one of the glasses? Is saying "neither" an hidden option nr. 3 or just the an answer that generates from the word "want"? If your friend was going to force you to drink from either glass he would have to include some hint in his choice of words that would imply that you have only these two options and nothing else, something like "must" or "you have to". The same goes for the IB rules. You apply them under certain circumstances (that does not force you to chose one or the other, it only forces you to read the text and apply what it says) and are given these choices: "Do you want to move or do you want to Lurk?" No thanks!
The rules are not independent of each other in the sense that you can not do both at the same time. You can not move and remain stationary during the same movement phase. Whether you chose to apply the Ld rule or the Lurk rule first does therefor not matter since as soon as you say "yes" to one of the rules the other one can not be chosen ("I Lurk and therefor do not have to roll for Ld since I am stationary" or "I move and therefor can not Lurk since I can not remain stationary").
9454
Post by: Mattlov
THe problem with that analogy is this:
There are no other qualifiers on the drink question. With IB, it distinctly says the brood WILL revert to IB. SO the proper analogy is:
You will drink one of these sodas or run away screaming. Would you like the Coke or Pepsi?
Run away screaming = Fall back.
Drink = Lurk or Leadership Test.
That is the proper analogy.
10069
Post by: Eza
Drunkspleen wrote:the problem with this idea of two entirely seperate decision processes giving three options is they cant be independant, you cannot choose to lurk and also to move, this means, depending on the order of the choices, either choosing to move precludes the choice to lurk, or choosing to lurk precludes the choice to move.
By the same token it's entirely possible for the choice to not move to preclude the choice to not lurk or vice versa.
It really gives no more credence to the chosen interpretation as it's no better demonstrating the function of the rules than the very words the rules themselves consist of which have been interpreted to both allow the motionless non-lurking unit and disallow it.
This is, of course, wrong, because it contradicts what the rules say. We've already determined that "alternatively" indicates mutually exclusive, but that's because it uses the word "alternatively" to refer to the act of "lurking." There is nothing there to indicate that "not testing for Ld." is mutually exclusive to "not lurking."
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:THe problem with that analogy is this:
There are no other qualifiers on the drink question. With IB, it distinctly says the brood WILL revert to IB. SO the proper analogy is:
You will drink one of these sodas or run away screaming. Would you like the Coke or Pepsi?
Run away screaming = Fall back.
Drink = Lurk or Leadership Test.
That is the proper analogy.
Eza wrote:Mattlov wrote:Eza wrote:
I don't honestly understand how you can so consistently misinterpret common words. "Will revert to IB..." is just indicating you will be restricted in what you can normally do. We all get this. You then must then read the actual rules for IB. That is what is being debated. Is that so hard to understand? IB rules are limiting you in a specific way, not in an all inclusive way. You are specifically limited in regard to things involving moving, shooting, assaulting etc. No where does it say you are in turn denied the option to have the brood not act. The first rule is a rule restricting from moving freely as you would normally. It's specifically worded to relate to things that involve moving. The second rule gives you an option of something else you can do if you don't move. It does not list things you cannot do. It does not, anywhere in there, indicate a mandatory action by the player to have the brood do something.
Actually, it does. The third rule. They will ALWAYS fall back if possible. That is what you have to do if you don't roll Leadership or don't Lurk. Unless there is solid, impassable terrain around you they will fall back.
You can't argue the "alternative" option and ignore the ALWAYS rule.
Actually, I can.
That rule says:
Tyranids always fall back towards the nearest SC if possible - if there are no SC on the board they will fall back towards the nearest Tyranid table edge.
This is just showing what creatures, who have reverted to IB, do when falling back. It doesn't say if that you did not test for Ld. or Lurk, that they will then fall back. Because otherwise, the brood would be under Synapse and therefore would never fall back, because they are Fearless.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Fine. Argue this, because none of you have yet properly:
Will revert to IB.
That means you must follow one of the rules under IB. Simple. Can't argue that. It's what the codex says in plain, obvious English.
How is standing there IB? It isn't an option.
Think of your job: Your boss gives you some general orders, but says you will do one of them. You are given the options of:
1. Do something different, but still job related, but justify the reason for me to pay you for it.
2. Stay in the office and loiter.
3. Just clock out and go home.
What other options do you have?
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:Fine. Argue this, because none of you have yet properly:
Will revert to IB.
That means you must follow one of the rules under IB. Simple. Can't argue that. It's what the codex says in plain, obvious English.
Actually, we can argue that because it is what we've been arguing in this entire thread... The word "must" is used no where in the rules. Obviously, you can't read plain, obvious English.
Mattlov wrote:
Think of your job: Your boss gives you some general orders, but says you will do one of them. You are given the options of:
1. Do your own thing, but justify the reason for me to pay you for it.
2. Stay in the office and loiter.
3. Just clock out and go home.
What other options do you have?
The format of your scenario does not match that of the rules we are arguing. Try again.
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Mattlov wrote:THe problem with that analogy is this:
There are no other qualifiers on the drink question. With IB, it distinctly says the brood WILL revert to IB. SO the proper analogy is:
You will drink one of these sodas or run away screaming. Would you like the Coke or Pepsi?
Run away screaming = Fall back.
Drink = Lurk or Leadership Test.
That is the proper analogy.
The problem with your analogy is that you are giving IB value that derives from the way you think that the rules should work.
The fact that a unit WILL revert to IB and that the given rules are applied has nothing to do with how the actual rules work. The clause you are referring to really says: "You will revert to the following rules. Apply them." At that point we look at the rules and see what they say. The fact that we have to apply them and that the unit will revert to them tells us nothing about how they really work. Its like saying: "You must apply the rules for difficult terrain when moving through difficult terrain." That sentence does not include how the rules work just that you must apply them.
So to use your analogy as a base:
You will do what your friend wants you to do or you run away screaming. Do you want to drink this glass of coke or do you want to drink this glass of pepsi? Since you ask I would rather be thirsty.
What friend tells you = The rules are applied but no reference on how the actually work or else we would not be having this argument.
Run away screaming = Fall back.
Drink = Lurk or Leadership Test.
Thirsty = Since both choices are optional I will chose neither.
Edit: Changed bad wording on my behalf, "you will listen to what..." to "you will do what..."
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Mattlov wrote:
Will revert to IB.
That means you must follow one of the rules under IB. Simple. Can't argue that. It's what the codex says in plain, obvious English.
How is standing there IB? It isn't an option.
No it does not say that the unit has to follow ONE of the rules it says that a unit has to follow BOTH rules (actually it should be "all" rules but the third one is not debatet).
Since both rules are optional (may/want) and "not moving" is an option given by BRB (page 11) it is clear that the unit can chose that option.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
No, it could be implied at best.
Rules are clearly defined because this is a game. They have to be. Otherwise, these kinds of arguments occur.
The rules distinctly say you will revert to IB if you are out of synapse range. No argument.
So you follow the three rules given for IB. If you don't do one of those things, you are not following the rule which says: Will revert to IB. Thus breaking the rules. In order to be in accordance with IB, you must follow at least one of the rules for it.
Just make the Leadership test and stand there.
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote: In order to be in accordance with IB, you must follow at least one of the rules for it.
Yes, except the rules for IB don't say that.
746
Post by: don_mondo
Will revert to IB. Means you will ie 'must' follow the IB rules, which do not have any options such as you continually espouse. Quit ignoring this line. Will revert to IB.
10069
Post by: Eza
don_mondo wrote:Will revert to IB. Means you will ie 'must' follow the IB rules, which do not have any options such as you continually espouse. Quit ignoring this line. Will revert to IB.
arnaroe wrote:Mattlov wrote:THe problem with that analogy is this:
There are no other qualifiers on the drink question. With IB, it distinctly says the brood WILL revert to IB. SO the proper analogy is:
You will drink one of these sodas or run away screaming. Would you like the Coke or Pepsi?
Run away screaming = Fall back.
Drink = Lurk or Leadership Test.
That is the proper analogy.
The problem with your analogy is that you are giving IB value that derives from the way you think that the rules should work.
The fact that a unit WILL revert to IB and that the given rules are applied has nothing to do with how the actual rules work. The clause you are referring to really says: "You will revert to the following rules. Apply them." At that point we look at the rules and see what they say. The fact that we have to apply them and that the unit will revert to them tells us nothing about how they really work. Its like saying: "You must apply the rules for difficult terrain when moving through difficult terrain." That sentence does not include how the rules work just that you must apply them.
So to use your analogy as a base:
You will do what your friend wants you to do or you run away screaming. Do you want to drink this glass of coke or do you want to drink this glass of pepsi? Since you ask I would rather be thirsty.
What friend tells you = The rules are applied but no reference on how the actually work or else we would not be having this argument.
Run away screaming = Fall back.
Drink = Lurk or Leadership Test.
Thirsty = Since both choices are optional I will chose neither.
Edit: Changed bad wording on my behalf, "you will listeb to what..." to "you will do what..."
Do you guys even read before you post?
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Mattlov wrote:No, it could be implied at best.
Rules are clearly defined because this is a game. They have to be. Otherwise, these kinds of arguments occur.
The rules distinctly say you will revert to IB if you are out of synapse range. No argument.
So you follow the three rules given for IB. If you don't do one of those things, you are not following the rule which says: Will revert to IB. Thus breaking the rules. In order to be in accordance with IB, you must follow at least one of the rules for it.
Just make the Leadership test and stand there.
The fact that I am arguing this does not mean I leave my Gaunts outside of synapse.
We all agree that IB rules MUST be applied, there is no point in arguing that any more. We seem to differ on how the rules called IB work. I say that by "not moving" a unit of Gaunts is following the first rule of IB, "if you want to move", and by not Lurking it is following the second, "you may Lurk".
Let me summarise my argument and then maybe someone on the opposite side could do the same:
1) Both rules of IB contain the word may/want and therefor look like a choice. Not moving the unit is using one of the options available in the first rule, hens reverting to IB.
2) Not moving is an option found in the BRB, page 11.
3) Special rules that change the basic rules must do so in a surgical manner (change only what the text says to change) otherwise Skimmers can not pivot freely and a player can not measure movement distance after rolling for difficult terrain to see how far his unit can go.
4) When comparing the wording of the IB rules one notices that the last one is clear on the fact that it is not optional. Similar wording can not be found in the other rules.
To summarise the summary: Choosing not to move is a part of IB since the rules include an option (may/want) and they do not forbid me to use an legitimate option from the BRB.
10069
Post by: Eza
arnaroe wrote:Mattlov wrote:No, it could be implied at best.
Rules are clearly defined because this is a game. They have to be. Otherwise, these kinds of arguments occur.
The rules distinctly say you will revert to IB if you are out of synapse range. No argument.
So you follow the three rules given for IB. If you don't do one of those things, you are not following the rule which says: Will revert to IB. Thus breaking the rules. In order to be in accordance with IB, you must follow at least one of the rules for it.
Just make the Leadership test and stand there.
The fact that I am arguing this does not mean I leave my Gaunts outside of synapse.
We all agree that IB rules MUST be applied, there is no point in arguing that any more. We seem to differ on how the rules called IB work. I say that by "not moving" a unit of Gaunts is following the first rule of IB, "if you want to move", and by not Lurking it is following the second, "you may Lurk".
Let me summarise my argument and then maybe someone on the opposite side could do the same:
1) Both rules of IB contain the word may/want and therefor look like a choice. Not moving the unit is using one of the options available in the first rule, hens reverting to IB.
2) Not moving is an option found in the BRB, page 11.
3) Special rules that change the basic rules must do so in a surgical manner (change only what the text says to change) otherwise Skimmers can not pivot freely and a player can not measure movement distance after rolling for difficult terrain to see how far his unit can go.
4) When comparing the wording of the IB rules one notices that the last one is clear on the fact that it is not optional. Similar wording can not be found in the other rules.
To summarise the summary: Choosing not to move is a part of IB since the rules include an option (may/want) and they do not forbid me to use an legitimate option from the BRB.
To further reinforce arnaroe's point:
Pg. 11 of the BRB,
Movement Phase
In his turn, a player may move any of his units – all of
them if he wishes – up to their maximum movement
distance. Once a unit has completed all of its
movement, the player selects another unit and moves
that one, and so on, until the player has moved all of
the units he wishes to move. Note that a player doesn’t
have to move all (or indeed any) of his units. A unit
that doesn’t move is often more effective at shooting,
as we will explain later in the rules. Once you have
started moving a unit, you must finish its move before
you start to move another unit. You may not go back
and change the move already made by a previous unit.
Pg. 9 of the BRB,
THE TURN SEQUENCE
1 The Movement phase
The player can move any of his units that are
capable of doing so. See the Movement rules
for more details of how to move your forces.
2 The Shooting phase
The player can shoot with any of his units that
can see an enemy. See the Shooting rules for
more details about how to resolve this.
3 The Assault phase
The player can move any of his units to assault
the enemy if they are close enough. Assaults
are bloody, desperate affairs where units are
fighting in close combat. This means that both
forces can fight in an Assault phase, but only
the player whose turn it is can move into an
assault. The Assault rules will tell you more
about them.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/can
"can"
[i]–auxiliary verb
1. to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to: She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.
2. to know how to: He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.
3. to have the power or means to: A dictator can impose his will on the people.
4. to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.
5. may; have permission to: Can I speak to you for a moment?
6. to have the possibility: A coin can land on either side.
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
7. Obsolete. to know.
8896
Post by: Timmah
Just an FYI
Rules do not equal options you must choose.
2 The Shooting phase
The player can shoot with any of his units that
can see an enemy. See the Shooting rules for
more details about how to resolve this.
I don't see a 2nd option to this rule, therefore all of your units MUST shoot right? right?
I choose not to move my brood and not to Lurk. Now show me which of the IB RULES (not options) I have broken.
746
Post by: don_mondo
And round and round it goes, gotta love the merry-go-round.
Simply put, neither side is going to change the others mind.
1. Believes that IB is mandatory and only those options allowed within the IB rule itself are available to a unit outside synapse. Test or Lurk no other options.
2. Disagrees, believes that the unit may make use of options outside the IB rule by not using the IB rule. (Poorly phrased, I know, I'll let one of the supporters rephrase it as they desire.)
Anyways, we know what the GW askyour question says. Can't 'not move'. All we can hope for at this point is that it gets kicked up for an FAQ.
Gotta give this question one thing, it's certainly boosted a couple of people's post counts.......... Now, anyone know how to put a whole topic on ignore?
10069
Post by: Eza
don_mondo wrote:
2. Disagrees, believes that the unit may make use of options outside the IB rule by not using the IB rule.
2. Disagrees, believes that the unit may make use of options inside the IB rules by adhering to the each IB rule.
don_mondo wrote:
(Poorly phrased, I know, I'll let one of the supporters rephrase it as they desire.)
Yes, yes indeed.
don_mondo wrote:
Anyways, we know what the GW askyour question says. Can't 'not move'.
No, it actually did not say this. The response said "kinda" and then proceeded to quote the first IB rule and elaborate on what you can do if you pass your Ld. test. And to be honest, the question was worded just as poorly as the rule itself. Quote will be at the end of this post.
don_mondo wrote:
Now, anyone know how to put a whole topic on ignore?
Spiteful much? Just ignore it yourself.
Nurglitch wrote:John Spencer, Private Email wrote:Hello,
Answers to your questions are below.
Thanks!
John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist
Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!
Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060
Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST
Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custserv@games-workshop.com
Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nurglitch [mailto:Nurglitch]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:19 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: A couple of questions
Hey,
I was wondering about the following things:
1. Can Tyranids following Instinctive Behaviour do something besides Lurking or taking a Leadership test to move?
Kinda. If you pass your leadership test to move, the brood may act normally. So they may shoot and assault and do everything else a unit can normally do.
2. Does the Power of the Machine Spirit enable a Land Raider that has used its Smoke Launchers to fire one weapon?
Nope, if a Land Raider uses its Smoke Launchers it cannot fire.
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
regarding nurglitch's e-mail, the response is so poorly worded that I struggle to believe that he understood the question.
I personally sent one off a few days back which was worded alot clearer as asking if you can opt to not take a leadership test and to not lurk at the same time but they didn't get to it before the weekend.
8489
Post by: padixon
2. Disagrees, believes that the unit may make use of options inside the IB rules by adhering to the each IB rule.
I have to ask this. What is the point of even having an Instinctive Behavior rule if you can do what ever you want anyway. It sounds like you are applying the IB rule only when you want to move your unit (when it is supposed to be in effect when not in synapse). So, you think that when you want to move your unit (when out of synapse) is when they are prone to going to 'lurk' mode?
Look, the rule is supposed to represent a unit that you do not have a firm control over, so you roll their crappy leadership to try to control the unit, and if you cannot than the unit just sits there.
This makes no sense. Why would they be subject to IB only when THE PLAYER wants to MOVE the unit? This is not IB at all. IB is a disadvantage to tyranids. Its the counter to having synapse in the first place. The way it sounds is that some people are turning this axiom disadvantage into an advantage, or at the very least creating a work around that comes to their advantage...some people love to rules lawyer this game. In in my opinion this is breaking the most important rule of the game in the first place 'Have Fun'. Your making full use of the awesome rule of synapse and not applying the appropriate disadvantage to it. Totally not fun for the other player.
8915
Post by: arnaroe
padixon wrote:2. Disagrees, believes that the unit may make use of options inside the IB rules by adhering to the each IB rule.
I have to ask this. What is the point of even having an Instinctive Behavior rule if you can do what ever you want anyway. It sounds like you are applying the IB rule only when you want to move your unit (when it is supposed to be in effect when not in synapse). So, you think that when you want to move your unit (when out of synapse) is when they are prone to going to 'lurk' mode?
Look, the rule is supposed to represent a unit that you do not have a firm control over, so you roll their crappy leadership to try to control the unit, and if you cannot than the unit just sits there.
This makes no sense. Why would they be subject to IB only when THE PLAYER wants to MOVE the unit? This is not IB at all. IB is a disadvantage to tyranids. Its the counter to having synapse in the first place. The way it sounds is that some people are turning this axiom disadvantage into an advantage, or at the very least creating a work around that comes to their advantage...some people love to rules lawyer this game. In in my opinion this is breaking the most important rule of the game in the first place 'Have Fun'. Your making full use of the awesome rule of synapse and not applying the appropriate disadvantage to it. Totally not fun for the other player.
Why do people think that "not moving" is an advantage? When I play I look at it as an disadvantage since I have to go and collect my units with a Synapse node. Lurking is the real advantage since it is actually more beneficial to the stranded unit up to 6/7 turns in the game.
I find it unfair to implement this discussion with inappropriate behavior. This is how I first understood the rule when I read the codex for the very first time. I find this to be the "right" way to read the text of the codex and I am therefor not arguing this to the bitter end to create a loop hole for my self or others. Since I look at my Gaunts as an valuable asset I support them with Synapse most of the time so this rule seldom comes up. I am even willing to bet that no more than 2 of my games have been won, since 5th, by a stranded Gaunt. Implying that this is being done to create a loop hole only supports Eza's theory that the opposite interpretation has no real argument.
10069
Post by: Eza
padixon wrote:2. Disagrees, believes that the unit may make use of options inside the IB rules by adhering to the each IB rule.
I have to ask this. What is the point of even having an Instinctive Behavior rule if you can do what ever you want anyway. It sounds like you are applying the IB rule only when you want to move your unit (when it is supposed to be in effect when not in synapse). So, you think that when you want to move your unit (when out of synapse) is when they are prone to going to 'lurk' mode?
Look, the rule is supposed to represent a unit that you do not have a firm control over, so you roll their crappy leadership to try to control the unit, and if you cannot than the unit just sits there.
This makes no sense. Why would they be subject to IB only when THE PLAYER wants to MOVE the unit? This is not IB at all. IB is a disadvantage to tyranids. Its the counter to having synapse in the first place. The way it sounds is that some people are turning this axiom disadvantage into an advantage, or at the very least creating a work around that comes to their advantage...some people love to rules lawyer this game. In in my opinion this is breaking the most important rule of the game in the first place 'Have Fun'. Your making full use of the awesome rule of synapse and not applying the appropriate disadvantage to it. Totally not fun for the other player.
I agree with Arnaroe, not moving is a disadvantage. Also, IB limits the brood with either interpretation, so to say otherwise is just asinine. In regard to the "rules lawyer" bit, I feel the exact same about the people arguing your interpretation.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
But not moving in this case is a complete advantage. You are circumventing the rules to suddenly create a scoring unit at the end of the game.
Moving is only an advantage in 40K for vehicles, which become harder to hit in CC. In all other aspects, moving is rarely an advantage or disadvantage since it does not affect any other modifiers.
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Mattlov:
Not being able to move is an disadvantage in the sense that the unit is stuck where it is, i.e. it can not move without an Ld test. Being scoring is only advantageous if you apply you understanding to the rules. You say that the gaunt are never scoring when not moving but I say they are always scoring unless Lurking. In the case of the latter, being scoring is not an advantage since it is an "ability" the unit possesses in the first place.
What this boils down to is that you seem to avoid debating the key elements of this discussion and the main weight of your argument seem to be in the RAI area. If your interpretation is correct my previous summary with additional comments from Eza and Timmah must be incorrect. Would you care to explain to me why that is the case?
9454
Post by: Mattlov
The way I see it and have seen it this way in many, many games is very simple, and I have stated it several times.
I believe that a unit out of IB must do one of the IB rules. If it is just going to stand there, I make the Leadership test.
When I see special rules, I tend to believe (unless otherwise obviously stated in those rules) that you must follow those rules and no others are allowed. Rules and structure are the basis of games, without them you just don't have a game.
So when I see the "will revert to IB" I see that part as the end of the discussion. I MUST do one of those three bullet points under IB. Standing there without a check or Lurking is not an option, since it says if I'm not moving, I'm Lurking.
I read the "alternative" part of that statement as "Lurking is an alternative to making the Check or Falling Back." I see no other options since those are all the options for IB.
The way I have always understood 40K is that if there is a codex rule for something, it is generally all inclusive. When it gives me the rules for something and gives options, those are the only options I see. Codex always trumps the rulebook and nowhere under IB is stnading there without a check an option.
We cannot prove each other wrong simply because we can both be right. Both ways can be interpreted correctly, depending on how hard and strictly you apply the rules. This is a matter of interpretation, and I go to the very literal definition when it deals with rules. IMO, that is the only way to enforce rules. You and Eza think differently and that isn't a fault, but to my mindset it seems like skating around IB and eliminating the penalty for being out of synapse.
8896
Post by: Timmah
Once again Rules do not = options.
Show me which rule I am breaking by just standing there.
The Outflank special rule says:
Units with scout may outflank.
It has no under options under the outflank special rule. Now are you going to tell me all scouts MUST outflank because that is their only option under outflank?
10069
Post by: Eza
Mattlov wrote:
I believe that a unit out of IB must do one of the IB rules. If it is just going to stand there, I make the Leadership test.
Your belief is RAI. If you were forced to make a Ld. test, it would specifically say so.
Mattlov wrote:
When I see special rules, I tend to believe (unless otherwise obviously stated in those rules) that you must follow those rules and no others are allowed. Rules and structure are the basis of games, without them you just don't have a game.
This is fine, but you still haven't proven how "not testing for Ld." and "not lurking" is breaking those rules, since the rules don't indicate that you must do one of those two. Hence the words "if" and "may."
Mattlov wrote:
So when I see the "will revert to IB" I see that part as the end of the discussion. I MUST do one of those three bullet points under IB. Standing there without a check or Lurking is not an option, since it says if I'm not moving, I'm Lurking.
"Will revert to IB," as Arnaroe has pointed out, does not tell us anything about the rules for IB, other than you must follow them. And since the rules for IB dont say "The brood must act in at least one of the following ways," it makes that argument invalid.
Mattlov wrote:
I read the "alternative" part of that statement as "Lurking is an alternative to making the Check or Falling Back." I see no other options since those are all the options for IB.
"Lurking" is an alternative to testing for Ld., yes, but "Falling back" is not an option. That rule is simply telling how you fall back when that situation occurs. Secondly, for the ridiculously-absurd-high-number time, "alternatively" does not, according to any definition of the word, indicate a mandatory choice.
Mattlov wrote:
The way I have always understood 40K is that if there is a codex rule for something, it is generally all inclusive. When it gives me the rules for something and gives options, those are the only options I see. Codex always trumps the rulebook and nowhere under IB is stnading there without a check an option.
You would be frequently making bad assumptions about rules if you always interpreted rules to be all inclusive. They are only all inclusive when they specifically indicate so. The rules for IB are specifically worded with terms such as "if" and "may," which indicate the the free will of choice.
Mattlov wrote:
We cannot prove each other wrong simply because we can both be right. Both ways can be interpreted correctly, depending on how hard and strictly you apply the rules. This is a matter of interpretation, and I go to the very literal definition when it deals with rules. IMO, that is the only way to enforce rules. You and Eza think differently and that isn't a fault, but to my mindset it seems like skating around IB and eliminating the penalty for being out of synapse.
I strongly disagree. I believe your interpretation is not at all based on literal interpretation of the wording of the rules. I believe you are applying more wishful intent and RAI than applying strict definitions of the words used in the rules.
9345
Post by: Lukus83
Eza, I think its you who is applying wishful intent. Lurking a unit all game giving it a 3+ cover save then on the last turn....oh im not gonna lurk anymore, theres my objective taken. U already agreed that IB is meant to be restrictive on nid players. In the circumstance I just showed you tell me where the restriction is.
TBH im sick of this thread. People really trying THAT hard to cheat just because GW didnt clarify properly in the codex (which is all it pretty much comes down to). In terms of wording in the dex...yes eza is right...but is that honestly the way YOU think the game is meant to be played. Its just one big cheap shot if you ask me.
10069
Post by: Eza
Lukus83 wrote:
Eza, I think its you who is applying wishful intent. Lurking a unit all game giving it a 3+ cover save then on the last turn....oh im not gonna lurk anymore, theres my objective taken. U already agreed that IB is meant to be restrictive on nid players. In the circumstance I just showed you tell me where the restriction is.
Well, for one, that's a very specific scenario. There's no guarantee that your objective is going to be in or near cover to begin with. Also, if you're leaving a unit of gaunts behind to capture an objective and they can't move or assault or really much of anything else, then not only are they pretty useless(aside from objective capturing), but they are also pretty vulnerable to attack, whether it be from weapons that ignore cover, mass shots, or be it from assaulting. If you're playing an objective based mission, its going to be a pretty big priority for your opponent to deny you objectives. So, if you aren't protecting your scoring units, then I'd say that's a pretty big disadvantage. Objective based missions weren't even used often in the previous edition. So to say it was the intent of the creators to deny specifically gaunts(remember that troops weren't the only scoring units in 4th ed.) from scoring when out of range of synapse, is pretty silly. Remember that the average roll of a 2d6 is 7 so the odds of them passing a Ld. test is unlikely.
Lukus83 wrote:
TBH im sick of this thread.
Then just ignore the thread. You aren't adding anything useful to this thread by stating this.
Lukus83 wrote:
People really trying THAT hard to cheat just because GW didnt clarify properly in the codex (which is all it pretty much comes down to).
It's not cheating. Cheating would be a breaking a rule.
Lukus83 wrote:
In terms of wording in the dex...yes eza is right...but is that honestly the way YOU think the game is meant to be played. Its just one big cheap shot if you ask me.
Yes, I do think that is the way for it to be played. Until GW releases some sort of clarification, it's completely legitimate in my opinion. I mean, let's face it, Tyranids don't have a lot of durable troop choices unless you take mass gaunts. Not every Nid player wants to run lists like that and Genestealers aren't much more durable and cost a heck of a lot more points, so I think its more then fair.
I think its a cheap shot to argue otherwise.
9454
Post by: Mattlov
For all we know we are BOTH wrong.
The codex and rules are written in the Queen's English after all...
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Lukus83:
Don't forget that thanks to random game length the unit will only gain the advantage of Lurk for 2-3 turns depending on marker placement (1 - synapse, 2 - 3 - 4 Lurk, 5+ not Lurk).
Mattlov:
This can be true with every rule. For all we know we could be misunderstanding the rules for movement, for an example. This is just an side-effect of the fact that we are interpreting a text instead of having a game designer at hand to explain everything to us. Regardless, we have to give meaning to the text and if there are ambiguities some argument will take place. The side with stronger argument usually wins despite the fact in might be wrong.
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Hello,
Yes, they can choose not to move and not to lurk. Please note, this will prevent
them from being able to assault.
Thanks!
John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist
Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!
Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060
Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST
Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custserv@games-workshop.com
Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Arnar Óskar Egilsson [mailto:aoe6@hi.is]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:39 AM
To: US Customer Service
Subject: Rules questions
Hi,
Can a unit of Gaunts that is out of Synapse Range opt not to move and not
to Lurk when checking for Instinctive Behavior?
The reason for the question is that in both the "move..." entry and Lurk
entry have the words "want" or "may" in them.
Thanks,
Arnar
9454
Post by: Mattlov
Well color me surprised.
Very well. Of course, I am almost willing to bet money you could send that question again and get a different answer.
But that's a GW problem, not us.
Good to know!
And no, I have intention of apologizing.
I still could have been right.
I declare this thread over!
4681
Post by: gaylord500
So why would doing that prevent them from assaulting? Is it because not being able to move always means no assault move, or is it something else that I'm missing?
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
I'm pretty sure it's exactly what you say gaylord, It does say if you want to move the brood "for any reason" you must pass the leadership test, so not opting to do it would mean no run or assault move.
10278
Post by: Ct_drummer_boi
This is an issue that is discussed in SO many forums across the web. In the majority of the ones i've read, most of the players argue that trying to pull this is just a cheap move.
The IB rule clearly states "may" and "alternatively" for your choices. This is just everyone readng into it far too much. Its choice one or two.
Lurk, or make a check and score. Make the choice. Don't try to con your way into overriding IB in some cheap way.
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Ct_drummer_boi wrote:This is an issue that is discussed in SO many forums across the web. In the majority of the ones i've read, most of the players argue that trying to pull this is just a cheap move.
The IB rule clearly states "may" and "alternatively" for your choices. This is just everyone readng into it far too much. Its choice one or two.
Lurk, or make a check and score. Make the choice. Don't try to con your way into overriding IB in some cheap way.
Read the posts, mate.
1) This has nothing to do with cheap moves or loopholes.
2) The wording is not clear so that you MUST read further.
3) The only argument for the "only two choices" interpretation seems to be RAI.
4) There are a lot of arguments for the "not move" interpretation that are generated from RAW.
Read the rules. Your Tyranid opponent can Lurk, make a check or stay. He can make those choices. Don't try to con your opponent into overriding IB in some cheap way.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
Nope, the rule clearly states 2 options nothing more. So dont let your opponent override IB in some cheap way.
6745
Post by: Sok
Good. Grief.
Can we just agree that the guy from GW knows what he's talking about? I must admit, I was of the opinion that it was EITHER test OR lust, but it seems I was wrong. I suppose it's a handy thing to know now I'm considering starting a horde Tyranid army...
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Kallbrand wrote:Nope, the rule clearly states 2 options nothing more. So dont let your opponent override IB in some cheap way.
Nope, the rule clearly states more than 2 options. So dont let your opponent override IB in some cheap way.
5760
Post by: Drunkspleen
well no, the rule clearly does state 2 options he is right there, the argument revolves around the level of optionality(is this a word?) of the situation.
Personally as much as it seems a bit funky to me, I'm gonna go with the new rules service until it's actually shown to be somehow flawed, so I'm happy enough.
8915
Post by: arnaroe
Drunkspleen wrote:well no, the rule clearly does state 2 options he is right there, the argument revolves around the level of optionality(is this a word?) of the situation.
Personally as much as it seems a bit funky to me, I'm gonna go with the new rules service until it's actually shown to be somehow flawed, so I'm happy enough.
I stand corrected on that one. Thanks Drunkspleen.
I was trying to point out that Kallbrands statement is meaningless in this discussion since it does not present any argument. Opinions do not matter when arguing rules.
10283
Post by: fraustdemon
I've played it as only 2 options, saw the presentations in this thread, and checked with the GW email service with wording similar to arnaroe. This is what was returned:
Hello,
Gaunts that are subject to Instinctive Behavior can move, lurk or do nothing.
Thanks!
John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist
Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!
Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060
Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:00 Am to 7:00 PM EST
Contact info:
1-888-248-2335
custserv@games-workshop.com
Or visit us online at:
www.games-workshop.com
From: ********************
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:30 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: Tyranid Instinctive Behavior Question
Hello,
Can a unit of Gaunts that is out of Synapse Range opt not to move and not
to Lurk when checking for Instinctive Behavior?
The reason for the question is that in both the "move..." entry and Lurk
entry have the words "want" or "may" in them.
In this case, would they be a scoring unit at that point?
different wording on the answer, same Representative.
10069
Post by: Eza
Drunkspleen wrote:well no, the rule clearly does state 2 options he is right there, the argument revolves around the level of optionality(is this a word?) of the situation.
Personally as much as it seems a bit funky to me, I'm gonna go with the new rules service until it's actually shown to be somehow flawed, so I'm happy enough.
Well, not that this is that important at this point, but no, its 3 rules listed and technically 4 options from which you can choose.
Eza wrote: In the rules we are discussing, there are(without going into the different combinations) technically 4 possibilities.
1. Testing for Ld. in an attempt to move the brood.
2. Not testing for Ld.
3. Having the brood Lurk.
4. Not having the brood lurk.
6619
Post by: willjudge
A great test for instinctive behaviour is to take a pencil, and move it D6" towards your eye. I'm not a very well trained individual when it comes to withstanding pain, so I lost my leadership test and closed my eye instinctively. No third option presented itself.
Why bother calling the rule instinctive behaviour if you can ignore it? Instincts require discipline to ignore, but I guess you'll argue that they could have called the rule something else. My $0.02 in any case.
10069
Post by: Eza
willjudge wrote:A great test for instinctive behaviour is to take a pencil, and move it D6" towards your eye. I'm not a very well trained individual when it comes to withstanding pain, so I lost my leadership test and closed my eye instinctively. No third option presented itself.
Why bother calling the rule instinctive behaviour if you can ignore it? Instincts require discipline to ignore, but I guess you'll argue that they could have called the rule something else. My $0.02 in any case.
Heh. That made absolutely no sense.
8915
Post by: arnaroe
willjudge wrote:A great test for instinctive behaviour is to take a pencil, and move it D6" towards your eye. I'm not a very well trained individual when it comes to withstanding pain, so I lost my leadership test and closed my eye instinctively. No third option presented itself.
Why bother calling the rule instinctive behaviour if you can ignore it? Instincts require discipline to ignore, but I guess you'll argue that they could have called the rule something else. My $0.02 in any case.
Since you can move the pencil if you want the "secret option" is to refuse to move it at all. That way you do not have to test your willpower. However, if you would chose to move the pencil you would have to roll for that Ld test (and hopefully you fail it since jamming a pencil into your eye might cause damage). Alternatively, you can just close your eye right away and therefor reducing the possibility of any eye damage.
|
|