Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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".

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?

You still haven't proven anything other your own interpretation of a sub-set of the rules.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.

Except the majority of the Tyranid players speaking up have cried shennanigans.

shrug