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.

Shennanigans

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.

Eza wrote:

Eza wrote: You really need to stop making such assumptions.

answer in the. . . blind assertion?

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, I guess we will keep argueing this till you definately prove otherwise...and so far you haven't.

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.

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).

Unreasonable 'references' the word reasonable, but they don't mean the same thing.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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)

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

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)

Hey Timmah, could you re-write your post using English? It's rather difficult to follow in its current state.

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.

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.

Where are my mispellings (not even a word), and strange punctuation?

I would say both of my outlines of the arguments flowed pretty well.

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.