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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Actually, those aren't suggested. Those are mandatory if you wish not to break the rules. Now you guys are being asinine.

No, we are just applying your logic to the rules.

InquisitorFabius wrote:No, we are just applying your logic to the rules.

Misapplying*

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You've both been shown, numerous times. Sorry you're not willing to accept the truth.

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...

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).

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.

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.

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.

Really? Where exactly am I wrong with what I've said?

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.

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.

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.

And I thought our Calgar thread was stupid.