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.

I love that Arnaroe's post explains it perfectly and yet you guys ignore it.

Bye.

arnaroe:

Do the rules for Instinctive Behaviour allow a Tyranid Brood to move if it lurks?

Of course not. It says that the brood remains stationary when it Lurks.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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").

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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..."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.