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.

There is now a tactic where you park a unit of gaunts on a objective and have them lurk the whole game(getting +1 to thier cover save), on turn 6 they stop lurking and hold the objective. My question is on that turn they stop lurking do they have to test or can you just stand there?

In one reading they must test because they are not lurking and the lurk rule is given as an alternative to 'moving.'

On another reason you may simply not move them and therefore they don't have to test. My question is, is there a 3rd option that is not in covered in the instinctive behavior rules. Can you just stand there not lurking(and not taking an objective) but not test as you don't want to move?

Cogito

Yes, by the RAW you have the option to not move the unit without lurking it and doing so would not require an IB test.

However, I would imagine that such a maneuver will feel like a cheap shot to some players so I would bring it up far before the last turn so they know what is coming and have a chance to counter it.

'Springing' it on your opponent in the last turn is a sure way to get your sportsmanship scores dinged (or lose some friends).


But yeah, it's totally legal by the RAW.

eh... I think that is debatable.

The second bullet point uses the term "Alternately..."; which I think gives the rules a strong 'either/or' aspect. It is not rock solid, but I think it is strong enough that you can't say for sure that you have a third option.

yakface wrote:
Yes, by the RAW you have the option to not move the unit without lurking it and doing so would not require an IB test.

However, I would imagine that such a maneuver will feel like a cheap shot to some players so I would bring it up far before the last turn so they know what is coming and have a chance to counter it.

'Springing' it on your opponent in the last turn is a sure way to get your sportsmanship scores dinged (or lose some friends).

But yeah, it's totally legal by the RAW.

Anything that is legal by RAW has nothing to do with YOUR sportsmanship score, but HIS inability to accept and play by the rules--in effect, HE is being a poor sport because HE doesn't care for what you are doing.

This behaviour should not be encouraged nor tolerated.

Should one inform your opponent that your drop pod hasn't arrived yet but will automatically enter on turn 5?

Of course not.

If GW did not want players doing this, they should have changed the rules when 5th edition was released.

They haven't, it's legal, and if they can't figure out your TROOPS squad in the back is going to take the objective they get what's coming.

Sportsmanship is just that, being a good sport. That *is* different than following the letter of the rules. No one blames you for tackling someone in (american) football, but you are a 'good sport' when you help them up. There are a lot of things that are 'legal' in sports, but doing them will earn you a rep for being 'unsportsmanlike'.

Of the several dozen Nid players that I interact with, I have never heard this interpretation of the rules presented. So to go to a game, knowing you are trying to 'sneak' this into the game; is not showing good sportsmanship. And yes, sneak is the correct word, even if it is RAW (Which I will disagree with).

Yes, everyone is expected to know the rules; but when you know that 99.9% of the people play it differently, and you are trying to take advantage of that fact.... that is simply poor sportsmanship.

Sportsmanship is dealing with it when someone shows you a rule you didn't know before a battle. Poor sportsmanship is getting angry and marking down someone's score because they knew a rule you didn't.

If it's legal by RAW and you don't like it get angry at GW, not your opponent. That's just childish.

Democratus wrote:Sportsmanship is dealing with it when someone shows you a rule you didn't know before a battle. Poor sportsmanship is getting angry and marking down someone's score because they knew a rule you didn't.

If it's legal by RAW and you don't like it get angry at GW, not your opponent. That's just childish.

so right.

I don't see this as being much of a tactic, what prevents lurking tyranids from claiming an objective?

Stelek wrote:

Anything that is legal by RAW has nothing to do with YOUR sportsmanship score, but HIS inability to accept and play by the rules--in effect, HE is being a poor sport because HE doesn't care for what you are doing.

This behaviour should not be encouraged nor tolerated.

Should one inform your opponent that your drop pod hasn't arrived yet but will automatically enter on turn 5?

Of course not.

If GW did not want players doing this, they should have changed the rules when 5th edition was released.

They haven't, it's legal, and if they can't figure out your TROOPS squad in the back is going to take the objective they get what's coming.

This attitude may be a reason for your self avowed poor scoring on the sportsmanship front.

Sazzlefrats wrote:I don't see this as being much of a tactic, what prevents lurking tyranids from claiming an objective?

The Tyranid codex. Page 28, in the section describing the rules being discussed.


I had never read the Instinctive Behaviour rules as optional, though - as the rules state otherwise.
Out of Synapse + not falling back + not in combat = Instinctive Behaviour.

Instinctive Behaviour = Leadership check to move or Lurk. There is not a third option. There is a third Bullet Point describing fall back moves made by Tyranids but I am not sure how that is related.

I keep re-reading the page now trying to figure how to follow the RAW people are quoting. I see a line saying to "apply the following rules" when IB comes up - but I only see two options listed.


Shrug

Same

yakface wrote:
Yes, by the RAW you have the option to not move the unit without lurking it and doing so would not require an IB test.

However, I would imagine that such a maneuver will feel like a cheap shot to some players so I would bring it up far before the last turn so they know what is coming and have a chance to counter it.

'Springing' it on your opponent in the last turn is a sure way to get your sportsmanship scores dinged (or lose some friends).


But yeah, it's totally legal by the RAW.

Ok.

I still do not get that. How is that RAW?
I do not see that as an option, let alone a "maneuver".
I only play Tyranids, and if I am really missing this, I need to know. ^^

Nah jfrazell, see...I don't spring things on anyone.

I tell people exactly what I am going to do, then I do it.

That's what irks people.

I haven't figured out how to not be honest.

Disingenuous is what I need to figure out, but I just can't seem to do it. Dishonest is dishonest.

Not knowing the rules is stupid in a tournament, and calling me the pot when others kettle is also right up there in the smarts category. Whose fault is it you don't know a troops unit can (gasp) score? I mean really.

What stops a flamer template from burning them out of existence?

What rule lets you override IB without a LD roll, synapse, close combat, or Fall back rules?

I personally don't feel that this really is RAW at all, it seems to be like the leadership test should apply to having them stand still and not lurk outside of synapse, that said, I think it would be pretty lame to get cut up over it since any other army can do the same thing with a unit that's gone to ground until the last turn.

It seems like an under-handed tactic to me, if only because most people aren't aware of this loop-hole.

"If you want to move a Brood that turn for any reason, it must take a Leadership test at the start of its Movement phase. If this is failed, the unit must fall back..."

Looking at this, it's very clear. IF you want to move the Brood, you'd need to take the Leadership test.

Thus, you can avoid the problem of Insinctive Behaviour entirely by electing to NOT move. If you don't intend to move, you don't need to make a Leadership test.

kirsanth wrote:

Ok.

I still do not get that. How is that RAW?
I do not see that as an option, let alone a "maneuver".
I only play Tyranids, and if I am really missing this, I need to know. ^^

Basic game rules allow a unit to move and give you the option to not move a unit.


The instinctive behavior rules state that if you wish to move the unit for any reason you must pass a Ld test to do so.

Alternatively a unit can lurk.


However, if a player chooses not to move a unit it would not have to make an IB test and there is nothing in the rules stating that you MUST lurk with a unit, just that you have the option to do so.

yakface wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Ok.

I still do not get that. How is that RAW?
I do not see that as an option, let alone a "maneuver".
I only play Tyranids, and if I am really missing this, I need to know. ^^

Basic game rules allow a unit to move and give you the option to not move a unit.


The instinctive behavior rules state that if you wish to move the unit for any reason you must pass a Ld test to do so.

Alternatively a unit can lurk.


However, if a player chooses not to move a unit it would not have to make an IB test and there is nothing in the rules stating that you MUST lurk with a unit, just that you have the option to do so.

that is what I do not get.

I read it as an entirely different set of rules. if/then



shrug. I will ask more.

By they way, when I brought this up to my local gaming group this is almost exactly the same argument that sprang up.

I agree with Yak's read, however I also feel that it is not a very friendly tactic and would not do such in a friendly game. On the other hand, in a competitive game I would do this in a heartbeat.

but there is actually no if/then anywhere, if you look

Well, that is the issue.

It says to apply these rules:
If you want to move, do...
Or you can do...

The issue is if that is all the options you have, or only 2 of 'many' options. I understand the assertion that it is 2 of many, I just don't agree. I believe it is an either/or situation. (Or more accurately, and either/alternatively situation.)

If you choose to move you test. Alternatively you may have them lurk. This is the only alternate option available so it is either move and test or lurk (unless falling back). Standing and not testing is cheating.

Krevads wrote:but there is actually no if/then anywhere, if you look

IB has its own rules.
They are printed in their entirety in the Tyranid Codex.

They give only two options, and modify the Fall back rules.

There is no need for an either or. Every option available to the player is presented. Exactly like the rest of the rules.
Picking another option because it does not say you cannot is presumptive and wrong - this has been argued to death on these forums itself. Why is it ok here?

Agreed. You test or you lurk, there are no other options available. Choosing not to move and not to lurk is not an option as the codex overrides the main rulebook "choice" to not move with the IB rules.

Exactly. I'm not seeing why this is an issue.

Stelek is correct. I missed the "if" in the statement, and did not intend to actually make the statement. Deleting the post.

Stelek if you wish to have me removed as MOD, please email Yakface. We can discuss the efficacy of your posts as well.

This assumes everyone has the tyranid codex... just paraphrase please.

kirsanth wrote:

Sazzlefrats wrote:I don't see this as being much of a tactic, what prevents lurking tyranids from claiming an objective?

The Tyranid codex. Page 28, in the section describing the rules being discussed.


I had never read the Instinctive Behaviour rules as optional, though - as the rules state otherwise.
Out of Synapse + not falling back + not in combat = Instinctive Behaviour.

Instinctive Behaviour = Leadership check to move or Lurk. There is not a third option. There is a third Bullet Point describing fall back moves made by Tyranids but I am not sure how that is related.

I keep re-reading the page now trying to figure how to follow the RAW people are quoting. I see a line saying to "apply the following rules" when IB comes up - but I only see two options listed.


Shrug

Sazzlefrats

I did. . . and you quoted it. Ummm?

I am getting Q's on the side and I am not the rules lawyer type. Respectfully, can we get some Nid players on here with the codex to opine?