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.

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.

I agree with Arnaroe, not moving is a disadvantage. Also, IB limits the brood with either interpretation, so to say otherwise is just asinine. In regard to the "rules lawyer" bit, I feel the exact same about the people arguing your interpretation.

But not moving in this case is a complete advantage. You are circumventing the rules to suddenly create a scoring unit at the end of the game.

Moving is only an advantage in 40K for vehicles, which become harder to hit in CC. In all other aspects, moving is rarely an advantage or disadvantage since it does not affect any other modifiers.

Mattlov:

Not being able to move is an disadvantage in the sense that the unit is stuck where it is, i.e. it can not move without an Ld test. Being scoring is only advantageous if you apply you understanding to the rules. You say that the gaunt are never scoring when not moving but I say they are always scoring unless Lurking. In the case of the latter, being scoring is not an advantage since it is an "ability" the unit possesses in the first place.

What this boils down to is that you seem to avoid debating the key elements of this discussion and the main weight of your argument seem to be in the RAI area. If your interpretation is correct my previous summary with additional comments from Eza and Timmah must be incorrect. Would you care to explain to me why that is the case?

The way I see it and have seen it this way in many, many games is very simple, and I have stated it several times.

I believe that a unit out of IB must do one of the IB rules. If it is just going to stand there, I make the Leadership test.

When I see special rules, I tend to believe (unless otherwise obviously stated in those rules) that you must follow those rules and no others are allowed. Rules and structure are the basis of games, without them you just don't have a game.

So when I see the "will revert to IB" I see that part as the end of the discussion. I MUST do one of those three bullet points under IB. Standing there without a check or Lurking is not an option, since it says if I'm not moving, I'm Lurking.

I read the "alternative" part of that statement as "Lurking is an alternative to making the Check or Falling Back." I see no other options since those are all the options for IB.

The way I have always understood 40K is that if there is a codex rule for something, it is generally all inclusive. When it gives me the rules for something and gives options, those are the only options I see. Codex always trumps the rulebook and nowhere under IB is stnading there without a check an option.

We cannot prove each other wrong simply because we can both be right. Both ways can be interpreted correctly, depending on how hard and strictly you apply the rules. This is a matter of interpretation, and I go to the very literal definition when it deals with rules. IMO, that is the only way to enforce rules. You and Eza think differently and that isn't a fault, but to my mindset it seems like skating around IB and eliminating the penalty for being out of synapse.

Once again Rules do not = options.

Show me which rule I am breaking by just standing there.

The Outflank special rule says:
Units with scout may outflank.


It has no under options under the outflank special rule. Now are you going to tell me all scouts MUST outflank because that is their only option under outflank?

Mattlov wrote:
I believe that a unit out of IB must do one of the IB rules. If it is just going to stand there, I make the Leadership test.

Your belief is RAI. If you were forced to make a Ld. test, it would specifically say so.

Mattlov wrote:
When I see special rules, I tend to believe (unless otherwise obviously stated in those rules) that you must follow those rules and no others are allowed. Rules and structure are the basis of games, without them you just don't have a game.

This is fine, but you still haven't proven how "not testing for Ld." and "not lurking" is breaking those rules, since the rules don't indicate that you must do one of those two. Hence the words "if" and "may."

Mattlov wrote:
So when I see the "will revert to IB" I see that part as the end of the discussion. I MUST do one of those three bullet points under IB. Standing there without a check or Lurking is not an option, since it says if I'm not moving, I'm Lurking.

"Will revert to IB," as Arnaroe has pointed out, does not tell us anything about the rules for IB, other than you must follow them. And since the rules for IB dont say "The brood must act in at least one of the following ways," it makes that argument invalid.

Mattlov wrote:
I read the "alternative" part of that statement as "Lurking is an alternative to making the Check or Falling Back." I see no other options since those are all the options for IB.

"Lurking" is an alternative to testing for Ld., yes, but "Falling back" is not an option. That rule is simply telling how you fall back when that situation occurs. Secondly, for the ridiculously-absurd-high-number time, "alternatively" does not, according to any definition of the word, indicate a mandatory choice.

Mattlov wrote:
The way I have always understood 40K is that if there is a codex rule for something, it is generally all inclusive. When it gives me the rules for something and gives options, those are the only options I see. Codex always trumps the rulebook and nowhere under IB is stnading there without a check an option.

You would be frequently making bad assumptions about rules if you always interpreted rules to be all inclusive. They are only all inclusive when they specifically indicate so. The rules for IB are specifically worded with terms such as "if" and "may," which indicate the the free will of choice.

Mattlov wrote:
We cannot prove each other wrong simply because we can both be right. Both ways can be interpreted correctly, depending on how hard and strictly you apply the rules. This is a matter of interpretation, and I go to the very literal definition when it deals with rules. IMO, that is the only way to enforce rules. You and Eza think differently and that isn't a fault, but to my mindset it seems like skating around IB and eliminating the penalty for being out of synapse.

I strongly disagree. I believe your interpretation is not at all based on literal interpretation of the wording of the rules. I believe you are applying more wishful intent and RAI than applying strict definitions of the words used in the rules.

Eza, I think its you who is applying wishful intent. Lurking a unit all game giving it a 3+ cover save then on the last turn....oh im not gonna lurk anymore, theres my objective taken. U already agreed that IB is meant to be restrictive on nid players. In the circumstance I just showed you tell me where the restriction is.

TBH im sick of this thread. People really trying THAT hard to cheat just because GW didnt clarify properly in the codex (which is all it pretty much comes down to). In terms of wording in the dex...yes eza is right...but is that honestly the way YOU think the game is meant to be played. Its just one big cheap shot if you ask me.

Lukus83 wrote:
Eza, I think its you who is applying wishful intent. Lurking a unit all game giving it a 3+ cover save then on the last turn....oh im not gonna lurk anymore, theres my objective taken. U already agreed that IB is meant to be restrictive on nid players. In the circumstance I just showed you tell me where the restriction is.

Well, for one, that's a very specific scenario. There's no guarantee that your objective is going to be in or near cover to begin with. Also, if you're leaving a unit of gaunts behind to capture an objective and they can't move or assault or really much of anything else, then not only are they pretty useless(aside from objective capturing), but they are also pretty vulnerable to attack, whether it be from weapons that ignore cover, mass shots, or be it from assaulting. If you're playing an objective based mission, its going to be a pretty big priority for your opponent to deny you objectives. So, if you aren't protecting your scoring units, then I'd say that's a pretty big disadvantage. Objective based missions weren't even used often in the previous edition. So to say it was the intent of the creators to deny specifically gaunts(remember that troops weren't the only scoring units in 4th ed.) from scoring when out of range of synapse, is pretty silly. Remember that the average roll of a 2d6 is 7 so the odds of them passing a Ld. test is unlikely.

Lukus83 wrote:
TBH im sick of this thread.

Then just ignore the thread. You aren't adding anything useful to this thread by stating this.

Lukus83 wrote:
People really trying THAT hard to cheat just because GW didnt clarify properly in the codex (which is all it pretty much comes down to).

It's not cheating. Cheating would be a breaking a rule.

Lukus83 wrote:
In terms of wording in the dex...yes eza is right...but is that honestly the way YOU think the game is meant to be played. Its just one big cheap shot if you ask me.

Yes, I do think that is the way for it to be played. Until GW releases some sort of clarification, it's completely legitimate in my opinion. I mean, let's face it, Tyranids don't have a lot of durable troop choices unless you take mass gaunts. Not every Nid player wants to run lists like that and Genestealers aren't much more durable and cost a heck of a lot more points, so I think its more then fair.

I think its a cheap shot to argue otherwise.

For all we know we are BOTH wrong.

The codex and rules are written in the Queen's English after all...

Lukus83:
Don't forget that thanks to random game length the unit will only gain the advantage of Lurk for 2-3 turns depending on marker placement (1 - synapse, 2 - 3 - 4 Lurk, 5+ not Lurk).

Mattlov:
This can be true with every rule. For all we know we could be misunderstanding the rules for movement, for an example. This is just an side-effect of the fact that we are interpreting a text instead of having a game designer at hand to explain everything to us. Regardless, we have to give meaning to the text and if there are ambiguities some argument will take place. The side with stronger argument usually wins despite the fact in might be wrong.

Hello,
Yes, they can choose not to move and not to lurk. Please note, this will prevent
them from being able to assault.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnar Óskar Egilsson [mailto:aoe6@hi.is]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:39 AM
To: US Customer Service
Subject: Rules questions

Hi,

Can a unit of Gaunts that is out of Synapse Range opt not to move and not
to Lurk when checking for Instinctive Behavior?

The reason for the question is that in both the "move..." entry and Lurk
entry have the words "want" or "may" in them.

Thanks,
Arnar

Well color me surprised.

Very well. Of course, I am almost willing to bet money you could send that question again and get a different answer.

But that's a GW problem, not us.

Good to know!

And no, I have intention of apologizing.

I still could have been right.

I declare this thread over!

So why would doing that prevent them from assaulting? Is it because not being able to move always means no assault move, or is it something else that I'm missing?

I'm pretty sure it's exactly what you say gaylord, It does say if you want to move the brood "for any reason" you must pass the leadership test, so not opting to do it would mean no run or assault move.

This is an issue that is discussed in SO many forums across the web. In the majority of the ones i've read, most of the players argue that trying to pull this is just a cheap move.

The IB rule clearly states "may" and "alternatively" for your choices. This is just everyone readng into it far too much. Its choice one or two.

Lurk, or make a check and score. Make the choice. Don't try to con your way into overriding IB in some cheap way.

Ct_drummer_boi wrote:This is an issue that is discussed in SO many forums across the web. In the majority of the ones i've read, most of the players argue that trying to pull this is just a cheap move.

The IB rule clearly states "may" and "alternatively" for your choices. This is just everyone readng into it far too much. Its choice one or two.

Lurk, or make a check and score. Make the choice. Don't try to con your way into overriding IB in some cheap way.

Read the posts, mate.

1) This has nothing to do with cheap moves or loopholes.
2) The wording is not clear so that you MUST read further.
3) The only argument for the "only two choices" interpretation seems to be RAI.
4) There are a lot of arguments for the "not move" interpretation that are generated from RAW.

Read the rules. Your Tyranid opponent can Lurk, make a check or stay. He can make those choices. Don't try to con your opponent into overriding IB in some cheap way.

Nope, the rule clearly states 2 options nothing more. So dont let your opponent override IB in some cheap way.

Good. Grief.

Can we just agree that the guy from GW knows what he's talking about? I must admit, I was of the opinion that it was EITHER test OR lust, but it seems I was wrong. I suppose it's a handy thing to know now I'm considering starting a horde Tyranid army...

Kallbrand wrote:Nope, the rule clearly states 2 options nothing more. So dont let your opponent override IB in some cheap way.

Nope, the rule clearly states more than 2 options. So dont let your opponent override IB in some cheap way.

well no, the rule clearly does state 2 options he is right there, the argument revolves around the level of optionality(is this a word?) of the situation.

Personally as much as it seems a bit funky to me, I'm gonna go with the new rules service until it's actually shown to be somehow flawed, so I'm happy enough.

Drunkspleen wrote:well no, the rule clearly does state 2 options he is right there, the argument revolves around the level of optionality(is this a word?) of the situation.

Personally as much as it seems a bit funky to me, I'm gonna go with the new rules service until it's actually shown to be somehow flawed, so I'm happy enough.

I stand corrected on that one. Thanks Drunkspleen.

I was trying to point out that Kallbrands statement is meaningless in this discussion since it does not present any argument. Opinions do not matter when arguing rules.

I've played it as only 2 options, saw the presentations in this thread, and checked with the GW email service with wording similar to arnaroe. This is what was returned:

Hello,
Gaunts that are subject to Instinctive Behavior can move, lurk or do nothing.

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: ********************
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:30 PM
To: askyourquestion
Subject: Tyranid Instinctive Behavior Question


Hello,

Can a unit of Gaunts that is out of Synapse Range opt not to move and not
to Lurk when checking for Instinctive Behavior?

The reason for the question is that in both the "move..." entry and Lurk
entry have the words "want" or "may" in them.

In this case, would they be a scoring unit at that point?



different wording on the answer, same Representative.

Drunkspleen wrote:well no, the rule clearly does state 2 options he is right there, the argument revolves around the level of optionality(is this a word?) of the situation.

Personally as much as it seems a bit funky to me, I'm gonna go with the new rules service until it's actually shown to be somehow flawed, so I'm happy enough.

Well, not that this is that important at this point, but no, its 3 rules listed and technically 4 options from which you can choose.

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.

A great test for instinctive behaviour is to take a pencil, and move it D6" towards your eye. I'm not a very well trained individual when it comes to withstanding pain, so I lost my leadership test and closed my eye instinctively. No third option presented itself.

Why bother calling the rule instinctive behaviour if you can ignore it? Instincts require discipline to ignore, but I guess you'll argue that they could have called the rule something else. My $0.02 in any case.

willjudge wrote:A great test for instinctive behaviour is to take a pencil, and move it D6" towards your eye. I'm not a very well trained individual when it comes to withstanding pain, so I lost my leadership test and closed my eye instinctively. No third option presented itself.

Why bother calling the rule instinctive behaviour if you can ignore it? Instincts require discipline to ignore, but I guess you'll argue that they could have called the rule something else. My $0.02 in any case.

Heh. That made absolutely no sense.

willjudge wrote:A great test for instinctive behaviour is to take a pencil, and move it D6" towards your eye. I'm not a very well trained individual when it comes to withstanding pain, so I lost my leadership test and closed my eye instinctively. No third option presented itself.

Why bother calling the rule instinctive behaviour if you can ignore it? Instincts require discipline to ignore, but I guess you'll argue that they could have called the rule something else. My $0.02 in any case.

Since you can move the pencil if you want the "secret option" is to refuse to move it at all. That way you do not have to test your willpower. However, if you would chose to move the pencil you would have to roll for that Ld test (and hopefully you fail it since jamming a pencil into your eye might cause damage). Alternatively, you can just close your eye right away and therefor reducing the possibility of any eye damage.