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.

Nids are one of my armies, do I count. See post above.......................................

I am a nid player, with the codex.

I know Yak plays nids, and has the codex....

I also play Tyranids and own a copy of Codex: Tyranids. You only have two options for Instinctual Behaviour: either take the Leadership test and risk falling back (but also risk being able to act as normal and capture the objective), or Lurk and be unable to capture the objective.

Wait.

As I read this, Tyranid players seem to think Tyranids need to use only the IB rules when IB applies, and people who do not play Tyranids think that IB is optional when IB applies?

Is this just me or is that . . . different? Or telling?

As a sometime player I'd argue you'd always have to follow the Nid dex on the rules for when and when not to use IB/synapse. These are special rules for Nids themselves

Oh Oh Oh Oh!!!!

I get it!

And I still disagree with the "RAW" posited.

The options are listed as non-exclusive. They do not specifiy that other rules do not exist, as they do, and most still apply.

However, the IB rules themselves are listed to show what IB is. Chosing to stand still and not lurk is NOT IB. It may be something not excluded from a list, but it is not INCLUDED. The IB rules say that applicable models must be chosen and have the following rules apply to them.

I get that you can think of a (come on now, this is not the ONLY other thing you can think of is it?) posibility of something else that could happen, but the rules say "will revert" and to "apply to following rules".

While chosing to follow OTHER rules is not disallowed, I still cannot read that as a legitimate excuse to suddenly think this set is permissive.

Happy to have finally gotten WHY people think that way in anycase! Thank you jfrazell and Nurglitch.


shrug

This is rules lawyering 101 at its finest. The rules say if I am not in synapse and I want to move I have to make an LD roll to check for instinctive behavior. If I fail I lurk, if I pass I can move and act freely or I can do unwritten rule number three, stand and not lurk in order to avoid making an IB roll and claim an objective point because it wasn't written that I can't do that.

However is it an action to claim an objective? What do the rules say or more importantly don't say about that? That is really the heart of the matter. Does a gaunt have to pass an LD test for IB in order to claim an objective?

No the heart of the matter is that Nids out of synapse are subject to IB, and there are only the two choices, roll LD or lurk. There are no other options including doing nothing.

shintailbane:

Your description of Instinctive Behaviour is incorrect. The rule says that if a unit is not in synapse range, falling back, or locked in combat, then it has two options. The first option is to take a Leadership test. If the test is passed, the unit may act normally and capture objectives. If the test is failed, the unit falls back. The second option is to Lurk. If the unit lurks, then it can shoot normally, but it cannot move and cannot capture objectives.

Nurglitch: Thanks for the kind correction. I didn't have a rulebook handy. But your answer seems to cut to the heart of the matter that there are only two possible choices as stated by snoogums too. test for IB or Lurk... I do not see a choice for option three which is I choose not to Lurk.

I am wondering where everyone else is getting this idea that they can choose to do nothing. Is it because GW didn't state that if you are out of synapse range you have one of two possible choices? Granted it would make the situation clearer but I guess we all want to maximize what an army can do so we come up with unstated option three.

It is beacuse outsideof the IB rules, that is entirely valid.

Of course it is also irrelevant, but that was largely my confusion.

It always amazes me that people want to win so badly they are willing to dig out the tiniest loopholes in the rules. It's pretty obvious the intention is that if you don't take the Leadership, your models can only choose to lurk.

To be fair, these rules are written for 10 year old users. If it truly was obvious, then this thread wouldn't exist.

Ummm... lurking tyranids can't hold objectives... that answers my question on why someone would even try to ruleslawyer this tactic. I haven't had access to my codex for the last week as it was being borrowed.

kirsanth wrote:Sazzlefrats

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

Anyhow my take is... Take a leadership test to do what you want, or Lurk. I can kinda see the arguement for not taking a leadership test because you aren't going to move and don't want to be lurking, but whether you choose to move the models or not is an option you have if you aren't lurking, therefore take the leadership test or go IB.

newbis wrote:It always amazes me that people want to win so badly they are willing to dig out the tiniest loopholes in the rules. It's pretty obvious the intention is that if you don't take the Leadership, your models can only choose to lurk.

Rather telling is still the fact that most of the players arguing AGAINST this . . . "tactic" . . . play Tyranids.


shrug

yes indeed.

Here I feel I am in disagreement with Yakface pertaining to RAW:

Relevant language: Codex Tyranids

"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement phase more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not falling back or already in combat, it will revert to IB. Choose each brood in this situation in turn, and apply the following rules:

*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.

*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."

Tyranid FAQ: (paraphrase) Fearless units do not succumb to Instinctive Behaviour.

First Tyranid units do not test for IB, they automatically succumb to if they are more than 12" away from synapse (with a few exceptions).

Second, while Yakface is correct that basic game mechanics allow units to choose to move or not move, IB, which is a special codex rule, overides the basic mechanics of the game.

Third the use of the term "Alternatively", which in the English language means "in place of" or "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities", naturally precludes any third option being possible.

Accordingly the actual RAW would be "you may Lurk in place of taking a leadership test to move". The option of not moving without lurking is excluded by the RAW .

Therefore, I would have to support Kirsanth and Nurglitch in this matter.

wyomingfox wrote:Here I feel I am in disagreement with Yakface pertaining to RAW:

Relevant language: Codex Tyranids

"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement phase more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not falling back or already in combat, it will revert to IB. Choose each brood in this situation in turn, and apply the following rules:

*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.

*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."

Tyranid FAQ: (paraphrase) Fearless units do not succumb to Instinctive Behaviour.

First Tyranid units do not test for IB, they automatically succumb to if they are more than 12" away from synapse (with a few exceptions).

Second, while Yakface is correct that basic game mechanics allow units to choose to move or not move, IB, which is a special codex rule, overides the basic mechanics of the game.

Third the use of the term "Alternatively", which in the English language means "in place of" or "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities", naturally precludes any third option being possible.

Accordingly the actual RAW would be "you may Lurk in place of taking a leadership test to move". The option of not moving without lurking is excluded by the RAW .

Therefore, I would have to support Kirsanth and Nurglitch in this matter.

The problem with that logic is, of course, that it says "Alternatively, the brood may lurk..." Alternatively obviously implies that it is another option aside from testing for leadership in order to move and act normally. As a second option they may, as in optional, choose to lurk. This option is so they can at least have the option to shoot as oppose to doing nothing, but at the cost of not being able to capture an objective. If lurking was mandatory, as in a typical "either/or" situation, it would say: "Alternatively, the brood will lurk..." There really isn't any other way I can think of to interpret plain English.

The first option is there for a brood outside of synapse to at least have a chance to move, shoot, and assault as per normal. But they can always choose to do nothing. There is nothing under the IB rules in the Tyranid codex that explicitly says the brood in question has to choose one or the other. It simply says: "...and apply the following rules." These rules that you would apply, if you read them clearly, are there for if you actually need/want to do something with that brood. No where does it state that IB forces the brood to act.

This is a bit of a necro post, but this is probably better then rehashing this in a new thread.

As a second option they may, as in optional, choose to lurk.

The meaning of may is not always optional, it can also mean 'are allowed'; 'can' or something similar.

"May I be excused?" "Yes you may."

winterman wrote:This is a bit of a necro post, but this is probably better then rehashing this in a new thread.

As a second option they may, as in optional, choose to lurk.

The meaning of may is not always optional, it can also mean 'are allowed'; 'can' or something similar.

"May I be excused?" "Yes you may."

True, but it most certainly does not imply it is a mandatory alternative. It is saying you have the possibility of that thing happening. What is does not say is that particular thing is definitively going to happen.

Not only that but when it says apply the following rules, it never indicates specifically that you have to choose one. In fact, the rules it presents are conditional. As with option 1: If you want to move... or with option 2: The brood may lurk... Since there is no context to back up that the word "may" is indicating it as mandatory, it would be reasonable to assume that it is optional, because in most circumstances where the word "may" is being used, it is referring to something that is voluntary and optional.

And now that I think about it, don't "can" and "are allowed' usually indicate that you have the option of either doing it or not doing it as well.

Check this out: http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/May.htm

The use of the term "Alternatively", which in the English language means "in place of" or "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities", implies that you must choose one or the other. Or in otherwards, it is manditory that the player makes a mutually exclusive choice.

More to the point, the root "alter" is Latin for "the other of two", which is why the term "alternative" is usually used in cases involving two options...when it refers to more than 2 options, either the options themselves or number of options are normally indicated. Since only two options were listed, it is reasonable to infer that Alternative in this case is defined as "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities".

Now given that the term "Alternatively" preceeds the use of "may," it can be inferred that the term "may" in this context refers simply to an allowance of an action, in this case "lurk" which is the alternative. It would be unreasonable to assume that "may" opens up a third unlisted option given the context of "Alternatively" proceeding it. Again, the option isn't manditory, having to choose from two mutually exclusive options is what is manditory.

Therefore, you can move or alternatively you may lurk.

wyomingfox wrote:The use of the term "Alternatively", which in the English language means "in place of" or "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities", implies that you must choose one or the other. Or in otherwards, it is manditory that the player makes a mutually exclusive choice.

More to the point, the root "alter" is Latin for "the other of two", which is why the term "alternative" is usually used in cases involving two options...when it refers to more than 2 options, either the options themselves or number of options are normally indicated. Since only two options were listed, it is reasonable to infer that Alternative in this case is defined as "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities".

Now given that the term "Alternatively" preceeds the use of "may," it can be inferred that the term "may" in this context refers simply to an allowance of an action, in this case "lurk" which is the alternative. It would be unreasonable to assume that "may" opens up a third unlisted option given the context of "Alternatively" proceeding it. Again, the option isn't manditory, having to choose from two mutually exclusive options is what is manditory.

Therefore, you can move or alternatively you may lurk.

The definition of "Alternative" being mutually exclusive between two options is only one of many definitions of the word.
Ex.
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

The assumption that it is using the definition you gave is just that. "Alternative" can just as likely be the possibility of one event happening over another. It does not list them as two options, one of which has to be chosen. IB is listed as a set of condition based rules to be followed and not neccessarily as courses of action to be chosen from. In fact, it actually lists 3 separate rules and because of that, it is just as reasonable to assume that the second rule is not a mandatory choice if the first rule is not used. And as I have stated before, it does not explicitly indicate that you have to choose anything that is listed thereafter. "Apply the following rules" without clarification could just as easily be read to mean quite simply, "Use these rules." The word "apply" does not in anyway, in my mind, indicate/infer/imply or otherwise translate to "Choose one of the following." And even if it did, it wouldn't make sense because the third bullet point is another conditional rule, one of which is not based on your choice at all.

When it says apply the following rules I take it to mean, just as in the core rule book, that given a certain condition arises, such as the player wanting to fire the weapons of a particular unit, you follow those rules.

Eza wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:The use of the term "Alternatively", which in the English language means "in place of" or "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities", implies that you must choose one or the other. Or in otherwards, it is manditory that the player makes a mutually exclusive choice.

More to the point, the root "alter" is Latin for "the other of two", which is why the term "alternative" is usually used in cases involving two options...when it refers to more than 2 options, either the options themselves or number of options are normally indicated. Since only two options were listed, it is reasonable to infer that Alternative in this case is defined as "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities".

Now given that the term "Alternatively" preceeds the use of "may," it can be inferred that the term "may" in this context refers simply to an allowance of an action, in this case "lurk" which is the alternative. It would be unreasonable to assume that "may" opens up a third unlisted option given the context of "Alternatively" proceeding it. Again, the option isn't manditory, having to choose from two mutually exclusive options is what is manditory.

Therefore, you can move or alternatively you may lurk.

The definition of "Alternative" being mutually exclusive between two options is only one of many definitions of the word.
Ex.
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

The assumption that it is using the definition you gave is just that.

wyomingfox wrote:Actually the definition I presented is the traditional and most common interpretation of the word "alternatively"

"Alternative" can just as likely be the possibility of one event happening over another.

wyomingfox wrote:Seeing as only one option is presented prior to the "alternative" option, the context of the language points to the definition I presented being the most plausible. In order for the your interpretation to be correct, the additional options would need to be presented in context in order to adhere to correct gramar. Example.

Def 1: You may walk to school. Alternatively, you may ride the bus. (only two choices are presented therefore definition 1 applies)
Def 2: You may walk or drive to school. Alternatively, you may ride the bus. (three choices are presented so Definition 2 applies)
Def 2: You may choose A or the following three alternatives. (4 choices are presented so again Definition 2 applies)

The language in IB follows the first example

It does not list them as two options, one of which has to be chosen.

wyomingfox wrote:The use of the word alternative always means a choice must be made between two (usually two) or more mutually exclusive options

IB is listed as a set of condition based rules to be followed and not neccessarily as courses of action to be chosen from.

wyomingfox wrote:Again, the use of the word alternatively implies otherwise.

In fact, it actually lists 3 separate rules and because of that, it is just as reasonable to assume that the second rule is not a mandatory choice if the first rule is not used.

wyomingfox wrote:The 3rd rule is involentary while the first two involve a mutually exclusive choice if I remember correctly.

And as I have stated before, it does not explicitly indicate that you have to choose anything that is listed thereafter. "Apply the following rules" without clarification could just as easily be read to mean quite simply, "Use these rules." The word "apply" does not in anyway, in my mind, indicate/infer/imply or otherwise translate to "Choose one of the following." And even if it did, it wouldn't make sense because the third bullet point is another conditional rule, one of which is not based on your choice at all.

When it says apply the following rules I take it to mean, just as in the core rule book, that given a certain condition arises, such as the player wanting to fire the weapons of a particular unit, you follow those rules.

wyomingfox wrote:Given the context in which the term "alternatively" is used, the definition would be "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities"

Can't believe someone resurrected this...............

Wanna move, you gotta test. Don't wanna move, you're gonna lurk. That's it, bottom line.

Actually the definition I presented is the traditional and most common interpretation of the word "alternatively"

According to what? I've looked up the word in multiple dictionaries and thesauruses and the most common I've seen is simply stating that it indicates the possibility of two or more options and doesn't say anything about mutual exclusivity. Even arguing that these are "options" one of which has to be chosen, you always have the option not to choose. I don't understand how people are interpreting opting to do nothing counts as this magical "unlisted third option."

If you go to the baker and you ask what you can get and he responds, "You can get jelly, creme, or custard filled. Alternatively, you can get a muffin." Just because those are my only options doesn't mean I have to choose any of them. I can simply choose to do nothing, by not buying anything.

Seeing as only one option is presented prior to the "alternative" option, the context of the language points to the definition I presented being the most plausible. In order for the your interpretation to be correct, the additional options would need to be presented in context in order to adhere to correct gramar. Example.

Def 1: You may walk to school. Alternatively, you may ride the bus. (only two choices are presented therefore definition 1 applies)
Def 2: You may walk or drive to school. Alternatively, you may ride the bus. (three choices are presented so Definition 2 applies)
Def 2: You may choose A or the following three alternatives. (4 choices are presented so again Definition 2 applies)

The language in IB follows the first example

I disagree. No offense. Those examples are assuming that the person deciding wants to go to school. He could simply choose not to.

The use of the word alternative always means a choice must be made between two (usually two) or more mutually exclusive options

In what definition of alternative are you referring to that states that an option must be chosen? You don't have to choose anything.

Again, the use of the word alternatively implies otherwise.

Again, according to what? An assumption of what it implies, without explicit clarification?

The 3rd rule is involentary while the first two involve a mutually exclusive choice if I remember correctly.

Two options does not neccessarily imply "mutually exclusive" unless indicated. Besides, "mutually exclusive" just means that if you choose one, you cannot choose any of the others, it doesn't mean you have to choose one.

Given the context in which the term "alternatively" is used, the definition would be "The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities"

And what context is that? What wording in there are you referring to that indicates mutually exclusive? The fact that there are 2 rules that you are able to choose from does not explicitly translate to "mutually exclusive" or necessitating mandatory choice. And the combination of the word 'alteratively" and "may" can just as easily by used to show 2 options that are not exclusive or that you do not have to chose. Sure it is possible for it to mean that, given explicit wording, but I see nothing there to back up such an assumption.

don_mondo wrote:Can't believe someone resurrected this...............

Wanna move, you gotta test. Don't wanna move, you're gonna lurk. That's it, bottom line.

Yes, and Jesus said it was so!

Where's your evidence to support this claim?

How about a quick litmus test on how you should play it?

Go find the biggest meanest player you can. Try using a third option besides moving or lurking. If your nose subsequently breaks due to a high velocity impact with your opponent's fist, you know that's not how this rule is played.

All joking aside, KNOWING that G.W. writes their rules in a conversational bent instead of an "If x, then y" manner (Like a good game system SHOULD be) just think of what would be said if this rule was SPOKEN to you. Analysis without the benefit of close scrutiny should give you the proper 'reading' of this rule.

I know this argument is not precisely YMDC grade, but this topic has been beaten to death so much it's not even a dead horse anymore.

YES the word may does NOT mean must. YES technically, you have the option of doing neither. YES it is blatantly obvious (on first glance even) that the (gasp!) intent was an either/or situation.

I'm not usually one to spout about rules lawyering, but it's time to STFU about this and realize that this is an intended WEAKNESS for the army. Play it as such and move on to rules debates that are actually unclear in intent AND execution.

Who the heck knows what they intended. This is about as concrete as discerning the meaning of life. RAW vs. RAI, whatever. My entire point is not to support my argument, but to show that neither side is definitively correct. People punching you in the face for making a logical interpretation that is not outside the realm of reasonable possibility? I wouldnt want to play against these nutcases anyway.
Secondly, IB is already a weakness in how it applies to the broods that follow it. You're very unlike to move at all, so that excludes Movement phase, running in the shooting phase, and even assaulting. And even if you want to shoot, you are still stuck there and cannont capture an objective. Opting not to do anything with the unit being left behind to capture an objective is already a weakness. To say it cannot is just an assumed plausibility people use who either dont like tyranids, or who do but dont want to admit to possibly being wrong about the rule they've used for so long.

Eza wrote:
According to what? I've looked up the word in multiple dictionaries and thesauruses and the most common I've seen is simply stating that it indicates the possibility of two or more options and doesn't say anything about mutual exclusivity.

wyomingfox wrote:Yes it does mention mutually exclusive choices:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternatively

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.

adj
1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things.
a. Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle.
b. Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards.
3. Usage Problem Substitute or different; other.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

al·terna·tive·ly adv.
Usage Note: Some traditionalists hold that alternative should be used only in situations where the number of choices involved is exactly two, because of the word's historical relation to Latin alter, "the other of two." Despite the word's longstanding use to mean "one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen" and the acceptance of this usage by many language critics, a substantial portion of the Usage Panel adheres to the traditional view, with only 49 percent accepting the sentence Of the three alternatives, the first is the least distasteful.·Alternative is also sometimes used to refer to a variant or substitute in cases where there is no element of choice involved, as in We will do our best to secure alternative employment for employees displaced by the closing of the factory. This sentence is unacceptable to 60 percent of the Usage Panel.·Alternative should not be confused with alternate. Correct usage requires The class will meet on alternate (not alternative) Tuesdays.

Even arguing that these are "options" one of which has to be chosen, you always have the option not to choose. I don't understand how people are interpreting opting to do nothing counts as this magical "unlisted third option."

If you go to the baker and you ask what you can get and he responds, "You can get jelly, creme, or custard filled. Alternatively, you can get a muffin." Just because those are my only options doesn't mean I have to choose any of them. I can simply choose to do nothing, by not buying anything.

wyomingfox wrote:Because nothing is a choice and no you don't always have that option

I disagree. No offense. Those examples are assuming that the person deciding wants to go to school. He could simply choose not to.

wyomingfox wrote:No, the language infers that you are going to school and you must make a choice on how to get there

In what definition of alternative are you referring to that states that an option must be chosen? You don't have to choose anything.

wyomingfox wrote:The first definition of the word states the two choices are mutually exclusive, also note that the second definition (involving more than 2 options) states that only one choice can be made

Again, according to what? An assumption of what it implies, without explicit clarification?

wyomingfox wrote:Again, both definitions of the word "alternative" imply mutual exclusivity

I think the intent is pretty clear.

Anyway, you're allowed to move 0" in the movement phase. So, moving 0" and having these Tyranid models act regularly afterwards means you have to pass the LD test. If moving 0" is the same as doing nothing, does that mean the movement phase didn't happen if no unit moves 0"? Since it can't mean that, it doesn't.

gaylord500 wrote:I think the intent is pretty clear.

Anyway, you're allowed to move 0" in the movement phase. So, moving 0" and having these Tyranid models act regularly afterwards means you have to pass the LD test. If moving 0" is the same as doing nothing, does that mean the movement phase didn't happen if no unit moves 0"? Since it can't mean that, it doesn't.

Well that is definately a new take on this arguement