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.

A player does not feel Tyranids can regenerate in the first round.

Enemy wins initiative and starts play.
Enemy ends his first turn having wounded several tyranid units.
Tyranid player starts his first turn by regenerating wounds taken
in the same game round on his first turn.
(That the regenerating units have and can have regeneration
upgrades are obvious and not an issue).

Tyranid Argument:
Tyranid codex writes: "At the beginning of your turn" you roll a d6 per wound and regenerate 1 wound per 6 rolled.

Enemy argument:
Everything is happening more or less simultanously so while the tyranid has taken wounds, 'they have not happened yet'
and cannot be regenerated instantaniously. That means there was a round zero and the wounds had been suffered then.

Tyranid argument:
A shot and destroyed unit is gone and cannot fire in the same round that it died in the enemy's turn and that means Tyranid
can regenerate that same round or be allowed to fire with every unit that was killed in enemy player's turn aslong as it is still the
same game round. If Tyranid's could not regenerate in the same game round as it took the wounds it would have specified so.



What are your oppinions and stick to the subject with a minimum of smack talk please.
Thanks!

Thomas123123 wrote: Everything is happening more or less simultanously so while the tyranid has taken wounds, 'they have not happened yet'
and cannot be regenerated instantaniously. That means there was a round zero and the wounds had been suffered then.

This is complete fantasy, and has no basis in actual rules.

The opposing argument is complete fantasy, possiby aided by the delusion that "turn" means game turn, when it means player turn

Thomas123123 wrote:A player does not feel Tyranids can regenerate in the first round.

Enemy argument:
Everything is happening more or less simultanously so while the tyranid has taken wounds, 'they have not happened yet'
and cannot be regenerated instantaniously. That means there was a round zero and the wounds had been suffered then.

I cant even figure out what this is supposed to mean. That the first turn of the game is not the first turn of the game?

I cant even figure out what this is supposed to mean. That the first turn of the game is not the first turn of the game?

he is refering to player turns vs game rounds. He means to say that while he is in his movement phase and each subsequent phase,
the other players are in the same phase at the same time only delayed for the sake of turn based game mechanic as in there would
be complete chaos if everyone did everything on the game board at once.

The way I see it - One game round consists of two (or more depending on the number of players) player turns.

So yes, It seemed quite logical to me that I can regenerate and the enemy player did yield in my favour - I wanted
to make sure most people were of the same understanding as me on this issue.

Then he is ignoring the really clear delineation between player and game turn.

Its this simple:

1) is it the begining of your turn? If yes go to 2.
2) does a model with regen have any wounds on them? If yes go to 3.
3) roll a d6 for each wound, any 6's regenerate a wound on the target model.

OMG I don't like playing with rule lawyers, it doesn't make the game fun. Sometimes they bend the fluff into rules, hey my Space marines are super-human and that actually just ignore lasgun wounds.

please...

It says at the start of your turn. If the opponent goes first and causes wounds, then regeneration would occur at the start of the first Tyranid turn. If the Tyranid player went first, no wounds have been received so no regeneration. A possibility might be if you received some wounds as a result of scout moves or infiltrating and enemy shooting from other special rules prior to the start of the first player turn.

Homer

deffskulla wrote:OMG I don't like playing with rule lawyers, it doesn't make the game fun. Sometimes they bend the fluff into rules, hey my Space marines are super-human and that actually just ignore lasgun wounds.

please...

That's not a rules lawyer. A rules lawyer knows the rules backwards and forwards. He know when what you're doing is going against the rules, even if it's "easier" or "makes sense" or "is how you always played it". A rules lawyer can certainly be annoying when you're looking for a relaxed game, but they don't cheat.

What we've got here is a WAAC guy. He will do anything in his power to win. And, in this case, he's outright cheating.

Grakmar wrote:A rules lawyer can certainly be annoying when you're looking for a relaxed game, but they don't cheat.

Well, unless you consider it cheating that some only point out the rules when it's to their advantage...

yeah dude, you can definitely roll for regeneration, he is talking out of his A**

Spetulhu wrote:

Grakmar wrote:A rules lawyer can certainly be annoying when you're looking for a relaxed game, but they don't cheat.

Well, unless you consider it cheating that some only point out the rules when it's to their advantage...

That's not cheating, it's the other player's fault for not knowing the rules (note: I don't play like that).

No, it's cheating.

The point of the rules is to play the game by them, not sneak out some advantage because you know them better than the other guy.

Kilkrazy wrote:No, it's cheating.

The point of the rules is to play the game by them, not sneak out some advantage because you know them better than the other guy.

Cheating is breaking the rules or feeding your opponent false information in order to win the game. Not providing information isn't cheating.

EDIT:
This is going to come out snippier than intended:

If it is cheating to withhold information on rules because of your opponent's lack of knowledge, it stands to reason that you should also inform your opponent of poor tactical choices that he/she may make due to lack of knowledge. In which case, why play the game?

It is never cheating to play by the rules - ever. Arguing otherwise is completely ridiculous.

However, if someone knowingly does not point out a rules infraction when it benefits them, that is cheating.

Dracos wrote:However, if someone knowingly does not point out a rules infraction when it benefits them, that is cheating.

That's the distinction right there.

Not pointing out a rule that your opponent may or may not know is not cheating.
Not pointing out when a rule is being broken because your opponent isn't familiar with the rule most assuredly is.

insaniak wrote:

Dracos wrote:However, if someone knowingly does not point out a rules infraction when it benefits them, that is cheating.

That's the distinction right there.

Not pointing out a rule that your opponent may or may not know is not cheating.
Not pointing out when a rule is being broken because your opponent isn't familiar with the rule most assuredly is.

In my games, we discuss the rules freely and openly.
We also ask "were you going to move that unit?"
And "Did you fire everything you wanted?"

Keeps the game friendly and open.
I think I know the rules very well, but anyone can always learn something new.

To me it is the best way to play the game.

I absolutely agree.

I've played a number of people over the years though who prefer to be a bit more closed-mouthed about what's going on. The assumption is that if you're playing the game, it's up to you to be familiar with the rules.

It's an equally valid way of playing the game... it's just not the way everybody prefers to play.

Not telling someone a rule that you know and they dont is withholding information in my opinion, its like the time in 8th grade that i was shown a test grade and didnt do that well, and when my mom asked i said i hadnt gotten it back, because i technically hadnt...got in trouble for that one.

and yeah, me and my friends always ask and say things like "i dont think you fired your defiler's battle cannon" or "you forgot to run that unit", I feel that being uber competitive makes the game less fun.

I commonly remind people that shooting rapid fire weapons prevents them from assaulting, that their missed lascannon was twin-linked, that my battlewagons have the ability to repair themselves and that I do have a S8 rokkit launcher in the mob he is about to tankshock.

I do not remind people that I'm going to auto hit their leman russ if they keep it stationary, that he just moved within ramming range of my battlewagon, or that nobz are going to butcher assault marines.

As "rules lawyer", I think its my responsibility to have both player play by the rules, not to gain an unfair advantage due to superior rules knowledge, neither by cheating nor by springing rules traps. Warhammer 40k is played on a table, not in a rulebook. If my opponent makes a mistake on the table, his fault. If he makes a mistake in the rulebook, no ones fault. I just ask him whether he had taken the rule into account, no matter whether he gains or loses something from it.

yeah, dont really like how if dont move its an auto hit, does make sense though...i have to remind my friends about the rapid fire thing too, lol

I didn't mean that I don't tell them the rules about auto-hitting. I just don't remind them to move the thing after I've already ripped up two or three vehicles and they made a big deal out of declaring "this moved 0.1"" for most vehicles. That's a tactical error, not a rules problem.

Shrike325 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:No, it's cheating.

The point of the rules is to play the game by them, not sneak out some advantage because you know them better than the other guy.

Cheating is breaking the rules or feeding your opponent false information in order to win the game. Not providing information isn't cheating.

EDIT:
This is going to come out snippier than intended:

If it is cheating to withhold information on rules because of your opponent's lack of knowledge, it stands to reason that you should also inform your opponent of poor tactical choices that he/she may make due to lack of knowledge. In which case, why play the game?

No, it's not.

Tactical decisions are not the rules. They are the product of the player's individual thought.

Jidmah wrote:I didn't mean that I don't tell them the rules about auto-hitting. I just don't remind them to move the thing after I've already ripped up two or three vehicles and they made a big deal out of declaring "this moved 0.1"" for most vehicles. That's a tactical error, not a rules problem.

lol "i moved 0.1 inches!"

For example;

A player is thinking to move his Termagants through a ruin but is worried it will slow him down.

His opponent points out that Termagants have the Move Through Cover rule.

The decision about what to do is still the first player's.