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.

This game up in a game:

My Biovores failed there test so they had to shoot at the closest enemy unit. But this unit was standing next to some gaunts and there was no way to place the Blast on themm without hitting the gaunts aswell.

He argued that i still had to shoot even to i would kill my own units.
I believe in this case they would fire at the next closest target

So whats the right way to play it?

They have to shoot the closest enemy, this is impossible as placing blasts over friendly models is forbidden, so they run towards cover or if already in cover just stand there.

RAW the game breaks - you must fire at the closest enemy. The codex does not state what happens when the closest enemy unit in LOS and in range cannot be fired upon.

It does say what happens with no targets available though so just go with that.

 HoverBoy wrote:
It does say what happens with no targets available though so just go with that.

Ah but what if there are other viable targets, but they're further away?

Surely it is closest enemy you CAN shoot? Then you switch to the one further away

...In the shooting phase, the unit must fire at the nearest visible enemy. If there are no enemies in the unit's line of sight or within range of at least one of its ranged weapons, or if the unit has no ranged weaponry, it must instead run towards the nearest piece of area terrain...

The first part suggests you can only fire at the nearest target (Some people have told me you have to center the blast over the closest model in the unit you are firing at. Not sure how correct that is).


I suppose that, if for some reason you are incapable of shooting the nearest unit (they are locked in combat, or untargetable by a blast as in the original example), then you aren't permitted to fire at anything else. Furthermore, you don't get to run towards area terrain either, as there is still a unit within line of sight / within weapon range.

It seems more restrictive than I first thought. I think I've been playing that one wrong...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Surely it is closest enemy you CAN shoot? Then you switch to the one further away

Nope. Nearest visible enemy. If nothing is in LoS or range, do other stuff.
Nothing about something being inside LoS and range but untargetable.

The same problem crops up if the closest enemy is actually in assault, not just too close to a friendly model. What do Tyranid players do in that situation? Also seems like a game-break.

HIWPI - d6 it. Either run towards cover or fire on nearest legal target.

I would say they just sit there confused.

As a Tyranid player I would play it as you target the closest legal enemy unit (if in range and LOS). In the OP's case the enemy unit is still a legal target however, the shooting attack fails (since you would cover some friendly models with the lbm).

"You cannot place the blast marker so that the base or hull of any friendly models is even partially under it." Page 33 BRB

As placing the blast marker is part of firing a blast weapon this is overruled by:

"the unit must fire at the nearest visible enemy" - Page 33 Tyranid Codex

Codex trumps BRB.

 Abandon wrote:
"You cannot place the blast marker so that the base or hull of any friendly models is even partially under it." Page 33 BRB

As placing the blast marker is part of firing a blast weapon this is overruled by:

"the unit must fire at the nearest visible enemy" - Page 33 Tyranid Codex

Codex trumps BRB.

Except that no it doesn't.

Also worth noting it's called Advanced vs Basic rules. It's on pg 7 of the BGB.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
"You cannot place the blast marker so that the base or hull of any friendly models is even partially under it." Page 33 BRB

As placing the blast marker is part of firing a blast weapon this is overruled by:

"the unit must fire at the nearest visible enemy" - Page 33 Tyranid Codex

Codex trumps BRB.

Except that no it doesn't.

Also worth noting it's called Advanced vs Basic rules. It's on pg 7 of the BGB.

Except that it does.

Are saying that a SR that effects only Tyranid unis with instinctive behavior -lurk is somehow less specific than the blast weapons SR available to every army?

Rules that require you to do a thing don't override rules which prevent you from doing a thing. If a vehicle (for example) has a rule requiring it to move forward, but is Immobilized, the Immobilization will still prevent it from moving.

Same with the Biovore. "Can't" trumps "must".

In this situation Lurk doesn't seem to have been written to account for Blast or Template weapons, but it says that if the closest unit can't be targeted for other reasons (range, LOS, etc.) that the unit runs into area terrain instead. That would seem the most likely and reasonable outcome in this situation.

 Abandon wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
"You cannot place the blast marker so that the base or hull of any friendly models is even partially under it." Page 33 BRB

As placing the blast marker is part of firing a blast weapon this is overruled by:

"the unit must fire at the nearest visible enemy" - Page 33 Tyranid Codex

Codex trumps BRB.

Except that no it doesn't.

Also worth noting it's called Advanced vs Basic rules. It's on pg 7 of the BGB.

Except that it does.

Are saying that a SR that effects only Tyranid unis with instinctive behavior -lurk is somehow less specific than the blast weapons SR available to every army?

What I'm saying is in no way does it bypass the fact you cannot ever target friendly units.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Rules that require you to do a thing don't override rules which prevent you from doing a thing. If a vehicle (for example) has a rule requiring it to move forward, but is Immobilized, the Immobilization will still prevent it from moving.

Same with the Biovore. "Can't" trumps "must".

In this situation Lurk doesn't seem to have been written to account for Blast or Template weapons, but it says that if the closest unit can't be targeted for other reasons (range, LOS, etc.) that the unit runs into area terrain instead. That would seem the most likely and reasonable outcome in this situation.

That sounds reasonable, TY for not just stating a disagreement without backing

All I'd say in that case is technically they should not be required run for cover either because they list only two criteria for that to happen(no enemies in LOS or no enemies in range) and in the example neither has occurred, though I would be inclined to play it that way. In this case RAW has no 'must do' rule as they are prevented form the required shooting and do not meet the criteria to have to run to the nearest cover... oddly, they can act normally.

 Abandon wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Rules that require you to do a thing don't override rules which prevent you from doing a thing. If a vehicle (for example) has a rule requiring it to move forward, but is Immobilized, the Immobilization will still prevent it from moving.

Same with the Biovore. "Can't" trumps "must".

In this situation Lurk doesn't seem to have been written to account for Blast or Template weapons, but it says that if the closest unit can't be targeted for other reasons (range, LOS, etc.) that the unit runs into area terrain instead. That would seem the most likely and reasonable outcome in this situation.

That sounds reasonable, TY for not just stating a disagreement without backing

All I'd say in that case is technically they should not be required run for cover either because they list only two criteria for that to happen(no enemies in LOS or no enemies in range) and in the example neither has occurred, though I would be inclined to play it that way. In this case RAW has no 'must do' rule as they are prevented form the required shooting and do not meet the criteria to have to run to the nearest cover... oddly, they can act normally.

Really not seeing how you come to that conclusion.

They only have Option A or B listed.

Option A is bust as you have no permission, so therefore B should kick in.

I typically use common sense as my backing.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Rules that require you to do a thing don't override rules which prevent you from doing a thing. If a vehicle (for example) has a rule requiring it to move forward, but is Immobilized, the Immobilization will still prevent it from moving.

Same with the Biovore. "Can't" trumps "must".

In this situation Lurk doesn't seem to have been written to account for Blast or Template weapons, but it says that if the closest unit can't be targeted for other reasons (range, LOS, etc.) that the unit runs into area terrain instead. That would seem the most likely and reasonable outcome in this situation.

That sounds reasonable, TY for not just stating a disagreement without backing

All I'd say in that case is technically they should not be required run for cover either because they list only two criteria for that to happen(no enemies in LOS or no enemies in range) and in the example neither has occurred, though I would be inclined to play it that way. In this case RAW has no 'must do' rule as they are prevented form the required shooting and do not meet the criteria to have to run to the nearest cover... oddly, they can act normally.

Really not seeing how you come to that conclusion.

They only have Option A or B listed.

Option A is bust as you have no permission, so therefore B should kick in.

I typically use common sense as my backing.

Option A - shoot at the nearest unit in LOS (cannot be done for whatever reason - locked in assault, would hit friendly units, etc)
Option B - run to terrain (cannot be done as there is an enemy unit within LOS and in range).

As I said before the game breaks. HWIPI? If there is another legal unit fire at it. If there is not, run to terrain.

The only things preventing the unit from acting normally are forced actions. If I had the rules to re-write I would go down that line of thought:

Do option A
If you can't do option A, do option B
If you can't do option B either, do nothing.

But that's not how they wrote it.

1. Shoot at the closest visible enemy in range.(mandatory action canceled because you cannot shoot at that enemy - blast would hit friendly units, enemy is in CC, etc.)
2. If no enemy is visible or no enemy is in range, run to the closest cover. (mandatory action not in effect - there is a visible enemy in range)

Nothing then prevents the unit from acting normally as there is no mandatory action for it to take.

 Abandon wrote:
The only things preventing the unit from acting normally are forced actions. If I had the rules to re-write I would go down that line of thought:

Do option A
If you can't do option A, do option B
If you can't do option B either, do nothing.

But that's not how they wrote it.

1. Shoot at the closest visible enemy in range.(mandatory action canceled because you cannot shoot at that enemy - blast would hit friendly units, enemy is in CC, etc.)
2. If no enemy is visible or no enemy is in range, run to the closest cover. (mandatory action not in effect - there is a visible enemy in range)

Nothing then prevents the unit from acting normally as there is no mandatory action for it to take.

Actually it tells you only that you must do A, when you don't you broke the game.
Following common sense now, not RAW you go ahead and roll out B

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
The only things preventing the unit from acting normally are forced actions. If I had the rules to re-write I would go down that line of thought:

Do option A
If you can't do option A, do option B
If you can't do option B either, do nothing.

But that's not how they wrote it.

1. Shoot at the closest visible enemy in range.(mandatory action canceled because you cannot shoot at that enemy - blast would hit friendly units, enemy is in CC, etc.)
2. If no enemy is visible or no enemy is in range, run to the closest cover. (mandatory action not in effect - there is a visible enemy in range)

Nothing then prevents the unit from acting normally as there is no mandatory action for it to take.

Actually it tells you only that you must do A, when you don't you broke the game.
Following common sense now, not RAW you go ahead and roll out B

As I was reminded, can't overrides can as a general rule and as no repercussion for not being able to shoot the closest visible enemy is detailed the compulsory action can safely be ignored. If no enemy were in range at all you would still not be able to fulfill the required action. That does not break the game, there is no reason not being able to fulfill it for any other reason would do so either.

I think some of the confusion here is due to the thought that the lurk rule is:

1. Preform action A
2. if not A, then B

When really the way it is worded is:

1. If scenario X, preform action A (if there is an enemy unit in range and in LOS -> shoot them)
2. If not scenario X, preform action B (if there is no enemy in range, in LOS or if you don't have a ranged weapon -> run for the nearest cover or if already in cover, stay there)

In the case brought by the OP, scenario X is in effect but action A cannot be preformed. In that case neither rule has any effect and both can be ignored.

To more closely look at the second part, it lists three criteria to come into effect you need to check for.

-is there an enemy unit in range?
-is there an enemy in LOS?
-do you have a ranged weapon?

Only if you can answer no to any of those are you forced to run for cover. In the above situation, all are a decided yes. There is an enemy in range. There is an enemy in LOS. You do have a ranged weapon.... You don't have to run for cover, nor must you shoot the nearest enemy... all that is left is the default shooting phase rules.

Of course, this also doesn't account for the fact that Biovores are barrage weapons, and as such not having LOS to the closest target is no actual barrier to them shooting at it.

So given that we've got two important rules about Biovore firing which the Lurk rules were clearly not written to take account for, we've obviously got to work out with our opponents how to handle Lurking Biovores.

Personally, I think the most reasonable approach would be to allow them to still shoot when LOS is blocked, but not to shoot when Blast placement is impossible. However, sadly, the Tyranid FAQ has a ruling forbidding Lurking Hive Guard from shooting at a target out of LOS, so by that precedent Biovores would also be forbidden.

Still, given that Lurk sets a status where (for the units it actually takes into account) if the unit can't target the unit, it doesn't fire, that would seem to be the most reasonable ruling for Biovores as well, even if they're reason for not being able to target the nearest unit is different.

Deleted

hyv3mynd wrote:HIWPI - d6 it. Either run towards cover or fire on nearest legal target.

Not to ignore the entire threat, but this.

If in doubt roll out.

Pyrian wrote:I would say they just sit there confused.

Terrible attitude.

 Abandon wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
The only things preventing the unit from acting normally are forced actions. If I had the rules to re-write I would go down that line of thought:

Do option A
If you can't do option A, do option B
If you can't do option B either, do nothing.

But that's not how they wrote it.

1. Shoot at the closest visible enemy in range.(mandatory action canceled because you cannot shoot at that enemy - blast would hit friendly units, enemy is in CC, etc.)
2. If no enemy is visible or no enemy is in range, run to the closest cover. (mandatory action not in effect - there is a visible enemy in range)

Nothing then prevents the unit from acting normally as there is no mandatory action for it to take.

Actually it tells you only that you must do A, when you don't you broke the game.
Following common sense now, not RAW you go ahead and roll out B

As I was reminded, can't overrides can as a general rule and as no repercussion for not being able to shoot the closest visible enemy is detailed the compulsory action can safely be ignored. If no enemy were in range at all you would still not be able to fulfill the required action. That does not break the game, there is no reason not being able to fulfill it for any other reason would do so either.

I think some of the confusion here is due to the thought that the lurk rule is:

1. Preform action A
2. if not A, then B

When really the way it is worded is:

1. If scenario X, preform action A (if there is an enemy unit in range and in LOS -> shoot them)
2. If not scenario X, preform action B (if there is no enemy in range, in LOS or if you don't have a ranged weapon -> run for the nearest cover or if already in cover, stay there)

In the case brought by the OP, scenario X is in effect but action A cannot be preformed. In that case neither rule has any effect and both can be ignored.

To more closely look at the second part, it lists three criteria to come into effect you need to check for.

-is there an enemy unit in range?
-is there an enemy in LOS?
-do you have a ranged weapon?

Only if you can answer no to any of those are you forced to run for cover. In the above situation, all are a decided yes. There is an enemy in range. There is an enemy in LOS. You do have a ranged weapon.... You don't have to run for cover, nor must you shoot the nearest enemy... all that is left is the default shooting phase rules.

Strangely, I agree with this guy
Speaking as a programmer, the logic makes perfect sense to me. Now obviously you can't apply common sense to this problem, as rules trump common sense (just ask GW). Therefore the most logical course of action would be to follow the logic of the RAW to the letter, as Abandon has done.

Formal logic did it first.

Formal logic is hipster.

 Abandon wrote:


As I was reminded, can't overrides can as a general rule and as no repercussion for not being able to shoot the closest visible enemy is detailed the compulsory action can safely be ignored. If no enemy were in range at all you would still not be able to fulfill the required action. That does not break the game, there is no reason not being able to fulfill it for any other reason would do so either.

I think some of the confusion here is due to the thought that the lurk rule is:

1. Preform action A
2. if not A, then B

When really the way it is worded is:

1. If scenario X, preform action A (if there is an enemy unit in range and in LOS -> shoot them)
2. If not scenario X, preform action B (if there is no enemy in range, in LOS or if you don't have a ranged weapon -> run for the nearest cover or if already in cover, stay there)

In the case brought by the OP, scenario X is in effect but action A cannot be preformed. In that case neither rule has any effect and both can be ignored.

To more closely look at the second part, it lists three criteria to come into effect you need to check for.

-is there an enemy unit in range?
-is there an enemy in LOS?
-do you have a ranged weapon?

Only if you can answer no to any of those are you forced to run for cover. In the above situation, all are a decided yes. There is an enemy in range. There is an enemy in LOS. You do have a ranged weapon.... You don't have to run for cover, nor must you shoot the nearest enemy... all that is left is the default shooting phase rules.

So we have A and B and you're opting at something else entirely. So you're ignoring Lurk altogether.

Is there an enemy unit in range? Yes, but no you cannot fire at them. So it's not a legal target.
Maybe, not sure if they are in this case or not. They still need LOS even if they're barrage. Silly Lurk rules.
Certainly have a ranged weapon.

The fact that you are "lurking" means you have to do one or the other.

Forgive me, its been too long since I failed an IB test with anything except my Mawloc. I know Lurk you have to move towards terrain in the Movement phase, but I thought the Run move was optional, and only if you elected to Run did you have to move towards terrain. If i'm wrong, apologies.