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.

Yep. I don't see "doing nothing" label as particularly meaningful. So the rule doesn't mention something that it doesn't define, and is therefore wanting? "Doing nothing" is renaming something that's already covered: Acting (e.g. holding objectives) and moving normally. A 0" move is a normal move. There's no loophole if it's a situation already covered by the rule.

So if you want to do that outside of synapse range, you need to pass an LD test.

Eza wrote: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.

Lets see, I count... what?.... 5 tyranid players who disagree with the theoretical "do nothing" option. And no, I disagree with it because I see it as a faulty attempt to rules lawyer a loophole into existance.

Your just applying the following rules to the brood:
Note the codex says these are rules the brood must follow, not options it must choose.

If you want to move you must make a LD check.
Alternatively you MAY lurk...

It doesn't say I have to choose one of the options, these are just rules I must follow.

So I don't move, hence I don't need to make a LD check. And I choose not to Lurk because it says "may"

I have now followed both rules and my unit counts as scoring.

Not that hard really.

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.

The part you highlighted in red about the Usage problem is referring to the noun usage of the word. Secondly, the adj. usage as you even quoated yourself says, "1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things." The context does not imply neccessity.

And the part about the usage note doesn't really prove your point. It just shows that, traditionally, the word has been used to include two options, and that is all. It says nothing about having to choose one.

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

No where does it state that you lack this as a choice.

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

I disagree. Without more definitive context, you cannot accurately infer that.

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

Mutually exclusive does not mean having to choose one. That definition apparently applies to the noun. Secondly, choosing to use neither of the two listed rules is not invalid without it clearly stating you must chose one of the following.

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

Again, mutual exclusivity does not mean you are forced to choose one.

wyomingfox wrote:

Eza wrote: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.

Lets see, I count... what?.... 5 tyranid players who disagree with the theoretical "do nothing" option. And no, I disagree with it because I see it as a faulty attempt to rules lawyer a loophole into existance.

I would say the same about the point you are arguing.

Timmah wrote:Your just applying the following rules to the brood:
Note the codex says these are rules the brood must follow, not options it must choose.

If you want to move you must make a LD check.
Alternatively you MAY lurk...

Why the focus on moving? Holding the objective is what you really want to do.

If you want to hold the objective, you have to make the LD test. Because otherwise, the unit lurks and does not.

gaylord500 wrote:

Timmah wrote:Your just applying the following rules to the brood:
Note the codex says these are rules the brood must follow, not options it must choose.

If you want to move you must make a LD check.
Alternatively you MAY lurk...

Why the focus on moving? Holding the objective is what you really want to do.

If you want to hold the objective, you have to make the LD test. Because otherwise, the unit lurks and does not.

Because the part about "otherwise the unit lurks" is a pretty massive assumption.

Not really. It's something that's written.

The idea that it can be avoided is also an assumption - I think the bigger one of the two, if there's a choice. After all, moving 0" and being able to hold an objective is covered by this rule. The opposite claim is that there is a situation called 'not moving and holding an objective' defined as 'doing nothing', and since this rule doesn't address specifically use the words 'do nothing,' this rule doesn't apply. 'Doing nothing', while well-understood, is not rules language and is added to confuse something that should be pretty clear: the rule already covers 'not moving and holding an objective' as moving 0" after passing an LD test.

So I say by RAW and RAI, there's no loophole or flaw to fit the alternate theory. As the loophole's situation is addressed by the current rules, there should be no difficulty following them.

The parts that are not written down are not rules.

Synapse rules are in the codex. Those include the rules for lack of synapse.

The "tactic" described is not in those rules.

RAW is Rules As Written, still.
Not Rules As Wrangled/Wished/Wanted/Willed/Wiled/Wielded etc.

Saying it does not say one cannot is not the same as saying one can.

Still.

gaylord500 wrote:Not really. It's something that's written.

The idea that it can be avoided is also an assumption - I think the bigger one of the two, if there's a choice. After all, moving 0" and being able to hold an objective is covered by this rule. The opposite claim is that there is a situation called 'not moving and holding an objective' defined as 'doing nothing', and since this rule doesn't address specifically use the words 'do nothing,' this rule doesn't apply. 'Doing nothing', while well-understood, is not rules language and is added to confuse something that should be pretty clear: the rule already covers 'not moving and holding an objective' as moving 0" after passing an LD test.

So I say by RAW and RAI, there's no loophole or flaw to fit the alternate theory. As the loophole's situation is addressed by the current rules, there should be no difficulty following them.

Actually it not written where it explicitly says you must choose one of the two.

You can't move 0" because that contradicts the definition of the word "move."

Choosing to do nothing is NOT a third unwritten option/tactic/rule or whatever you want to arbitrarily call it. Here, let me break it down:

"* If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason it must take a Leadership test 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."

Ok, by opting not to move the brood, I have still adhered to this rule.

"* 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 MC add +1 to any cover save they may benefit from. Lurking tyranids may not claim objectives or hold table quarters."

Ok, since "may" indicates choice, I'm going to choose to have the the brood not Lurk and have still adhered to this rule.

"* Tyranids always fall back towards the nearest Synapse Creature if possible, if there are no SC on the board they wiill fall back towards the nearest Tyranids table edge."

Circumstantial. Easy enough to follow.

Preceding statement before these rules are stated is as follows:

"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement phase more than 12" away from a SC, 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:"

Well I went through each rule seperately and made choices while still following the restrictions for each rule. I have subsequently applied the rules.

kirsanth wrote:The parts that are not written down are not rules.

Synapse rules are in the codex. Those include the rules for lack of synapse.

The "tactic" described is not in those rules.

RAW is Rules As Written, still.
Not Rules As Wrangled/Wished/Wanted/Willed/Wiled/Wielded etc.

Saying it does not say one cannot is not the same as saying one can.

Still.

This "tactic" is not outside the realm of the given rules. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand.
RAW: Yes, and since it does not explicitly state that at least one rule has to be chosen, used, or whatever, my argument still stands.

As for your last statement, that is just as bad as saying something very important and specific in a set of rules is explicitly implied through context, when it clearly isn't.

Eza 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.

The part you highlighted in red about the Usage problem is referring to the noun usage of the word. Secondly, the adj. usage as you even quoated yourself says, "1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things." The context does not imply neccessity.

And the part about the usage note doesn't really prove your point. It just shows that, traditionally, the word has been used to include two options, and that is all. It says nothing about having to choose one.

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

No where does it state that you lack this as a choice.

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

I disagree. Without more definitive context, you cannot accurately infer that.

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

Mutually exclusive does not mean having to choose one. That definition apparently applies to the noun. Secondly, choosing to use neither of the two listed rules is not invalid without it clearly stating you must chose one of the following.

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

Again, mutual exclusivity does not mean you are forced to choose one.

Well seeing as Alternatively has two meanings:

alternatively

adverb
in place of, or as an alternative to; "Felix became a herpetologist instead"; "alternatively we could buy a used car"


WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Cite This Source

The word either means "in place of" or "as an alternative to".

If you interpret the definition as "in place of", then you can interpret the rules to be written as "in place of X", where "X" refers to the preceding rule regarding moving, the brood may Lurk...which is why several people have interpreted the second rule to be defined as "A brood may lurk in place of moving"

If you interpret the definition as "as an alternative to" then we are not referencing the adjective form of the word but the noun form. Therefore, you must apply the sentence as meaning a choice between two or more mutually exclusive options.

The note (in red) referencing "alternative (noun)" being traditionally defined as meaning two choices of which only one can be chosen, is just that...it defines a situation that has only two mutually exclusive choices; doing neither would be a third choice not permitted.

wyomingfox wrote:

Eza 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.

The part you highlighted in red about the Usage problem is referring to the noun usage of the word. Secondly, the adj. usage as you even quoated yourself says, "1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things." The context does not imply neccessity.

And the part about the usage note doesn't really prove your point. It just shows that, traditionally, the word has been used to include two options, and that is all. It says nothing about having to choose one.

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

No where does it state that you lack this as a choice.

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

I disagree. Without more definitive context, you cannot accurately infer that.

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

Mutually exclusive does not mean having to choose one. That definition apparently applies to the noun. Secondly, choosing to use neither of the two listed rules is not invalid without it clearly stating you must chose one of the following.

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

Again, mutual exclusivity does not mean you are forced to choose one.

Well seeing as Alternatively has two meanings:

alternatively

adverb
in place of, or as an alternative to; "Felix became a herpetologist instead"; "alternatively we could buy a used car"


WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Cite This Source

The word either means "in place of" or "as an alternative to".

If you interpret the definition as "in place of", then you can interpret the rules to be written as "in place of X", where "X" refers to the preceding rule regarding moving, the brood may Lurk...which is why several people have interpreted the second rule to be defined as "A brood may lurk in place of moving"

If you interpret the definition as "as an alternative to" then we are not referencing the adjective form of the word but the noun form. Therefore, you must apply the sentence as meaning a choice between two or more mutually exclusive options.

The note (in red) referencing "alternative (noun)" being traditionally defined as meaning two choices of which only one can be chosen, is just that...it defines a situation that has only two mutually exclusive choices; doing neither would be a third choice not permitted.

This is a classic example of a non sequitur. Here's another common example. The labels "warrior" and "pacifist" are mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean everyone is a warrior or a pacifist.

Yes, it can mean "in place of" or "an alternative to," but I dont think you understand the definition of mutually exclusive. Here, let me help:

–noun
of or pertaining to a situation involving two or more events, possibilities, etc., in which the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other: mutually exclusive plans of action.

This does not mean the mandatory occurrence of at least one of the possible events.

As for your first bullet point, the rule isn't you choosing to move the brood. The rule is, if you want to move the brood, apply this rule(taking a leadership test). You're misrepresenting that rule entirely. If you choose to have the brood lurk, then yes, you are lurking "in place of" testing for leadership. But once again, this does not indicate it as a mandatory choice. This applies to your second bullet point as well.

As for your last statement, choosing neither is not a "third option." It is one making a decision to not test for leadership because one wishes not to move the brood. It is also one choosing not to lurk because one has the option to. This is actually two choices that are being made. You are also treating both those rules as if they are one, when they are clearly not, hence two separate bullet points.

Okay, my eyes tend to glass over once dictionary references start getting quoted and debated.....

But I wanted to add that I agree with WFox,

I play Nids, and only Nids, and I do not hate Nids.... and I think you have only 2 options.

THe 'may' is because you could have taken the first choice.

You can stay home.
Or alternatively, you may leave.

The 'do nothing' argument hinges on the definition of two words, if we take an alternate deifinition of these words then one could argue either side of the interpretation.

In those cases the morally appropriate thing to do is default to the interpretation that 1) is less advantageous and 2) one that requires less addition of rules. I think 'doing nothing' violates at least 1), if not 2).

I'd also point out that the vast majority of people will play the test or lurk way and would probably take issue with just doing nothing. As a Tyranid player I see no reason to belabor the issue.

Wow, did you guys read my post at all? I feel like I'm talking to the wall.


Yes, and I play nids primarily and like nids. I have always played it where you dont have to choose and the people at the 3 different game stores I play at, agree.
Yes, "may" is because you could have taken or not taken the first choice, but for the hundredth time, this does not indicate you having to choose the later choice. That is a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, the rule to "do nothing" as people keep calling it, it not an addition to the rules or anyway outside the norm. In the core rule book, in all three phases you are given the ability not to act. So unless, there's a specific rule explicitly saying you can't do that, logic and reason would dictate that it still applies without necessarily indicating you can.

Nice try Eza, but no.

Read the line above the Bullet Point in your codex:

"Choose each brood in this situation in turn, and APPLY THE FOLLOWING RULES:"

Bullet 1: If you want to move roll Ld. We have been over this, word for word quote is unnecessary.

Bullet 2: Lurk Option.

Bullet 3: Fall Back Option.

So, if you are not Lurking, and not falling back, you MUST roll the Ld check to just sit there. Otherwise, you have not applied any of the rules which the codex just told you to apply. That is IGNORING a rule, not loopholing around it. That is called cheating where I am from.

If you are out of Synapse range, one of those bullet points must be met. Not doing one of them is ignoring Synapse and IB, and thus ignoring a rule.

I also play Tyranids, and say the Ld check MUST be made.

I have gotten more laughs out of this thread than ever before on Dakka. This whole debate is based on playing the words in the tyranid codex. The rules say you must do one of the following which Mattlov already stated.

Applying all this analysis to this is way over the top for the situation. If we were reading a program or a complicated math statement then sure, this much debate over word meanings and such would be reasonable. Let's face it we're not, even the tyranid players (I'm one of them, be it a new one in 5e) say that the way Eza is playing the words is wrong.

Eza I hope you don't use this rule [sic] on people that you play with...people that do this type of stuff aren't generally accepted at our LGS.

Anyways I play where the LD check must be made...just my 2 cents.

I think this is hilarious too because you guys can't even support your argument with evidence. The word "apply" doesn't equal "use at least 1 of the following." By opting not to move the brood and not test for leadership, I have thus met the condition for that rule and in turn applied it. Again, the rule doesn't say I have to move the brood and test for leadership. By doing this, I am not ignoring or loop holing anything. You guys are hell bent on wishful thinking.

No, this is not word play. This is applying the correction definitions to their respective words. Once again, apply does not equal "must." And the whole thing about supporting your argument by saying the the majority play otherwise is debatable. Not only that, majority doesn't indicate correctness. After all, at one point, everyone thought the world was flat. I was actually showing this thread to some friends of mine at my LGS and they laughed hysterically. They agree with my assessment.

Eza wrote:I think this is hilarious too because you guys can't even support your argument with evidence. The word "apply" doesn't equal "use at least 1 of the following." By opting not to move the brood and not test for leadership, I have thus met the condition for that rule and in turn applied it. Again, the rule doesn't say I have to move the brood and test for leadership. By doing this, I am not ignoring or loop holing anything. You guys are hell bent on wishful thinking.

No, this is not word play. This is applying the correction definitions to their respective words. Once again, apply does not equal "must." And the whole thing about supporting your argument by saying the the majority play otherwise is debatable. Not only that, majority doesn't indicate correctness. After all, at one point, everyone thought the world was flat. I was actually showing this thread to some friends of mine at my LGS and they laughed hysterically. They agree with my assessment.

It is word play. Otherwise there is no point to Synapse and IB.

How do you deal with that same unit in the same circumstance wanting to shoot something?

It is word play.

Care to explain how it is? Otherwise that's an assumption.

Otherwise there is no point to Synapse and IB.

lol, wow. That's just ridiculous. Of course there is still a point to Synapse and IB. The unit that reverts to IB is still severely limited. If you test for LD, especially in the case of gaunts, you will most likely fall back and potentially off the table. If you lurk, you are limited to shooting only and cannot move, assault, or capture an objective. If you choose to leave the brood alone, well, you're forfeited their right to act. Which means they will be more vulnerable from being attacked.

How do you deal with that same unit in the same circumstance wanting to shoot something?

You choose to lurk...

Eza wrote:No, this is not word play. This is applying the correction definitions to their respective words. Once again, apply does not equal "must."

In this situation it certainly does. Out of Synapse range -> apply IB as detailed below. There is no option for "doing nothing" as the critters are too stupid to banter rules or apply semantics.

You may do A
or
You may do B

These rules replace the rules in the BRB, there are two options. You *may* do either... but there are only 2 options.

Really? Where does it say "You must use at least one of the following"?
Furthermore, where does it specifically state which rules it is replacing?

The little critters aren't arguing over semantics. The Hive Mind told them before they left, "sit here and don't move." And the little critters are stupid but obedient so they just sit while being shot at and not seeking cover.

Quick question.

A unit that lurks get +1 cover. do you get another +1 for going to ground?

thats a 2+ cover save when you lurk+go to round

Eza wrote:

It is word play.

Care to explain how it is? Otherwise that's an assumption.

And how is your interpretation NOT an assumption as well?

If these are assupmtions, I am going by how the rules ARE written, not a way rules COULD be interpreted.

1. You can do this (IB).
2. alternatively, you can do this (lurk).
There are no other alternatives............................................
It's really that simple, sorry you're having problems with it. And yes, I play Nids.

Eza wrote:Really? Where does it say "You must use at least one of the following"?

By your own argument, where does it state you may choose to do neither?

Since the codex came out nobody in my community has understood this rule in a diffirent way than Eza explains it. Ok, I will admit that its only 50 people or so and english is not the first language here but still...

I think the below quote from Eza explains quite well how I interprit the rule but I will throw in some aditional points for good measure:

1) I agree with the statement that "does nothing" is meaningless since it is not a game term. I find it however a moot point since it has no relevance to this rules argument. What this argument is about is the definition of not moving since the wording of the rule is: "If you want to move..." The unit of Gaunts does therefor choose not to move instead of choosing to do nothing.

2) Not moving is a option that does not equal 0" move. For example, a unit that decides not to move in lieu of firing a Heavy Weapon is counted as not moving while a unit that rolls for Difficult Terrain and decides to move 0" is counted as moving. Therefor I could chose to roll for Ld and move 0" OR chose not to move and not roll for Ld. There is an distinction between those two terms as can be seen in the rule book. There is however no definition that I am aware of that says that not moving = 0" move.

3) The not moving option is embedded into this rule: "If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason it must take a Leadership test at the start of its Movement phase..." Furthermore, IF I chose to move a unit of Gaunts this rule is applied, if not: "Alternatively the brood may Lurk." I can not see where it says the unit must Lurk.

4) If the IB rule was an either/or situation it would have to have the word must in one of the choices (referring to the choice of which option to take). The rule would have to read something like this: "You can chose to move, if not you must Lurk". By reading the text and applying your interpretation it goes like this: "You can chose to move, if not you can chose to Lurk." That does not make any sense unless those are both options that can be chosen to ignore.

1. You can do this (IB).
2. alternatively, you can do this (lurk).
There are no other alternatives............................................
It's really that simple, sorry you're having problems with it. And yes, I play Nids.

Actually it should read:
1. You chose can do this (IB).
2. alternatively, you can chose do this (lurk).

I do not see how that forces you to do one or the other.

Eza wrote:

gaylord500 wrote:Not really. It's something that's written.

The idea that it can be avoided is also an assumption - I think the bigger one of the two, if there's a choice. After all, moving 0" and being able to hold an objective is covered by this rule. The opposite claim is that there is a situation called 'not moving and holding an objective' defined as 'doing nothing', and since this rule doesn't address specifically use the words 'do nothing,' this rule doesn't apply. 'Doing nothing', while well-understood, is not rules language and is added to confuse something that should be pretty clear: the rule already covers 'not moving and holding an objective' as moving 0" after passing an LD test.

So I say by RAW and RAI, there's no loophole or flaw to fit the alternate theory. As the loophole's situation is addressed by the current rules, there should be no difficulty following them.

Actually it not written where it explicitly says you must choose one of the two.

You can't move 0" because that contradicts the definition of the word "move."

Choosing to do nothing is NOT a third unwritten option/tactic/rule or whatever you want to arbitrarily call it. Here, let me break it down:

"* If you want to move that brood that turn for any reason it must take a Leadership test 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."

Ok, by opting not to move the brood, I have still adhered to this rule.

"* 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 MC add +1 to any cover save they may benefit from. Lurking tyranids may not claim objectives or hold table quarters."

Ok, since "may" indicates choice, I'm going to choose to have the the brood not Lurk and have still adhered to this rule.

"* Tyranids always fall back towards the nearest Synapse Creature if possible, if there are no SC on the board they wiill fall back towards the nearest Tyranids table edge."

Circumstantial. Easy enough to follow.

Preceding statement before these rules are stated is as follows:

"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement phase more than 12" away from a SC, 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:"

Well I went through each rule seperately and made choices while still following the restrictions for each rule. I have subsequently applied the rules.

InquisitorFabius wrote:

Eza wrote:Really? Where does it say "You must use at least one of the following"?

By your own argument, where does it state you may choose to do neither?

In the main rule book, you can always choose to do nothing with any unit. And since the Tyranid codex doesn't deny this as an option explicitly, it still holds true. Its really not that hard of a concept guys...

Thank you arnaroe for supporting logic and reason over stubbornness.