Lurk or test, can you do neither?

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.

**InquisitorFabius**

Does the codex allow this, because the codex trumps the rulebook.

**gaylord500**

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

Look at the line before the bullet points. "...apply the following rules." You're required to apply the rules that are there. That statement overrides the general rules any other force could use in the same situation. The ability to have no movement and hold an objective is not one of the options given to Tyranids subject to the penalties of Instinctive Behavior (IB).

The movement talk is interesting. I believe it's there to get to the juicier objective holding bits. So let's not forget the objective holding part is what the movement discussion getting at.

While I would allow 0" movement following an LD test (and thereby objective holding), even if I go along with your interpretation, it doesn't provide an out. If you're going to say 0" is no movement, the IB rule says no movement means you lurk. And objectives cannot be held by lurking Tyranids. So this really strict RAW interpreation would be that >0" movement is required to hold an objective. Not that the IB rule doesn't apply. There are no exceptions given to applying IB if the models fail to be in synapse range. Which makes sense as IB is a penalty effect for being out of synapse range.

If you want to not move and hold an objective, stay in synapse.

**Eza**

Does the codex allow this, because the codex trumps the rulebook.

The codex doesn't have to allow because its already in the main rule book. It would have to deny the option in order to "trump" the main rule.

gaylord500 wrote:
arnaroe wrote:I do not see how that forces you to do one or the other.

Look at the line before the bullet points. "...apply the following rules." You're required to apply the rules that are there. That statement overrides the general rules any other force could use in the same situation. The ability to have no movement and hold an objective is not one of the options given to Tyranids subject to the penalties of Instinctive Behavior (IB).

The movement talk is interesting. I believe it's there to get to the juicier objective holding bits. So let's not forget the objective holding part is what the movement discussion getting at.

While I would allow 0" movement following an LD test (and thereby objective holding), even if I go along with your interpretation, it doesn't provide an out. If you're going to say 0" is no movement, the IB rule says no movement means you lurk. And objectives cannot be held by lurking Tyranids. So this really strict RAW interpreation would be that >0" movement is required to hold an objective. Not that the IB rule doesn't apply.

Which makes sense as IB is a penalty effect for being out of synapse range.

"Apply the following rules" does not mean you have to use at least one. Where are you reading this? You apply each rule separately. Neither of those rules say you must choose one.

The whole argument for "having to choose at least one" is such a gross misinterpretation of language.

**gaylord500**

Apply the following rules means you have to use the following rules. Don't want to apply them? Don't be in a situation where they apply. Which means 12"+ from a synapse creature. These rules disallow the situation as you've defined and described it - that's what these rules are there for: to provide restrictions on Tyranid units.

**Eza**

gaylord500 wrote:Apply the following rules means you have to use the following rules. Don't want to apply them? Don't be in a situation where they apply. Which means 12"+ from a synapse creature. These rules disallow the situation as you've defined and described it - that's what these rules are there for: to provide restrictions on Tyranid units.

Yes, and choosing to do neither still adheres to both rules.

**kirsanth**

Eza wrote:

Yes, and choosing to do neither still adheres to both rules.

Perhaps, though I do not agree.

However, you are not applying "the following rules".

You are backtracking and applying a seperate rule that is not mentioned in the section explicited cited as the location of the rules needing to be followed.

Or if you prefer, it is easily seen as claiming it is not illegal so therefor must be legal. This is incorrect also.

**Eza**

kirsanth wrote:However, you are not applying "the following rules".

Actually, I am. Neither rule specifies that you must choose one or the other.

kirsanth wrote:You are backtracking and applying a seperate rule that is not mentioned in the section explicited cited as the location of the rules needing to be followed.

No, I'm not. Choosing not to test leadership is not a separate rule, this is why it says "if you want to move the brood." This is also why it says you "may" lurk.

kirsanth wrote:Or if you prefer, it is easily seen as claiming it is not illegal so therefor must be legal. This is incorrect also.

That is not my claim. The main rule book allows you not to act with a unit, and the IB rules in the Tyranid codex do not deny you this option.

**Mattlov**

Fine. You want to argue interpretation? I'll throw this at you:

First line under Instinctive Behavior: "Beyond the immediate reach of the Hive Mind, lesser Tyranid creatures will often revert to their basic, animalistic instincts."

"Will often revert" refers to failing the Leadership Test.

Standing in the middle of combat, not using cover when you have the option to do so is not a basic, animalistic instinct.

But I'm sure you'll throw that out as semantics. But you can't throw this out, Bullet Point 3 of IB (emphasis mine):

"Tyranid creatures ALWAYS fall back towards the Synapse Creature/Table edge blah blah blah..."

So if you are not Lurking, and not making a Leadership test, you MUST fall back. Simple as that. "Always" has no interpretation. If you are not doing the other 2 options, you WILL be doing that one.

End of discussion. But I'm sure you'll argue more anyway...

**arnaroe**

gaylord500 wrote:
arnaroe wrote:I do not see how that forces you to do one or the other.

Look at the line before the bullet points. "...apply the following rules." You're required to apply the rules that are there. That statement overrides the general rules any other force could use in the same situation. The ability to have no movement and hold an objective is not one of the options given to Tyranids subject to the penalties of Instinctive Behavior (IB).

It it true that "apply the following rules" means that all the rules must be applyed. The first two rules, that must be applyed, are rules that one can chose to use, as can be seen in the wording. The key words/phrases are "If you want to" and "the brood may Lurk". As a result a unit of Gaunts that is outside synapse MUST chose if to move or not. If it choses not to move it MUST chose whether to Lurk or not. It can however not chose to apply the Synapse rule since the wording does not permit it.

The ability to "not move" does not need a permission from the codex since it is a default option (see page 11 of the rule book). To disallow it would need an direct ruling that would specifically say that a unit can not "not move". The same goes for holding objectivs and that is only forbidden if the unit Lurks.

gaylord500 wrote:While I would allow 0" movement following an LD test (and thereby objective holding), even if I go along with your interpretation, it doesn't provide an out. If you're going to say 0" is no movement, the IB rule says no movement means you lurk. And objectives cannot be held by lurking Tyranids.

You seem to be misunderstanding my point (or I am your point), I am saying that there is a diffirence between 0" movement and no movement, the former being movement. Also, the IB rules does not say that if a unit does not move it Lurks, it says that if a unit Lurks it does not move. Therefor a "not moving" gaunt is not subject to the Lurk rule should the player chose not to Lurk. Ergo, it can hold objectives.

gaylord500 wrote:So this really strict RAW interpreation would be that >0" movement is required to hold an objective. Not that the IB rule doesn't apply. There are no exceptions given to applying IB if the models fail to be in synapse range. Which makes sense as IB is a penalty effect for being out of synapse range.

Here you are just applying your understanding of the rules. Since there is no real argument in this statement my answer is simply: "No."

**Eza**

Mattlov wrote:Fine. You want to argue interpretation? I'll throw this at you:

First line under Instinctive Behavior: "Beyond the immediate reach of the Hive Mind, lesser Tyranid creatures will often revert to their basic, animalistic instincts."

"Will often revert" refers to failing the Leadership Test.

Standing in the middle of combat, not using cover when you have the option to do so is not a basic, animalistic instinct.

But I'm sure you'll throw that out as semantics. But you can't throw this out, Bullet Point 3 of IB (emphasis mine):

"Tyranid creatures ALWAYS fall back towards the Synapse Creature/Table edge blah blah blah..."

So if you are not Lurking, and not making a Leadership test, you MUST fall back. Simple as that. "Always" has no interpretation. If you are not doing the other 2 options, you WILL be doing that one.

End of discussion. But I'm sure you'll argue more anyway...

You are referring to fluff and not the rules themselves. This isn't even a valid argument.

**Mattlov**

So you just ignore the second part?

Here is another hole in your argument:

Second Paragraph of IB, lines 3 and 4: "...it WILL revert to Instinctive Behavior."

The word "will" does not allow for interpretation. One of the 3 Bullet Points must be applied. If just standing there was an option, it would be listed.

**Eza**

Mattlov wrote:So you just ignore the second part?

Here is another hole in your argument:

Second Paragraph of IB, lines 3 and 4: "...it WILL revert to Instinctive Behavior."

The word "will" does not allow for interpretation. One of the 3 Bullet Points must be applied. If just standing there was an option, it would be listed.

The second part of the argument didn't even make sense.

"...it WILL revert to Instinctive Behavior." doesn't say "if you choose not to move the brood, you must lurk the brood." Where does it say this?

Standing there is not only an option supported by the IB rules but also by the main rule book. You are simply wrong sir. No offense.

**gaylord500**

Instictive Behavior rules must be used as they're written in the situations stated. Not moving is either moving 0" after taking and LD test and then being able to hold objectives or lurking and then unable to hold objectives. The order doesn't matter, as to get one you need the other. There's no other option given, and no reason to believe your option is ever a default option, especially as these special rules were given to override the default situation; codex trumps the rulebook. You are told right off the bat that a Tyranid unit subject to Synapse outside of Synapse range does not use ordinary rules. The 0" move is a red herring because both sides of IB can tell you what to do depending on how you want to interpret what that is. As there is no ability to make that kind of move and hold an objective without the LD test, a successful LD test is necessary if you want to hold an objective.

To get to hold an objective for a unit subject to IB, the route is an LD test. Objective holding is otherwise denied by the entire language of these rules.

Iirc, all other uses of the word apply are applied the same way. The doubt that you bring up is not sufficient, as it seems to be quite a stretch.

**Major Malfunction**

This tactic feels "gamey". Having played Nids for years and knowing how Synapse worked in the past and now, it feels like an omission or oversight. Hardly seems sporting.

That said if the RAW hammer were swung, you would be in the right. Of course I'd completely ding you for sportsmanship in a tourney setting, but that's just me. Good sportsmanship is NEVER "springing" trick interpretations or loopholes on someone. While you might technically be inside the letter of the law, you'd also be a gakky sport.

My .02. Your mileage may vary. Not for internal use. If rash develops, consult a doctor.

**Eza**

gaylord500 wrote:Instictive Behavior rules must be used as they're written in the situations stated. Not moving is either moving 0" after taking and LD test and then being able to hold objectives or lurking and then unable to hold objectives. The order doesn't matter, as to get one you need the other. There's no other option given, and no reason to believe your option is ever a default option, especially as these special rules were given to override the default situation. You are told right off the bat that a Tyranid unit subject to Synapse outside of Synapse range does not use ordinary rules. The 0" move is a red herring because both sides of IB can tell you what to do depending on how you want to interpret what that is. As there is no ability to make that kind of move and hold an objective without the LD test, a successful LD test is necessary if you want to hold an objective.

To get to hold an objective for a unit subject to IB, the route is an LD test. Objective holding is otherwise denied by the entire language of these rules.

Iirc, all other uses of the word apply are applied the same way. The doubt that you bring up is not sufficient, as it seems to be quite a stretch.

Again, you give no explicit evidence to support you argument. Let me remind that this logic you are using is a non sequitur, or logic fallacy. I'll quote once more.

Eza wrote:
The labels "warrior" and "pacifist" are mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean everyone is a warrior or a pacifist.

The Green Git wrote:This tactic feels "gamey". Having played Nids for years and knowing how Synapse worked in the past and now, it feels like an omission or oversight. Hardly seems sporting.

That said if the RAW hammer were swung, you would be in the right. Of course I'd completely ding you for sportsmanship in a tourney setting, but that's just me. Good sportsmanship is NEVER "springing" trick interpretations or loopholes on someone. While you might technically be inside the letter of the law, you'd also be a gakky sport.

My .02. Your mileage may vary. Not for internal use. If rash develops, consult a doctor.

Ding away. You're assumption that I would "spring" this on someone is insulting though. Given the lack of clarity, I would inform my opponent of my plan.

I've also played nids for years and among my circles this understanding of IB has always been the accepted one.

Oh, and the part about it being an omission or oversight is a shot in the dark at best. Without actually talking to the creator of the rules, we have no way, wthout clarification, of knowing their intent.

All this fuss about it not being sporting or losing sportmanship points is nonsense. Granted, since misconception seems rampant, It would be a good idea to inform your opponet, but otherwise, I see this as fair game. Or maybe i'll put it this way. Because the rules are poorly written, I'm a bad sport for following them? Makes perfect sense.

**kirsanth**

Mattlov your icon is the main reason I keep reading this.

"Actually, I am. Neither rule specifies that you must choose one or the other. "

The IB rules do.
They do not state "Apply the IB rules and then add in all the other things you find convenient."

They refer to one section of one codex.
That section does not list your "tactic". It only lists the options available to units falling under IB.

The understanding of various gaming circles shows more often how things are argued more than how they are read. The most persuasive speakers tend to be "right" more often.
This is why pointing out where the rule is stated is more important than pointing out what is missing.

**Eza**

kirsanth wrote:Mattlov your icon is the main reason I keep reading this.

"Actually, I am. Neither rule specifies that you must choose one or the other. "

The IB rules do.
They do not state "Apply the IB rules and then add in all the other things you find convenient."

They refer to one section of one codex.
That section does not list your "tactic". It only lists the options available to units falling under IB.

The understanding of various gaming circles shows more often how things are argued more than how they are read. The most persuasive speakers tend to be "right" more often.
This is why pointing out where the rule is stated is more important than pointing out what is missing.

You're reading the rules like a run-on sentence. Each rule needs to be interpreted separately. Apparently I'm going to have to repeat myself forever. Neither rule says that if you don't use it, you must use the other. Thus, you are wrong.

**kirsanth**

Repeating your self does not help, and you should not.

The words you have used are insufficient. Quoting the section of rules for IB that allow the "tactic" would be sufficient. They are entirely listed in the Codex: Tyranids for your perusal.

The rules are written as a set, not a run on sentence. Which is how I read them. Thus, you are wrong.

**Eza**

kirsanth wrote:Repeating your self does not help, and you should not.

The words you have used are insufficient. Quoting the section of rules for IB that allow the "tactic" would be sufficient. They are entirely listed in the Codex: Tyranids for your perusal.

The rules are written as a set, not a run on sentence. Which is how I read them. Thus, you are wrong.

They have been quoted...numerous times. You, apparently, just refuse to read them. Here I'll quote myself once again.

Eza wrote:
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.

And no, you are not reading them as a set because if you were, you would understand them as explained above.

"Thus, you are wrong." Clever response there, repeating what I said. Real original.

**Mattlov**

kirsanth wrote:Mattlov your icon is the main reason I keep reading this.

Thanks, I think.

Eza:

The key word is "alternatively" here. For your ease, I have included the direct link to the root word "alternative" from Dictionary.com.

Alternative means you have 2 options, no more, no less. The IB description is set up badly to use this word properly, but it is still used correctly. Here is how it works in this rules section:

1: Tyranids out of synapse always fall back. (Bullet Point 3)

2: You have the option (the alternatives) of either attempting a Leadership Check, or Lurking. There are no other options since the definition of alternative does not allow any.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alternative

I can see where you want to believe your argument. However, the language of it actually defeats you. There would be less confusion if the IB section read this way:

Bullet 1: Fall Back
Alternatively, you may:
Bullet 2: Leadership Check
Bullet 3: Lurk

Does this make more sense for the argument?

**Major Malfunction**

Eza wrote:Ding away. You're assumption that I would "spring" this on someone is insulting though. Given the lack of clarity, I would inform my opponent of my plan.

I've not assumed *YOU* would do anything. I was throwing the statement out in general. Anyone who springs trick rule interpretations out at the last moment is a jerk. If that applies to you, then you are a jerk. If not, then you are not.

Eza wrote: Oh, and the part about it being an omission or oversight is a shot in the dark at best. Without actually talking to the creator of the rules, we have no way, wthout clarification, of knowing their intent.

Of course not we have no way of *knowing*. That's why I used the word "feels" and "seems". I'd assumed since you were so good at parsing words like "may" and "alternative" that you'd pick up on that. Sheez.

Eza wrote:All this fuss about it not being sporting or losing sportmanship points is nonsense.

Sportsmanship, in fact, is *SUCH* nonsense that GW has built it into the rules and gives numerous examples of it in the explanation sections of the rulebook and categorizes a whole portion of play to be judged in tournaments based on it. What the hell was *I* thinking?

Eza wrote:Granted, since misconception seems rampant, It would be a good idea to inform your opponet, but otherwise, I see this as fair game. Or maybe i'll put it this way. Because the rules are poorly written, I'm a bad sport for following them? Makes perfect sense.

I already admitted that a strict RAW interpretation would support the notion you could do what is being suggested. I'm just saying that it seems gamey and more like a loophole than anything, and to spring such a loophole at the last minute would be unsportsmanlike despite being legal. Is that so hard to understand? It's not the the rule... it's not clarifying an otherwise ambiguous rule with your opponent before using it that's being questioned here.

**Eza**

Mattlov wrote:
Alternative means you have 2 options, no more, no less.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alternative wrote:1. 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:

Did you even read this? lol..
Really, I mean not to insult you.

Besides, this was already covered on the previous page when I disproved wyomingfox.

**Eza**

The Green Git wrote:
I've not assumed *YOU* would do anything. I was throwing the statement out in general. Anyone who springs trick rule interpretations out at the last moment is a jerk. If that applies to you, then you are a jerk. If not, then you are not.

The Green Git wrote:
That said if the RAW hammer were swung, you would be in the right. Of course I'd completely ding you for sportsmanship in a tourney setting, but that's just me.

Really, doesn't seem that way to me... But I'll give you that maybe I jumped the gun. Sorry.

The Green Git wrote:
Of course not we have no way of *knowing*. That's why I used the word "feels" and "seems". I'd assumed since you were so good at parsing words like "may" and "alternative" that you'd pick up on that. Sheez.

Of course. Naturally I would have the ability of knowing what you know without you telling me.
I was simply saying that you're feeling does not play into the argument over the rules interpretation. And I mean that not to imply that your feeling is any less valid because of that, only that I disagree.

The Green Git wrote:
Sportsmanship, in fact, is *SUCH* nonsense that GW has built it into the rules and gives numerous examples of it in the explanation sections of the rulebook and categorizes a whole portion of play to be judged in tournaments based on it. What the hell was *I* thinking?

You took this out of context. I was not calling "sportmanship" nonsense, only the act of penalizing me for "springing" this on someone last minute. But I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at.

The Green Git wrote:
I already admitted that a strict RAW interpretation would support the notion you could do what is being suggested. I'm just saying that it seems gamey and more like a loophole than anything, and to spring such a loophole at the last minute would be unsportsmanlike despite being legal. Is that so hard to understand? It's not the the rule... it's not clarifying an otherwise ambiguous rule with your opponent before using it that's being questioned here.

I agree wholeheartedly on everything except it seeming like a loophole.

**kirsanth**

Spore Mines running is a loophole, this is reading too hard while the understanding is soft.

^^

**gaylord500**

To keep the discussion moving, hopefully a new point rather than the rehash of the old ones.

The line before the apply line.

"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not already falling back or already in combat, it will revert to Instinctive Behavior."

Under Instinctive Behavior, you hold an objective only after making a successful LD test; all models must use Instinctive Behavior if they fall under that line's categories. Where is holding an objective and not moving defined as Instinctive Behavior? Not in the basic rulebook, and not in the Codex. Therefore, it is not the Instinctive Behavior these models are required to exhibit under the above; the models will revert to it.

**Eza**

gaylord500 wrote:To keep the discussion moving, hopefully a new point rather than the rehash of the old ones.

The line before the apply line.

"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not already falling back or already in combat, it will revert to Instinctive Behavior."

Defenders say that not holding and objective and not moving is allowed by the bullet points because the basic rules let you do that. However, the line above shows another restriction on these models. Where is holding an objective and not moving defined as Instinctive Behavior? Not in the basic rulebook, and not in the Codex. Under Instinctive Behavior, you hold an objective only after making a successful LD test; all models must use Instinctive Behavior if they fall under that line's categories.

You are able to do this as per the main rule book, and IB does not deny you this. You show me where does.

**Lukus83**

I personally dont see the confusion. If you start more than 12" away you will revert to IB. Choose 1 of the following rules and apply them to each unit that has reverted to IB.

Either take the test or lurk. I can see how not moving puts a spin on things, but clearly it seems more like something they missed rather than trying to give nid players a loophole. If you could take the objective without having to take the LD test then why bother putting in the rules for instinctive behaviour. Seriously people...i feel this thread is in some serious need of some common sense.

And Eza...please stop trying to justify your claim using the "because it doesnt say you cant!" type rant. It also doesnt say you can.

**Eza**

You should read the rest of the thread. This has already been covered.

**Mattlov**

Eza wrote:
gaylord500 wrote:To keep the discussion moving, hopefully a new point rather than the rehash of the old ones.

The line before the apply line.

"If all models in a Tyranid brood begin their movement more than 12" away from a Synapse Creature, and that unit is not already falling back or already in combat, it will revert to Instinctive Behavior."

Defenders say that not holding and objective and not moving is allowed by the bullet points because the basic rules let you do that. However, the line above shows another restriction on these models. Where is holding an objective and not moving defined as Instinctive Behavior? Not in the basic rulebook, and not in the Codex. Under Instinctive Behavior, you hold an objective only after making a successful LD test; all models must use Instinctive Behavior if they fall under that line's categories.

You are able to do this as per the main rule book, and IB does not deny you this. You show me where does.

Codex rules trump the rulebook.

The Unit will revert to Instictive Behavior. There in the codex are all the rules for Instictive Behavior. These are the only rules for IB. They override situations in the rulebook.

Standing there is not an option under IB. Therefore, you can only do that if you the pass the Ld test. I am done with this thread as you obviously cannot figure this out. There ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS UNDER IB other than what is in the codex. Your attempted justification is WRONG.

**don_mondo**

Eza:
Yes, it has been covered and you keep misapplying the rule.
Alternatively, sure the definition says two or more, the rule in question only offers two. Only two options (ie alternativees) offered, then only two alternatives available. And you can forget about applying the rulebook since codex overrules rulebook and the IB rule will supercede any possibility of "not moving".
You have been shown, numerous times, and in fact you keep quoting the rule yourself.
As for in a tourney, I know what the US GT and Games Day judges would say. You're wrong. So your opponent wouldn't have to ping you.....................