Mycetic Spore Shooting

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.

**reds8n**

Like the mouthbreather below points out,

let's have no more comments like this please, if you can't stay polite then go away, do something else, and come back later when you can be.Ta.

**Hallowed_Da'Credo**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Doomthumbs wrote:To Hallowed with his new business before I feed the trolls:

Ironic, really, that you would say this.

I'm not a troll...I'm a frog. Brrrick Frog!

But beyond that, I'm just here to discuss the rule, as I'd be interested to play it legally, not throw my opinion around.
Thusly you would be more so the troll.

**nosferatu1001**

Huh? Given the quote wasnt about you I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here....

Regardless Doomthumbs argument is without merit, therefore if you want to play it by the rules than you may not fire the Spod in your opponents turn.

**Doomthumbs**

This is Gonna be a long post, as I have to refute quite a lot of stuff. First off, apologies all around. Not trying to be combative, only frustrated that a point that I have made 10 times is just not getting through. If there is someone that can explain this better, please let me know. Below, my rebuttal to each point [will be in the bracketed text]. Again, As per forum rules, I will try and attack the statements, without detailing my own frustration at what I perceive to be an attempt to derail me by way of quoting my own text back at me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Doomthumbs wrote:To Hallowed with his new business before I feed the trolls:

Ironic, really, that you would say this.
[Isn't it great that someone else called you one like right after? And that it was Hallowed truly is irony.]

Doomthumbs wrote:Combined with the rule about MCs shooting 2 identical weapons and it counting as a single twin linked weapon, that could get pretty ugly pretty quick. Again, because it says Shooting phase only, with no mention of turn.

There IS NO SUCH RULE. It is not in the Tyranid codex and, as you appear to have deliberately yet again ignored the rules for the summary - where the codex disagrees the summary in the BRB loses.

[Why is there no such rule? The codex doesnt disagree with that at all.]

Doomthumbs wrote:From Solkan's long post with no quotes:
"40K is a permissive rule set. The Chaos Space Marine codex says that the Obliterators may fire one weapon from their list in each shooting phase. That's permission to fire, if it is possible to do so."

Again, No, it says turn, not shooting phase. "One per turn from..." Thats not permission.

Nope, there are two entries for the obliterator, and one states each phase. Given that this is the section which describes their weapon (which you laughingly dismiss as a fluff section) you canot ignore it.

WEll, apparently you can, but it destroys you argument yet further.

[Ok, we agree that Army list > Fluff page entry? Army list says turn. Therefore player turn. Therefore only one PHASE that they can act in.]

Doomthumbs wrote:Also you seem to be laboring under the impression that I'm going to be really put out if the spore can't shoot at something. No, if its out of range its out of range and cant shoot. That is spelled out.

Actually you are claiming it is forced to shoot, and this is extraordinary permission to do so in your opponents turn. This MUST would, in your fantasy world, as a necessary conclusion also override other restrictions (because if youre going to override one rule without it explicitly stating you can, as you are believing you can, then you should at least be vaguely consisten)

[MUST... no, you started something there but then let is slip. What MUST would? If I cant shoot but it says I must, I dont get eaten by demons. I just dont shoot. What happens to ragers that can't move toward an enemy? They just dont. They must if they can.]

Doomthumbs wrote: Oblits have a rule that gives it permission to fire once per turn.

COrrection: per phase.

[Recorrection: You just said above that its both. and since the army list says turn, its invalid anyway due to what a turn is. Its not a phase, though.]

Doomthumbs wrote: Any time turn even gets mentioned it means player turn, and so only once per game turn.

Incorrect.
Each player turn == twice per game turn
Your player turn == once per game turn.
This is where you are "confused" I guess.

[Rulebook pg 15 upper right says that if turn is mentioned in the BRB or Codices, it means player turn. Which means you DONT get to do anything in your opponents turn, as that would make it a 'game turn' wording kinda scenario. I'm still not confused that two PHASEs occur each game turn, and nothing in my rules says turn.]

Doomthumbs wrote: Because the oblits say turn, you are limited to just a player turn, which only has one shooting phase.

Incorrect, see above. Also you REALLY dont like that it states phase, do you?

[I really don't like that it says Turn in the army list entry. Maybe the spore has that... no, my point still stands. (see above)]

Doomthumbs wrote:Like the mouthbreather below points out,

aaaaaand reported. Well done.

[Consider my wrist officially slapped. I assumed. My bad.]

Doomthumbs wrote:Its too bad that the nice succinct argument brings up over and over again points already made. Like yours! "Doomthumbs - unqualified turn == player turn. Yet for you it meant game turn. Your turn to read, me thinks. " I have NEVER misunderstood this distinction in the post, but its one you're jumping up and down over like a jack russel terrier. Please go back and read, I'm not feeding your trollish arguments anymore. I've always said that any mention of turn AT ALL means player turn. Otherwise it says game in front of it. Thats etched in STONE man.

Yet you stated, quite clearly, that you believed "turn" meant game turn.

[You mean where I said the opposite was etched in STONE?]

Doomthumbs wrote:Back to Solkan, with another quote from him. " Here's my Obliterator who gets to take advantage of "There are times when a player is allowed to perform actions during their opponent's turn..." to shoot during the opposing player's turn. " So you're AGAIN claiming your oblits get to fire using MY argument. Thats when my SPORE gets to fire because the spore doesnt say turn it says phase.
Dronze gets it. Ask him. You'll come around eventually too. Because this is another point I tire of making over and over and over. I want to discuss new topics on the subject, like Hallowed brings up. This is just repetitive garbage. If you make another really long post detailing why oblits and lash princes get to do something during my phase because of the rule that says they can shoot one per turn, I'm gonna laugh and ignore it unless theres something new.

The point is:

YOUR argument contains no permission to fire in your opponents turn. However if we believe your argument to be true by dint of the same permission you have made up out of whole cloth Oblits and MCs can fire in the opponents turn.

It is a reductio ad absurdum: show you that your illogic argument has some wonderful conclusions.

[My argument DOES say that I get to fire each phase. Not turn. Since there is a Shooting phase IN my opponents turn, that I MUST shoot every phase I can GIVES me that permission. Its caveat emptor: I didn't buy a codex that says turn, but you did.]

Doomthumbs wrote:Ok, now you see where it says turn for yours?

That makes them different, and special.

No, it really doesn't. It contains no permission for you to break the turn rules. Nice try though.

[It does though. The wording is different, and there are no rules for when it says phase. Pg 9 says I could even interrupt you during my turn]

Doomthumbs wrote:If the oblits are doing something each turn, it doesnt mean the opponents turn. If the spore does something each phase, it WOULD because it isn't tied to a single turn by any rule.

Incorrect. See above.
[Again, any mention of turn = just that players turn. Unless it says game turn. Or phase.]

Doomthumbs wrote:Says who? I can find the rule that says that if it mentions turn at all it means just yours. But if it says shooting phase? This is STILL my main point.

Incorrect, see above.

[Whats incorrect here? Thats a statement that I can't find the rules that deny me the shot, which you claim exist, along with a reassertion of my thesis.]

Doomthumbs wrote:Wheres the QUOTE thats says shooting phase means just mine?
Once per turn = once per player turn, therefore only once per game turn.
Once per phase = once on each players turn, therefore twice per game turn.

Incorrect, see above.

[Ok, what? Is there anyone else that can explain that better for me? Its not sinking in.]

Doomthumbs wrote:Unless theres a quote that says otherwise. Because I can back up the above with a rulebook.

No you cant, as you rely on a quote fromt he BRB summary which is overridden by the rules in the summary section, you dont understand the difference between each turn and own turn, and so forth.

[ The rule is overwritten by something else in the summary? That ones a little garbled. The quote is that if MCs fire 2 identical weapons, it counts as a single twin linked weapon, and that isn't disputed by either me or the codex, or anyone but sub bridge dwellers.]

Sorry if it seems that I'm calling you out specifically, its just that you made several points, all incorrect. My opinions (and facts) are now also available.

Is there anyone else that gets what I'm saying about turn and phase being two hugely different animals? That was in my second post in this thread.
IG, Chaos, Eldar, and everyone else has a SIMILAR issue, but not the SAME issue. Their rules ALL say turn somewhere in the rule.

Tyranids have different wording than any other codex. You can't dispute that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:The Chaos Space Marine codex has two bits for the Obliterator. The first bit says that they can choose from the list of weapons when the fire each Shooting phase, that's on page 35.
The second bit is in the army list entry, which says that it's "once per turn from ..." on page 100.

See the main rulebook for the fact that turn means player turn and the codex is in fact stating that they have a weapon choice during both player turns of the game turn.

Ok, see where you said turn = player turn, so that means two player turns of action for you? I get it now why you think you get two actions as well.
But you are misreading it. You are trying to say that since there are two player turns every game turn, you will get two player turns of action. But thats not how that works. The rules on page 9 are very clear. You're limited to just your player turn.

And I totally agree that any wording where it says once per turn, one every turn, or each turn means that they can't fire at all. I even said in my second post here that I agreed with the rulings in the IG orders debate, and others. But the point I'm trying to make, and that you won't accept, is that the spore says phase, and there IS no rule that specifies that if it says phase in the BRB or codices that it means just the players phase. There is a rule for that, but it says turn, not phase.
And again, the spore just says each phase.

**Manchu**

Doomthumbs wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Doomthumbs wrote:Like the mouthbreather below points out,

aaaaaand reported. Well done.

[Consider my wrist officially slapped. I assumed. My bad.]

This is getting stupid. Both of you quit it.

**nosferatu1001**

If you can please learn to use the quote tags it will make things MUCH easier to read....

Doomthumbs wrote:This is Gonna be a long post, as I have to refute quite a lot of stuff. First off, apologies all around. Not trying to be combative, only frustrated that a point that I have made 10 times is just not getting through.

Because your point is incorrect.

You read "player turn" to mean "owning player turn" when that isnt the definition. There are 2 Player Turns each Game TUrn.

That is your first mistake, of many.

Doomthumbs wrote: If there is someone that can explain this better, please let me know. Below, my rebuttal to each point [will be in the bracketed text]. Again, As per forum rules, I will try and attack the statements, without detailing my own frustration at what I perceive to be an attempt to derail me by way of quoting my own text back at me.

Yet you didnt do so, and continued to post attacks on the person - see below. Reported again, btw.

Doomthumbs wrote:There IS NO SUCH RULE. It is not in the Tyranid codex and, as you appear to have deliberately yet again ignored the rules for the summary - where the codex disagrees the summary in the BRB loses.

[Why is there no such rule? The codex doesnt disagree with that at all.]

Because it isnt in the codex, it does not appear in the BRB rules section, and the summary section states if the codex contradicts the summary (for, by example, NOT STATING ANY SUCH RULE) then the summary is invalid?

Is that clear enough yet?

Doomthumbs wrote:[Ok, we agree that Army list > Fluff page entry? Army list says turn. Therefore player turn. Therefore only one PHASE that they can act in.]

Sigh. No, not at all. FIrst of all it is NOT the fluff page, given it is where the OB unique rules are given. That means it isnt fluff. Secondly the main rules section is > unit entry.

So it means each shooting phase. Two per turn.

You also continue to make the miistake in asserting, with no backup, that player turn = once per game turn. If this were true (and thankfully it isnt) then there would be no difference between saying "each (player) turn" and "each game turn" - you would still have a once per game turn effect.

The fact they are different tells you you are wrong on this. I've tried to explain this to youa few times, but given your entire argument relies on finding an artificial difference between player turn and player shooting phase, I guess you wont admit your error any time soon.

Doomthumbs wrote:Also you seem to be laboring under the impression that I'm going to be really put out if the spore can't shoot at something. No, if its out of range its out of range and cant shoot. That is spelled out.

Actually you are claiming it is forced to shoot, and this is extraordinary permission to do so in your opponents turn. This MUST would, in your fantasy world, as a necessary conclusion also override other restrictions (because if youre going to override one rule without it explicitly stating you can, as you are believing you can, then you should at least be vaguely consisten)

[MUST... no, you started something there but then let is slip. What MUST would? If I cant shoot but it says I must, I dont get eaten by demons. I just dont shoot. What happens to ragers that can't move toward an enemy? They just dont. They must if they can.]

**Doomthumbs**

If you don't like reading, feel free to skip this next part. Its boring and I whine a lot. Its separate from my arguments here so only read it if you've got some spare time.
//Just as I have told people here and in the game stores I play at, I will NEVER play using this rule. Its not how I believe the game should work. But it IS how the rules are written.
I'm not sitting here trying to poke a beehive. I personally have zero stake in the outcome of this argument, since I rarely even use spores. They die too easily for the extra killpoint they give out.

All I'm trying to do is point out what I believe is a flaw in the codex that deserves attention, if only to shut it down. Its abundantly clear to me that the precedent to the spore doing anything in the opponents phase is sparse at best.
But I'm also not just going to accept misquoted and abused rules as a venue for shutting it out as a possibility. I'm also slightly put off that I'm brushed aside on the matter like I'm not making well worded and powerful arguments. I'm further displeased that some of these posts, and the ones I consider the most curt and dismissive, are coming from [DCM]s. Ostensibly, they have distinguished themselves because of the content of their posts. The content provided here is bitterly sarcastic, filled with glaring inaccuracies, and just plain repetitively wrong. I realize that I'm only 40 posts into my dakkadakka contributions, but please at least give me the respect that my carefully chosen rhetoric deserves, instead of a brush off implying I don't understand the rules. Most of the time, I'm having to go and find the quotes myself for the arguments presented against me, and they turn out to support my argument.

If nothing else, I'm getting a nice little .doc file from this thread filled with similar arguments, some of them from actual people. I didn't know about the IG or bladestorm wordings. Now I do. Thats nice to have, especially since I've personally seen some of this stuff happen in games. There is A LOT of it in the local metagame, people just freely using their false interpretation of a rule. Some of them actual lawyers, which is a PITA to argue with. This will at least help stem the tide.
Thanks for reading, go out and have some great games.

**puma713**

Doomthumbs wrote:
Is there anyone else that gets what I'm saying about turn and phase being two hugely different animals? That was in my second post in this thread.

I do. And I completely agree that turn =/= phase. I just don't have the energy to stave off the likes of nosferatu1001 and Solkan. You've put up a good fight though. What I think is funny is that RAW purists fight for what they want and ignore what they don't. They can't deny that the Tyranid codex says "phase". It doesn't say yours, it doesn't say the enemies, it simply says "each shooting phase". Phase =/= turn. Who cares what the BRB says? The codex (specific > general) states "each shooting phase". It doesn't specify. That says to me, each shooting phase. Not each [one of your] shooting phase. However, even though the RAW states "each shooting phase", the RAW purists are arguing against it because they take phase to mean turn, which sounds like their version of RAI to me. In fact, them telling you that "each shooting phase" means "once per turn" is a glaring example of RAI, something they detest to the fullest. Looks like the waters are getting muddied.

Have a look at the RAW fun thread, Doomthumbs. It'll make you laugh.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you didnt do so, and continued to post attacks on the person - see below. Reported again, btw.

Christ, nos - thin skin? Can't you argue or carry on a conversation with someone without getting flustered or worked up enough to report them? Even if they call you a name (which he didn't do. He made a reference to bridge dwellers. It's not his fault if you lump yourself into that category is it)? Sticks and stones and all that. . .

I'm sure you'll take this a personal attack, so I'll wait for the report/mod PM.

**Doomthumbs**

For the folks that can still read my posts, I DO know what caveat emptor means.
"A" Reductio ad absurdum, (also called an indirect proof) is where a proposition is proven true by proving that it is impossible for it to be false.

I took Latin in high school. Its a dead language, but some people still try and speak it from time to time. It IS nice to know what they're saying.

**puma713**

Doomthumbs wrote:
All I'm trying to do is point out what I believe is a flaw in the codex that deserves attention, if only to shut it down. Its abundantly clear to me that the precedent to the spore doing anything in the opponents phase is sparse at best.
But I'm also not just going to accept misquoted and abused rules as a venue for shutting it out as a possibility. I'm also slightly put off that I'm brushed aside on the matter like I'm not making well worded and powerful arguments. I'm further displeased that some of these posts, and the ones I consider the most curt and dismissive, are coming from [DCM]s. Ostensibly, they have distinguished themselves because of the content of their posts. The content provided here is bitterly sarcastic, filled with glaring inaccuracies, and just plain repetitively wrong. I realize that I'm only 40 posts into my dakkadakka contributions, but please at least give me the respect that my carefully chosen rhetoric deserves, instead of a brush off implying I don't understand the rules. Most of the time, I'm having to go and find the quotes myself for the arguments presented against me, and they turn out to support my argument.

Well said. Sadly, this is how YMDC operates. If you're not berated enough to change your mind about something, the ones that are having a conversation with you usually just plug their ears, for the most part.

**Doomthumbs**

puma713 wrote:Have a look at the RAW fun thread, Doomthumbs. It'll make you laugh.

What, you thought I was just sitting here hitting refresh on just this argument?

I've read it, and a lot of it is pretty funny. Loooot of head shaking and saying to myself "Oh thats just nasty", but funny.
What boggles me is that people will try and play these. Not just try, but print that out and go running to the LGS to try and humiliatingly crush someone.
And thats fun, huh?

I'm of firm belief that a game is a contract between two players to have fun. If we play a 1000 point game and you brought a chaos warhound titan, I sigh and pack up my bags before the game starts and say good game as I shake your hand, but I dont mean it. I've got quite a few bugs in my collection, and I always bring them all. Why bring almost 10k points of bugs to each game? Options. What would YOU like to play? And I've got a few lists, which I let my opponent choose from, provisionally. I dont use my swarm list on leafblower, for example.
Or I use a premade list I think will be a good match for the list whoever I'm playing brought.

Thanks for some kind support. Hope to see more of your kind around.

**I Am a Doctor**

Hey guys, first actual post here on Dakka, though I've lurked for a while. Better content, less ads that other sites I could name.

Theres a lot to read in this post, an a lot of it has really amused me. Doomthumbs, you get the slow clap. Well worded arguments but you're urinating in the wind my friend. You're right, there should be a FAQ but theres not. Its still going to play the same way in most stores, with the spore not shooting. Thank God for common sense (amongst gamers at least, above the general public) generally overruling the absurd.

**Doomthumbs**

I agree. I can ASSURE you that it is played with only one phase of shooting at my LGS and in my own home.

But again I'm trying to prove a point here, and the stream is now already flowing. The goal now is to piss harder and farther into the wind, straight ahead. So hard and far that the backlash doesn't catch me. And definitely like WAY farther than those other guys.

Edit: Welcome to Dakka. I already like you.

**kirsanth**

puma713 wrote:Sadly, this is how YMDC operates. If you're not berated enough to change your mind about something, the ones that are having a conversation with you usually just plug their ears, for the most part.

Don't forget the folks that make vaguely topical insults to the forum at large (because that helps them deny it is personal)and thinking it makes them look good! Those always make YMDC a more friendly and helpful place.

Doomthumbs wrote:If nothing else, I'm getting a nice little .doc file from this thread filled with similar arguments, some of them from actual people.

I cannot recommend that enough.

I have a large number of issues that I make an effort to discuss with opponents that I have not played before--or send to a TO prior to even signing up for a tourney.

Given the nature of the rules, this is a neccesity to me. I do not like to have debates during the game. That is what YMDC is for to me. Getting the sides of the issue I would never have come up with myself, even if just so I know where they are coming from--but often it helps understand ways to refute assertions.

For example, if an opponent suggested spods can shoot in both shooting phases prior to this thread, I think that my response would have been nowhere near as detailed and cohesive as it will be now.

**I Am a Doctor**

Deleted by Manchu. It might be Lupus.

**Manchu**

@I Am A Doctor: That's an annoying way to start your time here on Dakka. Personal attacks are not allowed.

**nosferatu1001**

Puma - actually it was in reference to another insult, actually. Glad to see you're paying attention though. I wont raise to your awful baiting though, if you want it to work you'll have to try harder.

Also, to correct a misconception you have (I'll be generous and not call it what it likely is): noone has said phase == turn. Not at all. But dont let that stop your disparaging, welcome remarks that are entirely OT.

**Scott-S6**

Doomthumbs wrote:Combined with the rule about MCs shooting 2 identical weapons and it counting as a single twin linked weapon, that could get pretty ugly pretty quick. Again, because it says Shooting phase only, with no mention of turn.

There IS NO SUCH RULE. It is not in the Tyranid codex and, as you appear to have deliberately yet again ignored the rules for the summary - where the codex disagrees the summary in the BRB loses.

[Why is there no such rule? The codex doesnt disagree with that at all.]

The correct way to refute something like that is to provide a page reference. Do you have one?

**Dumbthumbs**

Scott-S6 wrote:The correct way to refute something like that is to provide a page reference. Do you have one?

It DOESN'T say it in the codex anywhere, as far as I can tell. How do I provide a page reference for something like that?
Its on page imaginary, right next to the ground unicorn horn.

**puma713**

kirsanth wrote:
puma713 wrote:Sadly, this is how YMDC operates. If you're not berated enough to change your mind about something, the ones that are having a conversation with you usually just plug their ears, for the most part.
Don't forget the folks that make vaguely topical insults to the forum at large (because that helps them deny it is personal)and thinking it makes them look good! Those always make YMDC a more friendly and helpful place.

Don't blame me. I didn't make it this way. And I'm not denying personal attacks. But if I list personal attacks, I'll get reported, so I refrain.

**Melchiour**

Okay I am trying to follow this conversation which is getting harder and harder. Can someone tell me where in BRB or codex it states that if a monstrous creature fires 2 identical weapons it counts as twin linked.

**Dumbthumbs**

nosferatu1001 wrote: noone has said phase == turn. Not at all.

No, but there are quite a number of people who seem to think turn==phase.

**nosferatu1001**

Dumbthumbs wrote:
Scott-S6 wrote:The correct way to refute something like that is to provide a page reference. Do you have one?

It DOESN'T say it in the codex anywhere, as far as I can tell. How do I provide a page reference for something like that?
Its on page imaginary, right next to the ground unicorn horn.

Which means the Tyranid codex disagrees with the summary, and therefore the summary rules (you did read them, right? After being repeatedly told about them it would make sense for you to) tell you to ignore it.

The rule not being in the codex is the codex saying the rule doesnt exist (any longer), and therefore the summary tells you to ignore it. Simple concept really

**Dumbthumbs**

@ Melch, its page 103 of the mini rulebook.
Page 295 of what I now know to be the BRB.

**puma713**

nosferatu1001 wrote:Puma - actually it was in reference to another insult, actually. Glad to see you're paying attention though. I wont raise to your awful baiting though, if you want it to work you'll have to try harder.

It was either the mouthbreather thing or the bridge dweller thing. What I said applies to either insult.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also, to correct a misconception you have (I'll be generous and not call it what it likely is): noone has said phase == turn. Not at all. But dont let that stop your disparaging, welcome remarks that are entirely OT.

Okay, sorry for paraphrasing this arduous conversation. No, no one has said phase == turn specifically, but that is the idea that is being conveyed when someone says because you do something in a phase, you only do it once per turn. That's what the entire argument is all about.

Here's I'll paraphrase it even more:

How many [x] phases are in a turn? 2.

If you're told to do something in "each" [x] phase, how many times, therefore, do you do it in a turn? 2.

Ex., in a 7-turn game, there are 14 shooting phases. If you were told to do something automatically in "each" shooting phase (no matter who's it is), how many times would you do it? 14.

There's a difference between being able to choose to do something, and doing something automatically, as well.

**Dumbthumbs**

"As such in the event of any contradiction ... the codexes always take precedence." Pg 97 Mini rulebook.

Thats not a contradiction. Its just not present in the codex. Therefore, its a rule in the BRB not covered in a codex. I'll agree Specific> General, but there is no contradiction here at all.

Unless of course you want to generally state something else without backing it up. Then I'll chase that down a hole forever.

**Melchiour**

Dumbthumbs wrote:@ Melch, its page 103 of the mini rulebook.
Page 295 of what I now know to be the BRB.

So when my tyrant fires two twink linked devourers he fires one twin linked devourer. They are identical.

**nosferatu1001**

How is the rule not being present in the codex not a contradiction?

You do realise that the SUMMARY in the back of the BRB is a SUMMARY of the rules? As in, they attempt to summarise the rules that were present at the time.

If they are not in the current codex, the codex is contradicting the SUMMARY of the rules in the BRB (as you cannot add things to a summary that arent present in the initial item. Kinda basic understanding of English there) and as such the rules for the SUMMARY tell you to ignore it.

It is NOT a "BRB rule" it is a summary of a rule found in the then current Nids codex. It no longer applies as the 5th ed codex does not have the rule.

If you want to continue arguing this point - well, nothing we can say can persuade you of your error.

Puma - so if someone calls you a mouthbreather that wouldnt be an insult? Really? Guess you know better than the mods.

**Dumbthumbs**

Yes, that seems to be the wording for specifically Tyranid Monsterous creatures as per the BRB. Thats my point. Its ambiguous and messed up, why isn't there a fix?

Puma, the insult he was referencing was "wrist slap".
Oh internets, you have sullied my delicate sensibilities.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its not a contradiction because there isnt a rule that conflicts? Show me the one that says otherwise in the Tyranid codex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And its moot anyway because so what? Ok, so that rule goes away forever. The part about phases and turns though remains.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And its moot anyway because so what? Ok, so that rule goes away forever. The part about phases and turns though remains.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melchiour wrote:So when my tyrant fires two twink linked devourers he fires one twin linked devourer. They are identical.

I think this boils down to RAI. Do you fire a 12 shot burst when you fire the Devtyrant, or do you roll two sets of 6 dice twice?

**nosferatu1001**

Right, try this again.

You know what a summary is, yes?

The summary says: Rule X appears in the nid codex. This is what the rule says.

THe nid codex says: Rule X does not exist in this book.

Now, what happens when the summary is contradicted by the codex? Oh, thats right - the summary rules TELL you! The summary rules are ignored, as they *gasp!* no longer summarise a rule in the codex!

Sorry if that went too quick for you.