Can Tyranids manual fire emplaced weapons now?

[Dialogus]

Between the rulebook, Stronghold Assault and the FAQ for the previous codex I have become a bit confused. Can Tyranids now manual fire building weapons? I was thinking that a gribbly version of the Wall of Martyrs Imperial Bunker with a gribblified Quad-gun would be helpful against flyers, but I don't want to do it if the Quad-gun will only be auto-firing (Rulebook, pg. 96) at the nearest enemy unit. If anyone knows the answer to this, a reference to a page with the rule would be nice. If the answer is just "it doesn't say that you can't" then I may have to wait for an FAQ before I put in the work to make something and risk having it taken away like the Parasite of Mortrex that I custom-built. Thanks!

[daboarder]

YES, the old tyranid eratta prevented this, with the advent of the new book the old one is obsolete, given that the codex makes no limitation like that then YES tyranids may manual fire emplacements.

there is NO rule preventing them from following the rules in the BRB. May as well claim that daemons cannot use them, or eldar or tau or any other army.

[Archon Charybdis]

It's always possible an updated FAQ/Errata might add a similar restriction, though you'd figure if this was their intention they'd have put it in the book.

[daboarder]

And until/if it does so there is no rule prohibiting Tyranids from following the rules as described in the BRB

[lobster-overlord]

a cool zoanthrope brain'ed gunner model would be perfect for it :-)

that's the first thing that came to mind for me.

[Tynskel]

I am thinking about getting two exocrine models and bitz, etc., and putting them together to make a 'Firestorm Redoubt'.

[Dialogus]

Cool, thanks for the confirmation. I don't play too often anymore, so I may wait until the FAQ comes out just to be sure. Nice ideas!

[daboarder]

you may be waiting a very very long time.

they we're doing really well keeping the FAQ's up to date last year, but it looks like the bloke got fired again, the very fact that the OLD nid one is still up is not a good sign that a new up to date one is coming anytime soon. And given the rumours of a website change up they could very well ALL disappear.

[Learn2Eel]

Yep, since about April 2013 they have stopped doing regular FAQs and only do a round of FAQs every four months or so to address the tiniest issues imaginable, i.e. FAQing servo-arms for each Marine codex....

[Tynskel]

Honestly, I think the Tyranid codex is one of the tightest codexes they have ever written.

I haven't seen anything FAQ worthy.

[Lord Krungharr]

YES, the old tyranid eratta prevented this, with the advent of the new book the old one is obsolete, given that the codex makes no limitation like that then YES tyranids may manual fire emplacements.

there is NO rule preventing them from following the rules in the BRB. May as well claim that daemons cannot use them, or eldar or tau or any other army.

Who thinks Daemons can't fire emplaced weapons or gun emplacements? And why would they think that?

[iNcontroL]

quad gun AA here we come :)

[John Bower]

Honestly, I think the Tyranid codex is one of the tightest codexes they have ever written.

I haven't seen anything FAQ worthy.

Really? Spore mines readily spring to mind, as in charging as soon as they land. I can't see that escaping an FAQ to say they can't.

[dwez]

Been there, done that: (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24320-Tyranid-Quad-gun-and-Aegis-Defence-Line)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9t2rlFmrY9s/UD8AJg2bG5I/AAAAAAAAEGU/Hsi1IHqi2aw/s320/03-P1060228.JPG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2mMwVKPFdl4/UD8ANi4M1HI/AAAAAAAAEGo/USI4_8Er-WM/s320/05-P1060230.JPG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z94ApitN1PE/UD8AVg_iblI/AAAAAAAAEHs/VNUkoLyajqU/s320/13-P1060238.JPG

Skyshield is where it's at now, all the cool kids are bunking up 30 Termagants and a Tervigon in there ;)

Incidentally gun emplacements can't auto-fire, only weapon emplacements and even then only when the building is occupied [unless it has the 'fully automated rule' like a Vengeance Weapons Battery].

[Maxis Lithium]

GW just took down the old FAQ today (the 21st) so I assume a new FAQ page is on it's way. I expect they are taking their time to make sure they address as many of the problems with the book as they can.

That's the only reason I can think of for such a delay.

[John Bower]

That does depend on which rules you're using. If you're with Stronghold Assault, which really should be used for points costs and improved building rules then as long as you purchased the building as part of your force any guns on it can auto fire even if you leave the building or aren't occupying it to begin with. But on the other hand that also means they can be shot at, and more interestingly somebody like Terminators can DS right inside the building, risky but fun. :)

[Maxis Lithium]

Really? Spore mines readily spring to mind, as in charging as soon as they land. I can't see that escaping an FAQ to say they can't.

Umm... wut? I see no indication that spore mines can assault after deepstriking. They MAY be able to assault after landing from a shoreline launcher... not sure.

I would also like to see some clarity on if the sporemines from multiple biovores on a missed shot form a unit or separate ones.

[kjolnir]

Who thinks Daemons can't fire emplaced weapons or gun emplacements?

Nobody, which is the point.

[kjolnir]

Umm... wut? I see no indication that spore mines can assault after deepstriking. They MAY be able to assault after landing from a shoreline launcher... not sure.

Hence the need for a FAQ!

Do spores count as having deep struck when they are placed as a result of a miss from a Biovore/Harpy, or not? That's a legit question in need of a FAQ.

While I'm sure they WILL count as having deep struck, there's nothing right now that says they do. And, since they didn't come in from reserve, there's no reason why they can assault in the ensuing assault phase.

[Angelofblades]

Honestly, I think the Tyranid codex is one of the tightest codexes they have ever written.

I haven't seen anything FAQ worthy.

I find the Pyrovore hilarity might be something that is FAQ worthy.

[Ghoulio]

Honestly, I think the Tyranid codex is one of the tightest codexes they have ever written.

I haven't seen anything FAQ worthy.

One big one (for me at least) is some clarification as to how Mawlocs and Reserves work. Most people will say that entering into "Ongoing Reserve" means that he has to walk on the board edge the following turn, despite the fact that RAI this clearly isn't the case. I mean, it's basically the exact same argument people had in 5th edition when CLEARLY RAI meant you could deep strike onto someone while all non Nid players said you couldn't. Really there are quite a few things like Spore Mines and Pyrovores (among others) that need to be address. I think its silly calling this book "one of the tightest codexes ever written". One would hope when you copy and paste the previous book and remove all the special rules it might be "tightly written". Clearly not the case imho.

[Tynskel]

Really? Spore mines readily spring to mind, as in charging as soon as they land. I can't see that escaping an FAQ to say they can't.

did they arrive via deep strike? No? then yes, they can charge.

[evilamericorp]

Most people will say that entering into "Ongoing Reserve" means that he has to walk on the board edge the following turn

Why would anyone say that? The ongoing reserves rule says "Units in ongoing reserve always re-enter play at the start of their controlling player's following turn, but otherwise follow the normal rules for reserves." The normal rules for reserves state "Models that are arriving by Deep Strike or Outflank deploy using their special rules."

Nothing in the ongoing reserve rules say a model can't use Deep Strike again the next turn.

[skelderz]

the way i see it untill any FAQ comes out stating otherwise if anyone argues with your use of the weapon calmly explain to them that a genestealer cult obtained the information on the use of it and passed the information back to the hive mind. its logical and inkeeping with the fluff behind the nids and there is no real arguement against the use of it as from my limited knowledge it doesnt state anywhere you CANT use them :D

[Tynskel]

As I said, the Tyranid Codex is written well. It just didn't have the 'i win' button like Grey Knights blatantly had when it came out.

[daboarder]

please, no tyranid player asked for an I win button, that claim is ridiculous and demeaning to yourself. There are still soo many problems with the book that we're just ignored, right down to rules that don't work in a practical setting (looking at you trygon tunnel, which is incidentally WORSE now than it was in 5th, given that reserves come in on a 3+ T2)

[DarkLink]

When GW has a particular unit that is terrible, and they either don't fix it or make it worse when the new codex comes out and people complain, it's because GW did a crappy job, not because all the nids players are WAAC'ers. Because, y'know, then they wouldn't be nids players. They'd play Tau or Eldar or some combination thereof.

[Tynskel]

please, no tyranid player asked for an I win button, that claim is ridiculous and demeaning to yourself. There are still soo many problems with the book that we're just ignored, right down to rules that don't work in a practical setting (looking at you trygon tunnel, which is incidentally WORSE now than it was in 5th, given that reserves come in on a 3+ T2)

take a comm tower.

[DarkLink]

Which you actually can do now, at least. But it doesn't make the tunneling rules any less terrible.

The problem isn't that you can't come on T1. The problem is, you have to hope and pray that your Trygon comes in first, and that nothing else does, and then the next turn everything else comes on. Of course, that means that you can't use the tunnel until T3 at the earliest, at which points you've wasted 1/3 of the game waiting in reserve with whatever units you were tunneling with. At that point, all you can do it take cheap scoring units and try and jump on objectives. But you still can't control that, because, again, you can't say 'My trygon comes on first, everything else comes on later'.

All they had to do was give Trygons Drop Pod Assault. That would turn them from overpriced cannonfodder to a lynchpin unit. It would even make up for the loss of Mycetic Spores. Instead we get a poorly thought out rule that almost no one will ever use. Unquestionably a huge missed opportunity.

[Mathieu Durand]

i actually think that's something we'll see in the 3 extra dataslates
1st one is preparation of the invasion (genestealers and lictors)
2nd would be full tyranids arrival a la planetary assault, with maybe drop pod rules or equivalent (all the books speaking about tyranid invasion speak about the darkening skies and so on)
3rd would be overrun plannet, with big monsters and endless swarms. (maybe the come back of the repeating gaunt swarms ? :D)

i say, a great way for GW to have people pay for specific rules/new units. a codex in the codex ...

[Dlatrex]

What is the current lack of clarity with the Pyrovore? I do not think that the unit was tremendously improved upon, but nothing popped out to me as a typo, or contradiction...

As to the multiple broods of biovores having their missed spore-shots form a gestalt brood...there's not a precedent for that that I can think of. The only thing suggesting that such a thing might be possible is the Floating death rule that limits the Gestalt blast to Strenght 10 (which would require 7 spores in total). Was there some other reference that suggests they Spore Mines have a party if they get close enough?

[Tynskel]

Which you actually can do now, at least. But it doesn't make the tunneling rules any less terrible.

The problem isn't that you can't come on T1. The problem is, you have to hope and pray that your Trygon comes in first, and that nothing else does, and then the next turn everything else comes on. Of course, that means that you can't use the tunnel until T3 at the earliest, at which points you've wasted 1/3 of the game waiting in reserve with whatever units you were tunneling with. At that point, all you can do it take cheap scoring units and try and jump on objectives. But you still can't control that, because, again, you can't say 'My trygon comes on first, everything else comes on later'.

All they had to do was give Trygons Drop Pod Assault. That would turn them from overpriced cannonfodder to a lynchpin unit. It would even make up for the loss of Mycetic Spores. Instead we get a poorly thought out rule that almost no one will ever use. Unquestionably a huge missed opportunity.

nothing else? No, you hope for your one infantry unit to *not* come in.

aka

Take the Comm Tower...

[evilamericorp]

nothing else? No, you hope for your one infantry unit to *not* come in.

aka

Take the Comm Tower...

So I have to take an imperial terrain piece to make my Tyranid army work? That's what I call forging a narrative...

[evilamericorp]

What is the current lack of clarity with the Pyrovore? I do not think that the unit was tremendously improved upon, but nothing popped out to me as a typo, or contradiction...

Read their volatile rule again. Going strictly by RAW, the explosion hits every unit on the board. Clearly not what was intended, but GW is really bad at writing rules...

[DarkLink]

nothing else? No, you hope for your one infantry unit to *not* come in.


...that's literally exactly what I said.

[Tynskel]

...that's literally exactly what I said.

well, you implied in your sentence that a good chunk of the army was in reserves...

this is what you said:


Quote Originally Posted by DarkLink View Post
Which you actually can do now, at least. But it doesn't make the tunneling rules any less terrible.

The problem isn't that you can't come on T1. The problem is, you have to hope and pray that your Trygon comes in first, and that nothing else does, and then the next turn everything else comes on. Of course, that means that you can't use the tunnel until T3 at the earliest, at which points you've wasted 1/3 of the game waiting in reserve with whatever units you were tunneling with. At that point, all you can do it take cheap scoring units and try and jump on objectives. But you still can't control that, because, again, you can't say 'My trygon comes on first, everything else comes on later'.

All they had to do was give Trygons Drop Pod Assault. That would turn them from overpriced cannonfodder to a lynchpin unit. It would even make up for the loss of Mycetic Spores. Instead we get a poorly thought out rule that almost no one will ever use. Unquestionably a huge missed opportunity.

[Tynskel]

So I have to take an imperial terrain piece to make my Tyranid army work? That's what I call forging a narrative...

silly rabbit, just make it look like a tyranid spore tower.
Seriously, do you *have* to use imperial if you are Eldar? no, you make it look like an Eldar installation.

[evilamericorp]

silly rabbit, just make it look like a tyranid spore tower.
Seriously, do you *have* to use imperial if you are Eldar? no, you make it look like an Eldar installation.

So, instead of just having a rule that works like it should, I have to spend extra points on something and still have a 44% chance to fail?

[Dlatrex]

Read their volatile rule again. Going strictly by RAW, the explosion hits every unit on the board. Clearly not what was intended, but GW is really bad at writing rules...

Hmmm.. not sure if the paper version is different but the iBook version seems pretty straight forward:


"Volatile: If a Pyrovore is slain by a Wound that inflicted Instant Death, every unit suffers a Strength 3 AP- hit for each model (excluding Pyrovores) within D6" of the slain Pyrovore (resolve damage before removing the Pyrovore as a casualty)."

[Angelofblades]

Hmmm.. not sure if the paper version is different but the iBook version seems pretty straight forward:


"Volatile: If a Pyrovore is slain by a Wound that inflicted Instant Death, every unit suffers a Strength 3 AP- hit for each model (excluding Pyrovores) within D6" of the slain Pyrovore (resolve damage before removing the Pyrovore as a casualty)."

Right, so what that tells us is that, in the event a Pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicts Instant Death, EVERY UNIT (excluding other Pyrovores) suffers a S3 AP - hit, hits = to the number of models within D6" of the slain Pyrovore.

What it doesn't say is: Every unit within D6" suffers a S3 AP- hit for every model withing those D6".

You may be reading the intent, but the process flow still doesn't change. EVERY UNIT suffers ... for each model within D6".

[Tynskel]

So, instead of just having a rule that works like it should, I have to spend extra points on something and still have a 44% chance to fail?

The rule works fine. aka, you have to invest in it to make it work, and still, not a crutch.

[Anggul]

The rule works fine. aka, you have to invest in it to make it work, and still, not a crutch.

No, it really doesn't work fine. You're either trolling or just being ridiculous. The Trygon tunnel is not 'fine', it doesn't work.

[Tynskel]

No, it really doesn't work fine. You're either trolling or just being ridiculous. The Trygon tunnel is not 'fine', it doesn't work.

no, it works fine, because it would be insanely powerful to be able to ensure 30 Devourer gaunts to arrive safely exactly where you want them to be *every single time*.

[daboarder]

what, really? compared to what? 10 accurate melta/plasma guns......cause sternguard are a thing

[Tynskel]

1) You pay through the nose for that.
2) You don't have a close combat super monster, as well.


wait. You want space marines? Oh wait a second, I think there's an army called, what is it? Oh, I remember, it is called "Space Marines". I suggest you play them if you want a 400 point unit that drops down from the sky that has 10 combi-weapons and has no invulnerable save.

[Angelofblades]

I think what's trying to be expressed is that it's not reliable.

Let's compare it to a similar mechanism that have greater reliability.

Space Marine Teleport homers OR Locator Beacons.

You could put a locator beacon on a Drop Pod, have that drop pod come in on turn one, and it allows other drop pods to come in, as long as that drop pod is alive - this being it's only caveat.

Dark Eldar Weway portal:

It can be placed on Turn 1.

I guess the issue is that it's just not reliable. It's not something your can build a strategy around, no matter how much you'd like to. Unlike drop pods or a webway portal.

[evilamericorp]

1) You pay through the nose for that.
2) You don't have a close combat super monster, as well.


wait. You want space marines? Oh wait a second, I think there's an army called, what is it? Oh, I remember, it is called "Space Marines". I suggest you play them if you want a 400 point unit that drops down from the sky that has 10 combi-weapons and has no invulnerable save.

It doesn't matter how much the unit costs, or what it can do. If you pay for a drop pod, the unit it was bought for gets to use the drop pod. Period. There isn't a chance that the unit becomes available before the drop pod and has to walk onto the table from the board edge. That would be ****ing stupid. Like the trygon rule...

[Dlatrex]

Right, so what that tells us is that, in the event a Pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicts Instant Death, EVERY UNIT (excluding other Pyrovores) suffers a S3 AP - hit, hits = to the number of models within D6" of the slain Pyrovore.

What it doesn't say is: Every unit within D6" suffers a S3 AP- hit for every model withing those D6".

You may be reading the intent, but the process flow still doesn't change. EVERY UNIT suffers ... for each model within D6".

Ahh... I definitely overlooked the words that were omitted and the consequences of the RAW. Heh. The funny thing is, even if that WAS how the mechanic worked, I do not know if that would make Pyrovore desirable =P

[daboarder]

all trygons need to work is either dedicating a unit to the tunnel, OR letting them Deepstrike turn 1.......either one of those would be half of what a drop pod lets you do for piss all points and would at least make the tunnel rule actually practical.

[evilamericorp]

Ahh... I definitely overlooked the words that were omitted and the consequences of the RAW. Heh. The funny thing is, even if that WAS how the mechanic worked, I do not know if that would make Pyrovore desirable =P

Seeing as how most swarms will probably have more units than their enemy, and many of those units will usually be more vulnerable to low strength attacks, it would probably do more to you than your enemy.

With how the rule was clearly intended to work, and with no way to reliably get the pyrovores across the table, it's just like walking a bomb around in the middle of your own army. Just like Tervigons. And the IB feed rule. In fact, it seems in this book it's easier to kill your own models than it is to kill your enemy. Good thing we're the only army stupid enough to kill itself...

[evilamericorp]

no, it works fine, because it would be insanely powerful to be able to ensure 30 Devourer gaunts to arrive safely exactly where you want them to be *every single time*.

Kind of like what we just had last edition with the mycetic spore? I remember how every single tournament was won by those DSing devilgaunts...

[Tynskel]

Kind of like what we just had last edition with the mycetic spore? I remember how every single tournament was won by those DSing devilgaunts...

yeah, you can fit 20 into a pod, and it cost you an arm and a leg.
Not 30 out of a hole, and for cheaper.

[Tynskel]

It doesn't matter how much the unit costs, or what it can do. If you pay for a drop pod, the unit it was bought for gets to use the drop pod. Period. There isn't a chance that the unit becomes available before the drop pod and has to walk onto the table from the board edge. That would be ****ing stupid. Like the trygon rule...

hahahahha! You pay through the nose for that ability. That's why it is okay.

[daboarder]

judging by the trygons price compared to everything else in the book your still paying through the nose for it, it just doesn't work

[DWest]

hahahahha! You pay through the nose for that ability. That's why it is okay.
Would you mind trolling a little harder, in case anyone still thought you were being serious?

Meanwhile, paying 35 points for a Drop Pod that does what you want it when you want it is far superior to paying 70 points *and* locking out your only chance to buy a Skyfire + Interceptor weapon and/or an enclosed building to protect your artillery bugs for a roughly 50/50* chance to make things go your way, a turn later.

*To preempt any quibbling; yes, the Drop Pod can scatter off course, but so can the Trygon, and both have the same chance to reduce scatter, so the advantage or disadvantage cancels out. The Drop Pod arrives on Turn 1, guaranteed; the Trygon has a 4/6 base chance to come in on turn 2, increased to 8/9 with the comms relay re-roll. Anything you'd want to bring in through the tunnel also has a 4/6 to come in on that same turn, so you'll need to delay those models until the next turn (Turn 3). Using the comms relay, you can re-roll the successful reserves roll, hoping to fail it, which is a 2/6 chance. 2/6 + (2/6 * 4/6) = [once reduced to LCD] 5/9. But then, you need those units to come in for sure on Turn 3, so we're back to the 8/9 chance. 5/9 * 8/9 [the chance that you kept the unit in reserve on 2 and got it to come in on 3] comes out to 40/81, or 49%.

[DarkLink]

The rule works fine. aka, you have to invest in it to make it work, and still, not a crutch.

So I'm guessing you're going to chalk it up to 'synergy', right?

[daboarder]

So I'm guessing you're going to chalk it up to 'synergy', right?

It's only synergy till an FAQ stops us doing it, after that it was crutch.....thats how it works right?

[evilamericorp]

Would you mind trolling a little harder, in case anyone still thought you were being serious?

He has to be trolling, right? No one could be that dumb...

right?

[KINGS]

I'm Johnny come lately here but I wanted to add something about the coms relay...

I take a coms relay on an aegis line in my chaos/daemon army. Every game I hold the maximum number of units in reserve so it is really important for them to come in when I want them to (most likely turn two). I place my aegis at the midway point, move jump units to within 3" to allow the coms to reroll reserves! and then everything in the army gets to use the aegis as cover.

This would work amazing for nids! 4+ cover stretched across the mid point of the battlefield added with venomthropes means a lot of quality cover. This is a good idea even without the coms relay but it certainly would go a long way to making the trygon more viable for his burrow hole.

[Tynskel]

He has to be trolling, right? No one could be that dumb...

right?

Ah, sorry my little brained friend, but your insults do not provide you with an argument of any worth.

Again, to have 10 combi plasmas in stern guard plus a drop pod, you have to pay through the nose. It's 400 points if the shy ha another weapon.

If you ignore the tunnel rule, the try gon is worth it's points. You have a almost 0 chance of mishap, and you are delivering a 6 wound Monsterous Creature in to close quarters. Well worth it's points. There gPpens to be an added bonus! If you get lucky, an infantry unit will follow next turn.

[evilamericorp]

If you ignore the tunnel rule, the try gon is worth it's points. You have a almost 0 chance of mishap, and you are delivering a 6 wound Monsterous Creature in to close quarters. Well worth it's points. There gPpens to be an added bonus! If you get lucky, an infantry unit will follow next turn.

We're not ignoring the tunnel rule. The tunnel rule is the entire point of the argument. The "OP" combo of 30 devilgaunts and a trygon is 430 points, is that too low? The sternguard will always be able to use their drop pod, and always be able to reliably deep strike without mishap turn 1. Every single game. If you hold the devilgaunts n reserve in hopes to bring them in through the tunnel, that is a 240 point unit that has a 66% chance to be forced to walk on from the board edge and most likely play no part in the battle. That doesn't make any ****ing sense fluff-wise or rules-wise. Did the hive mind just forget to tell them to follow the trygon? Did they take a wrong turn in the extensive underground tunnel network?

[Anggul]

You're also making a lot of assumptions. You're the one who said 'full squad of combi-plasma Sternguard' and 'full brood of Devilgaunts', not us. We're talking about reasonable options here. You would have to bunch 30 gants right up to fit them all within 6" of the marker and still have them in range (hello templates), especially when you consider that the Trygon scatters, so may land you too far from the enemy to bring all of those guns to bear.

You're assuming extremes rather than going with reasonable things that people would actually do.

I mean, you could bring 30 Devilgaunts or 10 combi-plasma Sternguard in one squad if you wanted to, but you would be rather silly to do so.

There isn't much point in continuing this. We know that the tunnel doesn't work as it should, the fact that you're probably just going to end up with your units walking onto the board out of synapse range unless you pay for a comms relay that you shouldn't need and isn't fluffy at all regardless of what you model it as (and even then isn't that likely to work, you still need a 1 or 2 with a re-roll) just proves the point. GW aren't likely to fix it, so we ought as well just carry on as if it didn't exist.

[Tynskel]

You're also making a lot of assumptions. You're the one who said 'full squad of combi-plasma Sternguard' and 'full brood of Devilgaunts', not us. We're talking about reasonable options here. You would have to bunch 30 gants right up to fit them all within 6" of the marker and still have them in range (hello templates), especially when you consider that the Trygon scatters, so may land you too far from the enemy to bring all of those guns to bear.

You're assuming extremes rather than going with reasonable things that people would actually do.

I mean, you could bring 30 Devilgaunts or 10 combi-plasma Sternguard in one squad if you wanted to, but you would be rather silly to do so.

There isn't much point in continuing this. We know that the tunnel doesn't work as it should, the fact that you're probably just going to end up with your units walking onto the board out of synapse range unless you pay for a comms relay that you shouldn't need and isn't fluffy at all regardless of what you model it as (and even then isn't that likely to work, you still need a 1 or 2 with a re-roll) just proves the point. GW aren't likely to fix it, so we ought as well just carry on as if it didn't exist.

No, someone else stated that. I just used it as an example.

And yes: try gon + the possibility devoured gaunts to be anywhere on the board = inexpensive. You don't get one of the best MC plus 30 wounds with 3 shots a piece for free.

[Anggul]

No, but we aren't getting it for paying either. It's almost a non-rule. It might come up by coincidence, but you can't plan on it.

[Tynskel]

No, but we aren't getting it for paying either. It's almost a non-rule. It might come up by coincidence, but you can't plan on it.

You have to plan. I know, in the age of point and click, planning can be difficult, and not grant you what you completely want.

However, here's a simple trick that works quite well: outflank those devoured gants. Then, when the try gon comes, you have more options.

[evilamericorp]

You have to plan. I know, in the age of point and click, planning can be difficult, and not grant you what you completely want.

You can't plan! That's the entire ****ing point! Every other unit in the game can plan how it is going to come in. No other deployment option can just fail like the trygon tunnel. Are drop pods point and click? Are outflanking units point and click? Are infiltrators point and click? What about Space Wolf Scouts? They always get to use their deployment rules, there isn't a chance for them to just fail and have to walk on from the back. Why are you defending a terrible broken rule?

[DarkLink]

Because Tysnskel absolutely refuses to believe that any rule that GW writes can ever be anything less than polished rainbow unicorn sunshine.

[Tynskel]

Because Tysnskel absolutely refuses to believe that any rule that GW writes can ever be anything less than polished rainbow unicorn sunshine.

oh, don't say that kinda bullpuckey. I expect better out of you, DarkLink.
I'm sorry to announce to everyone: Tyranids ≠ Space Marines. Please use Space Marines for Drop Pod Armies.

As for not planning, that's a load of crud. Do you use Outflanks? OH NOES it is RANDOM BOARD EDGE! Oh wait, people still use outflanks.
Treat the Trygon hole as an additional 'outflanks' and it works fine.


Oh Noes! Reserves requires a die roll!
Oh noes, outflanks requires 2 die rolls! Whatevers shall wez do?

[DWest]

I dunno, ask for rules that have some minimum level of functionality maybe? I wish the tunnel was like Outflank-- units put into Outflank reserve must come into play via the Outflank mechanism, so you're guaranteed that at some point they will come in from a side edge of the board. No such luck with the Trygon.

[DarkLink]

oh, don't say that kinda bullpuckey. I expect better out of you, DarkLink.

Honestly, I think literally everyone disagrees with you on this.

[Tynskel]

Honestly, I think literally everyone disagrees with you on this.

Just because someone disagrees, doesn't mean that I am wrong.
I was right about Combat Squads, when everyone was telling me that I was wrong.

The reality is that the rule works fine—aka it cannot be abused, and cannot be used as a crutch. If the trygon *always* allowed an infantry unit of your choice through, you would have to add at least 50 points to that model. Just about any Tyranid Infantry unit coming out of the tunnel consistently would be extremely deadly. People would take 3 trygons (probably primes) and 3 infantry units. Then make sure they have enough beasts on the board to be able to hold those 6 units in reserves.

[evilamericorp]

Just because someone disagrees, doesn't mean that I am wrong.
I was right about Combat Squads, when everyone was telling me that I was wrong.

The reality is that the rule works fine—aka it cannot be abused, and cannot be used as a crutch. If the trygon *always* allowed an infantry unit of your choice through, you would have to add at least 50 points to that model. Just about any Tyranid Infantry unit coming out of the tunnel consistently would be extremely deadly. People would take 3 trygons (probably primes) and 3 infantry units. Then make sure they have enough beasts on the board to be able to hold those 6 units in reserves.

So you're okay with rules not working if you personally think it would be hard to play against? I don't play tau, so I would be happy if every riptide has to roll at the start of the game, and on a 3+ it can't be used at all. Same thing. Riptides would be too good if they always got to deploy and shoot things.

[daboarder]

yeah I don't see how any tyranid unit getting to reliable use the tunnel would be broken, give us a combo that you think would bee busted tynskel?

Limitations,

Lets take the basic change required by the tunnel "a single infatnry unit may elect to use each trygon tunnel, to do so place the unit in reserve and declare it is using the trygon tunnel, the unit automatically arrives the turn after the trygon and yada yada yada deploys like the rule states."

Break it, go on, what is so insanely OP that walking onto the table T3 near the enemy is just WTFBBQ TAUDAR!!

[DarkLink]

Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying that you can't try and use the rule, nor that the rule won't ever work. Just that you have to jump through loopholes when you shouldn't, and that it's a stupid oversight. If you feel it's too powerful, then limit it to bringing in one unit a turn or something.

Plus, I would consider your assertion that assault Marines are great more comparable to this situation than your interpretation of how the old combat squad rules worked. As I recall, that was simply an ambiguous rule and GW happened to decide to clarify it in a way that aligned with your interpretation. This isn't a question of reading comprehension, though.

[Tynskel]

Doesn't matter, the point is philosophically, I understand why the rule is written. You guys keep saying you can't use it. Not true. I told you hold to use it: with outflankers.

[DWest]

Except that outflankers can only come in from outflank, not the tunnel. Nothing you say can change the fact that the tunnel is blindly random, and has no strategic value because of that fact.

[daboarder]

furthermore, the way its supposed to work is the OLD forgeworld way.....anyone got a copy of that, basically it actually did what it was supposed too

[Tynskel]

Except that outflankers can only come in from outflank, not the tunnel. Nothing you say can change the fact that the tunnel is blindly random, and has no strategic value because of that fact.

no, the Tunnel explicit states anything from reserves. Outflankers, and deep strikers are coming in from reserves.

Reserves
—types of reserves: outflank, deep strike
—tunnel

[Tynskel]

furthermore, the way its supposed to work is the OLD forgeworld way.....anyone got a copy of that, basically it actually did what it was supposed too

and you'll note that the trygon was 100 points more expensive...

[daboarder]

and had mass points and an invul....your point?

seriourly tynskel, take a trygon, look at the tyrannofex cost and tell me you don't think the trygon is paying roughly 20 pts for that tunnel rule.....which is still bad.

[Tynskel]

Nope. The Trygon is priced appropriately for what it does. It is the most powerful and heaviest wounded CC monster in the Tyranids selection.
The Tunnel rule is fine. Use it creatively.

The Tunnel is not a crutch.
The Tunnel cannot be abused.

Get over it, and learn how to use it. Just like Outflank. Oh Noes, I have to roll the dice!

[Tynskel]

and had mass points and an invul....your point?

seriourly tynskel, take a trygon, look at the tyrannofex cost and tell me you don't think the trygon is paying roughly 20 pts for that tunnel rule.....which is still bad.

don't forget, mass points and 6 wounds are essentially the same thing.

[DWest]

no, the Tunnel explicit states anything from reserves. Outflankers, and deep strikers are coming in from reserves.

Reserves
—types of reserves: outflank, deep strike
—tunnel
Yes, it explicitly says *Reserves*. Outflank and Deep Strike arrive solely by those means (BRB, pg 124). It would be nice if they could come out the tunnel instead, but that is not how it is worded.

[Tynskel]

Yes, it explicitly says *Reserves*. Outflank and Deep Strike arrive solely by those means (BRB, pg 124). It would be nice if they could come out the tunnel instead, but that is not how it is worded.

no, it says that they have the choice.
This is how the tunnel works.

I place a unit into reserves (I can declare outflanking or deep strike if available).
On the turn you roll reserves for the Infantry Unit:
1) successfully entered? Yes
2) Are they Infantry? Yes
3) has the Trygon hole been opened for at least a full turn? Yes
4) has the Trygon hole been used this turn? No

Then you may use the trygon hole.
You are bypassing any other method to use the Trygon hole.

[DWest]

Where exactly are models given the choice not to come in by Deep Strike/Outflank if that was how they were declared in deployment? Because both rules explicitly state that units declared to one of those two methods must arrive by the chosen method.

[AlmostMercury]

no, it says that they have the choice.
This is how the tunnel works.

I place a unit into reserves (I can declare outflanking or deep strike if available).
On the turn you roll reserves for the Infantry Unit:
1) successfully entered? Yes
2) Are they Infantry? Yes
3) has the Trygon hole been opened for at least a full turn? Yes
4) has the Trygon hole been used this turn? No

Then you may use the trygon hole.
You are bypassing any other method to use the Trygon hole.

It's true that the old FAQ doesn't specifically apply, but you are aware that the old FAQ for the tyranid codex specifically states that units Outflanking or arriving from Deep Strike cannot use the Subterranean Assault tunnel. It's at the bottom of page 4.

And if you look carefully at the Reserves rules (p124), the Deep Strike Rule, and the Outflank Rule, it's very clear that you declare how the unit will arrive from Reserves and that you cannot change how they would arrive after the fact. That is, an outflanking unit must roll the table edge die, and cannot chose to come from your table edge.

Finally, the Subterranean Assault does not "explicitly state anything from reserves." The rule explicitly states, "instead of arriving from reserves as normal." It is very clear that Outflank and Deep Strike are not normal reserves, but special rules that explicitly "break the rules" for reserve.

Yes, the language is somewhat unclear, but hardly ambiguous.

[Tynskel]

It's true that the old FAQ doesn't specifically apply, but you are aware that the old FAQ for the tyranid codex specifically states that units Outflanking or arriving from Deep Strike cannot use the Subterranean Assault tunnel. It's at the bottom of page 4.

And if you look carefully at the Reserves rules (p124), the Deep Strike Rule, and the Outflank Rule, it's very clear that you declare how the unit will arrive from Reserves Mand that you cannot change how they would arrive after the fact. That is, an outflanking unit must roll the table edge die, and cannot chose to come from your table edge.

Finally, the Subterranean Assault does not "explicitly state anything from reserves." The rule explicitly states, "instead of arriving from reserves as normal." It is very clear that Outflank and Deep Strike are not normal reserves, but special rules that explicitly "break the rules" for reserve.

Yes, the language is somewhat unclear, but hardly ambiguous.

Arriving from 'reserves as normal' means you would arrive the way you would have normally arrive. Until this is FAQed, if you declared DS, then you would come in as DS. If you declared outflank, then you would 'normally' come in outflanking. Etc.

Now, if they FAQ this differently, then I'll agree with everyone in that the tunnel rule is useless, but I won't agree that is in the monster cost, because the try gon costs about what it should for everything else it does.

[DWest]

Unfortunately, even if it's possible to change around how you come in, the tunnel rule is still useless as a strategy, as there's no way to be sure you can get something to come up the tunnel. If I put a unit into Outflank reserve, then I can reasonably expect that unit will arrive by Outflank. Yes, the dice might throw off my strategy, but I at least can attempt to plan for it. Without being able to get the Trygon tunnel in place ahead of the other reserves, or designate a unit as following in the tunnel, it's simply too random to use as a tool. Rather, it's like seizing the initiative; kinda nice if you get it. or ugly if done against you, but not something you can rely on to win a game.

[daboarder]

don't forget, mass points and 6 wounds are essentially the same thing.

Not when your toughness 7 base and S3 can't touch you

Nope. The Trygon is priced appropriately for what it does. It is the most powerful and heaviest wounded CC monster in the Tyranids selection.
The Tunnel rule is fine. Use it creatively.

The Tunnel is not a crutch.
The Tunnel cannot be abused.

Get over it, and learn how to use it. Just like Outflank. Oh Noes, I have to roll the dice!


I cannot fathom how you think Tyranids having a ****ty drop pod is in any way, abusable, or a crutch.......

and no you MUST outflank or deepstrike if you have declared that is what you are doing


\V'hen an Outflanking unit arrives from
Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve, the
controlling player rolls a D6: on a I -2,
the unit comes in frorn the table edge to
the left of their controlling player's own
table edge; on a 3-4, they come on frorn
the right; on a 5-6, the player can choose
left or right.

You'll note that there is no MAY, meaning you have no option other than to roll the dice for table edge, and you'll note that "trygon tunnel" is not on the list

[Tynskel]

No. Try gon rule, hoes FAQed allows you, if you are infantry, to deploy through the Teuton hole. Th outflank and deep strike rules do not allow you to change from *rulebook* rule. This is a codex rule, and deep strike and outflank are types of reserves.c the trygon rule allows you to change how you come in, otherwise you would come in the way you would come in normally, ie from deep strike, outflank, or you board edge.

As for the FW trygon, it is also T7 which is included in the cost. I'd have to look at my a purloin project book, but I don't have access for about 2 weeks. Buy, if I recall correctly, the beast was ~300 points, which would include the tunnel, T7, and gargantuan creature rules. That's ~100 points worth of upgrades.

[evilamericorp]

Even if you could switch outflankers to the tunnel, which makes absolutely no sense fluff-wise, what is this mythical unit that is so powerful that it will decimate the enemy army if it's allowed to come in reliably from the tunnel? Do you have extra units in your book that the rest of us can't see? Everything that can come in from the tunnel in this book (except pyrovores, which I would actually consider using if the tunnel rule worked the way it should) could purchase a mycetic spore last edition and, SURPRISE SURPRISE, reliably deep strike! And yet we didn't see tyranids ruling every tournament! Devilgaunts, melee warriors, hormagaunts, genestealers, what would be so bad about any of those units having an option other than walking across the board?

[AlmostMercury]

No. Try gon rule, hoes FAQed allows you, if you are infantry, to deploy through the Teuton hole. Th outflank and deep strike rules do not allow you to change from *rulebook* rule. This is a codex rule, and deep strike and outflank are types of reserves.c the trygon rule allows you to change how you come in, otherwise you would come in the way you would come in normally, ie from deep strike, outflank, or you board edge.

I get that you like to expand on what you can do with the rules and I applaud that. Show my post to a TO if this comes up as a challenge, and you're done for, provided the TO has any understanding of how a rules system ought to work.

You're stretching the unclarity of "normal" pretty far, man.

[Tynskel]

I get that you like to expand on what you can do with the rules and I applaud that. Show my post to a TO if this comes up as a challenge, and you're done for, provided the TO has any understanding of how a rules system ought to work.

You're stretching the unclarity of "normal" pretty far, man.

Most TOs do not know the history of 40k. Take it from someone who has been playing since 2nd Edition. I understand how the rules work.
Second, there's no reason why Outflank, Deep Strike, and Standard Reserves doesn't match Tunnel—you were outflanking, and entered a tunnel, you came out of the tunnel via deep strike... That TO is a dumb player to not agree that Deep Strike and Outflank are not subsets of Reserves. Tunnel is a rule stating that you if you are infantry, you may enter the board through the tunnel, otherwise enter normally. 'Normally' is *not* defined. There are three ways to enter the board 'normally': Outflank, Deep Strike, your board edge.

[Tynskel]

Even if you could switch outflankers to the tunnel, which makes absolutely no sense fluff-wise, what is this mythical unit that is so powerful that it will decimate the enemy army if it's allowed to come in reliably from the tunnel? Do you have extra units in your book that the rest of us can't see? Everything that can come in from the tunnel in this book (except pyrovores, which I would actually consider using if the tunnel rule worked the way it should) could purchase a mycetic spore last edition and, SURPRISE SURPRISE, reliably deep strike! And yet we didn't see tyranids ruling every tournament! Devilgaunts, melee warriors, hormagaunts, genestealers, what would be so bad about any of those units having an option other than walking across the board?

spore pods did not carry 30 wounds, and you paid *at least* 50 points for the pod, not to mention, the spore pod was *immobile*, and could be killed instantly with a krak missile.

[AlmostMercury]

Second, there's no reason why Outflank, Deep Strike, and Standard Reserves doesn't match Tunnel—you were outflanking, and entered a tunnel, you came out of the tunnel via deep strike... That TO is a dumb player to not agree that Deep Strike and Outflank are not subsets of Reserves. Tunnel is a rule stating that you if you are infantry, you may enter the board through the tunnel, otherwise enter normally. 'Normally' is *not* defined. There are three ways to enter the board 'normally': Outflank, Deep Strike, your board edge.

There is a reason, should you substitute what you call 'Standard Reserves' as 'Normal Reserves.' It should be clear that you're arguing an interpretation of unclear rules, as opposed to rules that unequivocally state your position.

I'm just curious to know what you legitimately believe the RAI to be on this if you would be so willing to explain.

[DWest]

Most TOs do not know the history of 40k.
Logical fallacy: they don't need to know the history, they need to know the current rule set.

Take it from someone who has been playing since 2nd Edition. I understand how the rules work.
Another logical fallacy: time does not automatically grant expertise.


Second, there's no reason why Outflank, Deep Strike, and Standard Reserves doesn't match Tunnel—you were outflanking, and entered a tunnel, you came out of the tunnel via deep strike... That TO is a dumb player to not agree that Deep Strike and Outflank are not subsets of Reserves.
Ad hominem: Disagreeing with your point of view does not make the TO 'dumb'. It means they disagree with you, nothing more.

Finally, 5th edition Mycetic Spores cost 40 points, not 50.

[Tynskel]

Logical fallacy: they don't need to know the history, they need to know the current rule set.

Another logical fallacy: time does not automatically grant expertise.


Ad hominem: Disagreeing with your point of view does not make the TO 'dumb'. It means they disagree with you, nothing more.

Finally, 5th edition Mycetic Spores cost 40 points, not 50.

You can say whatever you want, but understanding how the rules have fit together, and how GW has played the game, will give you *plenty* of ability to predict what FAQs will say.

No, Spore Pods cost *at least* 50. You *must* buy a weapon for them, and the minimum weapon cost was 10 points.
The entry states 'take' not 'may take'.

[Tynskel]

There is a reason, should you substitute what you call 'Standard Reserves' as 'Normal Reserves.' It should be clear that you're arguing an interpretation of unclear rules, as opposed to rules that unequivocally state your position.

I'm just curious to know what you legitimately believe the RAI to be on this if you would be so willing to explain.

They are all 'normal' reserves. My stating 'standard' was unintentional, as there is no rulebook definition for 'standard' reserves. I should have said: Outflank, Deep Strike, home edge.

[DWest]

No, Spore Pods cost *at least* 50. You *must* buy a weapon for them, and the minimum weapon cost was 10 points.

Codex: Tyranids, pg 90 has the weapon upgrades for a Mycetic Spore listed under Options, not as a requirement. So no, the cost is still 40. Syntactically, Genestealer broods have the Broodlord listed in the same way, so if the pod is required to buy a weapon, all Genestealers are required to buy a Broodlord, to name one example; the Tyrannofex with its Acid Spray is also listed in the same way, so you could never field one with an Acid Spray.

[Tynskel]

no, says take.
You *have* to take a weapon, but it is a weapon of your *choice*.

[AlmostMercury]

Your next logical Fallacy is called Avoiding the Question.


They are all 'normal' reserves. My stating 'standard' was unintentional, as there is no rulebook definition for 'standard' reserves. I should have said: Outflank, Deep Strike, home edge.

Why would you need to provide the term "home edge" reserves, if there's no conflation of all units held in reserve with reserve units that must arrive from the board edge?

That is, if there is no point of possible disagreement, why on earth would you need to provide a previously unused descriptor to identify something that you claim is perfectly clear?

It's because there is a set, which I'll refer to as All Reserves, that includes all units that were not deployed onto the battlefield during deployment and will arrive to the battlefield by some other means. The All Reserves set has at least 3 subsets: Outflank Reserves, Deep Strike Reserves, and (sure, why not?) Home Edge Reserves. These three subsets must be mutually exclusive as per the rulebook because once a unit is placed into one of these sets, they no longer have the properties necessary to belong to any other subset of All Reserves. That is, once you declare a unit to be Outflanking, even if it has the Deep Strike Special Rule, it cannot arrive via Deep Strike. And the same holds true for each subset, respectively.

Here's where the issue is, you believe the phrase "arriving from reserve as normal" refers to the set All Reserves. Whereas, everyone else believes that phrase refers to the subset Home Edge Reserves. This problem arrises because the language of the rulebook sloppily refers to both set and subset as simply "Reserves."



Second, there's no reason why Outflank, Deep Strike, and Standard Reserves doesn't match Tunnel—you were outflanking, and entered a tunnel, you came out of the tunnel via deep strike... That TO is a dumb player to not agree that Deep Strike and Outflank are not subsets of Reserves.


I've just outlined a very straight-forward and compelling reason to explain why "Outflank, Deep Strike, and [home edge] Reserves" do not match Tunnel.

Now, moving on...


You can say whatever you want, but understanding how the rules have fit together, and how GW has played the game, will give you *plenty* of ability to predict what FAQs will say.

You clearly cannot predict what FAQs will say, despite any of your experience. The 5th ed FAQ absolutely contradicts your position.

Here's the wording from 5th edition: "Any Tyranid infantry units (excluding those with wings) that arrive from reserve in subsequent turns may attempt to utilize this tunnel network and emerge from it instead of arriving as normal."

Here's the wording from the 6th edition: "Any friendly Tyranid Infantry unit that arrives from reserve in subsequent turns may emerge from the Trygon's tunnel instead of arriving from reserves as normal."

Aside from explicitly identifying units with wings, the relevant words and terms have not changed. Thus, for the sake of this discussion it is exactly the same rule. But, we find this question on page 4 of the Tyranid FAQ:

Q: Can infantry units without wings that were going to arrive from reserves using deep strike or outflank rules, instead choose to arrive via a Trygon's Subterranean Assault ability?
A: No.

So, unless you have a compelling case as to why they would change their mind on this ruling, you stand incorrect in your ability to interpret the intention of the rules.

[AlmostMercury]

no, says take.
You *have* to take a weapon, but it is a weapon of your *choice*.

Yes, it does say take. But so so the Trygon, Mawloc, Carnifex, and Tyrannofex entries. As far as I know, your carnifex didn't need to take either a Stranglethron or Heavy Venom Cannon.

[Tynskel]

Your next logical Fallacy is called Avoiding the Question.



Why would you need to provide the term "home edge" reserves, if there's no conflation of all units held in reserve with reserve units that must arrive from the board edge?

That is, if there is no point of possible disagreement, why on earth would you need to provide a previously unused descriptor to identify something that you claim is perfectly clear?

It's because there is a set, which I'll refer to as All Reserves, that includes all units that were not deployed onto the battlefield during deployment and will arrive to the battlefield by some other means. The All Reserves set has at least 3 subsets: Outflank Reserves, Deep Strike Reserves, and (sure, why not?) Home Edge Reserves. These three subsets must be mutually exclusive as per the rulebook because once a unit is placed into one of these sets, they no longer have the properties necessary to belong to any other subset of All Reserves. That is, once you declare a unit to be Outflanking, even if it has the Deep Strike Special Rule, it cannot arrive via Deep Strike. And the same holds true for each subset, respectively.

Here's where the issue is, you believe the phrase "arriving from reserve as normal" refers to the set All Reserves. Whereas, everyone else believes that phrase refers to the subset Home Edge Reserves. This problem arrises because the language of the rulebook sloppily refers to both set and subset as simply "Reserves."



I've just outlined a very straight-forward and compelling reason to explain why "Outflank, Deep Strike, and [home edge] Reserves" do not match Tunnel.

Now, moving on...



You clearly cannot predict what FAQs will say, despite any of your experience. The 5th ed FAQ absolutely contradicts your position.

Here's the wording from 5th edition: "Any Tyranid infantry units (excluding those with wings) that arrive from reserve in subsequent turns may attempt to utilize this tunnel network and emerge from it instead of arriving as normal."

Here's the wording from the 6th edition: "Any friendly Tyranid Infantry unit that arrives from reserve in subsequent turns may emerge from the Trygon's tunnel instead of arriving from reserves as normal."

Aside from explicitly identifying units with wings, the relevant words and terms have not changed. Thus, for the sake of this discussion it is exactly the same rule. But, we find this question on page 4 of the Tyranid FAQ:

Q: Can infantry units without wings that were going to arrive from reserves using deep strike or outflank rules, instead choose to arrive via a Trygon's Subterranean Assault ability?
A: No.

So, unless you have a compelling case as to why they would change their mind on this ruling, you stand incorrect in your ability to interpret the intention of the rules.

zzZZZzzzZZZzz.. OMG! THe codex overrides the Rulebook. You are taking a unit out of the reserves that you have*declared* and they are now coming through the tunnel!

[DWest]

no, says take.
You *have* to take a weapon, but it is a weapon of your *choice*.

If that holds true, then any Hive Tyrant without a Stranglethorn Cannon or Heavy Venom Cannon is illegal, as that also says "take". So either 99% of 5th edition lists were wrong, or your interpretation is wrong.

[AlmostMercury]

The codex has the same problem as the rulebook. The rulebook uses sloppy language and the Codex doesn't specify between All Reserves and Home Edge Reserves. That means it doesn't specify which rules it's overriding.

Sorry, Bud. Try again.

[dwez]

no, says take.
You *have* to take a weapon, but it is a weapon of your *choice*.

You know I never actually read it like that, you could be right and I've missed it that way all along. However if that is the case clearly by the same token immediately above in Genestealer where it also says 'Options: Upgrade one Genestealer to a Broodlord' therefore 'You *have* to upgrade a Genestealer, but it is a Genestealer of your *choice*.' No? It doesn't say 'May upgrade' it emphatically states 'upgrade' so therefore we should always have had a Broodlord with our Genestealers and I know the majority of folk didn't see it that way.

You look through the HQ entries and they're all pretty much 'take' and not 'may take' in which case you would have always had to have added around 80 extra points to your Tyrant, for instance, for things you didn't even want, like Thorax Swarms or Adrenal Glands. Tervigons would have always had to have had at least one extra Psychic power added and Tyranid Primes state you *have* to 'replace' [not 'may replace'] their Scything Talons with Boneswords or LW/BS.

Ultimately I think I always understood that they were options, therefore 'optional'. I used to run Spore Pods at 40pts all the time, only at the end was I trying to fit in the extra twin linked Deathspitters.

[AlmostMercury]

Well, if you're really paying attention you'll find the word "Options:" printed above as opposed to "Requirements." Then you could also go to p.85 and find "Options" described under the Tyranid Army List.

It says: "This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so alongside the associated points cost."

I'm sure Tynskel has another ill-informed dismissive rebuttal, but Mycetic Spores clearly cost a minimum of 40 points. And I didn't need to play since 2nd Edition, accumulating an intricate understanding of the Tyranid army, to figure this out.

[Anggul]

I find it odd that the conversation has gone towards whether you can have a unit that was going to Outflank come out of the tunnel instead. The entire point was that you're highly unlikely to have the thing you want come in after the Trygon, so either way it's too unlikely to happen, and if it does you've just wasted Hive Commander. Well done there.

[evilamericorp]

I find it odd that the conversation has gone towards whether you can have a unit that was going to Outflank come out of the tunnel instead. The entire point was that you're highly unlikely to have the thing you want come in after the Trygon, so either way it's too unlikely to happen, and if it does you've just wasted Hive Commander. Well done there.

Basically, this thread has turned into Tynskel vs. everyone.

[Tynskel]

I find it odd that the conversation has gone towards whether you can have a unit that was going to Outflank come out of the tunnel instead. The entire point was that you're highly unlikely to have the thing you want come in after the Trygon, so either way it's too unlikely to happen, and if it does you've just wasted Hive Commander. Well done there.

I know, I find it absolutely hilarious.
The post is so far removed from what the thread is.

Still doesn't detract from the fact that you still actually pay 40 points to deepstrike *only* up to 20 wounds. The tunnel rule is perfectly priced for what you are getting, ie, it is *free* with the Trygon. You could remove the tunnel rule, and the Trygon would still be the same point cost.

Haven't you guys ever gotten the *free* toy with the box of cereal? It is *always* disappointing, but *exactly* what you expect.

Also, again, you cannot point to a single rule in the rulebook that states you cannot pull a unit from Board Edge, Deep Strike, or Outflank for the tunnel. I suggest you start learning how rules combine together.

here this will help:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?21435-Tynskel-s-Guide-to-Interpreting-Rules&p=194151&viewfull=1#post194151

[AlmostMercury]

here this will help:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?21435-Tynskel-s-Guide-to-Interpreting-Rules&p=194151&viewfull=1#post194151

This is cute. But your understanding of the rules and unwillingness to engage in sensible discussion tell me explicitly not have you interpret anything for me. Keep in mind that is "Tynskel's Gude to Interpreting the Rules," not "A Sensible Guide to Interpreting Rules."



Also, again, you cannot point to a single rule in the rulebook that states you cannot pull a unit from Board Edge, Deep Strike, or Outflank for the tunnel. I suggest you start learning how rules combine together.


The irony of asking me to point out a single rule that demonstrates my case and then suggesting that I learn how to combine rules together aside…

There is no rule in the Tyranid Codex saying you CAN pull a unit from Deep Strike or Outflank, especially since the BRB explicitly says you cannot redeploy after declaring Deep Strike or Outflank for a unit.

Anyway, from the Rulebook FAQ on page 9:

"Q: If your Warlord’s Warlord Trait confers a specific ability to a unit or units in your army, is this ability always immediately lost when the Warlord is killed? (p111)
A: Yes. Further, if the Warlord Trait conferred a special rule that allows an unusual method of deployment from Reserves (such as conferring Infiltrate to allow a unit to Outflank) that special rule is immediately lost and the unit must deploy from Reserves in the normal fashion."

This CLEARLY means that Outflanking is not a normal form of deployment from reserves. Following from this, because you don't have the option to Deep Strike after losing your Outflanking ability it explicitly implies that Deep Striking is not a normal form of deployment from reserves either. This case specifically refers to entering the battlefield from the "Home Edge" as both the usual and normal form of reserve deployment.

The Tyranid Codex reads: "Any friendly Tyranid Infantry unit that arrives from reserve in subsequent turns may emerge from the Trygon's tunnel instead of arriving from reserve as normal."

Does this count? Are we done yet?

[AlmostMercury]

That FAQ question actually brings up a really interesting question about Hive Commander. My current guess is that if your Hive Commanding Tyrant dies on turn 1, your turn 2 outflankers are walking onto the board from normal reserves… crappy deal.

[John Bower]

That FAQ question actually brings up a really interesting question about Hive Commander. My current guess is that if your Hive Commanding Tyrant dies on turn 1, your turn 2 outflankers are walking onto the board from normal reserves… crappy deal.

only if they could only outflank due to him, Genestealers et. al. that were declared as outflanking would still outflank normally.

[John Bower]

This is cute. But your understanding of the rules and unwillingness to engage in sensible discussion tell me explicitly not have you interpret anything for me. Keep in mind that is "Tynskel's Gude to Interpreting the Rules," not "A Sensible Guide to Interpreting Rules."



The irony of asking me to point out a single rule that demonstrates my case and then suggesting that I learn how to combine rules together aside…

There is no rule in the Tyranid Codex saying you CAN pull a unit from Deep Strike or Outflank, especially since the BRB explicitly says you cannot redeploy after declaring Deep Strike or Outflank for a unit.

Anyway, from the Rulebook FAQ on page 9:

"Q: If your Warlord’s Warlord Trait confers a specific ability to a unit or units in your army, is this ability always immediately lost when the Warlord is killed? (p111)
A: Yes. Further, if the Warlord Trait conferred a special rule that allows an unusual method of deployment from Reserves (such as conferring Infiltrate to allow a unit to Outflank) that special rule is immediately lost and the unit must deploy from Reserves in the normal fashion."

This CLEARLY means that Outflanking is not a normal form of deployment from reserves. Following from this, because you don't have the option to Deep Strike after losing your Outflanking ability it explicitly implies that Deep Striking is not a normal form of deployment from reserves either. This case specifically refers to entering the battlefield from the "Home Edge" as both the usual and normal form of reserve deployment.

The Tyranid Codex reads: "Any friendly Tyranid Infantry unit that arrives from reserve in subsequent turns may emerge from the Trygon's tunnel instead of arriving from reserve as normal."

Does this count? Are we done yet?

I do think you're being a little aggressive here. "As normal" clearly means by their 'normal' rules of deployment, you wouldn't be forced to walk Terminators on just because of some sudden alteration to a special rule they had. For example you lose the "Deathwing Strike" ability, you've still declared them as DS, they are termies, and still DS, just now you would have to roll for them from T2 instead. I know it can't happen to them but it's an example of a rule. Whether or not I agree with your interpretation of the tunnel rule is neither here nor there. I'd have to read it through first. But if he's right, and any nid can enter from the tunnel now, then so can declared outflanking genestealers, because their normal arrival is not conferred by another model, it's conferred by their own rules. So 'normal' for them could well be Outlfank, they don't 'have' to walk on from their own edge to be able to use the tunnel. Personally I don't know why you'd use the tunnel myself, just to stand there and get shot. I only outlank units when there is a serious chance of them being useful afterwards. Or something else is going to soak up that turn of shooting.

[Tynskel]

I do think you're being a little aggressive here. "As normal" clearly means by their 'normal' rules of deployment, you wouldn't be forced to walk Terminators on just because of some sudden alteration to a special rule they had. For example you lose the "Deathwing Strike" ability, you've still declared them as DS, they are termies, and still DS, just now you would have to roll for them from T2 instead. I know it can't happen to them but it's an example of a rule. Whether or not I agree with your interpretation of the tunnel rule is neither here nor there. I'd have to read it through first. But if he's right, and any nid can enter from the tunnel now, then so can declared outflanking genestealers, because their normal arrival is not conferred by another model, it's conferred by their own rules. So 'normal' for them could well be Outlfank, they don't 'have' to walk on from their own edge to be able to use the tunnel. Personally I don't know why you'd use the tunnel myself, just to stand there and get shot. I only outlank units when there is a serious chance of them being useful afterwards. Or something else is going to soak up that turn of shooting.

Ta dah, I don't have to do all the of the making sense here.
aka. The Trygon didn't die here, and furthermore, the Trygon's tunnel is permanent, aka, your example AlmostMercury, is so full of holes that you clearly need to read this thread:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?21435-Tynskel-s-Guide-to-Interpreting-Rules&p=194151&viewfull=1#post194151

aka. You need to read ALL of the rules, not SOME of the rules that 'support' your argument.

until there is a FAQ stating otherwise, you can pull *any* friendly Tyranid Infantry unit through the tunnel as long as they are
1) in reserves, any type
2) this is the turn *after* or later than the turn the whole was made
3) the hole has not been used this turn.

[AlmostMercury]

Okay John, I'm going to need to break this up to clarify.



I do think you're being a little aggressive here. "As normal" clearly means by their 'normal' rules of deployment,


In the FAQ question, this is pretty clear. Entering from reserves "as normal" means walking on from your board edge.



you wouldn't be forced to walk Terminators on just because of some sudden alteration to a special rule they had. For example you lose the "Deathwing Strike" ability, you've still declared them as DS, they are termies, and still DS, just now you would have to roll for them from T2 instead.


Deathwing Assault is a replacement Special Rule specific to Deathwing Terminators instead of Deep Strike. That is, Deathwing Terminator codex entry does not have the Deep Strike on it. So, if you could remove Deathwing Assault, they wouldn't have the Deep Strike rule to fall back on. Terminators don't get to Deep Strike because the model is called a Terminator, they get to Deep Strike because they have a relevant rule in the codex entry that lets them. No Special Rule, No Deep Strike. I don't think it gets anymore straight forward than that.

Furthermore, Deathwing Assault is not a Warlord Trait, it's a Special Rule. So, it cannot be removed from the Terminators indirectly by killing a warlord, as per the FAQ. That outflank is removed from the Tyranid unit is only speculation, because Hive Commander is not a Warlord Trait either. Hive Commander is a purchased Special Rule. As written, the FAQ question above does not remove Outflank from the specified Troop Unit. If it is the case, it will need to be specified in the soon to be Tyranid FAQ.



I know it can't happen to them but it's an example of a rule. Whether or not I agree with your interpretation of the tunnel rule is neither here nor there. I'd have to read it through first. But if he's right, and any nid can enter from the tunnel now, then so can declared outflanking genestealers, because their normal arrival is not conferred by another model, it's conferred by their own rules. So 'normal' for them could well be Outlfank, they don't 'have' to walk on from their own edge to be able to use the tunnel.


Yes, that is the case Tynskel is trying to make, but he's failed to support it at all. The FAQ question absolutely clarifies what is meant by "normal reserves." Deep Striking and Outflanking absolutely do not count as "normal reserves," even if it is "normal" (through codex releases) for a type of unit to have a special rule. Think of it this way, it might be normal for a Genestealer to have Outflank, or a Terminator to have Deep Strike. However, that doesn't mean Outflank and Deep Strike are normal forms of deployment, it means Genestealers and Terminators generally have unusual methods of deployment.

Normal reserves are those reserves that will be walking onto the controlling player's edge, as per the FAQ. Thus, anytime you see a special rule referring to "normal reserves," it is referring only to those units entering from the controlled edge.




only if they could only outflank due to him, Genestealers et. al. that were declared as outflanking would still outflank normally.


Umm, sure? From a pure rules perspective, this would only matter if you had to choose between which instance of outflank you were using to do so. I have no idea how to work this out, because I'm not sure if additonal special rules stack. My guess is no, because Shrouded doesn't stack with other instances of Shrouded. But why you would give Outflank to models that have outflank natively and then chose to outflank them according to the newly given rule, I don't know. Maybe you want to hurt a TO's brain and feelings?



Ta dah, I don't have to do all the of the making sense here.
aka. The Trygon didn't die here, and furthermore, the Trygon's tunnel is permanent, aka, your example AlmostMercury, is so full of holes that you clearly need to read this thread:


The ruling has nothing to do with the Trygon. The ruling has to do with which units can come through the tunnel.

Please, please, please specify the holes. I'm calling the bluff, straight up.

I'm actually at a point where I'm not sure that you can read...



aka. You need to read ALL of the rules, not SOME of the rules that 'support' your argument.


More irony. This time it's that you haven't referenced any section of rules that isn't the Trygon Tunnel Ability. You're committing the worst of all logical fallacies, called "Begging the Question" or "Assuming the Conclusion."

You'll find the following link far more useful, than I will find your troll thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[Tynskel]

Okay John, I'm going to need to break this up to clarify.



In the FAQ question, this is pretty clear. Entering from reserves "as normal" means walking on from your board edge.



Deathwing Assault is a replacement Special Rule specific to Deathwing Terminators instead of Deep Strike. That is, Deathwing Terminator codex entry does not have the Deep Strike on it. So, if you could remove Deathwing Assault, they wouldn't have the Deep Strike rule to fall back on. Terminators don't get to Deep Strike because the model is called a Terminator, they get to Deep Strike because they have a relevant rule in the codex entry that lets them. No Special Rule, No Deep Strike. I don't think it gets anymore straight forward than that.

Furthermore, Deathwing Assault is not a Warlord Trait, it's a Special Rule. So, it cannot be removed from the Terminators indirectly by killing a warlord, as per the FAQ. That outflank is removed from the Tyranid unit is only speculation, because Hive Commander is not a Warlord Trait either. Hive Commander is a purchased Special Rule. As written, the FAQ question above does not remove Outflank from the specified Troop Unit. If it is the case, it will need to be specified in the soon to be Tyranid FAQ.



Yes, that is the case Tynskel is trying to make, but he's failed to support it at all. The FAQ question absolutely clarifies what is meant by "normal reserves." Deep Striking and Outflanking absolutely do not count as "normal reserves," even if it is "normal" (through codex releases) for a type of unit to have a special rule. Think of it this way, it might be normal for a Genestealer to have Outflank, or a Terminator to have Deep Strike. However, that doesn't mean Outflank and Deep Strike are normal forms of deployment, it means Genestealers and Terminators generally have unusual methods of deployment.

Normal reserves are those reserves that will be walking onto the controlling player's edge, as per the FAQ. Thus, anytime you see a special rule referring to "normal reserves," it is referring only to those units entering from the controlled edge.




Umm, sure? From a pure rules perspective, this would only matter if you had to choose between which instance of outflank you were using to do so. I have no idea how to work this out, because I'm not sure if additonal special rules stack. My guess is no, because Shrouded doesn't stack with other instances of Shrouded. But why you would give Outflank to models that have outflank natively and then chose to outflank them according to the newly given rule, I don't know. Maybe you want to hurt a TO's brain and feelings?



The ruling has nothing to do with the Trygon. The ruling has to do with which units can come through the tunnel.

Please, please, please specify the holes. I'm calling the bluff, straight up.

I'm actually at a point where I'm not sure that you can read...



More irony. This time it's that you haven't referenced any section of rules that isn't the Trygon Tunnel Ability. You're committing the worst of all logical fallacies, called "Begging the Question" or "Assuming the Conclusion."

You'll find the following link far more useful, than I will find your troll thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

again. You haven't cited a true example that applies. The rulebook states that if a *warlord* ability dies, you could not use your *warlord* ability, and since you did not *declare* the unit *otherwise* you cannot use the ability that was *declared*.

That has, in *no way* influence on the Trygon Tunnel rule. There is *nothing* in the trygon rule that states 1) what 'normal' means, and 2) that you lose a previously declared rule, 3) that you lose a rule. You are applying the rulebook FAQ to something that it cannot be applied to.


Again. You need to read *all* of the rules. You are only reading what you *think* applies, but 1) you are being disingenuous by purposefully omitting rules that would apply. 2) You are ignoring parts of the Trygon rules. 3) You are extrapolating a rulebook FAQ that *only* applies to rules being lost, not rules being gained.


What I am talking about is just like the argument that went on about Combat Squads. Here is some more reading on interpreting rules.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?15051-Deep-strike-and-Combat-squads

[Gleipnir]

Are you trying to assert that an Infantry unit that has been declared as either Deep Strike or Outflank reserves during the deployment phase can choose to ignore their previous designation and arrive via a Trygon tunnel instead?

Losing the Outflank ability of Hive Commander isn't even possible since the ability is conferred before the board has even been set up, and the decision whether to use it or not is made during deployment so I am not sure where that argument is coming from.

[Tynskel]

Are you trying to assert that an Infantry unit that has been declared as either Deep Strike or Outflank reserves during the deployment phase can choose to ignore their previous designation and arrive via a Trygon tunnel instead?

Losing the Outflank ability of Hive Commander isn't even possible since the ability is conferred before the board has even been set up, and the decision whether to use it or not is made during deployment so I am not sure where that argument is coming from.

Yes. To the first. Because you have to declare *all* of your reserves what they are doing. the Trygon rule interrupts the normal reserve process (ie how you are entering the board: outflank, deep strike, or board edge) and replacing with the entry via the tunnel).
Second, I am not sure. I'd need to read the exact thing that is being FAQed. I am sure it is in reference to a very specific circumstance, which is, again, why it doesn't apply to the Trygon Tunnel.

[AlmostMercury]

Are you trying to assert that an Infantry unit that has been declared as either Deep Strike or Outflank reserves during the deployment phase can choose to ignore their previous designation and arrive via a Trygon tunnel instead?


Yes, this is exactly what Tynskel's interpretation of the Trygon Tunnel rule is. While the rulebook is sloppy in it's definition of what constitutes "normal reserves," it is clear that you're not allowed to ignore your pre deployment designations.

However, Tynskel believes "normal reserves" include those in standard reserves, outflank reserves, and deep strike reserves. And then by virtue of this ambitious inclusion, the Codex: Tyranid rule trumps all deployment options because "Codex trumps Rulebook."

Tynskel, if I am incorrect in my summary of your argument, please feel free to explain it in full so that I can reassess mine.



Losing the Outflank ability of Hive Commander isn't even possible since the ability is conferred before the board has even been set up, and the decision whether to use it or not is made during deployment so I am not sure where that argument is coming from.

The question I was asking about Hive Commander is an aside that came up from this FAQ question about Warlord abilities.

Q: If your Warlord’s Warlord Trait confers a specific ability to a unit or units in your army, is this ability always immediately lost when the Warlord is killed? (p111)
A: Yes. Further, if the Warlord Trait conferred a special rule that allows an unusual method of deployment from Reserves (such as conferring Infiltrate to allow a unit to Outflank) that special rule is immediately lost and the unit must deploy from Reserves in the normal fashion.

Your Warlord Traits are also chosen before deployment, so you would decide if a unit is outflanking from a trait at the same time you would from a special rule. Hive Commander is not a Warlord Trait, so this question doesn't specifically apply to it. But my question is an RAI question about whether a troop unit conferred Outflank by Hive Commander still gets to Outflank if the Tyrant is killed before it enters the battlefield.

If a unit is given Outflank by means of a warlord trait, the unit is unable to deploy via Outflank and must deploy from your table edge, as per the FAQ.

[AlmostMercury]

again. You haven't cited a true example that applies. The rulebook states that if a *warlord* ability dies, you could not use your *warlord* ability, and since you did not *declare* the unit *otherwise* you cannot use the ability that was *declared*.

That has, in *no way* influence on the Trygon Tunnel rule. There is *nothing* in the trygon rule that states 1) what 'normal' means,


Exactly, so I'm looking for what "normal" means in the rulebook and the rulebook FAQ, because reserves and how they function are found there. The Subterranean Assault rule is only a small amendment for a small set of models specific to the Tyranid Codex.



and 2) that you lose a previously declared rule, 3) that you lose a rule. You are applying the rulebook FAQ to something that it cannot be applied to.


I never once said it worked like a Warlord Trait, only that we can glean what normal means from the FAQ question because it clarifies the sloppy language in the rulebook. The FAQ in question is from the Rulebook.



Again. You need to read *all* of the rules. You are only reading what you *think* applies, but 1) you are being disingenuous by purposefully omitting rules that would apply.


Which rules, specifically, am I omitting? If you are actually aware that this statement is true, then you must know which rules I need to adjust my perspective. Please tell me what they are where I can find them. If you cannot tell me which rules I am omitting, then your statement is only conjecture based only on the fact that I am disagreeing with you.



2) You are ignoring parts of the Trygon rules.


Which part of the rule is irrelevant here? I've accurately referenced the part of paragraph 2 that pertains to which units you can select to move through the tunnel. The first paragraph is about how the Trygon Deep Strikes and the third paragraph explains how you are required to place the models on the board. The second sentence, which I've cited verbatim at least three times, is the only sentence is the Trygon rule that identifies which units are able to use the tunnel.



3) You are extrapolating a rulebook FAQ that *only* applies to rules being lost, not rules being gained.


I am extrapolating only the terminology, which clearly demonstrates that Outflank cannot be defined as a "normal reserve" in virtue of the very words used. Because the Trygon tunnel rule states, "instead of arriving from reserve as normal," the FAQ is HIGHLY relevant because it shows us specifically what "deploying from Reserves in the normal fashion" is.



What I am talking about is just like the argument that went on about Combat Squads. Here is some more reading on interpreting rules.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?15051-Deep-strike-and-Combat-squads

I'm not going to read 11 pages of a thread I don't care about. Because of your fallacious posts in this thread, I have every reason to believe it's just another red herring and is completely irrelevant to the very simple question we've been posting about. If you could quote specifically what you would like to draw my attention to, I'd be happy to address it.

[DarkLink]

Yes. To the first. Because you have to declare *all* of your reserves what they are doing. the Trygon rule interrupts the normal reserve process (ie how you are entering the board: outflank, deep strike, or board edge) and replacing with the entry via the tunnel).


Any 'interuption' the Trygon rule provides quite clearly only applies to 'normal reserves', and the only compelling argument as to what 'normal reserves' means has been provided by AlmostMercury.

And seriously? Stop bringing up the combat squads thing as if it makes you the sole authority on interpreting rules.

[Gleipnir]

Yes, this is exactly what Tynskel's interpretation of the Trygon Tunnel rule is. While the rulebook is sloppy in it's definition of what constitutes "normal reserves," it is clear that you're not allowed to ignore your pre deployment designations.

However, Tynskel believes "normal reserves" include those in standard reserves, outflank reserves, and deep strike reserves. And then by virtue of this ambitious inclusion, the Codex: Tyranid rule trumps all deployment options because "Codex trumps Rulebook."

Just because one rule "Trygon tunnel" offers an additional option of arriving from Reserves, it does not explicitly negate a restriction imposed by another rule in this case Deep Strike or Outflank. The restriction would still be present.


If a unit is given Outflank by means of a warlord trait, the unit is unable to deploy via Outflank and must deploy from your table edge, as per the FAQ.

Since the only rule conferring Outflank via a Warlord trait is a unit the Warlord has joined, it is a moot point. As both the unit with Outflank and the Warlord would be arriving together and would only be possible if using a Hive tyrant attached to tyrant Guard or a Tyranid Prime attached to another unit.

[Anggul]

I know, I find it absolutely hilarious.
The post is so far removed from what the thread is.

Still doesn't detract from the fact that you still actually pay 40 points to deepstrike *only* up to 20 wounds. The tunnel rule is perfectly priced for what you are getting, ie, it is *free* with the Trygon. You could remove the tunnel rule, and the Trygon would still be the same point cost.[/url]

I would gladly pay more points to be able to use the Trygon for what it was intended in the fluff, burrowing under and letting the swarm bypass defences. Like you say, it's a decent MC for its cost, but I want to use the tunnel regularly and reliably and I would definitely pay more points for it. It would add fluff and variation to the tactics of the army. It's like Tyrant and Hive Guard, which while good, I would pay more points for to have the three wounds that they should clearly have given the size of their model.

[John Bower]

Since the only rule conferring Outflank via a Warlord trait is a unit the Warlord has joined, it is a moot point. As both the unit with Outflank and the Warlord would be arriving together and would only be possible if using a Hive tyrant attached to tyrant Guard or a Tyranid Prime attached to another unit.

You are incorrect, I would respectfully suggest you re-read the Hive commander rule, you don't have to be attached to the unit. It just confers 'outlfank' on a unit.

[Gleipnir]

You are incorrect, I would respectfully suggest you re-read the Hive commander rule, you don't have to be attached to the unit. It just confers 'outlfank' on a unit.

Hive commander is not a Warlord trait but okay...maybe read my post before the one you're quoting when I already explain as much?

[Tynskel]

I would gladly pay more points to be able to use the Trygon for what it was intended in the fluff, burrowing under and letting the swarm bypass defences. Like you say, it's a decent MC for its cost, but I want to use the tunnel regularly and reliably and I would definitely pay more points for it. It would add fluff and variation to the tactics of the army. It's like Tyrant and Hive Guard, which while good, I would pay more points for to have the three wounds that they should clearly have given the size of their model.

Now, this is a reasonable complaint.

[Tynskel]

Any 'interuption' the Trygon rule provides quite clearly only applies to 'normal reserves', and the only compelling argument as to what 'normal reserves' means has been provided by AlmostMercury.

And seriously? Stop bringing up the combat squads thing as if it makes you the sole authority on interpreting rules.

Nope. He's pointing to a FAQ that is only mentioned once, and it is on something extremely specific in the rulebook. For all intents and purposes, this specific FAQ question cannot be extrapolated to everything, because there are no other instances anywhere with a similar ruling. This FAQ does not define 'normal' as a keyword. At most, it infers normal, and *only* refers to the warlord trait.

[AlmostMercury]

Nope. He's pointing to a FAQ that is only mentioned once, and it is on something extremely specific in the rulebook. For all intents and purposes, this specific FAQ question cannot be extrapolated to everything, because there are no other instances anywhere with a similar ruling. This FAQ does not define 'normal' as a keyword. At most, it infers normal, and *only* refers to the warlord trait.

This is a little loose, but it'll do...

Is the referent of the term 'Outflank' in the FAQ question the Outflank special rule from the rulebook?
Yes.

Does the language of the FAQ question entail that deployment via the Outflank special rule is not deploying from reserves as normal?
Yes.

If you are unable to Outflank, and must arrive from "reserves as normal," can you choose to Deep Strike?
No, you must arrive from your controlled board edge when an "unusual" method of reserves deployment is made impossible.

First conclusion: Arriving from your controlled board edge is "arriving from reserves in the usual fashion."

Is the FAQ a rules enforceable document, considered to be the most up to date addition to the rules of the book to which it pertains?
Yes.

Is it specified that information acquired from how rulings are written can be ignored when playing "by the rules"?
No.

Should you follow Rules As Written whenever possible, provided there is no contradiction, when playing "by the rules"?
Yes.

Does the FAQ question contradict any rules or statements in the rulebook?
No.

Final Conclusion: the FAQ question (while addressing a question about Warlord Traits) refers directly the Outflank special rule and clearly implies that Outflank and Deep Strike are absolutely not arriving from reserves as normal.

You're confusing the focus of the question, with the relevance of the language. You, as a player, have no right to do this, unless of course you want to play in your basement or have a pre-arranged agreement with your opponent. The rules cannot prevent you from ignoring them, but they are the recommended and "tournament legal" method of play, unless stated otherwise.

As pertaining to our discussion, there are absolutely no reasons to believe your interpretation is correct beyond your inference of the meaning of "normal".

[Dialogus]

After posting this topic and getting my question answered, I forgot about it for a while, and thought "I think I will check and see if anyone else had something to say." I then came back to the page, and saw that there were now thirteen pages of comments. I thought "Wow, people are really interested in Tyranid fortifications, maybe I will get some ideas." All I found was internet. Internet everywhere. So much internet.

[Tynskel]

This is a little loose, but it'll do...

Is the referent of the term 'Outflank' in the FAQ question the Outflank special rule from the rulebook?
Yes.

Does the language of the FAQ question entail that deployment via the Outflank special rule is not deploying from reserves as normal?
Yes.

If you are unable to Outflank, and must arrive from "reserves as normal," can you choose to Deep Strike?
No, you must arrive from your controlled board edge when an "unusual" method of reserves deployment is made impossible.

First conclusion: Arriving from your controlled board edge is "arriving from reserves in the usual fashion."

Is the FAQ a rules enforceable document, considered to be the most up to date addition to the rules of the book to which it pertains?
Yes.

Is it specified that information acquired from how rulings are written can be ignored when playing "by the rules"?
No.

Should you follow Rules As Written whenever possible, provided there is no contradiction, when playing "by the rules"?
Yes.

Does the FAQ question contradict any rules or statements in the rulebook?
No.

Final Conclusion: the FAQ question (while addressing a question about Warlord Traits) refers directly the Outflank special rule and clearly implies that Outflank and Deep Strike are absolutely not arriving from reserves as normal.

You're confusing the focus of the question, with the relevance of the language. You, as a player, have no right to do this, unless of course you want to play in your basement or have a pre-arranged agreement with your opponent. The rules cannot prevent you from ignoring them, but they are the recommended and "tournament legal" method of play, unless stated otherwise.

As pertaining to our discussion, there are absolutely no reasons to believe your interpretation is correct beyond your inference of the meaning of "normal".

pedantic.
I suggest realizing that there is no defined meaning of 'normal' in the rulebook, that until there is a FAQ, you can pull your infantry units through the tunnel, as long as they are in some form of reserves.

outflank, deep strike, etc. are all reserves. There is no reason to believe that if they cannot qualify for the tunnel, that the specific unit wouldn't just enter the board the way they have been *declared* to enter (ie, from board edge, outflank, or deep strike).

[Tynskel]

After posting this topic and getting my question answered, I forgot about it for a while, and thought "I think I will check and see if anyone else had something to say." I then came back to the page, and saw that there were now thirteen pages of comments. I thought "Wow, people are really interested in Tyranid fortifications, maybe I will get some ideas." All I found was internet. Internet everywhere. So much internet.

yes. bugs can fire emplaced weapons, until there is a FAQ that states otherwise.

[John Bower]

Actually AlmostMercury I would suggest you read the section just prior to the FAQ's on GW site, it explains the difference between Errata and FAQ's, and no FAQ's are not enforceable as they are just 'house rules' used by the GW team. Errata on the other hand are actual 'changes' to the rules and so are enforceable.

And yep, unless they preclude us from doing so, we can fire the weapons, but that said, even in the old rules it was an FAQ, so individual clubs etc. could have chosen by consensus to ignore that rule anyway as it was an FAQ not an Errata.

[AlmostMercury]

Actually AlmostMercury I would suggest you read the section just prior to the FAQ's on GW site, it explains the difference between Errata and FAQ's, and no FAQ's are not enforceable as they are just 'house rules' used by the GW team. Errata on the other hand are actual 'changes' to the rules and so are enforceable.

And yep, unless they preclude us from doing so, we can fire the weapons, but that said, even in the old rules it was an FAQ, so individual clubs etc. could have chosen by consensus to ignore that rule anyway as it was an FAQ not an Errata.

Thank you for pointing that out, but it doesn't really change anything. How would you suggest dealing with the issue then? Let's say, that like the last FAQ, it states specifically that you cannot do this. Because we apparently do not need to use the FAQ, we cannot resolve the issue.

Would changing that line to "Is the FAQ a reasonable source to derive rules conclusions from? Yes." seem more sensible? If so, that's fine. What I'm looking for is a non arbitrary way, with sensible reasoning, to come to a decision should it ever matter in game.

Ultimately, it's up to the TO should this sort of dispute come about. The point I'm trying to make is that, there is in fact reason (multiple reasons) to follow my interpretation of the rules and absolutely no reason to follow Tynskel's beyond ambiguous language.

[AlmostMercury]

pedantic.
I suggest realizing that there is no defined meaning of 'normal' in the rulebook, that until there is a FAQ, you can pull your infantry units through the tunnel, as long as they are in some form of reserves.

outflank, deep strike, etc. are all reserves. There is no reason to believe that if they cannot qualify for the tunnel, that the specific unit wouldn't just enter the board the way they have been *declared* to enter (ie, from board edge, outflank, or deep strike).

Yes, and none of this is inconsistent with what I'm saying. Following from this, because both interpretations are still available you still arrive at a contradiction that needs resolution. If both players agree that it's possible, that is a perfectly fine resolution. However, if they disagree you need to come to a sensible resolution, instead of stamping your foot and saying, "It works my way!!" over and over again.

What I posted above is what's called an argument, it isn't pedantic, even if it isn't a fully fleshed out one. It is a sequence of assumptions and deductions that have a logical flow. If you would like to take issue with the argument, please address an assumption or following step. John Bower did, although it didn't really make that much difference to my overall point, I adjusted it as necessary in the post above.

However, it is now clear to me that you have no idea how to structure a valid argument (since you have yet do so). So I am comfortable in believing you are way over your head here. If you like, I can go through your posts and link them to the relevant formal and informal fallacies you have attempted to commit.

[John Bower]

Yes, and none of this is inconsistent with what I'm saying. Following from this, because both interpretations are still available you still arrive at a contradiction that needs resolution. If both players agree that it's possible, that is a perfectly fine resolution. However, if they disagree you need to come to a sensible resolution, instead of stamping your foot and saying, "It works my way!!" over and over again.

What I posted above is what's called an argument, it isn't pedantic, even if it isn't a fully fleshed out one. It is a sequence of assumptions and deductions that have a logical flow. If you would like to take issue with the argument, please address an assumption or following step. John Bower did, although it didn't really make that much difference to my overall point, I adjusted it as necessary in the post above.

However, it is now clear to me that you have no idea how to structure a valid argument (since you have yet do so). So I am comfortable in believing you are way over your head here. If you like, I can go through your posts and link them to the relevant formal and informal fallacies you have attempted to commit.

I saw and was part of a similar argument back when the last nid dex came out. it too was over wording in an FAQ that one person at our club stated quite clearly was 'the rules so tough'. the wording of the said FAQ went like this:

Q Can I take saving throws against the Mawloc's Terror from the deep attack
A Yes

that way GW has of wording it caused an argument that went on for ages, and resulted in the only way we could resolve it; a club wide vote.
He said basically that even in the open since the Mawloc didn't have line of sight, you got a cover save against it. I said that simply wasn't true, that people asking that wouldn't be asking unless they were in cover, otherwise the AP2 made no sense.

You see where this is going, it's wording, bad wording that causes these issues. GW really need to take a long hard look at the way they word things, what is 'normal' by definition for one unit is not 'normal' for another. it's 'normal' for a guard sniper to miss the side of a barn at 2 paces, it's not 'normal' for a Vindicare assassin to do so. I think it would be wrong to say somebody can't use the hole just because he'd declared the unit as outflanking, simply because you have to do that before other options become available. It's partly why now we have to start with units on the board, or have them on the board at the end of game turn. It was just this kind of thing that caused an issue at a tournament when rather famously somebody killed an entire army by preventing it outflanking by using his 2 turns to block both short table edges. So GW changed the rules to say that you must only have 50% of your army in reserve. It didn't stop the Drop pod bomb from working though. As drop pods don't count among that 50% since they have to DS.
Maybe you're trying to read too much into 'normal' here. Normal is what is normal from a perspective. Since GW doesn't elaborate on what they consider normal in this situation, then I think and feel that to resolve it you have to either get a 3rd party in, or roll off. I wouldn't prevent somebody from bringing units they had declared as outflanking through a tunnel instead. At least not until somebody clarifies it, such as in Cities of Death Sewer Rats stratagem, where it clearly states they may use the sewer openings 'instead of the board edge'. That is clear as glass, and the intent is made clear.

Here's another conundrum for you then... Spore mines, can they charge the turn they are fired? They didn't DS, or come on from reserves. So how do you rule that one, it's also likely to cause arguments because 99% of the time the person having it done to them will argue the toss with the person doing it to them, and their argument very often would be quite different if the shoe was on the other foot.

[AlmostMercury]

I saw and was part of a similar argument back when the last nid dex came out. it too was over wording in an FAQ that one person at our club stated quite clearly was 'the rules so tough'. the wording of the said FAQ went like this:

Q Can I take saving throws against the Mawloc's Terror from the deep attack
A Yes

that way GW has of wording it caused an argument that went on for ages, and resulted in the only way we could resolve it; a club wide vote.
He said basically that even in the open since the Mawloc didn't have line of sight, you got a cover save against it. I said that simply wasn't true, that people asking that wouldn't be asking unless they were in cover, otherwise the AP2 made no sense.

You see where this is going, it's wording, bad wording that causes these issues.


I can see where you're coming from in an interpretive sense, but this is a non-issue for me because the RAW tells me what I can and cannot do. There is no explicit contradiction between the Mawlocs attack being AP2 and being able to take cover saves. That issue only exists in how you imagine it to work.



Maybe you're trying to read too much into 'normal' here. Normal is what is normal from a perspective. Since GW doesn't elaborate on what they consider normal in this situation, then I think and feel that to resolve it you have to either get a 3rd party in, or roll off. I wouldn't prevent somebody from bringing units they had declared as outflanking through a tunnel instead. At least not until somebody clarifies it, such as in Cities of Death Sewer Rats stratagem, where it clearly states they may use the sewer openings 'instead of the board edge'. That is clear as glass, and the intent is made clear.


I will absolutely admit that it is a unlikely scenario to come up, given the number of things that need to line up for this to work. Given that you need to declare how your units will enter the board, it will affect how I play my turns. The other really compelling part of my interpretation (from an argumentative position) is that it is completely consistent with all other rules, you redefine no other deployment other than the one specifically noted in the rule. This is particularly demonstrated in how the BRB FAQ question identifies Outflanking as an 'unusual' method of deployment, which implies Deep Striking as another 'unusual' method of deployment.



Here's another conundrum for you then... Spore mines, can they charge the turn they are fired? They didn't DS, or come on from reserves. So how do you rule that one, it's also likely to cause arguments because 99% of the time the person having it done to them will argue the toss with the person doing it to them, and their argument very often would be quite different if the shoe was on the other foot.

I don't consider this a conundrum because as the rules are written it's fine. There's no explicit contradiction here in how it's written. It only seems to be contrary to how they're intended to work. While I consider it an oversight on their part to have left this out, to me it's how it works until it gets fixed. If it never "gets fixed" then that's how it works.

If you want to talk about RAI of the Trygon rule, to me it's absolutely clear that my interpretation is correct given the 5th ed codex. The wording on the rule hasn't changed, other than winged infantry being allowed to use the tunnel, and the old FAQ stated (as clear as glass, I might add) that only "Home Edge" Reserves can use the tunnel, further enforcing the idea that "normal reserves" are equivalent to "home edge reserves" and exclusive of outflanking or deep striking. Moreover, this FAQ held and was updated for the 6th edition ruleset, so all that changed was the edition of the Tyranid Codex.

The current issue is that the way the rule is worded allows for two valid interpretations. The problem, however, is that those valid interpretations are contradictory, so as the rules are written (not interpreted) they both can't be true. An Outflanking unit cannot both be allowed and not allowed to use the tunnel.

This is the fundamental difference between the tunnel and mines. The former is a problem with how it is literally written, while the latter is a problem with how we as players think they meant to write it. If they mistyped T5 under warriors (we as tyranid players would be ecstatic), it doesn't matter if it was intended or not, warriors are T5 until they amend it.

[Tynskel]

I saw and was part of a similar argument back when the last nid dex came out. it too was over wording in an FAQ that one person at our club stated quite clearly was 'the rules so tough'. the wording of the said FAQ went like this:

Q Can I take saving throws against the Mawloc's Terror from the deep attack
A Yes

that way GW has of wording it caused an argument that went on for ages, and resulted in the only way we could resolve it; a club wide vote.
He said basically that even in the open since the Mawloc didn't have line of sight, you got a cover save against it. I said that simply wasn't true, that people asking that wouldn't be asking unless they were in cover, otherwise the AP2 made no sense.

You see where this is going, it's wording, bad wording that causes these issues. GW really need to take a long hard look at the way they word things, what is 'normal' by definition for one unit is not 'normal' for another. it's 'normal' for a guard sniper to miss the side of a barn at 2 paces, it's not 'normal' for a Vindicare assassin to do so. I think it would be wrong to say somebody can't use the hole just because he'd declared the unit as outflanking, simply because you have to do that before other options become available. It's partly why now we have to start with units on the board, or have them on the board at the end of game turn. It was just this kind of thing that caused an issue at a tournament when rather famously somebody killed an entire army by preventing it outflanking by using his 2 turns to block both short table edges. So GW changed the rules to say that you must only have 50% of your army in reserve. It didn't stop the Drop pod bomb from working though. As drop pods don't count among that 50% since they have to DS.
Maybe you're trying to read too much into 'normal' here. Normal is what is normal from a perspective. Since GW doesn't elaborate on what they consider normal in this situation, then I think and feel that to resolve it you have to either get a 3rd party in, or roll off. I wouldn't prevent somebody from bringing units they had declared as outflanking through a tunnel instead. At least not until somebody clarifies it, such as in Cities of Death Sewer Rats stratagem, where it clearly states they may use the sewer openings 'instead of the board edge'. That is clear as glass, and the intent is made clear.

Here's another conundrum for you then... Spore mines, can they charge the turn they are fired? They didn't DS, or come on from reserves. So how do you rule that one, it's also likely to cause arguments because 99% of the time the person having it done to them will argue the toss with the person doing it to them, and their argument very often would be quite different if the shoe was on the other foot.

wow. You are pointing out that there is no definition for 'normal'! Wow, that means that because there is *no* definition for normal, *any* unit that has
1) 'infantry'
2) came in the turn after the Trygon
3) is not coming through the tunnel the same time as another unit

can use the tunnel.

Otherwise, they would enter the board through whatever process would be normal: i.e. what you declared!


*any* other interpretation requires moar rules. Rules that don't exist.

[AlmostMercury]

Sure, let's do this ad nauseum...


wow. You are pointing out that there is no definition for 'normal'! Wow, that means that because there is *no* definition for normal, *any* unit that has
1) 'infantry'
2) came in the turn after the Trygon
3) is not coming through the tunnel the same time as another unit can use the tunnel.


What I'm waiting for is you to provide some reason to believe we ought to use your interpretation over another. The root of the problem is Amphiboly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

So this:


Otherwise, they would enter the board through whatever process would be normal: i.e. what you declared!"


is just an assumption, nothing more. It's valid, but only an assumption. Get over it.



*any* other interpretation requires moar rules. Rules that don't exist.


You're just terrible at this, hey? Really? "My way is correct because it's the way we ought to interpret it, which means your interpretation requires a new rule." Is that actually what you're thinking?

What you're doing is affirming a disjunct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct). Normal means A or B. Because normal doesn't specify that it means B, it must mean A. I'm sorry, but A requires specification as well, because as far as the disjunct is concerned A and B can both be true. The contradiction is derived elsewhere, namely that from A you can derive ~B (not B) and from B you can derive ~A (not A).

Because both referents function linguistically, your interpretation equally requires a rule, should you choose to follow this course. Please go back and read "Amphiboly."

There is absolutely no need to define 'normal' as a rule. The language used provides everything you would normally need from a ruling perspective, it's just the unfortunate case that they worded it poorly (a second time!), without explicit clarification of the referent.

Thus, it's left to us to decide what the referent is, and thanks to the 5th ed FAQ we can hypothesize a probable referent. But, that is neither here nor there because we're not talking about as intended, we're talking about as written.

As I've explained, we are required to settle this with another method beyond repeating what the trygon rule says. There is no single interpretation. If you like, you can resolve this with a player decision or a roll off. Otherwise, you can look at all other rules that could provide insight, which I have done and you have not.

If you somehow believe you're convincing, you might want to look through this embarrassing list of poor argumentative choices you've been making:

Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
Argument from Silence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence)
Begging the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
Circular Reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)
Incomplete Comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_comparison)
Ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi)

There are probably more.

[Tynskel]

Pedantic. Again.

Nope. You cannot sight a single rule that explicitly states what 'normal' is. You have no argument! Nothing! Nadda, zilch!

Sorry dude. But, until there is an *actual* rule that states what 'normal' is, you just play as is. As is =
1) 'infantry'
2) came in the turn after the Trygon
3) is not coming through the tunnel the same time as another unit

otherwise you just come in *as declared*.


You cannot use the 5th Edition FAQ as your evidence. There are *other* interpretations from 5th Edition that have been 100% reversed (see Combat Squads 5th to 6th Edition). 5th Edition rules have been *nullified* by the new codex!

Considering you need a full page of text to even attempt an argument, I think you need some help on interpreting rules. Here's a hint:

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?21435-Tynskel-s-Guide-to-Interpreting-Rules&p=194151&viewfull=1#post194151

[Gleipnir]

Even if I were to grant that all units in reserves are considered normal reserves, I have yet to see a compelling argument that would contradict a Rule as Written restriction you impose on your own units by placing them in Outflank or Deep Strike Reserves, since both rules very clearly and very specifically say they must arrive by that method.

The argument that well the Trygon Tunnel says ignore that with a general term is false, it doesn't address either of those two rule restrictions whatsoever and in the absence of a contradiction or explicit wording those rules would still hold.

They very well may errata the Trygon Tunnel at some point(because the rule is that borked) and it may even be changed to permit Deep Strike and Outflank reserves to use it when they do so (highly doubtful but still possible, they did create a crappy rule once after all, why not double down and make it even less sensible as is being suggested)

[AlmostMercury]

I promise to be even more concise this time.


Pedantic. Again.


Argument is specific. Being ignorant of how it works doesn't it make it anything else.



Nope. You cannot sight a single rule that explicitly states what 'normal' is. You have no argument! Nothing! Nadda, zilch!


You've demonstrated that you don't know what an argument is, let alone how to identify, construct, refine, counter, or generally work within the parameters thereof.



Sorry dude. But, until there is an *actual* rule that states what 'normal' is, you just play as is. As is =
1) 'infantry'
2) came in the turn after the Trygon
3) is not coming through the tunnel the same time as another unit

otherwise you just come in *as declared*.


I'm sorry, but where does the rulebook or codex say specifically that "as normal" = "as declared"? I can't find a rule that does, can you? Because you can certainly declare unusual (not normal) actions. Moreover, 'as normal' certainly does not mean 'unusual' and I can find a ruling that identifies Outflanking as unusual.



You cannot use the 5th Edition FAQ as your evidence. There are *other* interpretations from 5th Edition that have been 100% reversed (see Combat Squads 5th to 6th Edition). 5th Edition rules have been *nullified* by the new codex!


It's evidence of intention. It doesn't need to be deductively correct. GW certainly could reverse it, and they might just to make the rule marginally less worthless. But if they do, it doesn't make your interpretation and lack of argument any good.



Considering you need a full page of text to even attempt an argument, I think you need some help on interpreting rules. Here's a hint:


This is how proper argument works. Like I said, if you want to play "home rules" in your basement with your friends, be my guest. But this is the real world, where real logic applies.



http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?21435-Tynskel-s-Guide-to-Interpreting-Rules&p=194151&viewfull=1#post194151

Again, Ignoratio Elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi). Is it possible for you to get worse at this as it goes on? Practice usually helps.

[AlmostMercury]

Even if I were to grant that all units in reserves are considered normal reserves, I have yet to see a compelling argument that would contradict a Rule as Written restriction you impose on your own units by placing them in Outflank or Deep Strike Reserves, since both rules very clearly and very specifically say they must arrive by that method.

The argument that well the Trygon Tunnel says ignore that with a general term is false, it doesn't address either of those two rule restrictions whatsoever and in the absence of a contradiction or explicit wording those rules would still hold.


Particularly in the presence of a contradiction requiring amendment and interpretation.

As an aside, the Warlord FAQ question would apply the Master of Deception trait in the CSM codex. This allows for the warlord to provide infiltrate to units it is not apart of.

[Gleipnir]

Particularly in the presence of a contradiction requiring amendment and interpretation.

As an aside, the Warlord FAQ question would apply the Master of Deception trait in the CSM codex. This allows for the warlord to provide infiltrate to units it is not apart of.

Yup, I was more or less trying to understand why the example was chosen for Tyranid Warlords :)

[AlmostMercury]

Yeah, I was meaning it in a general sense of Unit X grants Ability Y to Unit Z. Unit X dies, so Unit Z loses capacity to follow through with Ability Y.

The FAQ states that about warlord traits, but I was curious about other abilities in general. In that sense Hive Commander is like Master of Deception.

It seems silly that once a unit has been declared to be outflanking it must enter the board normally should your warlord die, but not if a Tyrant dies after using Hive Commander.

[DarkLink]

Nope. You cannot sight a single rule that explicitly states what 'normal' is. You have no argument!


How about the dictionary?

nor·mal

a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular patter

If they use the word normal, that immediately implies that there is some form of reserves that is -not- normal. The only logical conclusion thereof is that the special cases of reserves, e.g. deepstriking and outflanking, are not normal, being special cases of a more general rules. Because, y'know, that's what the word 'normal' actually means.

[Gleipnir]

How about the dictionary?

nor·mal

a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular patter

If they use the word normal, that immediately implies that there is some form of reserves that is -not- normal. The only logical conclusion thereof is that the special cases of reserves, e.g. deepstriking and outflanking, are not normal, being special cases of a more general rules. Because, y'know, that's what the word 'normal' actually means.

I've always thought Deep Striking and Outflanking reserves are considered "normal" reserves in the sense that they follow the normal rules for rolling for the when they enter, unlike Ongoing Reserves, not to say I agree with anything being said about ignoring the rules for Deep Strike and Outflank which tell you, you have to follow thru with those methods of arrival when they do arrive from reserves.

[Gleipnir]

Yeah, I was meaning it in a general sense of Unit X grants Ability Y to Unit Z. Unit X dies, so Unit Z loses capacity to follow through with Ability Y.

The FAQ states that about warlord traits, but I was curious about other abilities in general. In that sense Hive Commander is like Master of Deception.

It seems silly that once a unit has been declared to be outflanking it must enter the board normally should your warlord die, but not if a Tyrant dies after using Hive Commander.

yeah similar but different, since not really possible to argue the special rule is treated the same as a warlord trait, that would cause all kinds of issues with other special rules conferred in similar manners, Cato Sicarius comes to mind.

[Tynskel]

How about the dictionary?

nor·mal

a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular patter

If they use the word normal, that immediately implies that there is some form of reserves that is -not- normal. The only logical conclusion thereof is that the special cases of reserves, e.g. deepstriking and outflanking, are not normal, being special cases of a more general rules. Because, y'know, that's what the word 'normal' actually means.

Good idea. Oh myyy, none of those are not *normal* rules. As far as I am aware, but Deep Strike, and Outflank have been *normal* rules for 3 editions now...
Sooooo, try again.

[Tynskel]

I promise to be even more concise this time.



Argument is specific. Being ignorant of how it works doesn't it make it anything else.



You've demonstrated that you don't know what an argument is, let alone how to identify, construct, refine, counter, or generally work within the parameters thereof.



I'm sorry, but where does the rulebook or codex say specifically that "as normal" = "as declared"? I can't find a rule that does, can you? Because you can certainly declare unusual (not normal) actions. Moreover, 'as normal' certainly does not mean 'unusual' and I can find a ruling that identifies Outflanking as unusual.



It's evidence of intention. It doesn't need to be deductively correct. GW certainly could reverse it, and they might just to make the rule marginally less worthless. But if they do, it doesn't make your interpretation and lack of argument any good.



This is how proper argument works. Like I said, if you want to play "home rules" in your basement with your friends, be my guest. But this is the real world, where real logic applies.



Again, Ignoratio Elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi). Is it possible for you to get worse at this as it goes on? Practice usually helps.

Again, not a single thing you are saying is quoting from the great Rule Book. Oh hail thee!
As for your 'declared ≠ normal' comment. Oh? Since when? Considering those are 3 types of Reserves are the *normal* rules for 3 editions, they sound pretty darn normal to me!

[Gleipnir]

Still haven't explained any wording that permits you to ignore restrictions placed on units that are declared to be Deep Striking or Outflanking.....normal reserve or otherwise Trygon Tunnel never says ignore this set of rules or that so RAW the restrictions they place would still be present.

No having more options does not remove a restriction, that's like saying because we added another car/vehicle lane to the road my Light Rail Train has an extra lane to travel in.

[AlmostMercury]

Good idea. Oh myyy, none of those are not *normal* rules. As far as I am aware, but Deep Strike, and Outflank have been *normal* rules for 3 editions now...
Sooooo, try again.

Hey kid, those are listed under "Special Rules," not "Normal Rules."

And if you look at the relevant definition of Special:

adjective
1.better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.

Oh hmmm... isn't usual part of the definition of/a synonym for 'normal'? Interesting.

[DarkLink]

Good idea. Oh myyy, none of those are not *normal* rules. As far as I am aware, but Deep Strike, and Outflank have been *normal* rules for 3 editions now...
Sooooo, try again.

Hey, so... have you ever tried not being a condescending douchebag? Because then people might actually listen to you on occasion. Also, that's a very, very loose interpretation of 'normal'.

[AlmostMercury]

Hey, so... have you ever tried not being a condescending douchebag? Because then people might actually listen to you on occasion. Also, that's a very, very loose interpretation of 'normal'.

Loose interpretation of normal? No man, it's straight-up contradictory. He's appealing to the way he sees the game to interpret the rules of the game, all the while screaming at everyone to find a written rule in the book to show how he's wrong. Otherwise, in his fragile threatened personal world, he gets to be correct.

Ignorant, foolish, and disingenuous are the kind ways to describe what he's doing.

[DarkLink]

Right, like I said initially, the fact that they even use the word 'normal' immediately implies that there is some sort of not-normal reserve type. Since the only reserve options are 1) walking on from the table edge (which is the default option), 2) deepstriking (which you can only do if you declare it, and if you have a special rule allowing it), or 3) outflanking (which you can only do if you declare it, and if you have a special rule allowing it), it's pretty obvious that there are two general types of reserves. 'Normal' reserves, e.g. the default option that everyone can use, and 'not-normal' reserves, which you have to specifically declare and requires the appropriate special rules to use. One type of reserve anyone can use, the other is very restricted and requires extra steps to be taken. This is seriously just basic reading comprehension.

I could see an argument for downplaying the importance of the use of the word normal, but Tynskel isn't making that argument. He's just throwing out snarky, condescending dismissals and ignoring everything that everyone else says. That's not a good way of convincing anybody of anything.

[Chris Copeland]

Nicely and concisely done, DarkLink. Cheers.


Right, like I said initially, the fact that they even use the word 'normal' immediately implies that there is some sort of not-normal reserve type. Since the only reserve options are 1) walking on from the table edge (which is the default option), 2) deepstriking (which you can only do if you declare it, and if you have a special rule allowing it), or 3) outflanking (which you can only do if you declare it, and if you have a special rule allowing it), it's pretty obvious that there are two general types of reserves. 'Normal' reserves, e.g. the default option that everyone can use, and 'not-normal' reserves, which you have to specifically declare and requires the appropriate special rules to use. One type of reserve anyone can use, the other is very restricted and requires extra steps to be taken.

[DarkLink]

I'm just hoping this train-wreck of a thread stops popping up on the new posts feed.

[Tynskel]

Right, like I said initially, the fact that they even use the word 'normal' immediately implies that there is some sort of not-normal reserve type. Since the only reserve options are 1) walking on from the table edge (which is the default option), 2) deepstriking (which you can only do if you declare it, and if you have a special rule allowing it), or 3) outflanking (which you can only do if you declare it, and if you have a special rule allowing it), it's pretty obvious that there are two general types of reserves. 'Normal' reserves, e.g. the default option that everyone can use, and 'not-normal' reserves, which you have to specifically declare and requires the appropriate special rules to use. One type of reserve anyone can use, the other is very restricted and requires extra steps to be taken. This is seriously just basic reading comprehension.

I could see an argument for downplaying the importance of the use of the word normal, but Tynskel isn't making that argument. He's just throwing out snarky, condescending dismissals and ignoring everything that everyone else says. That's not a good way of convincing anybody of anything.

Nope.
There is no definition of 'Normal' in the rulebook, and your interpretation from a dictionary does not clear the matter up. The only things we can use are the rules as written. aka normal uses what the rules say: and the rules say: if you are entering via deep strike, and you fail to enter via the tunnel, then you enter 'normally'. if you are entering via outflank, and you fail to enter via the tunnel, you enter normally. if you are entering via your boardedge, and you fail to enter via the tunnel, you enter normally.

When reading the rules: normal entry for deep strike = deep strike
When reading the rules: normal entry for outflank = outflank
When reading the rules: normal entry for board edge = board edge

I don't see how you guys even can attempt to argue this.

[daboarder]

Step 1:
(this one is hard)
READ THE RULES!

Step 2:
READ THE FAQs

Step 3:
...

Step 4:
Profit!


seriously tynskel your stretching so much and squinting at it in the dark. there is no line in the tyranid book that allows the breaking of the already locked in ooutflank rule. And besides that even if there is, big ****ing woop the tunne is still a piece of crap that doesn't work.

[DarkLink]

So you're saying that the rules never define 'normal', but then you say that they define 'normal' as any and all reserves?


Nope.

Opening with this immediately calls your character into question. It's rude and abrasive. As soon as I read it, I immediately shut down. Even if you had a well-written, coherent, and convincing argument, the tone this sort of comment conveys makes it highly likely that I will just respond with 'well screw you, too' instead of listening to whatever you're going to say. Keep that in mind in the future. If you leave this part off, then your argument becomes significantly more persuasive. This is one of those 'how to make friends and influence people' sort of no-no's.



There is no definition of 'Normal' in the rulebook, and your interpretation from a dictionary does not clear the matter up.

I'm going to assume that by 'no definition of normal', you mean that there is no "Normal Reserves" vs "Special Reserves" distinction. In which case, we're left with some ambiguity. What does "normal reserves" mean, if the rulebook itself never makes any distinction between different types of reserves?

Stepping back, I see two possible interpretations of the word 'normal' in this context, since it is not defined. It could refer to standard reserves as normal, with deepstrike and outflanking as special forms of reserves. Alternatively, it could refer to reserves globally as normal, with the Trygon tunnel as the special form.

Now, I don't have an actual copy of the codex. I can see the argument to be made for the latter, however. It would depend a lot on how the rule is worded.



The only things we can use are the rules as written. aka normal uses what the rules say: and the rules say: if you are entering via deep strike, and you fail to enter via the tunnel, then you enter 'normally'. if you are entering via outflank, and you fail to enter via the tunnel, you enter normally. if you are entering via your boardedge, and you fail to enter via the tunnel, you enter normally.

When reading the rules: normal entry for deep strike = deep strike
When reading the rules: normal entry for outflank = outflank
When reading the rules: normal entry for board edge = board edge

You should spend less time being dismissive and more time actually making this argument.




I don't see how you guys even can attempt to argue this.

I, however, can see why no one is listening to you. You sound condescending and dismissive. You fail to address the counter-points others bring up with anything more meaningful than "nuh-uh" or "nope". Your own points are poorly presented. I might make fun of english majors frequently, but there is a lot to be said for being capable of coherent, concise, and clear writing.

[Tynskel]

Hey kid, those are listed under "Special Rules," not "Normal Rules."

And if you look at the relevant definition of Special:

adjective
1.better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.

Oh hmmm... isn't usual part of the definition of/a synonym for 'normal'? Interesting.

Hey kiddo!
Reserves is listed under *special rules* as well! Try again!

[Tynskel]

So you're saying that the rules never define 'normal', but then you say that they define 'normal' as any and all reserves?



Opening with this immediately calls your character into question. It's rude and abrasive. As soon as I read it, I immediately shut down. Even if you had a well-written, coherent, and convincing argument, the tone this sort of comment conveys makes it highly likely that I will just respond with 'well screw you, too' instead of listening to whatever you're going to say. Keep that in mind in the future. If you leave this part off, then your argument becomes significantly more persuasive. This is one of those 'how to make friends and influence people' sort of no-no's.



I'm going to assume that by 'no definition of normal', you mean that there is no "Normal Reserves" vs "Special Reserves" distinction. In which case, we're left with some ambiguity. What does "normal reserves" mean, if the rulebook itself never makes any distinction between different types of reserves?

Stepping back, I see two possible interpretations of the word 'normal' in this context, since it is not defined. It could refer to standard reserves as normal, with deepstrike and outflanking as special forms of reserves. Alternatively, it could refer to reserves globally as normal, with the Trygon tunnel as the special form.

Now, I don't have an actual copy of the codex. I can see the argument to be made for the latter, however. It would depend a lot on how the rule is worded.



You should spend less time being dismissive and more time actually making this argument.




I, however, can see why no one is listening to you. You sound condescending and dismissive. You fail to address the counter-points others bring up with anything more meaningful than "nuh-uh" or "nope". Your own points are poorly presented. I might make fun of english majors frequently, but there is a lot to be said for being capable of coherent, concise, and clear writing.

You spend a lot of time arguing 'nope' instead of trying to come up with rules to support your argument. 'Nope' is quick and to the point: that you are wrong. Then I explain why.

tah dah!

[Tynskel]

Nicely and concisely done, DarkLink. Cheers.

Actually, no. He has forgotten the part where you have to *declare* *any* *reserves*.

Again, I state: there is no way to pin 'normal' on any specific wording.
Everything that I have stated has fit within what the rules for the Tunnel are stating:

1) Unit must be Infantry
2) Unit must be 'in reserves' note, that the rule does not say *what* reserves, just in reserves.
3) Enter the turn after the Trygon has entered the board
4) No other unit has used the Tunnel this turn.

Again, you can pull *any* unit from reserves. If you fail to enter through the tunnel, you enter the board 'normally', aka, the way you have declared.

Entering the board the way you declared is the *normal* process of entering from reserves.

There is nothing my statement of what the rules *actually* say that contradicts what the main rulebook nor codex actually say.

To say 'normal' restricts to a specific type of reserves *requires* a specific rule that states so. None of you have found *anywhere* in the Tyranid codex, or main rulebook, that states this.

[Tynskel]

seriously tynskel your stretching so much and squinting at it in the dark. there is no line in the tyranid book that allows the breaking of the already locked in ooutflank rule. And besides that even if there is, big ****ing woop the tunne is still a piece of crap that doesn't work.

You have not pointed out a rule that says otherwise! Where does the Tunnel rule state this? Where, oh I know, no where.

[Chris Copeland]

Actually, no. He has forgotten the part where you have to *declare* *any* *reserves* Tynskel, we are going to have to agree to disagree, mate. If we were playing a game and it came down to a point of contention I'd suggest we roll it off (as GW suggests). I can't see the logic you are using carrying the day in my local meta but, hey, it's a great big, wide world. I find DarkLink's argument far more compelling and I find yours to be a leap (to put it mildly). I am willing to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Cheers and good gaming to all! Cope

[DarkLink]

You spend a lot of time arguing 'nope' instead of trying to come up with rules to support your argument. 'Nope' is quick and to the point: that you are wrong. Then I explain why.

tah dah!


7380

[Tynskel]

Tynskel, we are going to have to agree to disagree, mate. If we were playing a game and it came down to a point of contention I'd suggest we roll it off (as GW suggests). I can't see the logic you are using carrying the day in my local meta but, hey, it's a great big, wide world. I find DarkLink's argument far more compelling and I find yours to be a leap (to put it mildly). I am willing to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Cheers and good gaming to all! Cope

I am not sure how you can find DarkLink's logic compelling, considering it follows no rules in the rulebook.

[Tynskel]

7380

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your argument.

[John Bower]

So, let me get this straight, as lets be honest here the nids got raped over a barrel with the new dex as it was.....

You guys are saying that if I want to use a Trygon and its tunnel, then I need to declare that my reserves are 'normal' ie coming on from my table edge correct? So I do this, my trygon gets misshaped out of the game upon arrival, and that was on lets say for arguments sake turn 4 (it rolled 1's and 2's on the previous turns), on top of that I have maybe 5 units in reserve, 2 of stealers, 1 of Ravenors, and a couple of units of termagants.

Now you've just crippled my army due to your definition of 'normal' where GW don't actually say what 'normal' is. Because now I've got 2 good CC units, a mediocre shooty unit, and decent (ish) shooty unit that now have to spend 3 turns or more crossing the table. You've just rendered the Trygon the 2nd least useful model in the Tyranid army. See? RAW in your eyes may be the way to go, but I think sometimes RAI is better; we all know GW can't write clear rules for love or money and that their FAQ's are nonexistant now. If somebody was playing me I'd have no issue with him coming from a hole, dammit guys it's the same thing; outflank/DS or hole, they still got to suffer 2 lots of shooting before they can assault you so what the blazes are we arguing about? Normal as defined in the dictionary is as follows:


1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2. serving to establish a standard.

By any argument this does not 'exclude' what is 'normal' for a Deep Striking unit, it is 'normal' for it to Deep Strike, or an outflanking unit would treat that modus operandi as 'normal' under the English dictionary.

[Mr Mystery]

In mild bemusement this thread is still going, let alone 17 pages....

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/calm-down-ministry-of-scousers-calm-down.png

[DarkLink]

I'm amazed that someone hasn't shut it down. Tynskel's just been trolling the crap out of everyone, and there's nothing productive to be had from that.


I am not sure how you can find DarkLink's logic compelling, considering it follows no rules in the rulebook.

If you had actually read any my last post, I think you would be suprised to find that I actually say that I think that you have an argument to make. You just haven't made it.

What, word for word, is the Trygon tunnel rule. I don't own a Tyranid codex, so I can't reference it. As for the rules in the BRB, do you disagree that there are generally three types of reserves, regular reserves, outflanking, and deepstriking? Do you claim that my statements that you have to declare which of these you are arriving by are false? Or are you going to keep claiming that I'm not referencing rules simply because I haven't put them in quotes and listed the page number.


Also, do you know what the burden of proof logical fallacy is? Because you've been exploiting it all throughout this thread.

[DarkLink]

By any argument this does not 'exclude' what is 'normal' for a Deep Striking unit, it is 'normal' for it to Deep Strike, or an outflanking unit would treat that modus operandi as 'normal' under the English dictionary.

That's the argument I think Tynskel is trying to make, he's just so busy trolling everyone else that he's failing miserably. I can actually agree with this interpretation, depending on the wording of the tunnel rule, which I don't have.

[Tynskel]

I'm amazed that someone hasn't shut it down. Tynskel's just been trolling the crap out of everyone, and there's nothing productive to be had from that.



If you had actually read any my last post, I think you would be suprised to find that I actually say that I think that you have an argument to make. You just haven't made it.

What, word for word, is the Trygon tunnel rule. I don't own a Tyranid codex, so I can't reference it. As for the rules in the BRB, do you disagree that there are generally three types of reserves, regular reserves, outflanking, and deepstriking? Do you claim that my statements that you have to declare which of these you are arriving by are false? Or are you going to keep claiming that I'm not referencing rules simply because I haven't put them in quotes and listed the page number.


Also, do you know what the burden of proof logical fallacy is? Because you've been exploiting it all throughout this thread.

I am simply claiming that you have no reference frame for what *normal* means. So, you cannot claim to state that any particular type *is* normal, and the only thing to go off of is that if you fail to come through the tunnel, then you go back to what you originally declared (which you *have* to declare what reserve you are using at game setup).

That would be the 'normal' thing to do.

I am not exploiting the 'burden of proof'. I am *only* using rules that are written.
The issue i have with the other group's argument is that they somehow think that 'normal' is defined. It is not. Normal is *not* a keyword in the 40k Rulebook. Its use changes throughout the rulebook, and cannot be consistently defined.

[DarkLink]

Whatever.


Anyways, as to the actual point of the thread, I acquired a copy of the tyranid codex. Here's the Subterrainian Assault rules (relevant section is bolded):


Subterranean Assault: If, when a Trygon (or Trygon Prime) deploys via Deep Strike, it scatters on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe), reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required to avoid the obstacle.

After the Trygon (or Trygon Prime) has emerged, mark the position under the creature’s base with a suitable marker – this represents the tunnel left by its emergence. Any friendly Tyranid Infantry unit that arrives from reserve in subsequent turns may emerge from the Trygon’s tunnel instead of arriving from reserve as normal. Only one unit may emerge from each tunnel marker each turn.

If any unit chooses to do so, place the entire unit so that all of its models are wholly within 6" of the centre of the marker and in unitcoherency. These models cannot be placed within 1" of enemy models or within impassable terrain; if any models cannot be placed, these excess models are removed as casualties. A unit may not move or charge on the same turn it arrives from a Trygon’s tunnel, but may shoot or Run.

What strikes me is that it never references 'normal reserves'. It just says 'arriving from reserves'. It does have the word normal in there, but grammatically its use appears to differentiate between arriving from reserves via the Trygon tunnel vs arriving from reserves by any other means. So I have to agree with Tynskel. Normal reserves in this context refers to the default options available in the BRB, and not-normal refers to arriving via the Trygon tunnel. Since no further distinction is made beyond the default reserves vs the Trygon tunnel, I see no reason why Deep Striking or Outflanking would limit you from using the Trygon tunnel.

So, Tynskel, you're welcome. I just did what you should have done a week ago instead of wasting all this time trolling.

[Tynskel]

Whatever.


Anyways, as to the actual point of the thread, I acquired a copy of the tyranid codex. Here's the Subterrainian Assault rules (relevant section is bolded):



What strikes me is that it never references 'normal reserves'. It just says 'arriving from reserves'. It does have the word normal in there, but grammatically its use appears to differentiate between arriving from reserves via the Trygon tunnel vs arriving from reserves by any other means. So I have to agree with Tynskel. Normal reserves in this context refers to the default options available in the BRB, and not-normal refers to arriving via the Trygon tunnel. Since no further distinction is made beyond the default reserves vs the Trygon tunnel, I see no reason why Deep Striking or Outflanking would limit you from using the Trygon tunnel.

So, Tynskel, you're welcome. I just did what you should have done a week ago instead of wasting all this time trolling.



I was *never* trolling. You just reiterated what I said.

[DarkLink]

It's about tone, not content. You might not have intended to sound like an *******, but if you talked in real life the way you did in this thread, you'd earn a broken nose pretty quickly.

Like I said earlier, you really need to work on your communication skills. If you had stated your argument clearly and concisely, minus the inflammatory comments, this thread wouldn't have lasted more than a page or two. Instead, you responded to every alternative argument with "nope, lrn2rd the rules". So people stopped listening to you.

This isn't the first thread where you've had this problem. Seriously, if you're clear, concise, and pick a more appropriate tone, you'd be a lot more convincing. It also really, really helps if you don't say things like "I won the Combat Squad thread, so **** you all, I'm right and you're wrong".

[Tynskel]

It's about tone, not content. You might not have intended to sound like an *******, but if you talked in real life the way you did in this thread, you'd earn a broken nose pretty quickly.

Like I said earlier, you really need to work on your communication skills. If you had stated your argument clearly and concisely, minus the inflammatory comments, this thread wouldn't have lasted more than a page or two. Instead, you responded to every alternative argument with "nope, lrn2rd the rules". So people stopped listening to you.

This isn't the first thread where you've had this problem. Seriously, if you're clear, concise, and pick a more appropriate tone, you'd be a lot more convincing. It also really, really helps if you don't say things like "I won the Combat Squad thread, so **** you all, I'm right and you're wrong".

no, I answered the thread clearly from the get go. Then people started telling me no, because they *don't read the rules*. So, Instead of being a broken record of the happy sorts, I choose to say 'nope'.

I mean, take a look at yourself. You *didn't read the rule* and were *chiming in, and were WRONG*. Just as much as a troll.

Whose the worse troll? The one who's crass and right? or Polite and Wrong. I think it is the polite n' wrong. At least I start off as funny.

[Tynskel]

Seriously,

I had a clear argument, concise, and was not 'condescending'.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?40864-Can-Tyranids-manual-fire-emplaced-weapons-now&p=388815&viewfull=1#post388815

However, you were chiming in and being a troll, and *didn't even read the rule*:

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?40864-Can-Tyranids-manual-fire-emplaced-weapons-now&p=388573&viewfull=1#post388573

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?40864-Can-Tyranids-manual-fire-emplaced-weapons-now&p=388610&viewfull=1#post388610

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?40864-Can-Tyranids-manual-fire-emplaced-weapons-now&p=388360&viewfull=1#post388360

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?40864-Can-Tyranids-manual-fire-emplaced-weapons-now&p=389423&viewfull=1#post389423




SO please. Stop trying to tell me to clean up my act, and try telling the others on this forum to stop being so rude.

[AlmostMercury]

What strikes me is that it never references 'normal reserves'. It just says 'arriving from reserves'. It does have the word normal in there, but grammatically its use appears to differentiate between arriving from reserves via the Trygon tunnel vs arriving from reserves by any other means. So I have to agree with Tynskel. Normal reserves in this context refers to the default options available in the BRB, and not-normal refers to arriving via the Trygon tunnel. Since no further distinction is made beyond the default reserves vs the Trygon tunnel, I see no reason why Deep Striking or Outflanking would limit you from using the Trygon tunnel.

Thank you for providing a complete argument for the other interpretation that focuses on the ambiguity of the language.

Regardless, the ambiguity is still there. There is no specific distinction in the rulebook, so "Normal Reserves" vs "Reserves as normal" doesn't really resolve anything. I would have been convinced by this argument two weeks ago, but you can find a distinction elsewhere.



As I've pointed out, in the Rulebook FAQ:

Q: If your Warlord’s Warlord Trait confers a specific ability to a unit or units in your army, is this ability always immediately lost when the Warlord is killed? (p111)
A: Yes. Further, if the Warlord Trait conferred a special rule that allows an unusual method of deployment from Reserves (such as conferring Infiltrate to allow a unit to Outflank) that special rule is immediately lost and the unit must deploy from Reserves in the normal fashion.


I would treat the FAQ as a binding, even if GW considers them mere suggestions. This answer clearly refers to table edge Reserves as arriving in the "normal fashion," and explicitly describes Outflanking as not that. I'd like to note that this is not deductively conclusive, but what I'll call damning, no less.



So, Tynskel, you're welcome. I just did what you should have done a week ago instead of wasting all this time trolling.


Tynskel lacks the social finesse and understanding of argument to pull this off. He could work on those skills, but he'd rather repeat himself and irritate everyone instead.



I had a clear argument, concise, and was not 'condescending'.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?40864-Can-Tyranids-manual-fire-emplaced-weapons-now&p=388815&viewfull=1#post388815


As he demonstrates, his "argument" does not address how the rule should be interpreted (it completely ignores language use), only what it does if he is correct. As I've pointed out before, his argument in this context is Ignoratio Elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi) and completely ****ing irrelevant to what we're discussing, even if in this case it wasn't "condescending."

[DWest]

What I find amusing is that, now that DarkLink agrees with the interpretation of the tunnel ruling, Tynskel has become more aggressive and condescending, in a desperate attempt to keep the flamewar going.

There are two lessons that can be taken from this thread: 1) GW's rules are clunky beyond belief and 2) nothing Tynskel ever says should be taken at face value, because even if he happens to be right, it's simply in service of keeping the battle going.

[Tynskel]

We have already been over this. That one FAQ that you referring to is for a *very* specific situation regarding one *very* specific rule.
It is detailing the loss of outflank, and if you are already in reserves, what happens. It is stating that you enter the board in the 'normal' fashion from Reserves, aka, you didn't declare Deep Strike, so you cannot enter the board in the 'normal' fashion by deep strike. You lost the ability to outflank, and you cannot enter the board in the 'normal' fashion from a board edge. It is stating that you lost outflank, and now you enter from 'reserves' in the normal fashion. aka read reserves: enter from your board edge. That *is* the normal fashion for entering from declared reserves. aka, you cannot switch to deep strike.

In the trygon rule, you *never* lose the ability to enter from a specific type of reserves! How you can equate these two scenarios is beyond me. You keep referring to my argument as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi but, I recommend *actually* reading the description yourself, because you'll find that I just demonstrated that you cannot link your version of 'normal' to the rules without something more.

Your 'claim' that I am have an illogical argument is just simply not true. You are being pedantic to simply be a troll.

[Tynskel]

What I find amusing is that, now that DarkLink agrees with the interpretation of the tunnel ruling, Tynskel has become more aggressive and condescending, in a desperate attempt to keep the flamewar going.

There are two lessons that can be taken from this thread: 1) GW's rules are clunky beyond belief and 2) nothing Tynskel ever says should be taken at face value, because even if he happens to be right, it's simply in service of keeping the battle going.

You should read my posts. If I find that I am wrong, I stop posting. I don't keep the argument going. I only keep fighting when I am right, and someone keeps posting wrong stuff.

[DarkLink]

At this point, I'd be more than willing to let my opponent come on from any reserves. Ambiguous or not, it's not like the rule in general is exactly overpowering, nor do nids exactly have a ton of crazy outflank/deepstrike units that would make this overly exploitable.



SO please. Stop trying to tell me to clean up my act, and try telling the others on this forum to stop being so rude.

The first time someone calls you a horse, call them a jerk. The second time someone calls you a horse, punch them in the nose. The third time someone calls you a horse, well, maybe it's time to start shopping for a saddle.

[Tynskel]

At this point, I'd be more than willing to let my opponent come on from any reserves. Ambiguous or not, it's not like the rule in general is exactly overpowering, nor do nids exactly have a ton of crazy outflank/deepstrike units that would make this overly exploitable.



The first time someone calls you a horse, call them a jerk. The second time someone calls you a horse, punch them in the nose. The third time someone calls you a horse, well, maybe it's time to start shopping for a saddle.

har har har.
Hey, I'm usually not the first to jerk it. But, you certainly like pushing me.

[John Bower]

In mild bemusement this thread is still going, let alone 17 pages....

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/calm-down-ministry-of-scousers-calm-down.png

Yeah, I'm still trying to work out how it got onto this from manual firing Fortification emplacements. Lol. Although I've put my 2 penneth in for what it's worth I think some are going to lean 1 way, others will lean the other and short of an FAQ never the twain will meet. And GW being how they are since last year I think we've got a long time to wait for an FAQ. I'm inclined to believe it won't even happen, they'll just bring out a new (revised) rulebook every year or 2 now with all the Questions resolved and new ones thrown up.

[Anggul]

Regardless of whether you can or can't come in from either Outflank or the tunnel, it still doesn't make the tunnel good. You're still wasting either the tunnel or Hive Commander. I would much rather pay however many points to be able to dedicate a unit to the tunnel. Trygons just don't feel as worthwhile as they used to be otherwise. Still decent, but it would be better if they cost more and the tunnel was a sure thing to give them their own separate purpose rather than 'might happen, otherwise it's just a generic close combat MC'.

[John Bower]

Regardless of whether you can or can't come in from either Outflank or the tunnel, it still doesn't make the tunnel good. You're still wasting either the tunnel or Hive Commander. I would much rather pay however many points to be able to dedicate a unit to the tunnel. Trygons just don't feel as worthwhile as they used to be otherwise. Still decent, but it would be better if they cost more and the tunnel was a sure thing to give them their own separate purpose rather than 'might happen, otherwise it's just a generic close combat MC'.

Why are you wasting Hive commander? You're only wasting that if you send a unit of warriors through the tunnel you had declared as 'outflanking', genestealers don't need Hive Commander to outflank for a start. I'd consider using the tunnel to get several units in the enemy's face rapidly, using my re-rolls on reserves to do my best to ensure that 2 (or more) hit from the flanks while another hits from the tunnel, swamping my opponents in high threat CC monsters that he has to find a way to bring down, or next turn his face is getting chewed off.

See that's just it for me, if outflank was only a little more reliable, I wouldn't have the problem with not being allowed to CC straight away, but with the nerfs to CC thrown in it means that you could outflank piecemeal, come in 1 unit at a time, and they get shot before being used. If you could say do what the Dark Angels do and declare an 'all out assault' on a given turn, that would be awesome, yeah you'd lose some units, but the rest would likely get swift and very bloody revenge.

[AlmostMercury]

Your 'claim' that I am have an illogical argument is just simply not true. You are being pedantic to simply be a troll.


My claim is not that your argument illogical. I said the use of the argument in this context misses the point, hence the *informal* fallacy. There was one post where your argument was a formal fallacy, which is illogical. You were affirming a disjunct, but it was only one post. Pointing that out is neither pedantic, nor trolling.

I even explained that your argument was valid, but the following is not in dispute.



I place a unit into reserves (I can declare outflanking or deep strike if available).
On the turn you roll reserves for the Infantry Unit:
1) successfully entered? Yes
2) Are they Infantry? Yes
3) has the Trygon hole been opened for at least a full turn? Yes
4) has the Trygon hole been used this turn? No

Then you may use the trygon hole.


This is perfectly reasonable, logical, and valid. This is exactly how it would work if the referent of the rule are all reserves inclusively. However, this is also reasonable, logical, and valid:



I place a unit into reserves (I can declare outflanking or deep strike if available).
On the turn you roll reserves for the Infantry Unit:
1) successfully entered? Yes
2) Are they Infantry? Yes
3) Was the unit placed in Deep Strike or Outflank Reserves? No
4) has the Trygon hole been opened for at least a full turn? Yes
5) has the Trygon hole been used this turn? No

Then you may use the trygon hole.


Both interpretations are logical and valid. The issue is: Why follow one over the other? The language is ambiguous, so you either look for other rules that clarify the language or explain why the language isn't that ambiguous. DarkLink has demonstrated how the language is less ambiguous, which would have convinced me. However, during this argument I've found enough corroborating language, and general rule construction, that I'd still side with my interpretation of the rules and with good reason. That doesn't mean DarkLink has bad reasons, it means there's good reason to look either way.

You're absolutely correct that an FAQ question would resolve this, as would a distinction between "normal" and "special reserves." But we have neither of those, so we're left with a conundrum, no matter how irrelevant.

As I've said, in this case we *only* have inference to decide. There is no deductive reason to follow either model.

That being said, what counts as completely irrelevant is:
1) Posting a thread that has to do with combat squads where you were correct about a completely different ruling.
2) Posting a thread that condescends to people who do not agree with you.
3) Saying no, and telling people to reread the rules.
4) Providing valid arguments that don't address the issue at hand.
5) Repeating your conclusion when your argument has been compromised.

All of the above is trolling, intentional or not.

People are reading the rules, are perfectly capable of coming to reasonable conclusions, and do not like being talked down to (particularly when the person doing the down talking isn't even making a case for their conclusion).

I'm all for fair, reasonable discussion, which includes people disagreeing with me. But I'm not about to eat **** because someone decides to feed it to me.

[Tynskel]

Again, you are *adding* an extra rule. There's no where that says 'check if they are Deep Strike or Outflank', it only asks if the unit is not on the board to be brought in, and if it fails to qualify for the tunnel, it comes in 'normally'.

You are adding a rule.
That is what I have issue with.

There's no saying 'constructed' or 'construed' or 'interpreted'. There's not a single rule that points a hint in that direction. Even your *one* FAQ example, I have demonstrated why it cannot be applied here.

[AlmostMercury]

It's not about additional rules, it's about the referent of the Trygon rule. There is no need to create an additional rule for either interpretation... they both follow logically *depending* on the referent. Checking for Deep Strike or Outflank would be implicit without a rule.

There is no rule creation, I'm only making a case for ascertaining what the language of the rule refers to.

[AlmostMercury]

Again, I state: there is no way to pin 'normal' on any specific wording.
Everything that I have stated has fit within what the rules for the Tunnel are stating:


Exactly, because there is no way to pin 'normal' on any specific wording, both interpretations follow. This is my point.

Because I can't deductively prove my view, doesn't make your view correct by default. You need to deductively prove your view, and the best case has been provided by DarkLink, thus far.

You have to pin 'normal' somewhere for the rule to be coherent.

Deep Striking, Outflanking, and Table Edge Reserves all have their "normal" way of arriving on the board, but that doesn't make Deep Striking and Outflanking "arriving from reserve as normal."

Likewise, just because Outflanking and Deep Striking are exceptional forms of reserve (they have very specific requirements), it doesn't mean they are not "arriving from reserve as normal."

The FAQ is a sensible place to look for clarification, not because the question is about the issue at hand, but because the question provides description for rules that are.

At the moment, there is no single way to follow the Tunnel Rule.

[John Bower]

Okay then, forget the word 'normal' and read the other bit ... 'Any unit arriving from reserves....' surely that there is the clear intent to the rule?

And there has been name calling and rudeness on both sides of this argument. Calling somebody Stupid doesn't help your point go across, it just gets the other persons back up and closes their ears to what you have to say. Guys, time to apologise to one another, it was a long winded discussion but it's time now to draw a line under it and accept that we'll play it how we see fit. After the apologies it may just be time to close it.

[AlmostMercury]

Okay then, forget the word 'normal' and read the other bit ... 'Any unit arriving from reserves....' surely that there is the clear intent to the rule?


It might, except that's the exact wording from the last codex which was ruled against.

The more I look over that sentence, the more it shows itself to be a cluster **** of ambiguity.

[Anggul]

Why are you wasting Hive commander? You're only wasting that if you send a unit of warriors through the tunnel you had declared as 'outflanking', genestealers don't need Hive Commander to outflank for a start. I'd consider using the tunnel to get several units in the enemy's face rapidly, using my re-rolls on reserves to do my best to ensure that 2 (or more) hit from the flanks while another hits from the tunnel, swamping my opponents in high threat CC monsters that he has to find a way to bring down, or next turn his face is getting chewed off.

See that's just it for me, if outflank was only a little more reliable, I wouldn't have the problem with not being allowed to CC straight away, but with the nerfs to CC thrown in it means that you could outflank piecemeal, come in 1 unit at a time, and they get shot before being used. If you could say do what the Dark Angels do and declare an 'all out assault' on a given turn, that would be awesome, yeah you'd lose some units, but the rest would likely get swift and very bloody revenge.

You need a Comms Relay for those re-rolls, so not only are you almost made to take an Aegis with Comms Relay for a chance at using the tunnel (which you shouldn't have to), but it still isn't that likely to work. The tunnel rule just doesn't work well. As mentioned much earlier in the thread, you aren't really paying much for the tunnel, but it isn't worth trying to use either, and considering fluff-wise it's the main point in the Trygon I would gladly pay more points to be able to dedicate a unit to it which would make sense. It would give the Trygon more defined purpose than a close combat MC which you might Deep Strike sometimes.

[John Bower]

You need a Comms Relay for those re-rolls, so not only are you almost made to take an Aegis with Comms Relay for a chance at using the tunnel (which you shouldn't have to), but it still isn't that likely to work. The tunnel rule just doesn't work well. As mentioned much earlier in the thread, you aren't really paying much for the tunnel, but it isn't worth trying to use either, and considering fluff-wise it's the main point in the Trygon I would gladly pay more points to be able to dedicate a unit to it which would make sense. It would give the Trygon more defined purpose than a close combat MC which you might Deep Strike sometimes.

I'm sure there's something the nids can take to get those re-rolls, my dex isn't to hand right now though so can't check.