Fortifications or Roach Motel? IB and Fortifications for Tyranids.

[Gloomfang]

So I had the fun of watching a unit of Termigaunts take a swan dive off the top of a bastion last night. Looks like new Tyranid Codex is the gift that keeps on giving.

So a unit Embarked in a fortification is Fearless. However Fearless doesn’t let you ignore IB tests. So at the start of your turn you need to do a bunch of things (psyker powers, reserve rolls, movement, ect) including checking for IB. So a unit Embarked in a Fortification has to test for IB (the rules are pretty clear on who does and doesn’t have to check). For most it doesn’t matter, but for Lurkers it does.

If you roll a 1-3 for a Lurker you get: "The unit is treated as having failed a morale test and must immediately fall back.”

IB is a test that uses leadership, not a Morale check. Being Fearless doesn’t mean anything as the rule says to make the Fall Back move immediately (and it looks like you can actually make 2 Fall Back moves in one turn with Lurkers).

So you have to make a Fall Back move. And if the access points are covered then you have to go to the battlements and then leap off in the direction of the board edge (splat) and if you can’t exit the building then you are Trapped and the unit is destroyed. A few people have said that being Fearless allows you to Autopass your Regroup, but that doesn’t matter as the IB rule says to Fall Back “Immediately”. You check to see if the unit Regroups before or after checking IB, but you can’t do it during.

So it isn’t bad enough that horms get hungry without mommy and eat each other. No. Our termigaunts have to go all Emo and jump off the top of bastions to their doom or (possibly) start screaming "game over man!" Before shooting themselves with their fleshborer...

Way to forge a narrative!

If I have anything wrong PLEASE let me know because this is just stupid and I have to be missing a rule someplace.

[Gleipnir]

nope its largely consistent with what happens with Lurkers out of Synapse that fail an IB test. IB Hunt in a fortification works better since it grants Fearless and thus Automatically at least a Prowl result

[Gloomfang]

It gets even worse according to folks on Dakka. As in your access point doesn't even have to be blocked. Because you have to Disembark. And that limits you to a 6" move.

So:

To leave a building I need to Disembark. IB is actually check during the start of the Movement phase so I think you have explicit permission to Disembark during that phase. Need to check the wording and timing, (Maybe RAW)

I have to Fall Back Immediately. (RAW)
I have to roll for Fall Back distance because the rule says I have too. (RAW)

If I roll under 6" then I may or not be OK. I can fulfill the requirement of moving my full Fall Back Distance. (RAW if you can Disembark during your movement phase).

However if I roll a 7 or more then the unit (per RAW) is Trapped and Destroyed. As I would need to Disembark and that limits me to 6". (RAW)

"If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed." Pg 45 BRB

So that is even worse then I thought per RAW.

[John Bower]

Just poor clarification again, I wouldn't imagine that is their intent. My take would be to just disembark 2d6", per fall back, that over-rides the fall back rule purely because in their own words 'codex trumps rulebook'.

[Gloomfang]

I am probably going to play it like that (if I can). However the rules for Falling Back and Disembarking are in the BRB and not the Codex.

Probably not their intent, but RAW that is how you have to play it. They put so little thought into the Nid codex I can't say I am surprised by it. Probably just put the FAQ back in that says we don't need to test when Embarked. Don't know why they didn't just do that with the codex.

[Gleipnir]

It gets even worse according to folks on Dakka. As in your access point doesn't even have to be blocked. Because you have to Disembark. And that limits you to a 6" move.

So:

To leave a building I need to Disembark. IB is actually check during the start of the Movement phase so I think you have explicit permission to Disembark during that phase. Need to check the wording and timing, (Maybe RAW)

I have to Fall Back Immediately. (RAW)
I have to roll for Fall Back distance because the rule says I have too. (RAW)

If I roll under 6" then I may or not be OK. I can fulfill the requirement of moving my full Fall Back Distance. (RAW if you can Disembark during your movement phase).

However if I roll a 7 or more then the unit (per RAW) is Trapped and Destroyed. As I would need to Disembark and that limits me to 6". (RAW)

"If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed." Pg 45 BRB

So that is even worse then I thought per RAW.

Sorry, you're gonna need to explain where you get this from?

How do you think a disembarking model is somehow unable to then fall back move? On top of that nothing in fall back requires you to disembark in a particular direction, just standard rules for disembarking from a stationary building, hell if the access point was facing opposite your table edge you could disembark as far as possible from your table edge then make your standard fall back move, the movement you make or direction you choose to disembark has nothing to do with the fall back move, you simply must disembark to be able to make the fall back move after

[Gleipnir]

Lets take a shot at this one. Rules as Written

When two effects occur at the same time the player's who's phase it is gets to determine the order correct.

At the start of the Movement Phase you roll for IB and a Lurker that fails on a 1-3 must Fall Back as if they failed a Morale check. (it actually says at the start of the players turn, but since the start of the players turn is also the start of the movement phase it means the same thing)

At the start of the Movement Phase prior to moving you may attempt to roll to Regroup. Again very specific that this is done at the beginning prior to any form of movement including Fall Back moves.

Fearless creatures automatically pass Regroup checks

Infantry in building are considered Fearless

Controlling players Phase he chooses to roll for IB first, gets a must Fall Back immediately at the start of his movement phase but prior to moving chooses to roll to Regroup at the start of the same movement phase, and automatically passes due to Fearless, nothing in the Fall Back rules says you cannot attempt to regroup the same turn(the fact that almost every other instance of a Morale test occurring after the beginning move in the Movement phase likely has something to do with that.)

Thus Fearless Lurkers can freely Lurk inside buildings but count as having Regrouped on a turn they fail their IB roll(ie Snap Shots only and no charging) So there is still a penalty of sorts though not as severe as the folks on Dakka are trying to enforce

There are no naturally Fearless Lurk Nids, unlike Hunt and Feed which have their Fearless or single model Fearless options

[Slacker]

Firstly I think there should definitely be FAQ for this, and I think they shouldn't have to test for IB. Just my opinion for RAI.

As far as the RAW interpretations here go:


Controlling players Phase he chooses to roll for IB first, gets a must Fall Back immediately at the start of his movement phase but prior to moving chooses to roll to Regroup at the start of the same movement phase, and automatically passes due to Fearless, nothing in the Fall Back rules says you cannot attempt to regroup the same turn(the fact that almost every other instance of a Morale test occurring after the beginning move in the Movement phase likely has something to do with that.)

Thus Fearless Lurkers can freely Lurk inside buildings but count as having Regrouped on a turn they fail their IB roll(ie Snap Shots only and no charging) So there is still a penalty of sorts though not as severe as the folks on Dakka are trying to enforce


The problem with this interpretation is, try applying the same timing to a non-embarked, non-fearless lurking unit and see what happens. By this interpretation the lurking unit that fails its IB test could be given the opportunity to try and regroup with a leadership test (using the standard Regrouping rules pg31 BRB) the same turn in which it fails its IB test and not have to fall back. This is clearly not the case as to how this timing works.
The IB uses the word 'immediately' so the fall back move is part of the process of the IB test, and you can't simply stop that process to do something different (the regroup test) and once the fall back move is made, it is too late to try to regroup.

The interpretation of the original poster seems to be the most accurate RAW, though the part about the disembarking movement limitation potentially destroying the unit if the fall back move rolls too high seems a bit fuzzy to me and built on conjecture of to movement rules clearly not written with the intent to interact with one another.

[Gleipnir]

Firstly I think there should definitely be FAQ for this, and I think they shouldn't have to test for IB. Just my opinion for RAI.

As far as the RAW interpretations here go:



The problem with this interpretation is, try applying the same timing to a non-embarked, non-fearless lurking unit and see what happens. By this interpretation the lurking unit that fails its IB test could be given the opportunity to try and regroup with a leadership test (using the standard Regrouping rules pg31 BRB) the same turn in which it fails its IB test and not have to fall back. This is clearly not the case as to how this timing works.
The IB uses the word 'immediately' so the fall back move is part of the process of the IB test, and you can't simply stop that process to do something different (the regroup test) and once the fall back move is made, it is too late to try to regroup.

The interpretation of the original poster seems to be the most accurate RAW, though the part about the disembarking movement limitation potentially destroying the unit if the fall back move rolls too high seems a bit fuzzy to me and built on conjecture of to movement rules clearly not written with the intent to interact with one another.

Correct the wording for Fall back says Immediately after failing a Morale Test, the wording for Regroup also says beginning of the turn "before" any movement and regroup is clearly intended to be used at the beginning of a turn for a unit falling back before they make fall back moves, in the Tyranids case that automatic morale failure is occurring at the start of a turn, which in standard play just doesn't happen, you either move and suffer wounds from dangerous terrain or interceptor weapons, fail at an assault get shot etc. All things that occur after the start of a turn which potentially result in Morale tests. The timing as I said for events happening at the same time in this case the beginning of the movement phase would be decided by the players who's phase it is, so yes a Regroup would end up being permitted.

Do I think it needs a FAQ? Yes, Do I think this is RAI, No(I think they intend for lurkers to fall back) But RAW for Regroup tells you when in a turn it must be used, and does not specify that you cannot regroup the same turn you start Falling Back, by virtue of the Tyranid Fall Back occurring at same time as regroup tests yes you would be permitted a check.

[Slacker]

Correct the wording for Fall back says Immediately after failing a Morale Test, the wording for Regroup also says beginning of the turn "before" any movement and regroup is clearly intended to be used at the beginning of a turn for a unit falling back before they make fall back moves, in the Tyranids case that automatic morale failure is occurring at the start of a turn, which in standard play just doesn't happen, you either move and suffer wounds from dangerous terrain or interceptor weapons, fail at an assault get shot etc. All things that occur after the start of a turn which potentially result in Morale tests. The timing as I said for events happening at the same time in this case the beginning of the movement phase would be decided by the players who's phase it is, so yes a Regroup would end up being permitted.

Do I think it needs a FAQ? Yes, Do I think this is RAI, No(I think they intend for lurkers to fall back) But RAW for Regroup tells you when in a turn it must be used, and does not specify that you cannot regroup the same turn you start Falling Back, by virtue of the Tyranid Fall Back occurring at same time as regroup tests yes you would be permitted a check.

The 'immediately' I was referring to was not the the one in the rules for falling back, but the ones in the result for instinctual behavior.

Instinctual Behavior test(A) and regroup test(B), two things we can agree happen at the same time, giving the active player the choice as to what order he may do them.

If a Tyranid unit is not currently falling back at the start of the turn, obviously you would not try to regroup(B) before instinctual behavior(A), no need.

So we do IB test(A), and since the result of failing IB and rolling a 1-3 on the lurk table says the unit immediately falls back, not the unit falls back after you decide to do some other stuff first. The fall back move is the final part of IB test (A) and by then, it is too late to do regroup (B) as the unit has already fallen back.

So you do (A) completely then can't do (B), not (first half of A) then (B) then get to ignore (second half of A)

[Gleipnir]

The 'immediately' I was referring to was not the the one in the rules for falling back, but the ones in the result for instinctual behavior.

Instinctual Behavior test(A) and regroup test(B), two things we can agree happen at the same time, giving the active player the choice as to what order he may do them.

If a Tyranid unit is not currently falling back at the start of the turn, obviously you would not try to regroup(B) before instinctual behavior(A), no need.

So we do IB test(A), and since the result of failing IB and rolling a 1-3 on the lurk table says the unit immediately falls back, not the unit falls back after you decide to do some other stuff first. The fall back move is the final part of IB test (A) and by then, it is too late to do regroup (B) as the unit has already fallen back.

So you do (A) completely then can't do (B), not (first half of A) then (B) then get to ignore (second half of A)

I don't really have a bone in this arguement beyond playing devil's advocate since I personally think RAI the unit should be falling back, that said the IB test is simply generating an additional effect, same way it would be generating an additional effect if the result was a Seek Cover result, the order all these effects are resolved would still be the owning players choice, the effect of resolving Fall Back isn't handcuffed to IB, its an effect generated by a rule that is just added to the list of effects now waiting to be resolved at that stage of a turn, the Regroup rule tells you when its supposed to occur in the turn at the beginning of the Movement Phase for a unit Falling Back before movement is done, in standard play a unit falling back doesn't first fall back then roll to regroup at the beginning of their turn. It just so happens that IB occurs at a time when Regroup tests would be taken, where most Morale tests that would result in a Fall Back result would not normally ever occur.

Additionally regrouping does carry a penalty associated with it in the form of Snap Shots, movement and assault, so its not like there is no consequences here, just less adverse than assumed.

A better argument against it would be that regroup is available at "the beginning" of the movement phase and since nothing at the beginning is falling back, it would not apply. "Start of" and "Beginning of" implying a fixed point in time which would mean any actions or effects that occur after as "after the beginning" or "after the start of"

[John Bower]

I think since the fall back move must be taken immediately, as in there and then, you still have to take it. Sorry but you can't resolve a re-group on them until 'after' they've done the fall back per the tyranid codex. However, you don't have a problem with having to roll;

1/ you failed IB and must 'fall back' immediately.
2/ you're in a building, so building rules prevent the fall back roll, so you and your opponent just have to agree to either a/roll for the distance moved, or b/ keep the unit within 6" of any access points on the building.

Now the latter should not be an issue, since you can't have more than 20 models in even a medium building that should be possible to keep all 20 within 6" of the access point. And large buildings (I only know of 1) would have more access points anyhow. Of course if the building is yours the other way is stick an extra door somewhere when making the model. And really is a good reason to use the updated building rules from SA, then you could make sure all your forts have escape hatches, giving you much more room to fit the minis within the stipulated 6".

[daboarder]

Of note to this discussion.

Start of the movement phase, Start of the turn and Beginning of the turn, are all synonymous, As such it is the player whose turn it is that determines what order events happen in.

So cast dominion first kids

[jonas the jedi]

So I started to skip the whole back and forth part. But I for one as a friendly player would let my opponent play that the not take it up the butt way.

[Tynskel]

Yeah, um, err.

You cannot fall back out of a building. You are Fearless in a building. GW cleared that one up with 6th Edition rules.

[John Bower]

Yes but we're not talking about fearless, we're talking about IB which is a leadership test not a morale check. If they fail IB then get a '1' they must immediately fall back. Fearless isn't in the equation. Also you have to remember they're bugs, w/out the synapse not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[daboarder]

Yes but we're not talking about fearless, we're talking about IB which is a leadership test not a morale check. If they fail IB then get a '1' they must immediately fall back. Fearless isn't in the equation. Also you have to remember they're bugs, w/out the synapse not the sharpest knives in the drawer.


The unit is treated as having failed a Morale test and must immediately Fall Back.

what happens when a fearless unit fails a moral test?

Nothing. No falling back, its really the only logical way to read it.

[SquigBrain]

Fearless troops don't take morale checks. But this is *not* a morale check. They are forced to fall back *as if* they had failed a morale check.

Fearless doesn't make you immune to falling back. It just makes you immune to the morale test (which is the most common way to be forced to fall back).

[daboarder]

Fearless troops don't take morale checks. But this is *not* a morale check. They are forced to fall back *as if* they had failed a morale check.

Fearless doesn't make you immune to falling back. It just makes you immune to the morale test (which is the most common way to be forced to fall back).

The result is "what happens when you fail a morale check but you are fearless.

You don't fall back, is the only answer that works without pulling up the BS old argument of "disembarking fearless" that was done to death in 5th.

Its a cluster frak of an issue and GW in their BS pigheadedness wont give a resolution.

at the end of the day, don't stick your nids in buildings and leave them out of synapse, they still take the test and even if you DONT roll that stupid result the others aren't very good either

[Gleipnir]

You think if the community actually tracked every broken or clunky ruleset, kept a running stickied list up that players could cut paste email to GW regularly they would figure out we wanted it addressed?

[daboarder]

You think if the community actually tracked every broken or clunky ruleset, kept a running stickied list up that players could cut paste email to GW regularly they would figure out we wanted it addressed?

Dude. this is GW they'd just delete their email account