Super fast jellyfi... I mean tyranids.

[L192837465]

And what are you trying to say?
What's the big deal?


Darklink- I do not know why you are sniping at me. But, you are being excessively rude towards me--- both on the DISQus and in the Lounge. Ever since I have pointed out that most of the rules 'discussions' that I have found on this forum are due to incorrect citations, you have been attacking me.

Sometimes my language is crude. However, I don't just randomly snipe someone-- and I don't pick at someone, either, when they are correct.

I do. I agree with Darklink. You're grasping at straws here, and you're (so far) the only one on this thread to believe this rule to be the case.

In that instance, I could say "Everyone in this thread that agrees with the OP is convoluted moron."

But I won't.

Rules are rules. If you have to dig for it, it's probably not legal.

[synack]

First off, I don't think it's intended or right to do so.

Having said that, on page 15 it says that shooting is disallowed when running. Onslaught lets a person get by this, by being able to run and shoot.

Yet there is no implicit limitation on only being able to run once. If a model/unit gets the ability to run and shoot by any means, why would they not be able to substitute the 2nd chance to shoot for a 2nd chance to run? RAW at its purest, it could be argued that it's possible.

Anyway, as I said, I won't be doing it, but it's just yet another thing that could be twisted and turned, so needs to be covered in the FAQ, hopefully stating that you can't do it.

[Nabterayl]

Uh, Tynskel and DarkLink are coming to the same conclusion here, L192837465. Mark your calendars.

Tynskel, I agree that DarkLink was out of line there, but I must respectfully agree with him that you have come across as rude in virtually every rules discussion in which you and I have both participated, and the same is true for this one. I don't think frustration at the rudeness of somebody on the internet justifies being rude back, but I do share DarkLink's conviction that if this forum is not civil it doesn't matter how good its analysis is, so I understand (and, in fact, share) his frustration.

[Tynskel]

First off, I don't think it's intended or right to do so.

Having said that, on page 15 it says that shooting is disallowed when running. Onslaught lets a person get by this, by being able to run and shoot.

Yet there is no implicit limitation on only being able to run once. If a model/unit gets the ability to run and shoot by any means, why would they not be able to substitute the 2nd chance to shoot for a 2nd chance to run? RAW at its purest, it could be argued that it's possible.

Anyway, as I said, I won't be doing it, but it's just yet another thing that could be twisted and turned, so needs to be covered in the FAQ, hopefully stating that you can't do it.

That's the problem, you are reading onslaught as a 'second chance to shoot'. It is not-- p.15-16 the rules are not mutually exclusive. Onslaught is overriding the negation of shooting a weapon. You are not being granted a 'second shooting phase'.

This isn't RAW at its purest--Rules As Written does not mean isolate single sentences.
Single Sentence is what people do to find beardy abuses, but it is not correct.

You are choosing to ignore the sentences before and after in the paragraph for running, and you are ignoring where 'run' comes from on page 15. You are denied shooting due to running- onslaught overrides the denial.

RAW is looking at how the rules interact with each other, because they are written as a group.

[xomntec]

An interesting interpretation, but I see a couple snags in the rules.

The main one is that the option to run is an option that can be exercised upon selecting a unit in the Shooting phase, where the rule explicitly states the movement is D6".

I can see where the language between the rulebook and the codex gets a little murky (the rulebook uses the term "firing" in the description of Run, in the description of Disallowed Shooting, and the directions for the shooting sequence). Since the codex states "That the unit may run, and then shoot in the same shooting phase" (instead of using the term "firing"), it seems to me that the argument is really centered on how the decision to run is made.

The decision to run is made upon selecting a unit, in which case it may run instead of firing (page 16, thus effectively ending that unit's phase). The onslaught ability allows the unit to "then shoot" (a note: the onslaught ability has no effect if the unit does not run). Shooting seems to indicate that the player follow the 6 Step Shooting sequence.

I think the issues you need to determine for yourself are whether or not the run option is a shooting phase activation, or something that is done in exchange for (or in stead of) firing a weapon. Also does the codex description making a differentiation between running and shooting (and setting an order for them) have any meaning for you.

[UltramarineFan]

Right, thought I'd start a little fire here. Seems there's even more arguments popping up about one of the "best" codexes written yet.

In the BRB, it states that, in the shooting phase, a unit may choose to run, instead of FIRING. The tervigons power onslaught alows a player to run and shoot. RAW dicates that a player could essentially move 6", run d6, then choose to run another d6 instead of firing. This could give units like Trygons a 24" (6" + 2d6" + 6") threat range, or raveners a 30" (6" + 2d6" + 12") threat range.

Having said that as a Nid player myself, I would never personally play it that way as I'm sure this is one of those cases where RAI > RAW.

Don't know how you came to that interpretation. I agree with Tynskel wholeheartedly on this one, when you come to the shooting phase you can shoot or run. The onslaught power allows you to shoot and run in this phase. It's not the act of shooting that allows you to run. Its the fact that in the shooting phase you can choose to relinquish your shooting for a run move it does not say cancel your shooting phase and take a run move. You don't get an extra phase as a result of this it just removes the restriction of running and not being able to shoot.
SO you get to declare to run, this power then allows you to shoot as well as running which contradicts the rulebook which is the entire point of this power. Right, I think I've repeated this enough times, shoot and run not run and run.

[Tynskel]

Uh, Tynskel and DarkLink are coming to the same conclusion here, L192837465. Mark your calendars.

Tynskel, I agree that DarkLink was out of line there, but I must respectfully agree with him that you have come across as rude in virtually every rules discussion in which you and I have both participated, and the same is true for this one. I don't think frustration at the rudeness of somebody on the internet justifies being rude back, but I do share DarkLink's conviction that if this forum is not civil it doesn't matter how good its analysis is, so I understand (and, in fact, share) his frustration.

In this rules discussion, I have said nothing rude--- I stated that the person read the rules incorrectly, and explained why. I didn't call them a name, I didn't 'put them down', as I often do, I just simply showed why they were wrong.

Is that rude?
No.

What's rude is the sniping stating that my method is incorrect, yet somehow is correct. It was a cheap excuse to snipe at me for no reason other than to snipe. DarkLink should snipe at me when I am wrong. I can handle the big language, but it makes no sense to attack someone when they are right.

This is the truth: people are reading singular sentences to interpret a rule, when the rules are not written as singular sentences. How is that statement rude? And, why would the singular sentence be the 'correct' way to interpret the rulebook when everything is written in paragraphs and linked sectional formats?

In many ways, this thread would have ended maybe 5-6 posts ago without the snipe--- undermining my reasoning without demonstrating any reasoning has allowed for this thread to continue.

[Nabterayl]

In this rules discussion, I have said nothing rude

I disagree, but I agree with you that this is not the place to discuss the particulars of how you frequently come across to me as rude.

[DarkLink]

Uh, Tynskel and DarkLink are coming to the same conclusion here, L192837465. Mark your calendars.

Actually, I've agreed with him on a few other cases, such as one of the Disqus flat out/emergency disembark arguments. Somehow, we still ended up arguing with each other, I'm not entirely sure how. I'm pretty sure he's even convinced me on several things, since he does much more thorough research than I usually bother to do.

Tynskel, I agree that DarkLink was out of line there,

Yeah, I probably should have stuck a few more in there. I didn't really mean to come across as rude, moreso joking. I admit, I couldn't help myself there. I'll go ahead and take it out.

but I must respectfully agree with him that you have come across as rude in virtually every rules discussion in which you and I have both participated, and the same is true for this one. I don't think frustration at the rudeness of somebody on the internet justifies being rude back, but I do share DarkLink's conviction that if this forum is not civil it doesn't matter how good its analysis is, so I understand (and, in fact, share) his frustration.

Ultimately, this. Somehow, everything turns into a hardcore argument. It's hard to be casual and just pointlessly argue over stuff that don't really matter. I found that it wasn't worth sitting in on the argument, for fun or not, because it feels as though Tysnkel is talking down to everyone who doesn't agree. Maybe that's not intended. In fact, I don't think it is. I just get the feeling that Tynskel doesn't think that others don't sit down and read over every single line of the rulebook and take notes and crossreference everything, every single time.

Arguing is fun, sometimes. Just not when you smack someone in the face with a rulebook every time.

[Orminah]

I think, as a off and on Tyranid player who just started to seriously consider the new codex, (I miss my Build-A-Bug style codex!) that the rule can work a few ways. Either you run, use the power, and shoot, or run, and then opt to run again. After all, why make it just benefit shooting units? It would have no synergy with say, a Hormagaunt swarm. Just my 1 cent. =)