|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Oct 3, 2022 23:52:41 GMT
All Tyranid players agree that the latest dataslate was a huge hit including me until very recently, losing the Warlord causes the army to lose all imperatives. A recent debate about the timing of when imperatives were lost caused me to read the imperative rules in full several times, and I've come to the conclusion that the dataslate is not as big of a hit as it is commonly believed. Before stating my point, just a few rules to review.
First the Dataslate: First, the WL causes synapse units to have a Synaptic imperative ability, or in other words gain an ability. There is nothing about losing synaptic imperative abilities, and whether this is in addition to, or a replacement doesn't matter. This is important.
As to why: Each Synapse unit innately has a synaptic imperative ability. So, Zoanthropes will always have the Warp Shielding synaptic imperative ability. Does this mean they always give out ++'s, no because the imperative has to be active for your army to affect units surrounding the synapse unit. Building off the WL portion, the WL on the battlefield will cause all Synapse to have Warp Shielding and gives Warriors, Tyrants, etc. the synaptic imperative ability. What is doesn't do is cause Zoanthropes to have Warp Shielding because they already have it, and they do not lose the imperative ability when the WL leaves the battlefield because they always have the ability.
Now there is a problem, a counter point is that synapse units have Synaptic Imperatives innately and not Synaptic Imperative abilities. First, I've found this reasoning a bit suspect (quoting again with emphasis): Second: If our synapse units only have Synaptic Imperatives and not Synaptic Imperative abilities, we are unable to choose an active Synaptic imperative ability for our army.
What am I trying to say? Well, when we lose our WL our synapse units only lose the ability to have/gain the currently active synaptic imperative ability if they do not already have it innately. We can still select an imperative ability for our army, and the units that have that ability still get to affect units. When the WL is not on the battlefield, Zoanthropes can give other units 4++/5++'s but no other synapse units can. Also, Hive Nexus still works once the WL is gone since the Synapse unit you select will still have its innate synaptic imperative ability.
I've placed this argument in front of two local GT level TO's and one Major level TO, let them read the rules and try to debunk the line of reasoning, and they were unable to (great for me though it never came up in a recent min-GT since my WL never died).
This is not to say I am right an everyone else is wrong (maybe there is an aspect that kills this in an FAQ somewhere), but to provide a potential softening of the data slate with the reasoning to back it. I've always thought that the data slate was only intended for stopping army-wide imperatives, and I believe the wording is there to support it. I also wanted to show that the evidence is enough to convince a TO, for those who think the same.
If you agree, here you go. I wish you luck in your TO/opponent's decision to agree or disagree.
If you disagree, please do voice your disagreement. Maybe it is a dud, I haven't been able to oppose the argument from a devil's advocate point of view.
|
|
|
Post by wcgnidz on Oct 4, 2022 0:10:30 GMT
I don't have a leg to disagree on with you here, but my kneejerk opinion is I don't think that's the intent(dirty word, I know). You won't see me play it your way without it becoming the norm in the scene, and I won't be advocating for it.
You can, afterall always just take a Tyranid Prime and hide it in the back as your warlord. This mostly just affects people running hive tyrants.
That said, I like the cut of your jib, as someone who's argued some really janky rules(my hill to die on is we're all playing the dense cover rules wrong but I accept what the community does) I respect the logic.
|
|
|
Post by No One on Oct 4, 2022 1:35:43 GMT
Interesting: had some discussion on hive nexus a bit ago (https://pastebin.com/jWbkrEFN) and that fell out as a consequence of my preferred line of reasoning, which I wasn't entirely happy with (especially since it would apply equally to soup), but couldn't really refute either. FWIW the judge I was discussing this with favoured A1 because of the change from "gain" to "have" in the first sentence (which I don't think really matters), and felt that the RAI fix was simply that the abilities only exist if the conditions are satisfied. An alternative RAI fix would be to just change the "have a Synaptic Imperative ability depending on which one is currently active for your army" to "have their Synaptic Imperative ability" or similar, since there's already a separate sentence for gaining it for all Synapse later. You can, afterall always just take a Tyranid Prime and hide it in the back as your warlord. This mostly just affects people running hive tyrants. In other words, basically everyone because tyrants are really good.
|
|
|
Post by Hive Bahamut on Oct 4, 2022 1:51:38 GMT
Removing a node of the Synapse web is supposed to be pointless, the entire reason it is a web and not a singular. Why does Tau not suffer this when an Ethereal dies? That would make sense. I digress.. Balance I suppose.
Tyranids lose their army rule for figuring out to kill the Tyrant. Just about as stupid as the adaptable army no longer adapting when Sororitas can still pick on the fly.
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbalou on Oct 4, 2022 13:20:59 GMT
Totally agree with the difference between "gaining" an ability and "having" it. Or in this case, the difference between "gaining" an ability and "permitting" to use an ability. Like No One said, I think we already discussed about something similar in another tread about Hive Nexus... That would align pretty much with what I was saying about the stratagem giving the ability even if the WL was dead, since the rule about the WL was along the line that it was giving the ability, and not forbidding it.
That being said, your angle of approach for the single synapse unit always being able to use it's ability if it's the active one... makes sense? I wasn't thinking about it initially, but as written, I can see where it would be coming from. Like I said, the rule for the WL being alive for imperative to work is clearly not forbidding the use of synaptic imperative ability if he's dead or not on the battlefield. There is no way to read it and say that without interpretation of the rule. So "no WL = no SI" is clearly a wrong shortcut of the rule as it is presented, it is more subtle than that. It's giving instead of permitting. And its not giving "their" synaptic ability to a unit, it's giving "a" SI ability to all synapse (the "a" reffering to the SI currently active).
Would aslo make sense as in, all synapse are a web, all synapse are linked to the hive mind. Some are more close to it than other, and some have some degree of freedom to coordinate everything outside the mindset of the hive mind. But they are all connected to the hive mind. So that would make sense that each synapse is able to do it's thing/SI to the lesser creatures around it without a middle man/tyranid inbetween them. While if you want to pass it and coordinate to grant the advantage to all your army, then you would need a "higher" synapse unite to spread it around (aka: a warlord).
Would also make sense in a gameplay side of things. Your WL is still important, but losing it would not mean that you lose one of your greatest tools and one of the unique ability of the Tyranid. It would make it waaaaaay less effective (so it's still important to keep your WL alive) because than your "army wide" rule becomes a "one unit aura" equivalent. The trade seems right. The opponent disrupt your web by killing the WL and limiting the communication between all units on the field. But the army still continue with it's other synapse unit and, if permitted by the hive mind, will direct the creatures around it via their own SI.
The more I think about it, the more it seems actually logical. And it's one of the only way to see it that makes ALL the rules involed being right without interpretation. Most, if not all, the other ways to interpret it leads eventually to a rule overtaking another, instead of them all working correctly togheter as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by No One on Oct 4, 2022 13:56:55 GMT
The more I think about it, the more it seems actually logical. And it's one of the only way to see it that makes ALL the rules involed being right without interpretation. Most, if not all, the other ways to interpret it leads eventually to a rule overtaking another, instead of them all working correctly togheter as a whole. I don't think there's no way to make all the rules work 'properly' without interpretation. The rule still says: After all, which would let you completely circumvent the WL requirement taken at face value. So there basically has to be some measure of 'the rules as written don't work properly'. And to be honest, I'm not in favour of the one that means 'these restrictions we placed can be bypassed', especially when one of those is the soup requirement meaning there'd be no way to not gain it in some shape or form. Also a sentence I've previously glossed over: Implies that the units themselves don't actually have their abilities, they just "unlock" them. Note that this isn't exactly consistent with the earlier: RAW, but it is very suggestive RAI: that being, the presence of the corresponding units merely unlocks the ability for selection for being active for the army. You then need to meet the WL/soup requirement still to allow it to be gained by Synapse as the 'aura'.
|
|
|
Post by trashcan01 on Oct 4, 2022 14:11:20 GMT
Wow, epic find piersonsmuppet. In short, you seem to be correct RAW. No doubt in my mind. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just write something clear and simple as: "... while your Warlord is NOT on the battlefield, Synapse units from your army lose their Synaptic Imperative ability." Still, I will check/warn with my opponents and it will be an awkward conversation since Nids are doing so well at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbalou on Oct 5, 2022 16:48:08 GMT
No one, the thing is that what you quoted enter perfectly together if you separate de SI ability of each unit/model, and the "active" SI that you select each battle round.
That sentence is not about unlocking the unit SI ability for itself. Its about unlocking them and making them available to choose as an active SI. Otherwise, if the abilities were "locked" on the unit, it would not mean a lot (or probably cause more troubles) since they would be unlocked as soon as you have it in you army anyway (which would then be a relatively useless information which SI is "unlocked")... If not, then, is there a rule somewhere specifying you can "unlock" the ability at another moment in the game (which would cause more problems and the SI would become unusable since never "unlocked")? No sure where you see it is implied that the unit doesn't have their ability... it's kind of a long reach here... but lucky for us there is another rule which clarify things up on that side:
Can't be more clear here. Each synapse HAS the SI which is associated to them. Not all the SI, and not the ones granted by other synapses in your army. Just the one associated to them. The rule even specify that the SI are indeed abilities. (note that they don't say "act like abilities", it's specifying that they ARE abilities). So both of these sentences works fine together if you implies nothing on either one. So saying that a unit does not have its own SI as an ability is simply to overlook that rule and do as if it does not exist, instead of considering both sentences. Which leads to:
(I think actually that sentence was replaced with the rules including the warlord?) Anyway, so basically, that rule is called after you selected an available active SI. And of course, you have to select it amongst all the "unlocked" SI that you have available, with all the other restrictions in the rules for it (1 SI per game for exemple). So that rule state that, until the end of the battle round, that SI ability (the one associated with the active SI) is gained by each synapse model in your army. Again, their own SI abilities are still there from the previous rule. They still have it, but they also gain a new ability until the end of the battle round. Add to this the WL restriction too, which fits perfectly in. If you warlord is on the battlefield, your units have the one SI ability depending on which one is active. So if your warlord is not on the battlefield, synapse units don't have the SI ability associated with the current active SI, but nowhere does it remove something. There is nothing about a unit "losing" it's SI ability associated to themself, or even something in the line that you can't have an active SI depending if your warlord is on the battlefield.
BUT, for the SI to work, you need two things : The model need the SI ability AND that the SI is the active one you selected. So having the SI ability associated with your unit does not make it so that it grants its bonus to the other around. But nowhere does it mention that a model ever lose it's SI ability (except the ones that are granted for only 1 battle round by the active SI and having a warlord on the battlefield). And there is nowhere that mention you can'T select, at any time in the game, an active SI at the start of the battle round.
Now the thing is, all the steps I mentioned previously respect all the rules, all the words and make them all work correctly together. No rule overstep one another, and each one quoted is respected. It's not about RAW vs RAI. Reading them all, the rules doesn't need interpretation since they don't overstep on each other or contradict each other. The only way to find problems with the rules, is when you interpret them, or if you make them implying something else that is not written or mentioned. Or assuming something, which leads one rule to contradict another. The more i look into them, the more it seems like reading those rules RAI is what is causing the troubles or the inconsistency. Reading them RAW, not assuming or implying anything, makes them fits in and there is really little, if none at all, blank space or interpretation needed actually.
Also, this is not about making a bypass of the restriction, since its not the case. The fact that our "army wide" rule becomes restricted to only a few models at a time is still quite limiting by itself. Especially considering that some (not all i agree) SI are not that usefull for the ones having it or their role and/or placement on the battlefield...
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Oct 5, 2022 17:19:18 GMT
Also, this is not about making a bypass of the restriction, since its not the case. The fact that our "army wide" rule becomes restricted to only a few models at a time is still quite limiting by itself. Especially considering that some (not all i agree) SI are not that usefull for the ones having it or their role and/or placement on the battlefield... This was the main fact that caused my local TO's to rule in favor. I actually really like the data slate rule from a fluff and balance perspective, but just hated that the wording caused the initial community consensus to be 100& or 0% depending on the WL. The interpretation here provides more of a 100% or 20% use of imperatives. Realistically, the two big impacts are that Hive Nexus works if your WL dies (only applicable to Levi CORE and something that might help keep the fleet semi-competitive after the impending data slate) and that TG aren't basically required if you run a Tyrant. I've only had my Tyrant WL die once in a practice game, but even using this interpretation made my active imperative useless for the turn since I didn't plan on the loss (my synaptic Dima lost exploding 6's). So, there is the option to use TG and play the current leviathan style, or to forgo TG and play a more bubble-like style (more similar to 8E Levi play and probably forces running 2+ Zoans).
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on Oct 5, 2022 18:50:45 GMT
What about multiple units that have the same SI (I.E. Warriors) when you go to activate it do they all gain it or only one unit?
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Oct 5, 2022 19:04:43 GMT
What about multiple units that have the same SI (I.E. Warriors) when you go to activate it do they all gain it or only one unit? All. For example, if you choose a Warrior unit's Goaded to Slaughter Synaptic Imperative ability it becomes active for the army and all Warrior Units (who always have the Goaded to Slaughter ability) give exploding 6's to units within 6". If your Warlord is on the battlefield, all Synapse units will have the Goaded to Slaughter ability while it is active. On a separate note, I realized another issue with saying that "have" (data slate wording) is different from "gain" (codex wording). If units only have the currently active imperative ability (not in addition to the inherent one), RAW Hive Nexus can't function while the WL is on the table and an imperative is active.
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Oct 5, 2022 22:21:57 GMT
RAW, but it is very suggestive RAI: that being, the presence of the corresponding units merely unlocks the ability for selection for being active for the army. You then need to meet the WL/soup requirement still to allow it to be gained by Synapse as the 'aura'. I think I would agree with this if the following didn't exist: If the unit was supposed to simply unlock a choice from a table for your army (like how it seems to be played atm), I would think the following would've been the RAW to achieve RAI: This could be wrong, and the intent could be as you say (just poorly worded). However, Hive Nexus doesn't work RAW going by that RAI; Synapse units/models can only have the active Imperative ability. Either interpretation has to finagle RAW to make imperatives work, but I think what I have proposed here stays closer to RAW. For all the typing I did, I think what I proposed just needs one to read the WL data slate addition as "gain" instead of "have".
|
|
|
Post by No One on Oct 6, 2022 1:46:12 GMT
(I think actually that sentence was replaced with the rules including the warlord?) No, that was a direct quote of the current rules: why would I quote a replaced rule outside of comparison/change discussion? They only replaced the 'header' paragraph. That was 3rd sentence 3rd paragraph and was not touched. For all the typing I did, I think what I proposed just needs one to read the WL data slate addition as "gain" instead of "have". The fact that they changed it from 'gain' to 'have' works against you here . The rest looks fair: I hadn't really given that sentence much thought to see how it fit in with previous reasoning. Either interpretation has to finagle RAW to make imperatives work, but I think what I have proposed here stays closer to RAW. RAW swarming masses does nothing: as much as I prefer RAW, I don't think this is a situation where RAW is necessarily the answer. Also, this is not about making a bypass of the restriction, since its not the case. The fact that our "army wide" rule becomes restricted to only a few models at a time is still quite limiting by itself. Especially considering that some (not all i agree) SI are not that usefull for the ones having it or their role and/or placement on the battlefield... This was the main fact that caused my local TO's to rule in favor. I actually really like the data slate rule from a fluff and balance perspective, but just hated that the wording caused the initial community consensus to be 100& or 0% depending on the WL. The interpretation here provides more of a 100% or 20% use of imperatives. Realistically, the two big impacts are that Hive Nexus works if your WL dies (only applicable to Levi CORE and something that might help keep the fleet semi-competitive after the impending data slate) and that TG aren't basically required if you run a Tyrant. I've only had my Tyrant WL die once in a practice game, but even using this interpretation made my active imperative useless for the turn since I didn't plan on the loss (my synaptic Dima lost exploding 6's). So, there is the option to use TG and play the current leviathan style, or to forgo TG and play a more bubble-like style (more similar to 8E Levi play and probably forces running 2+ Zoans). Ignore the WL thing. You get the same result in GSC or cross fleet soup. Suffice to say I'm incredibly sceptical it's supposed to work like that.
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on Oct 6, 2022 3:05:02 GMT
RAW swarming masses does waaay more than its supposed to.
|
|
|
Post by piersonsmuppet on Oct 6, 2022 3:52:05 GMT
Ignore the WL thing. You get the same result in GSC or cross fleet soup. Suffice to say I'm incredibly sceptical it's supposed to work like that. Well cross fleet soup can't be used in matched play, and the WL restriction doesn't exist outside matched play. However, that is a valid point for GSC but that also means a Synapse unit can't use an ability it has. Definitely a grey area!
|
|