Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.



The rules for 'Controlling Objectives' say:

Rulebook, pg 123 wrote:"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it."

The rules for 'Scoring Units' say:

Rulebook, pg 123 wrote:"An army's scoring units are normal all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organization chart - the main exceptions are in the Big Guns Never Tire mission and The Scouring mission. The presence of other units within 3" of an objective may deny an objective to the enemy, but only troops can control it."

The rules for 'Denial Units' say:

Rulebook, pg 123 wrote:"Denial units are those squads that can prevent an enemy from controlling an objective. In the Eternal War missions, all units (including troops) are denial units, save for a few exceptions given below:

• If it is a vehicle, or is a unit currently embarked on a transport vehicle, or is occupying a building.
• If it has the Swarms special rule.
• If it has a special rule specifying that it never counts as a denial unit.
• If it is currently falling back (if the unit Regroups it immediately reverts to being a denial unit again)."

The Mission Special Rules for the 'Big Guns Never Tire' mission say:

Rulebook, pg 128 wrote:"Heavy Metal: Unlike in other missions, in Big Guns Never Tire, your heavy support units are scoring units, not just your troops units. In fact, in Big Guns Never Tire, even your vehicles are scoring units, providing that they are also heavy support units and they are not Immobilized."

The Mission Special Rules for 'The Scouring' mission say:

Rulebook, pg 129 wrote:"Fast Recon: Unlike other missions, in The Scouring, your fast attack units are scoring units, not just your troops units. In fact, in The Scouring, even your vehicles are scoring units, if they are also heavy support units and are not Immobilized."

QUESTION: Do you play that Heavy Support/Fast Attack choices that are scoring units in the Big Guns Never Tire/Scouring missions (respectively) also count as being denial units in those missions as well?


Example:
A Space Marine Landspeeder is a Fast Attack choice and in The Scouring mission it clearly counts as being a scoring unit. If, at the end of a game played with the 'Scouring' mission, an objective is within 3" of both the Landspeeder and a Ork Boys Mob, does presence of the Land Speeder cause the objective to be controlled by neither side (be contested), or does the Ork Mob score the objective as the Landspeeder is not a denial unit (despite being a scoring unit?



OPTION A. I play by what I think the rules clearly state: that just because a unit is scoring does not automatically also make it a denial unit, so in the example above, the Ork Boys mob would control the objective, ignoring the presence of the Landspeeder.


OPTION B. I play that all scoring units are also denial units; it is just too counter-intuitive to play otherwise. So in the example above, the objective would remain contested as both the Landspeeder and Ork mob would contest it.


OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

I voted for option A. I feel that it is perhaps a little weird for it to work that way, but I think that if you try to use realism to justify your argument, you need to have at least a little wiggle room in the wording of the rules in order to make your case. I don't think that any such wiggle room exists here, so if this came up I would be forced to go with option A. Like not being able to shoot into close combat even under mitigating circumstances, it's one of the areas where I think that the rules do not mesh up with 'realism,' but there is no way to get around it.

That being said, in the next round of FAQs I would prefer it if GW revised it so that Heavy/Fast Attack units WERE denial units in the appropriate missions. (An ammendment stating that any scoring unit is automatically a denial unit would work.)

I voted for option B, it just looks like one of those little oversights on GW's part.
Again.

Option A. It's possibly a little weird, but it's functional and so until they rule otherwise it's easiest to just stick to the rules.

Option B. Even though RAW it's obviously option A, I prefer to house rule it to option B for two reasons:

1) It avoids weird situations like two opposing scoring-but-not-denial units claiming an objective simultaneously and both players getting points for it.

2) It matches what I think GW intended for it to be. Option A is just too counter-intuitive, so I doubt it was a deliberate decision instead of a case of GW thinking that option B was the obvious answer and not realizing that anyone could find a loophole in the rules. I suspect that if/when GW gets around to issuing a FAQ answer on this it will be option B, so we might as well play it that way.

 insaniak wrote:
Option A. It's possibly a little weird, but it's functional and so until they rule otherwise it's easiest to just stick to the rules.

Until two land speeders from different armies control the same objective. Then the rules explode.

In my group we play "B",

This is a deliberate departure from RAW, purely motivated by what we felt was a better rule.

 Idolator wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Option A. It's possibly a little weird, but it's functional and so until they rule otherwise it's easiest to just stick to the rules.

Until two land speeders from different armies control the same objective. Then the rules explode.

If by 'explode' you mean 'they both score' then yes.

I voted A.

 Idolator wrote:
Until two land speeders from different armies control the same objective. Then the rules explode.

Actually the rules don't explode at all. It's weird and completely against how you'd intuitively expect it to work, but it never explicitly states that an objective can only be controlled by one player. So both players would get VP at the end of the game for controlling it, you'd randomize as normal between the controlling units to see who gains the mysterious objective bonus, etc.

Of course this does suggest that GW didn't realize that such a situation was possible, and is strong evidence that they meant for option B to be how it works and option A is just a mistake they didn't notice.

I voted A. However the few times I've rolled Scouring/BGNT, either there were no vehicles (Nids vs foot-slogging Orks) or all relevent vehicles were wrecked/immobilised. So this scenario has yet to come up. If my opponent wanted to play they deny, I'd be fine with that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Option A. It's possibly a little weird, but it's functional and so until they rule otherwise it's easiest to just stick to the rules.

Until two land speeders from different armies control the same objective. Then the rules explode.

If by 'explode' you mean 'they both score' then yes.

I voted A.

It's humor. Refering to a situation that is unique and by all appearances is antithetical to the game. Having two mortal enemies, whose sole goal (for our puposes) is controling an objective,sharing control of an objective would fit that bill.

Lighten up. This thread is "how I play it" Not "how is it written".

A


actually objectives can only be held by one unit,

but the net result of both sides capping the objective is the same as both not capping, so its a moot point, if two controlling speeders are on the same objective either they both get it or not, either way its the same.

RAW does only say they are controlling unit , not denial (it even says explicitly troops are denial)

people dont like this because it means their land speeders cannot deny a enemy troop the objective, and the enemy troop can still cap it with their speeder within 3".

makes sense tactically that way as well,

ie in big guns + scouring your FA or HS can capture stuff, units like vehicles cannot out capture troops.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Option A. It's possibly a little weird, but it's functional and so until they rule otherwise it's easiest to just stick to the rules.

Until two land speeders from different armies control the same objective. Then the rules explode.

If by 'explode' you mean 'they both score' then yes.

While understanding that it was a stab at humor, the thing is that two speeders both scoring the objective is functionally the same outcome as them both denying it to one another. So the outcome isn't particular weird or outre as far as game resolution is concerned.

 Mannahnin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Option A. It's possibly a little weird, but it's functional and so until they rule otherwise it's easiest to just stick to the rules.

Until two land speeders from different armies control the same objective. Then the rules explode.

If by 'explode' you mean 'they both score' then yes.

While understanding that it was a stab at humor, the thing is that two speeders both scoring the objective is functionally the same outcome as them both denying it to one another. So the outcome isn't particular weird or outre as far as game resolution is concerned.

It was admittedly a mild stab.

 Mannahnin wrote:
While understanding that it was a stab at humor, the thing is that two speeders both scoring the objective is functionally the same outcome as them both denying it to one another. So the outcome isn't particular weird or outre as far as game resolution is concerned.

Not true actually. It may be the same when using a straight win/loss/draw system, but if you consider total VPs/margin of victory/etc in a multi-round event then it does make a difference whether or not you score +3 each or +0 each.

Also, it isn't the same because of mysterious objective effects. If both speeders control the objective you roll off to decide which one gains the benefit. If they contest each other then neither one gets the benefit.

 Peregrine wrote:
Not true actually. It may be the same when using a straight win/loss/draw system, but if you consider total VPs/margin of victory/etc in a multi-round event then it does make a difference whether or not you score +3 each or +0 each.

It wouldn't make a difference to a margin of victory system, just to one that tallies up total points from objectives over successive games... whicih would be a peculiar system to use unless each mission includes the same number of objectives.

Very interesting numbers so far!

I have to say, based on the hugely negative response this ruling got in the Bay Area Open FAQ that was just posted that I figured this would be landslide towards 'A'.

Although I also have to admit that before it was brought to my attention that I just intuitively played it as 'B'.

And given the concept of two enemy Landspeeders 'scoring' the same objective (even if the net sum is effectively still null) does suggest to me that this does likely seem an accidental loophole.

Voted for A, I do play a few tournies so for best pratice use RAW,

A, and same for our local group

I voted A too. I like easysauce's point that vehicles with the specific mission rules not being able to outperform the troops that are supposed to be the hardcore objective holders.

I voted B.

 yakface wrote:
I have to say, based on the hugely negative response this ruling got in the Bay Area Open FAQ that was just posted that I figured this would be landslide towards 'A'.

Keep in mind that many of the Tournament goers don't set foot in YMDC because of the way the "regulars" post.

And given the concept of two enemy Landspeeders 'scoring' the same objective (even if the net sum is effectively still null) does suggest to me that this does likely seem an accidental loophole.

I don't see it that way at all. It just means that Troops are always better than a FA/HS unit at scoring.

A.

RAW is pretty clear here. No confusion at all. It is usually in the case where RAW is unclear where I will side with the RAI.

I would be inclined to play it as A but I realise I am biased considering the huge buff that playing option B gives to whatever vehicles happen to be scoring in terms of objective control and getting linebreaker, and that I don't have any vehicles.

I voted A. It is RAW and is clearly stated with no confusion if it is actually read.

Those that say its an oversight on GW's part i think are reaching. They have put out 4 BRB FAQs to fix it. It seems to be a huge oversight not to change if that was what is intended.

In my mind, if you are both scoring, you simply contest it from each other. No matter what your scoring unit is.

Then again, all my heavy support are monstrous creatures, so they contest anyway xD

SCP Yeeman wrote:
I voted A. It is RAW and is clearly stated with no confusion if it is actually read.

Those that say its an oversight on GW's part i think are reaching. They have put out 4 BRB FAQs to fix it. It seems to be a huge oversight not to change if that was what is intended.

I would never use the number of Errata and FAQ's to prove something is what they've intended. They obviously didn't fix everything in the first three updates. I highly doubt that they fixed everything with the fourth.

Heck, sometimes the Errata itself causes more confusion.

I voted B seems pretty obvious that is the right answer rules wise. Just like FMCs having relentless smash which is meant to be relentless, smash.

It is a clear oversight that shouldn't need clearing up but based on the evidence of this thread the gaming community knows no limit to its literalism.

I voted 'A'.

It's already a 'bonus' that the vehicles can now score, no need to give them additional perks of counting as denial models as well. Plus, it's simply going by the rules as laid out in the book. And besides, most other non-vehicle HS/FA choices still retain their 'denial unit' status on top of their newly granted scoring trait.

Keep it simple...Land Speeder wouldn't be a denial unit!

As they say, infantry are to take and hold. Tanks/skimmers can take an objective, but they can't hold it. I'd play in your example that the orks control the objective, as the fact that they deny and score means they control the objective. so voted A