Ok so this rules question came up today.

GK GM has the rule Grand Strategy which (I'm paraphrasing here because my Codex is in my car) says, "Roll a D3, that many Infantry, Jump Infantry, and Walker Units, but not special characters etc etc gets one of the following roles for the remainder of the game. They all must take the same role.

Now one of the roles says (again paraphrasing), "The unit is treated exactly like a scoring unit and my hold objectives."

Now by this logic and RaW you could make a Dreadnaught a scoring unit. One of the guys at my FLGS argued with me that the Rulebook says that a vehicle can never be a scoring unit, but another guy at my FLGS says that specific trumps general and the Codex rules is a specific rule so the Dreadnaught would become scoring.

Help me out Dakka!

The rulebook only mentions the conditions under which a troops choice cannot be scoring (one of those conditions being if it's a vehicle).

It does not say that a vehicle can never be scoring.

The problem is, the GK codex says they may claim objectives "as if they were Troops." And vehicles that are troops cannot claim objectives, so...

RAW, I don't think your GK Dreadnought can't score with Grand Strategy.

My guess is that they intended them to be able to score...but it's just another in the long line of ambiguous Grey Knight nonsense. If they'd just said "These nominated units count as scoring" it would have been so much simpler. *sigh*

A Walker that scores as if it is troops does not score because it is a walker.

Troops walkers cannot score.

Grand Strategy makes your normally Heavy/Elite dreads score as if they were troops. Sadly even being troops isn't enough to make a vehicle score.

Locally we have ruled that they can, because we think that is what the intention is, but that is, of course a house rule.
It's is one of the (many) things in the C:GK that needs an FAQ

Sanguinis wrote:Now one of the roles says (again paraphrasing), "The unit is treated exactly like a scoring unit and my hold objectives."

Why not quote properly instead of paraphrasing (since your version is considerably biased)?
"The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops".

Vehicles that are troops cannot claim objectives. If it had said that they were scoring units then it would have worked on dreadnaughts.

Compare this to the ravenwing entry in C: DA which does make vehicles scoring: "they always operate as completely independent scoring units of one model".

Simple answer:

Dreadknight is not a vehicle. It is neither a Walker.

It is a monstrous creature.

Grand Strategy cannot effect vehicles and Walkers either way.

/Thread.

Apart from the inconvenient point that the rules for Grand Strategy specifically include Walkers...

Jaon wrote:Simple answer:
Dreadknight is not a vehicle. It is neither a Walker.
It is a monstrous creature.
Grand Strategy cannot effect vehicles and Walkers either way.
/Thread.

OP asked about Dreadnaughts not dreadknights.
And Grand Strategy does affect Walkers although it doesn't affect other vehicles.

Though it seems that a dreadknight with personal teleporter can benefit from grand strategy while one without can not.

I bet dreadknights were infantry and at some point during development changed to monsterous creature without anyone checking for rule conflicts...

Jidmah wrote:Though it seems that a dreadknight with personal teleporter can benefit from grand strategy while one without can not.

I bet dreadknights were infantry and at some point during development changed to monsterous creature without anyone checking for rule conflicts...

Where are you getting this from? Grand Strategy covers Monstrous Creatures.

Corrode wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Though it seems that a dreadknight with personal teleporter can benefit from grand strategy while one without can not.

I bet dreadknights were infantry and at some point during development changed to monsterous creature without anyone checking for rule conflicts...

Where are you getting this from? Grand Strategy covers Monstrous Creatures.

"Infantry, Jump Infantry, Monstrous Creature or Walker"

There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around here, so I'll just throw this up:

GK Codex pg.22

Grand Strategy: At the start of the game, before forces are deployed, the Grand Master can assign special battlefield roles to units under his command. Roll a D3 and choose that many infantry, jump infantry, monstrous creature or walker units in your army (but not models with the Independent Character special rule, Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands or Grand Master Mordrak's unit of Ghost Knights).

This happens every time I actually belive someone quoting rules, instead of checking myself. Should teach me.

bushido wrote:There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around here, so I'll just throw this up:

GK Codex pg.22

Grand Strategy: At the start of the game, before forces are deployed, the Grand Master can assign special battlefield roles to units under his command. Roll a D3 and choose that many infantry, jump infantry, monstrous creature or walker units in your army (but not models with the Independent Character special rule, Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands or Grand Master Mordrak's unit of Ghost Knights).

The REAL

/thread

Why? It doesn't answer the OP's question.

You know, posting "/thread" is now more important than posting content...

That said, you already posted the correct answer to the OPs question ten posts ago

I had this discussion the other day. The main point is this: the rule says "as if they were troops". The conditional phrase means that the dreadnought is STILL NOT A TROOP. Therefore it is not a vehicle that is a troop (which is the only type of vehicle specifically disallowed by the BRB), so it can score.

If: Walkers under Grand Strategy can claim objectives as if they were troops.

And: Troops that are vehicles cannot claim objectives.

Then: A walker under Grand Strategy cannot claim objectives.

I'd expect it to be clarified that they can (and would never prevent my GK opponent from doing so in an actual game) but it's easy to argue that GK dreads can't score.

Yes RaW the Ddreanought can't score, and feel free to play that house rule. However the rule is pretty clear and we all know how it would go at FaQ, but I don't for a second believe GW would waste the ink on FaQing this answer.

Has anyone bothered to wonder why indeed it would specifically call out walkers if walkers didn't count?

What would the purpose be of saying "walkers" in that paragraph? There is no other benefit to that particular rule aside from making things scoring. They specifically call out walkers.

Why would they waste the ink?

Because they expect you to give Walkers a different role? All of the others work fine for Walkers.

Making units scoring isn't the only effect of Grand Strategy. Walkers are mentioned before they even explain the special rules you can give the nominated units. Not exactly a waste of ink.

FlingitNow wrote:Yes RaW the Ddreanought can't score, and feel free to play that house rule. However the rule is pretty clear and we all know how it would go at FaQ, but I don't for a second believe GW would waste the ink on FaQing this answer.

Wouldn't a "pretty clear" rule follow the RaW?

I asked this question last monght and the discussion didn't last long, partly because I posted the correct wording for the rule in the OP, and used the rule wording itself to present my side of it, rather than unsupported opinion. I'm a little surprised by the resistance here.

I apologize for not quoting it right I guess next time I'm gonna have to remember to have my Codex on me. I was not attempting to change the wording to support the answer I wanted. I was trying to get an answer and changing the wording to give the answer I want would be pointless and then I wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place.

Now, about the question. I understand it says, "they may score as if they are troops", and I understand that the rulebook says that, "troops that are vehicles can not score", however this is not turning the dreadnaught into a troop it is merely making the Dreadnaught score as if it were a troop. That is the key phrasing, I understand what the rulebook says but I also understand that it does not turn the Dreadnaught into a troop it says may score as if it were a troop. I think the intention was to use the "as if it were a troop" as an example. If they intended for Dreadnaughts not to score they could have said something along the lines of "The unit becomes a troop choice this game." If they had used that wording then the Dreadnaught could not score because it would be in violation of the rulebook.

Believe me when I say I do not intend to ever use this rule on my Dreadnaught. If anything outflanking Dreadnaughts is more fun. I am merely wondering for my own purposes and for the purposes of those who use 3 Psyrifleman Dreadnaughts that could potentially, on the roll of a 5-6 for Grand Strategy, have 3 scoring Dreadnaughts (which would scare me). I am unbiased as to the answer I just want a concrete answer.

FlingitNow wrote:


Yes RaW the Ddreanought can't score, and feel free to play that house rule. However the rule is pretty clear and we all know how it would go at FaQ, but I don't for a second believe GW would waste the ink on FaQing this answer.

I don't believe FaQing this answer would be a waste of ink at all! I think if anything it would be a good thing to FaQ, along with the other 600 questions that arose from this very poorly written and completely garbled mess of a Codex.

Edited twice for spelling.

Kyvik wrote:Has anyone bothered to wonder why indeed it would specifically call out walkers if walkers didn't count?
What would the purpose be of saying "walkers" in that paragraph? There is no other benefit to that particular rule aside from making things scoring. They specifically call out walkers.

There are four effects to choose from. Just because walkers are in the included list does not mean that every one of those effects works for them. Have you even read the rule?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

somerandomdude wrote:I asked this question last monght and the discussion didn't last long, partly because I posted the correct wording for the rule in the OP, and used the rule wording itself to present my side of it, rather than unsupported opinion. I'm a little surprised by the resistance here.

I'm not. There are plenty of people posting that have clearly not read the actual rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:Yes RaW the Ddreanought can't score, and feel free to play that house rule. However the rule is pretty clear and we all know how it would go at FaQ, but I don't for a second believe GW would waste the ink on FaQing this answer.

Yes, the rule is perfectly clear. It claims objectives like a troop and troop vehicles don't.

If they hadn't specifically wanted to exclude walkers from using GM to become scoring (whilst letting them use the other options) they could have just put "becomes scoring". As usual, you are letting your belief in what you think the rules ought to say override what they actually do say.

"Scoring as if they are troops"

is the same as

"this dread is scoring the same way as an identical dread bought in a troops slot"

A dread bought in a troops slot can not claim objectives. The rule does not use "slots" as those are only relevant when actually making the list, and can't be changed once you start rolling for grand strategy.

Conundrum! The dreadnought is afaik the only 'walker' this applies to (DKnight being an MC). The rule goes out of the way to mention that walkers can also be made to hold objectives etc. However, the rules also say that troops-vehicles can't claim objectives. So - if they 'can't claim', why are they mentioned in the rule in the first place? P:

Its written fine. The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops.

The key word is as its not saying that it makes them troops choices its saying they can capture OBJ like troops can.

They can claim objectives. It says that in the RAW.

InquisitorVaron wrote:Its written fine. The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops.

The key word is as its not saying that it makes them troops choices its saying they can capture OBJ like troops can.

They are still vehicles, and troop vehicles can not claim objectives.

They can claim objectives. It says that in the RAW.

The rule does not say this, this is blatant misquoting and false. It says(exact quote):
"The nominated units may claim objectives as if they were Troops."(pg. 22, GK codex)
"There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of Troops does not count as scoring: If it is a vehicle. [...]"(pg. 90, BRB)

If a (venerable) dreadnought were Troops, it would still not count as scoring, because it is a vehicle. So it is not scoring either when chosen for Unyielding Anvil.

Restating your opinion without any rules backup does not make you more right.

1. Rules in an army-specific Codex may override rules in the main rulebook.

References: Main Rulebook pages 62, 74, 97

2. Grand Strategy special rule, page 22 of Grey Knight rulebook

"...chose that many infantry, jump infantry, monstrous creature, or walker units in your army..."

3. Unyielding Anvil sub-rule, page 22 of Grey Knight rulebook

"The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops"

4. Dreadnoughts & Venerable Dreadnoughts, page 35 of Grey Knight rulebook

Unit type: Vehicle, Walker

5. Common Sense

The -only- Walker unit type in the ENTIRE codex are the Dreadnought and the Venerable Dreadnought. Don't you think it would be stupid to include that line in the special rules of the Grand Master only to have it go to waste and be of no use?

The Dreadknight is a Monstrous Creature, the only one in the codex.

Wouldn't a "pretty clear" rule follow the RaW?

No look at shrike's "see, but remain unseen" rule. What the rule does is 100% clear yet what the RaW does is entirely different.

Yes, the rule is perfectly clear. It claims objectives like a troop and troop vehicles don't.

If they hadn't specifically wanted to exclude walkers from using GM to become scoring (whilst letting them use the other options) they could have just put "becomes scoring". As usual, you are letting your belief in what you think the rules ought to say override what they actually do say.

Because GW don't word their rules anywhere near that accurately.

Or because in GWs own blurb on Draigo on the website before release they stated he can make Dreadnoughts scoring...

If they wanted to exclude walkers they would have explicitly written that. If they wanted to exclude walkers they've have said the unit counts as troops and can therfore score rather than scores as if it was troops. If they wanted to exclude walkers why explicitly state that they include walkers?

"Scoring as if they are troops"

is the same as

"this dread is scoring the same way as an identical dread bought in a troops slot"

No "Scoring as if they are troops" means "claiming objectives in the manner the BrB describes for units but restricts to certain types troops" thus removing that type of restriction.

I have to agree with it can score for the simple fact that indeed Codex > Rulebook as stated in the main rulebook. You posture that there are 3 other rules that can easily affect the walker unit... so? My walker doesn't need Counter Attack, Re-rolling of 1's to hit, or Scout.. I want it to score, and per the book, it can. Quoting the core rulebook saying vehicles can't score and saying it over-rides a brand new Codex isn't a win in my book.

Unless they FAQ it and say Dreads CAN'T score using Grand Strategy, I'll still play the rule that they can for anyone who wishes to use it. I don't find it game breaking in any sense... no matter how good the book made the Psyfleman dread. It's random units, so they can end up getting only 1 or maybe 3 of them scoring.. oh no!

It's a game meant for fun, have fun and run the rule, or worse comes to worse just roll it off in your games 4-6 you can have them score, 1-3 they can't. Or, if someone refuses to play you because you want to make them troops, good for you. The game would have been wasteful anyway.

First of all it's specific>general, not Codex>BRB.

That said, there's nothing in the GK Codex that removes the restriction on vehicles scoring, therefore it can't score.

FlingitNow. matt, mrsako: The walkers can get scout, counterattack and reroll 1 to wound. You argumentation that they should have excluded them is thus invalid, as they can obviously benefit from the other three grand strategies.

Or because in GWs own blurb on Draigo on the website before release they stated he can make Dreadnoughts scoring...

I could point you to half a dozen errors on the website concerning the ork codex alone, plus there were other official announcements that never made it to the codex.
Last but not least, it is entirely possible that they simply forgot that walkers can't score if they were troops, but every bit as possible that this was intended.

I have to agree with it can score for the simple fact that indeed Codex > Rulebook as stated in the main rulebook. You posture that there are 3 other rules that can easily affect the walker unit... so? My walker doesn't need Counter Attack, Re-rolling of 1's to hit, or Scout.. I want it to score, and per the book, it can. Quoting the core rulebook saying vehicles can't score and saying it over-rides a brand new Codex isn't a win in my book.

It does not say it can score. If it did, we would have not an argument. GW didn't write "the nominated units count as scoring", by accident or on purpose we don't know, but they didn't. The way it is written, anything affected by Unyielding Anvil is restricted by the Troops Scoring rules, which are found in the BRB. Swarms and Vehicles may not score, even if they were troops. The codex does not override anything in this case, as there is no confict.

It's a game meant for fun, have fun and run the rule, or worse comes to worse just roll it off in your games 4-6 you can have them score, 1-3 they can't. Or, if someone refuses to play you because you want to make them troops, good for you. The game would have been wasteful anyway.

This is basically cheating on a 4+. RAW vehicles can't claim objectives if they are troops. Luckily the game would be wasteful for your opponent, too, so it's win/win.

Drachii wrote:Conundrum! The dreadnought is afaik the only 'walker' this applies to (DKnight being an MC). The rule goes out of the way to mention that walkers can also be made to hold objectives etc. However, the rules also say that troops-vehicles can't claim objectives. So - if they 'can't claim', why are they mentioned in the rule in the first place? P:

No, the rule says that walkers can be affected by grand strategy.

Grand strategy offers a choice of four effects - one of which, becoming scoring, does not work on walkers.

Again, have you actually read the rule? It does much more than just make things scoring.

Matt1785 wrote:You posture that there are 3 other rules that can easily affect the walker unit... so? My walker doesn't need Counter Attack, Re-rolling of 1's to hit, or Scout.. I want it to score, and per the book, it can.

Listen. Just because you don't plan on using any of the other three abilities that Grand Strategy can grant, doesn't mean that the inclusion of walkers in the rule *must be* there to make them score.

There's nothing in the GK codex that would override the core rulebook in this case. They claim objectives as if they were troops. Vehicles that are troops cannot claim objectives.

If it does get FAQ'd, I'd expect them to clarify that dreads can score.


I've repeated myself multiple times already, so I'll just bow out at this point.

no they cannot claim objectives because normal walker troops cannot claim objectives

you can make them troops for other reasons. IE you are playing DoW deployment and so some reason want your walker on the board to start the game.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Drachii wrote:Conundrum! The dreadnought is afaik the only 'walker' this applies to (DKnight being an MC). The rule goes out of the way to mention that walkers can also be made to hold objectives etc. However, the rules also say that troops-vehicles can't claim objectives. So - if they 'can't claim', why are they mentioned in the rule in the first place? P:

No, the rule says that walkers can be affected by grand strategy.

Grand strategy offers a choice of four effects - one of which, claiming objectives as if a troop, does not work on walkers.

Again, have you actually read the rule? It does much more than just make things scoring.

Fixed for clarification, as the way you originally posted it would've changed the outcome completely and I didn't want anyone to twist your post. Every other instance of a non-troop scoring simply says "scoring" or "claim objectives" etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Exergy wrote:no they cannot claim objectives because normal walker troops cannot claim objectives

you can make them troops for other reasons. IE you are playing DoW deployment and so some reason want your walker on the board to start the game.

Unfortunately that's still not what Grand Strategy says. They don't "become troops".

So far I think that all the stated opinions and quoted rules have their own validation, but in the end my opinion is it was the intent of the rule to allow for Dreads to score and hold objectives. If the FAQ comes out and says no... then I'll gladly step down, but until then, I am of the opinion that they can score.

If you're so strongly convicted to not play the rule as such, then so be it. I know quite a few people who would rather die then allow a rule to go another way. I'm not a huge tournament player and play primarily for fun, therefore am not the greatest of rules lawyers. I go by what I think makes the most sense at times and allows both players to have fun. My vote is they can score.

You should check #4 on this forum's rules. RAI can not be guessed or voted, so changing the rules which are written perfectly clear is changing the game. Harmless looking rules may topple the balance heavily towards an army, something that should not be done carelessly. There are stupid RAW rules out there, that can be changed with all players consent, this is not one of them.

By refusing to play by perfectly clear rules and wanting to dice off for them in the case of the other player(s) disagreeing is basically cheating them on a 4+.

Let me give you an example that I actually witnessed:
Orks boyz have heavy metal plates mounted on their armor and most of them even wear helmets and shoulder pads, still they only get a 6+ throw. Would you allow any ork player to argue this against you to let them have a 4+ saving throw? Would you accept a game where you diced off and all his boyz are now 'ard boyz for free?

Matt1785 wrote:So far I think that all the stated opinions and quoted rules have their own validation, but in the end my opinion is it was the intent of the rule to allow for Dreads to score and hold objectives. If the FAQ comes out and says no... then I'll gladly step down, but until then, I am of the opinion that they can score.

If you're so strongly convicted to not play the rule as such, then so be it. I know quite a few people who would rather die then allow a rule to go another way. I'm not a huge tournament player and play primarily for fun, therefore am not the greatest of rules lawyers. I go by what I think makes the most sense at times and allows both players to have fun. My vote is they can score.

I understand your point and baring a higher power intervening we can roll off 4+ each time. play a bunch of games in good spirits.

There is no way that they should be able to become scoring.

Death Company Dreadnoughts ARE troops, yet they still can't score. Grand Strategy lets GK Dreads become as scoring as they would be if they were a Troops choice. That means they're as scoring as DC Dreads are, which means, at the end of the day, that they're still not scoring.

None of you have even mentioned once what the rule actually says. You all are under the assumption that the rule says they score as if they are troops, which means in your book for all intents and purposes besides the fact that they can be on the table to start for DoW they are troops. This is not the case. The rule specifically says, "The nominated unit may score as if it were a troop." It doesn't become a troop. Because of the way GW or Matt Ward *shudder* worded it they don't become troops but score "as if they were troops".

I am under the impression the "as if they were troops" clause was added for clarifaction of how the Unyielding Anvil rule works and not to exclude Dreadnaughts from scoring as we have already surmised that they are in the Grand Strategy description and I understand their are 3 other Grand Strategies you can use but why would they pretty much exclude walkers from one of them and not anything else. Why not just say, "Walkers can not benefit from unyielding anvil." Or like I said before why not just say, "Unyielding Anvil makes the chosen units this game troop choices." Clearly the rule means for Dreadnaughts to become scoring. If you want to argue RaW then RaW Killer Kans, and Ork Deff Dreads can take Cybork Bodies (if you take that one special character) and then get a 5+ invulnerable.

The difference between RaW and RaI is very different but we understand that in both cases stated above that GW meant for Dreadnaughts to be scoring and meant for Killa Kans and Deff Dreads to not take the Cybork Body.

I can't stress enough that I don't care either way how this is ruled. I think Dreadnaughts would make a terrible scoring unit considering a stray lascannon shot at a Dreadnaught on an objective has a pretty easy time taking it out. I would rather outflank my Dreadnaught anyway. I just want it to be clear that I, along with many others, think that they meant for it to be scoring and I will continue to play it that way until we get an FaQ ruling on this. I merely came on here for your opinions and obviously you are all completely torn and now arguing RaW which I can't stand because RaW is not the way the game was meant to be played. If you play a RaW game its going to be unfun, stupid, and downright a waste of time.

Now my tournament TO agrees with all of you that Dreadnaughts can not be made scoring by using Unyielding Anvil and again I don't care I was merely curious as to what the opinion was and so I will not ever attempt to do this in a tournament where I play. If you want to argue please do so I am curious to see how people can make an argument when clearly GW and Matt Ward *shudder* meant for Dreadnaughts to be scoring or else Walkers would not have been mentioned in the original Grand Strategy description or the Grand Strategy would have roles which exclude other units other than walkers. It's awful funny that walkers are the only ones who get shafted by one of the Grand Strategy roles and Infantry, Jump Infantry, and Monstrous Creatures can benefit from all 4 of the roles. Does GW or Matt Ward not like Walkers?

There's nothing saying that a Deffdred or Kan can't take cybork with the Dok.

On the other hand, there's situations where Deffdreds are a Troops choice, with Big Meks. That Deffdred is now a troop- but it doesn't loose it's Walker or Vehicle rule, and Vehicles cannot hold objectives.

The rule here, from what I can tell, says they can 'score as troops', which, in the case of a Troops Vehicle, is not-scoring. That's the way they score as troops, by not being able to score.

Sanguinis wrote:None of you have even mentioned once what the rule actually says. You all are under the assumption that the rule says they score as if they are troops, which means in your book for all intents and purposes besides the fact that they can be on the table to start for DoW they are troops. This is not the case. The rule specifically says, "The nominated unit may score as if it were a troop." It doesn't become a troop. Because of the way GW or Matt Ward *shudder* worded it they don't become troops but score "as if they were troops".

Actually, it was metnioned here:

spyguyyoda wrote:I had this discussion the other day. The main point is this: the rule says "as if they were troops". The conditional phrase means that the dreadnought is STILL NOT A TROOP. Therefore it is not a vehicle that is a troop (which is the only type of vehicle specifically disallowed by the BRB), so it can score.

I am under the impression the "as if they were troops" clause was added for clarifaction of how the Unyielding Anvil rule works and not to exclude Dreadnaughts from scoring as we have already surmised that they are in the Grand Strategy description and I understand their are 3 other Grand Strategies you can use but why would they pretty much exclude walkers from one of them and not anything else. Why not just say, "Walkers can not benefit from unyielding anvil." Or like I said before why not just say, "Unyielding Anvil makes the chosen units this game troop choices." Clearly the rule means for Dreadnaughts to become scoring. If you want to argue RaW then RaW Killer Kans, and Ork Deff Dreads can take Cybork Bodies (if you take that one special character) and then get a 5+ invulnerable.

Or maybe they thought it was clear enough. By the rules, I can give my Sergeants two power weapons. Doesn't mean paying the points for the second power weapon DOES anything. If someone doesn't understand the rules and uses an ability somewhere where it doesn't do anything, it's not GWs fault.

The difference between RaW and RaI is very different but we understand that in both cases stated above that GW meant for Dreadnaughts to be scoring and meant for Killa Kans and Deff Dreads to not take the Cybork Body.

I can't stress enough that I don't care either way how this is ruled. I think Dreadnaughts would make a terrible scoring unit considering a stray lascannon shot at a Dreadnaught on an objective has a pretty easy time taking it out. I would rather outflank my Dreadnaught anyway. I just want it to be clear that I, along with many others, think that they meant for it to be scoring and I will continue to play it that way until we get an FaQ ruling on this. I merely came on here for your opinions and obviously you are all completely torn and now arguing RaW which I can't stand because RaW is not the way the game was meant to be played. If you play a RaW game its going to be unfun, stupid, and downright a waste of time.

Then if you don't care how this is ruled and you think it's a terrible idea, why do you want so badly to convince us otherwise? Personally, I think they'd make a great scoring unit, especially since there's nothing but incentive to have two or three of them already. Vehicles can be frustratingly resilient sometimes, especially well placed in cover sitting on an objective.

Now my tournament TO agrees with all of you that Dreadnaughts can not be made scoring by using Unyielding Anvil and again I don't care I was merely curious as to what the opinion was and so I will not ever attempt to do this in a tournament where I play. If you want to argue please do so I am curious to see how people can make an argument when clearly GW and Matt Ward *shudder* meant for Dreadnaughts to be scoring or else Walkers would not have been mentioned in the original Grand Strategy description or the Grand Strategy would have roles which exclude other units other than walkers. It's awful funny that walkers are the only ones who get shafted by one of the Grand Strategy roles and Infantry, Jump Infantry, and Monstrous Creatures can benefit from all 4 of the roles. Does GW or Matt Ward not like Walkers?

Yeah? Well, I'm curious to see how people can make an argument when clearly GW and Matt Ward meant for Space Marines to autowin every battle because their fluff is THE BESTEST!! Like you, I have nothing real to substantiate my claim other than marines are mentioned in a rules that tangentially has anything to do with my argument.

And I would assume he loves walkers quite a bit. They're already one of the best, if not THE best HS choice in the book. Look, I play GK too. I want them to be the most awesomeist(!) too, but there's no solid argument for it here.

Sanguinis wrote:I am under the impression the "as if they were troops" clause was added for clarifaction of how the Unyielding Anvil rule works and not to exclude Dreadnaughts from scoring

Ironically, if they had left that clause off, there would be no reason to rule against a scoring Dreadnought. Suggesting that the clause was added to clarify means that the author didn't really know what he was doing...

Indeed.

Either A: Clause is intentional and rule works as written. (Not scoring)

Or B: Clause is there because we're assumed to be too stupid to understand what it means to be scoring and Dreadnoughts actually become scoring when they get GS used on them.

Sanguinus: RAW is the way the game should be played when playing a stranger. When playing games with friends feel free to change the rules to whatever you want. You don't know if dreads are supposed to be scroring, noone does, except for Matt Ward(maybe even he doesn't). RAI in this case is nothing but an educated guess, which may differ based on one own bias. RAW is perfectly clear in that vehicles can't score if they are troops, most TO would rule that way. So now you know you can't expect your dreads to be scoring when building the list, which is the result you wanted, wasn't it?

Anvildude wrote:There's nothing saying that a Deffdred or Kan can't take cybork with the Dok.

There is. The Ork FAQ.

I have to admit I was under the impression that GK dreads do score. In the BRB troops are the only kind of unit that can score. It then goes on to list exceptions (never mind what any other codex might do with Sternguard, etc). Thus the "as if they were troops" is merely to show that based on the normal rules of play only troops can score. The way I'm reading it is they can score as if they were a scoring unit. Not sure if that makes any sense. Probably not...

I think that's the same argument that others are making, but the problem is that there's precedent for troops that are vehicles that aren't scoring.

Here's what you're referring to:

page 90 wrote:
An army's scoring units are all units that come from its Troops allowance. The presence of other units may deny an objective to the enemy, but only Troops can control it. There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of Troops does not count as scoring:

* If it is a vehicle
* If it has a swarm special rule
* If it has a special rule specifying it never counts as a scoring unit.

So the order of operations is as follows: You give the walker Unyielding Anvil. Game says, "Great choice, now that unit scores as if it was troops!" Now you follow all the rules for scoring, including having the ability to control (the objective). There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of Troops does not count as scoring:
Is it a vehicle? Does it have the swarm special rule? Does it have a special rule specifying it never counts as a scoring unit?
Then no, it's not scoring, even if it scores as if it was a troop choice.

Not sure how much clearer to make it.

My point is it doesn't make it troops...it's simply referring to the BRB wherein troops are the only kind of unit that can score. This would simply be another exception where specific overrides general (i.e that they score even though they aren't troops).

Anyways, I'm not pushing the matter...will be happy to wait for the FAQ.

Lukus83 wrote:My point is it doesn't make it troops...it's simply referring to the BRB wherein troops are the only kind of unit that can score. This would simply be another exception where specific overrides general (i.e that they score even though they aren't troops).

Anyways, I'm not pushing the matter...will be happy to wait for the FAQ.

That is actually a very good point. There is a big difference between "this unit counts as troops" vs "this unit scores as if it was troops"

If the walkers counted as troops, they wouldn't be able to score because of rules stating a troops vehicle can't.
If they score as if they were troops, this is where things get dicey. The rule is putting more emphasis on the actual scoring aspect.

Like most of this codex, there is no clear answer

Ugh ugly rules lawyering, you all are really making a big fuss out of a simple rule.

Grand Strategy ALLOWS dreads to score period, they do not make dreads into troops, they just allow them to claim and score LIKE troops, in all respect of the units and their type they ARE NOT troops only they can score and claim LIKE troops.... is that so hard to understand? no? Read again, arguing over a rule that is written as bright as day and if all else fails codex will always trump the BRB. (refer to codex DA and check under ravenwing rules) GK codex says they can score > BRB says vehicles cannot score. (again codex overrules rulebook unless stated otherwise)

Where I come from we play it the way it is written and intended. We want scoring dreads? then by all means go ahead, use grand strategy to make them.

juppy wrote:Grand Strategy ALLOWS dreads to score period,

1) That is a comma.
2) I do not see "score" listed in Grand Strategy.
3)There are troops that cannot score.

This just lets you add another troop to that list.

It's a quesiton of how to read the phrase "The nominated units may claim objectives as if they were Troops."

You can read that as saying "The nominated units may claim objectives as if they were troops choices"

or

"The nominated units count as troops choices for the purposes of claimaing objectives."

Or you can read it as saying "The nominated units may claim objectives just like a troops choice can."

The first two seem like more natural readings. The third reading istn' unreasonable, but relies more on how the sentence reads than how it's constructed.

I think that as a general rule, codex rules should only break rulebook rules when they're clear.

kirsanth wrote:

juppy wrote:Grand Strategy ALLOWS dreads to score period,

1) That is a comma.
2) I do not see "score" listed in Grand Strategy.
3)There are troops that cannot score.

This just lets you add another troop to that list.

and grand strategy is a codex SR that allows dreads to claim obj as if they where troops and you keep arguing that because as per definition of troops vehicles cannot claim (like death company dreads) then the counter argument was actually simple the grand strategy specified unit types (why bother with specifics if it would just exclude the dreadnoughts?) unless an FAQ comes out disallowing dreads to claim then by all means the codex says they can and we shall follow that they can. (it isn't as game breaking or an uber omg ability that people are making a huge fuss about) many places play them this way and find no huge fuss about it. It isn't a rule that wins you every game, it is just an option.Besides the way I understand it "they may claim as if they are troops" clause is clear enough for me that they can claim regardless if unit type, the word "they may claim" and "as if they are troops", the rule does not make them into troops, they just give the dreads the capability to claim as if they are troops. If the rule was worded "they counts as troops" then I agree they cannot claim for they fall under the restrictions of troops that cannot claim, but the GS rule says they may claim, so in the effect that overrides the rulebook entry.

How powerful it is, or how it may be FAQ'd is largely irrelevent.

Scoring as if they were troops does not change the rules at ALL.

Vehicular troops cannot score.

So dreads DO score EXACTLY like troops in that regard.

we wait on an FAQ, some people just really need to rely too much on an FAQ to function properly rather than just play the way it should be played.

juppy wrote:we wait on an FAQ, some people just really need to rely too much on an FAQ to function properly rather than just play the way it should be played.

Tell me, if I think it should be played in a manner that allowed my Dreadnoughts to fire non-scattering Orbital Strikes because that's how I interpreted the rules, why would that be OK?

jpuppy: you're forgetting that the rule for "Anvil" wasn't written directly for walkers.

Grand strategy does one of four things, to four different unit types. Supposing that GW meant for all four to apply equally to all four is reading a bit much into the rule. I'd agree that there's a good chance that's RAI, but it's a pretty major rule change.

It's also inappropriate to simply assume that you're way of reading something is the only clear way to read a passage.

uhuh go on and play by yourself then. I never mentioned my dreadnought could fly, I only made it claim obj because the codex says I can. Your analogy is way off, anyway you guys can all argue about it all year long. Different people play with different interpretations of the rule, no matter how silly it is sometimes. To each his own, my bet FAQ will be out before months end if not then whatever fits your shoe

juppy wrote:uhuh go on and play by yourself then. I never mentioned my dreadnought could fly, I only made it claim obj because the codex says I can. Your analogy is way off, anyway you guys can all argue about it all year long. Different people play with different interpretations of the rule, no matter how silly it is sometimes. To each his own, my bet FAQ will be out before months end if not then whatever fits your shoe

The response was hyperbolic, but you need to apply some of your own wisdom. You read the codex a certain way, and another person could read it another way, as I've posted.

As I have stated only an official FAQ can resolve it. Both sides have their valid/invalid arguments and the discussion will not end until official word is done.

juppy wrote:As I have stated only an official FAQ can resolve it. Both sides have their valid/invalid arguments and the discussion will not end until official word is done.

Which is why statements like "I only made it claim obj because the codex says I can" can be construed as inflammatory, as they seem to imply that you are rules the only way they can be read.

or, this whole gem:

"Ugh ugly rules lawyering, you all are really making a big fuss out of a simple rule.

Grand Strategy ALLOWS dreads to score period, they do not make dreads into troops, they just allow them to claim and score LIKE troops, in all respect of the units and their type they ARE NOT troops only they can score and claim LIKE troops.... is that so hard to understand? no? Read again, arguing over a rule that is written as bright as day and if all else fails codex will always trump the BRB. (refer to codex DA and check under ravenwing rules) GK codex says they can score > BRB says vehicles cannot score. (again codex overrules rulebook unless stated otherwise)

Where I come from we play it the way it is written and intended. We want scoring dreads? then by all means go ahead, use grand strategy to make them."

In which you explicitely say it's written clear as day.

juppy wrote:

and grand strategy is a codex SR that allows dreads to claim obj as if they where troops and you keep arguing that because as per definition of troops vehicles cannot claim (like death company dreads) then the counter argument was actually simple the grand strategy specified unit types (why bother with specifics if it would just exclude the dreadnoughts?) unless an FAQ comes out disallowing dreads to claim then by all means the codex says they can and we shall follow that they can. (it isn't as game breaking or an uber omg ability that people are making a huge fuss about) many places play them this way and find no huge fuss about it. It isn't a rule that wins you every game, it is just an option.Besides the way I understand it "they may claim as if they are troops" clause is clear enough for me that they can claim regardless if unit type, the word "they may claim" and "as if they are troops", the rule does not make them into troops, they just give the dreads the capability to claim as if they are troops. If the rule was worded "they counts as troops" then I agree they cannot claim for they fall under the restrictions of troops that cannot claim, but the GS rule says they may claim, so in the effect that overrides the rulebook entry.

Then as long as we're arguing from the point of view of things that don't relate to the rules which we must assume we can't sufficiently understand (such as game balance), why was adding the "as if they were troops" section significant? If it was not to (apparently all too subtly) indicate to you that you were supposed to follow ALL the rules for scoring, that is, emphasizing that you do it like the unit is a troop, including the restrictions built into the rules, then I can only assume that the designers must have been charging by the letter, because that clause would become completely redundant at that point. Unless of course the designers thought people playing the game were too stupid to understand what "scoring for the purposes of objectives" actually meant.

Also, no one is arguing that they BECOME a troop choice. Not a person has said that. But they do become a troop choice for all intents and purposes of scoring for objectives, then they follow all the rules that troop choices do for objectives, including that vehicles do not score. It's like the JotWW stuff; you can't just cherry pick which parts of being a psychic shooting attack suit you best at the time.

Also, if it's not game breaking or a rule that wins you every game, why are you campaigning for it so hard?

Here's an interesting thought process I've had after reading this thread.
Raw-wise:
pg.90 BRB
"An army's scoring units are all the units that come from its Troops choice. The presence of other units may deny an objective to the enemy, but only Troops can control it. There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of Troops does not count as scoring:
- If it is a vehicle."
etc. etc.

Pg.91 BRB goes on to define how objective are claimed. It is interesting to note that neither Pg. 90 nor Seize Ground or Capture and Control define Contesting an objective, merely stating how an objective may be denied.


So we know what a scoring unit is (Troops allowance that is not x,y, or z) and that scoring units are allowed to claim objectives.

Pg. 22 Codex: Grey Knights
"Unyielding Anvil: A key position must be seized for victory to be won. The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were Troops."

Now here's something to notice: NO WHERE DOES IT STATE THE UNIT IS SCORING. This makes it's interaction with the BRB really funky.

1. Pg. 91 states how scoring units claim objectives.

2. Pg. 90 Stating how Troops are allowed to be scoring.

Therein: The Walker is allowed to claim objectives following the rules of Troops. As it is a vehicle, it does not count as scoring, BUT IT ISN'T SCORING ANYWAYS.

Let me repeat that: Walkers follow the rules of Troops for claim objectives, they are not scoring.

The closest I can think of rulewise is the interaction between powerfists and Thunder Hammers. Powerfists are defined, and Thunder Hammers follow the rules of Powerfists, but Thunder Hammers are not Powerfists.

RedDevil you did quote the book correctly. However the part under Sieze Ground and Capture And Control on page 91 clearly states that for you to claim an objective, it must be within a certain distance of a Scoring Unit.

Keeping that in mind, note that the book makes it very clear that:

The Dreadnought and it's variant can be subjected to the Grand Strategy Rule

The Grand Strategy Rule has 4 speciflc rules you can bestow upon a unit. Unyielding Anvil allows a unit to claim objectives as if they were troops.

The Dreadnoughts are, for the purposes of objectives, counted as troops now ("...as if they were troops").

The Dreadnought is still a vehicle, and under page 90 says that a unit of Troops is no longer scoring if it's a vehicle.

None of the rules contradict eachother. The Dreadnought did indeed become allow to claim objectives as if it was a troop choice, as any other Dreadnought or Deff Dred taken as a Troop Choice. If the rule had said "They now count as Scoring" that'd open up space for debate.

EDIT: Edited the comment I made. I still think some people are taking this way off though.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:This argument really shouldn't have gotten past page 1. All of the people who are claiming that the Dreadnought can indeed claim an objective either has reading comprehension problems or are just trying to grasp at straws to get a broken unit.

I've always felt that the best way to preface any argument is to establish that the only people that disagree with you are either stupid or jerks.

Mecha, I think is a little bit less clear than that.

"claim objectives as if they were troops"
Since Troops only can claim objectives when they are scoring, the unit must be scoring. But since it's a vehicle, it can't be scoring, even if it's a troops.

It can't follow both rules. I happen to think it should defer to the GK rule.

TheRedDevil wrote:Mecha, I think is a little bit less clear than that.

"claim objectives as if they were troops"
Since Troops only can claim objectives when they are scoring, the unit must be scoring. But since it's a vehicle, it can't be scoring, even if it's a troops.

It can't follow both rules. I happen to think it should defer to the GK rule.

The rule never said it became scoring. It simply says "claim objectives as if they were troops". The Dreadnought is claiming an objective as if it was a troop choice. A troop choice vehicle cannot be scoring. Non-scoring units can't claim objectives. It's not contradicting anything and is quite literally following both rules (similar to how a Deff Dred, made into a troop choice by a Big Mek, still cannot claim objectives despite being a troop choice). The Specific > General clause only comes in if there is a contradiction.

There are three other valid and effective rules to choose from under Grand Strategy, as others have pointed out.

@ Polonius: It doesn't help your point when you're trying to infer something negative about me

@TheRedDevil:

Wow. It only took three pages, but now there's an argument on the "Yes" side that is more informed and compelling than "Nuh-uh!" I commend you.

I reading the book now. I'd completely agree with you if it didn't say on page 91: "At the end of the game you control an objective if there is at least one of your scoring units, and no enemy unit (...) within 3" of it." I mean, what all is a part of "following the rules for claiming objectives"? Just that it has to be within 3" of an objective? If it's claiming "as troops" then I would think, as not all troops CAN claim, that it would have to inherit the rules from page 90 as well. Otherwise, who's to say that it doesn't follow the rules of claiming objectives of troops that can't claim objectives?

Really, though it might be getting to the point of dangerous levels of pedantry, there's nothing explaining what it even means to "claim" an objective. All terminology I'm seeing very specifically references "controlling" objectives.

Grand Strategy trumps the Rulebook.

A dreadnought given Unyielding Anvil can absolutely score.

The rule should have been worded a little bit better, but at this point the game is so complex that it's pretty much to be expected. A little common sense will go a long way until the FAQ comes out.

Ok, let me get this straight...

For: A dreadnought can score because "as if they were troops" is simply a clarification in the rulebooks which states only troops can score. Not troops, but acts like troops in that respect.

Against: "As if they were troops" literally makes them a troops choice. They can't score because troops vehicles can't.

Is that right? If so I think I still hold my stance. Dreadnoughts would otherwise take up a troop slot. If that's the case what happens if you have already maxed out your troops choices?

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:@ Polonius: It doesn't help your point when you're trying to infer something negative about me

To the contrary,Polonius' point was very elegantly made. You very bluntly stated that everyone who disagrees with you has problems reading or is seeking an advantage for themselves. No inference is needed to establish that this is pretty negative behaviour. It's also trolling. If you can't address the argument without insulting those making it, I would recommend staying out of the topic.

insaniak wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:@ Polonius: It doesn't help your point when you're trying to infer something negative about me

To the contrary,Polonius' point was very elegantly made. You very bluntly stated that everyone who disagrees with you has problems reading or is seeking an advantage for themselves. No inference is needed to establish that this is pretty negative behaviour. It's also trolling. If you can't address the argument without insulting those making it, I would recommend staying out of the topic.

Edited out that portion now. I apologise. I admit the first half was insulting, but as for the second half I dont see how making a Dreadnought Scoring is either fluffy or RAI.

What the point of this arguement? FYI Codex Trumps 40k Rules book. Under the Grand Stragtey you can made your Dreadnought of monster Creature scoring. So show me in the codex where is does it states that under Grand Stragtey can't make walkers or monster creatures scoring, RAW doesn't overrule Codex, only the rules for the general rule book

Sigh. No wonder I can go to Adepticon and play four different games against different opponents and have all of them somehow come up with a different way they think cover is supposed to be determined.

You guys have fun, play how you want. I've stopped caring. Hopefully nos or someone can step in and type till their arms fall off.

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:What the point of this arguement? FYI Codex Trumps 40k Rules book. Under the Grand Stragtey you can made your Dreadnought of monster Creature scoring. So show me in the codex where is does it states that under Grand Stragtey can't make walkers or monster creatures scoring, RAW doesn't overrule Codex, only the rules for the general rule book

But that's *not* what it says.

<-- Best I can do without a "tears of frustration" emote.

It says "the nominated units can claim objectives as if they were Troops." Troops that are vehicles cannot claim objectives.

Okay, one more: CODEX DOES NOT TRUMP RULEBOOK.

Specific rules trump general rules. It just happens that typically rules are more specific in the Codex than in the rulebook. Even so, NONE OF THESE RULES CONFLICT. Thats right, you can follow every single last rule following the method's we've been describing without breaking ANY of them. "But...but... but...dwednots are scoring" DOES break a restriction, without specifically allowing for it. It does not say "These units count as scoring objectives even if they could never otherwise." It says "Pretend they're troops for purposes of claiming objectives". Well, what happens with troop choice dreadnoughts? Do they claim objectives?

Lukus83 wrote:Ok, let me get this straight...

For: A dreadnought can score because "as if they were troops" is simply a clarification in the rulebooks which states only troops can score. Not troops, but acts like troops in that respect.

Against: "As if they were troops" literally makes them a troops choice. They can't score because troops vehicles can't.

Is that right? If so I think I still hold my stance. Dreadnoughts would otherwise take up a troop slot. If that's the case what happens if you have already maxed out your troops choices?

Perhaps only troops can score, but not all troops can score. Namely, Vehicles. It can score as a Troop, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a vehicle, and therefore can't score.

Making it act as a troop does not automatically make it scoring, since it doesn't say which type of troop. If it said "Scores as though Infantry", then it'd fall more on the side of scoring Dreadnaughts. But as it stands, it scores as a 'troop', which can include non-scoring troops.


Say instead of calling them Troops, Vehicles, and such, it's instead "Pegs are used to fit into holes. All holes are round. Everything is 2" across in size in all dimensions. Certain pegs cannot fit into holes, such as square pegs, and octahedral pegs. If you jump five times in rapid succession, this Grey square prism may be fit to the hole as though it were a peg."

There is room there to argue that, 'hey, it can be fit as a peg, and pegs fit into holes', but that doesn't change the fact that it is a type (shape) that will not fit into the hole, because, though you can now count a prism as a peg, it is still shaped wrong.


Man, that was a weird metaphor.

juppy wrote: I never mentioned my dreadnought could fly, I only made it claim obj because the codex says I can. Y

No....your codex does not say that. It says that for scoring purposes, your dreadnought counts as a troops choice. That's quite different, and still doesn't let your dreadnought score.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lukus83 wrote:Ok, let me get this straight...

For: A dreadnought can score because "as if they were troops" is simply a clarification in the rulebooks which states only troops can score. Not troops, but acts like troops in that respect.

Against: "As if they were troops" literally makes them a troops choice. They can't score because troops vehicles can't.

Is that right? If so I think I still hold my stance. Dreadnoughts would otherwise take up a troop slot. If that's the case what happens if you have already maxed out your troops choices?

It doesn't make them troops, it makes them "counts as" troops. Like it says. And there *are* troop choice dreadnoughts. They don't score either.

I think we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this. I'm going to bow out at this point since I still think my point still stands (it's not a troop, but scores just like it is one...again a clarification from the rulebook to state that only troops score). I could be wrong, but I think both sides of the argument have merit and we won't get a united decision until the FAQ is out.

Only Troops score, but not All troops score is the big issue here, I think. If the rule clarified which type of Troop the unit scored as, (Infantry, Bike, Jump Infantry, MC, Walker, or non- any of those things) there'd be less room for confusion.

Lukus83 wrote:it's not a troop, but scores just like it is one...

...which means that if it's a vehicle, it doesn't, because Troops vehicles don't score.

The rule says they score. Anything past that point is just bad wording by Ward, IMO.

Wait, I'm a little confused here.

The Grey Knights codex says that units with the Unyielding Anvil strategy can claim objectives as if they were troops.

But the BRB says that troops vehicles cannot claim objectives. And Dreadnoughts are vehicles.

So wouldn't that mean that Dreadnoughts, even with the Unyielding Anvil, cannot claim objectives, since it's a vehicle?

As for bad wording by Matt Ward, remember - this went through GW as a whole. It's not as if Ward worked on this for a couple of years in secret, then decided it was ready for print. Games Workshop itself ok'd the production of the codex.

infinite_array wrote:The Grey Knights codex says that units with the Unyielding Anvil strategy can claim objectives as if they were troops.

But the BRB says that troops vehicles cannot claim objectives. And Dreadnoughts are vehicles.

So wouldn't that mean that Dreadnoughts, even with the Unyielding Anvil, cannot claim objectives, since it's a vehicle?

That about sums it up, yes. Troops can capture objectives unless they are vehicles. So a rule that allows a non-Troops unit to captur obtectives as if they were Troops would allow that unit to capture objectives... but only so long as the unit is not a vehicle.

To work on vehicles, the rule would need to specify that they can capture objectives as if they were infantry Troops, or non-vehicle Troops.


Whether or not that's the intention of the rule is anybody's guess. The way vehicles interact with the rest of the game has been the subject of many an oversight in the rules for as long as there have been vehicles in the game.

I would agree, except that this isn't the first time that Ward has crafted a poorly thought-out/worded codex that somehow made it through GW... Let's face it, they're still just human over there and the game is getting very complex. Things like this are going to happen, and it won't be until it's in the hands of the masses that further bugs will be found. It's the same in the software industry.

I honestly believe that Ward put in walkers as a unit type eligible to receive the ability in the same fashion that the other unit types do, but inadvertently shot himself in the foot with the "count as troops" bit.

bushido wrote:It says "the nominated units can claim objectives as if they were Troops." Troops that are vehicles cannot claim objectives.

This sums it up, any of the units can claim objectives as if they were troops.

A Death Company dreadnought IS a troop choice for the Blood Angels and it is not a scoring unit, since it is a vehicle.

Therefore a GK Dreadnought with the Unyielding Anvil strategy is still a vehicle and can not score, since vehicle that are troops can not score. (unless specifically allowed, but that is not the case here)

Abaddon wrote:I honestly believe that Ward put in walkers as a unit type eligible to receive the ability in the same fashion that the other unit types do, but inadvertently shot himself in the foot with the "count as troops" bit.

That's certainly possible. However, it's equally possible that he put in walkers as a unit type eligible to receive the ability so that they can benefit from the other uses of Grand Strategy. It wouldn't be the first time that a rule has been written in such a way as to deliberately exclude a certain unit type that looks at a first glance to be able to benefit from it from making full use of it...

Ward might have intended it so, since (as someone else pointed out before I think) he could have just put "except Walkers" at the end of Unyielding Anvil. The same argument, though, can be made in that he didnt intend the dreadnought to be able to take that one, and just forgot to put it in. I'm still in the "no" camp, as there are three other valid rules that the Dread can use, it is in no way redundant unless you force it to be redundant (according to RAW at least).

Agreed with the No camp.

I run a Forge World Leman Russ tank company, and I know very well that vehicles cannot score, troops or otherwise.

My Leman Russes score as if they were troops because they ARE troops... so they don't score.

I would like to clarify my position once again. I know I said I was bowing out but I changed my mind...sorry!

"May claim objectives as if they were troops".

Now my understanding is that it does not make them troops. If they were then I would concede the point immediately. To me this is simply a clarification (as I think I have stated before) to show that usually only troops can score. I take it to mean that although Grand Strategy doesn't make them troops they can score in the same way. Thus they can take full advantage of this rule.

Lukus83 wrote:I would like to clarify my position once again. I know I said I was bowing out but I changed my mind...sorry!

"May claim objectives as if they were troops".

Now my understanding is that it does not make them troops. If they were then I would concede the point immediately. To me this is simply a clarification (as I think I have stated before) to show that usually only troops can score. I take it to mean that although Grand Strategy doesn't make them troops they can score in the same way. Thus they can take full advantage of this rule.

They score exactly as if they were troops. Troop vehicles don't score. It doesn't actually say anywhere that this means they score...

The only way for this to work would be if it said they score as if they were NON-VEHICLE Troops !

Okay, I rested, I feel refreshed, and I'm back. I shouldn't be, but I can't help myself. It's like a disease. Anyway, it occurred to me that maybe if I put up some pretty pictures, it might make more sense.

Initial Premise: Not all troops score. Simply describing something as claiming objectives like troops is not enough to show that the unit is inherently capable of controlling objectives for the purposes of scoring.

This is my amazing masterpiece illustrating just scoring like troops works. I call it "scoring like troops". Behold:



So anyway, the thought here is that since not all troops CAN sco...err, 'claim objectives', you have to follow the rules and restrictions on page 90 to determine whether your unit WHICH IS NOT TROOPS (but likes to pretend when they think no one is looking) can.

Please, if you can refute why page 90 shouldn't apply to units using Unyielding Anvil, please by all means do so, but don't give me this "it dunt cuz the roolbook sez it dunt" garbage. Provide page numbers and rule citations. We can do better than this people, and my ignore list doesn't need to grow larger.

Abaddon wrote:The rule says they score. Anything past that point is just bad wording by Ward, IMO.

modifers shouldn't be easily discarded.

If I told a man "I slept with your wife, five years before you met her," the modifier really changes the nature of the sentence.

GW strikes again!

Pantso wrote:The only way for this to work would be if it said they score as if they were NON-VEHICLE Troops !

Or it could have just said "becoming scoring".

In fact, I could argue that they deliberately put the modifier there simply to EXCLUDE dreadnoughts from scoring...

No one can know for sure what they intended unless they tell us through a FAQ. I'm of the belief that they'll allow them to score if they include this in the FAQ.

For rules lawyering online we have to go by what's written. In games with your friends, so long as you reach a compromise that everyone can live with, you can play however you think is fair.

I think they should score based on how it doesn't say the dreadnought becomes a troops vehicle, it becomes a vehicle that can score like a troops choice (which troops choice I don't know). So this for me makes it a elite/heavy support vehicle that can score as if it was a troop choice.

daedalus wrote:Okay, I rested, I feel refreshed, and I'm back. I shouldn't be, but I can't help myself. It's like a disease. Anyway, it occurred to me that maybe if I put up some pretty pictures, it might make more sense.

Initial Premise: Not all troops score. Simply describing something as claiming objectives like troops is not enough to show that the unit is inherently capable of controlling objectives for the purposes of scoring.

This is my amazing masterpiece illustrating just scoring like troops works. I call it "scoring like troops". Behold:



So anyway, the thought here is that since not all troops CAN sco...err, 'claim objectives', you have to follow the rules and restrictions on page 90 to determine whether your unit WHICH IS NOT TROOPS (but likes to pretend when they think no one is looking) can.

Please, if you can refute why page 90 shouldn't apply to units using Unyielding Anvil, please by all means do so, but don't give me this "it dunt cuz the roolbook sez it dunt" garbage. Provide page numbers and rule citations. We can do better than this people, and my ignore list doesn't need to grow larger.

I really appreciate the diagram. I also understand the oppositions point of view. In my opinion "as if they were troops" could mean 1 of 2 things

1. For the purposes of scoring these units follow all the rules for troops. This would include all necessary restrictions as given in the BRB.
2. Only troops may score. However if you give this special rule to a unit it allows an exception to be made where otherwise only troops can score.

And with that said I think I may be coming round to the idea that the Dreadnought doesn't score. Have had a few personal things going on and I needed something to fight...a rules discussion on Dakka is my outlet I guess.

Unit1126PLL wrote:In fact, I could argue that they deliberately put the modifier there simply to EXCLUDE dreadnoughts from scoring...

That's the only functional reason for it.

If they wanted Dreads to be scoring, they could have saved words by simply writing that the units "become scoring." Instead, they spent more space and ink saying they hold objectives as if they were Troops. The only function of those additional words is to deny Dreads the ability to hold objectives. They're otherwise just useless extra text.

I"m not sure about that, Mann. I thought so to, but then I thought about how tournaments and missions word their mission objectives.

Only allowing models to score as if they are troops only helps in missions where troops score. So, a mission in which only, say, elites could score, or where all units score but troops score double, scoring as a troop is different.

More significantly, and frustratingly, is that Grand Strategy does not make any units "scoring units." A mission that had as a secondary objective "kill all enemy scoring units" may or may not include GK units that "can claim objectives as if they were troops."

Typing it out makes me realize that doing so actually creates far more problems than simply hoping the rules for scoring units don't change dramatically in 6th edition.

the more I think about it, the more frustratingly poorly written the rule becomes.

A walker with Grand Strategy Unyielding Anvil can score as if it's a troop choice...only it can't score because it's a vehicle.

That makes no sense.

Those arguing against Noughts scoring are looking to the rulebook to clarify a specific rule written in the GK codex. In the process of clarification, however, they are making it more murky, because they are in fact saying that a walker with unyielding anvil and that has just been classified as scoring cannot score.

This isn't a Deff Dred that has been made a troop choice in the FOC. This is an elite or heavy choice that can now score as if it were a troop choice. What benefit, other than scoring, does the dreadnought receive from Unyielding Anvil? Does it alter the FOC, allowing for an additional elite or heavy to be taken? No, it doesn't. It remains an elite or heavy choice, only with the added benefit of being able to score.

It doesn't make any sense to say "it can score like a vehicle troop," because typically vehicle troops cannot score. Let me ask you this...do monstrous creatures score? Do elites score? Do heavies score? No, they do not. Unyielding anvil removes the non-scoring restriction from these unit types, and allows them to score. So we bring in walkers...and the precedent set for the other MC's, Elites and Heavy's is that they can now score, where before they could not. So those of you arguing the negative find a statement in the rulebook saying that troop choice vehicles cannot score. However, the walker was not a troop choice. It was an elite or heavy choice which was made a scoring unit through the use of Grand Strategy. Does it not say somewhere in the rulebook that MC's, elites and heavy's cannot score...or that only troops can score?

Walkers cannot score, Monstrous Creatures cannot score, elites cannot score, heavy's cannot score. Activate Unyielding Anvil, and you are allowed D3 exceptions to this general rule...so now three MC's, elites, heavy's and/or walkers may now score. The "as if they were troops" should have just been left out...because only troops can score anyhow.

Whether or not it was poorly written, or whether or not a group of people purposefully try to find a way to contradict what is written is another issue which should be debated. A walker troop choice cannot score. A walker that can score as a troop CAN score...because it would make no sense to say a walker can now score as a vehicle troop...because vehicle troops don't score. Look at what Unyielding Anvil does: it allows units to score that couldn't previously. So who is arguing that MC's can't score? GK MC's with Unyielding Anvil can. Elites and Heavies cannot score...unless they are from the GK codex and have Unyielding Anvil. So who in the world is arguing that walkers can't score? GK ones with Unyielding Anvil can.

Specific trumps General. You are trying to add a third step, in which General undercuts Specific after Specific trumps General.

Shenra wrote:
Walkers cannot score, Monstrous Creatures cannot score, elites cannot score, heavy's cannot score.

Really? Where does it say this? Nothing stops MC's from being scoring. Tervigons taken as Troops are scoring units. Unlike a Dreadnought, where it is spelt out in black and white in the ruylebook that vehicles cannot score, in spite of being troops.

Shenra wrote:A walker with Grand Strategy Unyielding Anvil can score as if it's a troop choice...only it can't score because it's a vehicle.

That makes no sense.

No...you're reading it incorrectly. The following LIST of units can benefit from Grand Strategy (etc, etc, including walkers) - where Grand Strategy can be used for one of several things. Among that list of things is to score as if they were troops.

There's no need to break down a unit by unit application of the rule when one sentence can be inclusive of them all and consistent.

Shenra wrote:Specific trumps General.

Indeed it does. But it only trumps what it actually specifically refers to.

So the general rules (only Troops can score, only scoring units ) are indeed over-ridden by the more specific rule (Unyeilding Anvil allows non-Troops units to capture objectives).

However, the specific rule within the scoring rules (vehicles can never be scoring units) is not addressed by the Grey Knight codex at all... so the rule in question has no effect on it.

So GK Dreadnoughts can not capture objectives, because vehicles can never be scoring units, and Troops have to be scoring units in order to capture objectives, and so a rule that allows given units to capture as if they were Troops will have no effect on vehicles as it over-rides the one (...only troops...) but not the other (...vehicles can't...).


The whole 'Codex trumps rulebook' or 'Specific trumps general' debate is one of the most frequently misrepresented discussions on the internet. It doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore whichever rules you please. A specific rule in a codex only over-rides those rulebook rules that it specifically addresses.

In other words, it doesn't allow non-Troops units to become Scoring, it allows non-Troops units to act like they were Troops. In most cases that means, yes, they do become scoring. But Drednaughts, being vehicles, cannot score, whether or not they are or are acting like Troops.

Exactly.

Not quite. Vehicles can score as long as they are not troops and have some special rule allowing them to score.

So what if the interpretation of the rule wasn't that they have to follow all the rules for troops scoring, but as follows:

1. Only Troops score.
2. Your dreadnought is not a Troop choice so it can't score (and couldn't even if it was because vehicles can't score).
3. Grand Strategy makes you score just like Troops choices can without making you a Troops choice.

Please correct me if I missed any steps. I would really like to see this settled. I do see the other side of the argument and it's also quite clear, but I do feel it could be read either way.

Vehicles can only score if they have a special rule saying they score. Whether they're Troops or not doesn't really matter.

Units selected for Unyielding Anvil do not become Scoring. They hold objectives as if they were Troops.

So, whatever unit you select now can hold objectives as if it were a Troops unit. In the case of any non-vehicle, non-swarm unit, this means they can hold objectives. However, if you select a Swarm or a Vehicle, "hold objective as if it were Troops" means it still can't hold objectives, any more than a Death Company Dreadnought can.

Lukus83 wrote:Not quite. Vehicles can score as long as they are not troops and have some special rule allowing them to score.

So what if the interpretation of the rule wasn't that they have to follow all the rules for troops scoring, but as follows:

1. Only Troops score.
2. Your dreadnought is not a Troop choice so it can't score (and couldn't even if it was because vehicles can't score).
3. Grand Strategy makes you score just like Troops choices can without making you a Troops choice.

Please correct me if I missed any steps. I would really like to see this settled. I do see the other side of the argument and it's also quite clear, but I do feel it could be read either way.

You didn't miss any steps, you just seem to be missing the second part of step two:

Lukus83 wrote:vehicles can't score

There is nothing in the wording of the Unyielding Anvil rule which overrides this restriction, and therefore a dreadnought can't claim objectives in any circumstance yet seen in 40k.

I still don't think I'm getting it. I'm not doing this on purpose, but I can't seem to articulate what I'm trying to show.

Will try to give a page reference to show what I'm getting at.

Page 90: Scoring units

"An Army's scoring units are all the units that come from it's Troops allowance...There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of Troops does not count as scoring:

1. If it is a vehicle"

Right we don't have to go any further than that.

What I'm trying to show is that Troops vehicles cannot hold objectives/score unless a specific special rule allows them to. I guess both sides agree with this part.

The we move onto the next step. Unyielding Anvil allows D3 to claim objectives as if they were troops. The opposition argument is quite clear and I can see that it is definitely one way of reading the rule. My problem is that, as per my quote above, only Troops usually score in any given circumstance. Thus "as if they were Troops" could also be interpreted to mean they can claim objectives, just like Troops can because no-one else can hold objectives...or "they can claim objectives like a scoring unit". I guess it takes a little more imagination, but that was the way I read it when I first saw it.

I don't mind if I'm wrong and I will be playing the least advantageous method to myself in the future, but I still feel it could be read this way.

edited for grammar

I think you might be reading the rule by jumping ahead too much.

I think you're reading it to read "... may hold objectives as if a scoring unit." Since troops are scoring units and all that.

The problem is that not all scoring units are troops (Ravenwing and Sternguard w/ Pedro), and not all troops are scoring (deff dread, swarms, rhinos)

Now that makes sense to me. Thanks a lot Polonius.

The rulebook also says that Codex rules trump the BRB rules correct?

If the only problem is what is being written in the Codex is contradicting the BRB then the BRB yields to the Codex.

Even if they score "as if" a troops, the passive voice is on the "troop", and the subject (dreadnaught) becomes scoring. The RAW makes the dreadnaught a scoring unit, this rule contradicts the BRB, the BRB always concedes to Codex rules.

DaNewBoy wrote:The rulebook also says that Codex rules trump the BRB rules correct?

If the only problem is what is being written in the Codex is contradicting the BRB then the BRB yields to the Codex.

Even if they score "as if" a troops, the passive voice is on the "troop", and the subject (dreadnaught) becomes scoring. The RAW makes the dreadnaught a scoring unit, this rule contradicts the BRB, the BRB always concedes to Codex rules.

Way to not read the thread. First of all, it's specific>general, not Codex>BRB. Secondly, this only works if there's a conflict of rules, which there isn't. Thirdly, scoring like a troop does not mean it's scoring by default. The rule says that the Dreadnought (in this case) claims objectives as troops. Troop Dreadnoughts still do not score. The rule doesn't contradict the BRB at all, you make the Dreadnought score as if it was a troop choice. Vehicles never score, unless there's a special rule outright stating that it does.

Exactly.

There's not a conflict of rules.

One rule says: Vehicles may not claim objectives.

Another one says: [This unit] May claim objectives as if it were a troop.

One is address rules regarding vehicles scoring, and the other rules regarding troops scoring.

Compare this to the DA Ravenwing Land Speeders, which says that they "always operate as... scoring units"

That is an example of a specific rule overruling a general one. The general rule of "vehicles may not claim objectives" is countered by the specific rule of a vehicle saying it is a "scoring unit".

Also, Lukus, no where does it state that only Troops can ever score. As I stated (much) earlier in the thread, Matt Ward wrote the Space Marine codex, which gives an Elite choice the ability to score, and it doesn't throw in the extra clause of "as if it were a Troop".

No, you guys are misreading it.

You are saying that the dreadnought cannot score because it is a vehicle. This is true. Then the GK codex states that the four unit types may indeed score, as if they were troops. Obviously, this is saying that the four unit types may score as if they were "scoring troops," because no matter how badly you think Matt Ward writes, no one would think he would state that the four unit types could score as if they were non-scoring troops. That just doesn't make sense, but that;s exactly what you are arguing. You are claiming that the rules say that a walker scores like a non-scoring troop. What would the point in that be.
It seems like most of us agree that this is exactly how the rule is intended, but because of the wording some of you are claiming that it is not how the RAW is. However, I think that RAW will allow the walker to become a scoring unit, because you guys are using reverse logic, or unsequential logic, to justify your claim.
First, we are given four unit types which cannot score.
Next, we are allowed to designate D3 of those units as scoring. Note: it doesn't change the unit type to troop! It only allows them to score. So your argument that vehicle troops do not score is invalid, because the walker is not a vehicle TROOP...it is a vehicle elite or vehicle heavy. It simply scores as a SCORING troop, because it would make no sense to say it scores as a non-scoring troop.
So the invalidness of your argument seems to be in that you are saying that vehicle troops cannot score. The walker never becomes a troop. It simply gains the ability to score. Show me where the unit becomes a troop choice, and we can argue some more. But since the walker never becomes a troop, you cannot argue that vehicle troops do not score. The four units gain the ability to score...they do not become troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anvildude wrote:In other words, it doesn't allow non-Troops units to become Scoring, it allows non-Troops units to act like they were Troops. In most cases that means, yes, they do become scoring. But Drednaughts, being vehicles, cannot score, whether or not they are or are acting like Troops.

No, it allows non troop units to act like they were SCORING troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's no need to refer back to what the unit type is after unyielding anvil has been activated. It's weird how you guys are doing that. Unyielding anvil allows the four unit types to behave differently than they normally do, and then you guys state that how the units were before unyielding anvil activated affects the way it operates.The word scoring is what we should be focused on...not troop.

Analogy time.

In ohio, nobody with a felony conviction can buy a handgun.

In addition, to buy a handgun, you must be 21 years old.

If the state passed a law that said that college graduates can buy handguns, as if they were 21 years old, would a 20 year old felon with a degree be able to buy a guy?

No, because there is still a rule prohibiting it.

But in Ohio, anyone can get a gun if they look around lol

I want to know what 20-year-old with a felony has a college degree AND needs a handgun?

if the special rule was "counts as a scoring unit" (ex sternguard with cantor) a dread would count as a scoring unit as it has been given the special exemption.

as the rules is "counts as troops" there is an exemption in troops that vehicles can not score. so unless an exmeption to this rule is present dreads cant score.

its not counts as troops...it's scores as troops...and seeing how vehicle troops don't score, it makes no sense to say it scores as vehicle troops, because that's saying it doesn't score at all. Everyone saying that it scores as a vehicle troop is adding something that is not there. It scores as a scoring troop, just like the MC's, the heavies and elites. Just because there is a rule prohibiting troop vehicles from scoring doesn't mean that a walker given the ability to score is now a troop vehicle...it's still a heavy or elite...just with the ability to score now.

Shenra wrote:its not counts as troops...it's scores as troops...and seeing how vehicle troops don't score, it makes no sense to say it scores as vehicle troops, because that's saying it doesn't score at all. Everyone saying that it scores as a vehicle troop is adding something that is not there. It scores as a scoring troop, just like the MC's, the heavies and elites. Just because there is a rule prohibiting troop vehicles from scoring doesn't mean that a walker given the ability to score is now a troop vehicle...it's still a heavy or elite...just with the ability to score now.

Exactly, it's Matt's Ward's way of saying that dreadnoughts don't get to score under Unyielding Anvil.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Shenra wrote:its not counts as troops...it's scores as troops...and seeing how vehicle troops don't score, it makes no sense to say it scores as vehicle troops, because that's saying it doesn't score at all. Everyone saying that it scores as a vehicle troop is adding something that is not there. It scores as a scoring troop, just like the MC's, the heavies and elites. Just because there is a rule prohibiting troop vehicles from scoring doesn't mean that a walker given the ability to score is now a troop vehicle...it's still a heavy or elite...just with the ability to score now.

Exactly, it's Matt's Ward's way of saying that dreadnoughts don't get to score under Unyielding Anvil.

No, if he wanted to say that, he would just say that they now count as troops. In that case, it would be a vehicle troop, and not score, while the other three (heavies, MC's and elites) would score. But he said they SCORE as troops, which means the emphasis is on the ability to score, and not the "count as troops".

Shenra wrote:its not counts as troops...it's scores as troops...and seeing how vehicle troops don't score, it makes no sense to say it scores as vehicle troops, because that's saying it doesn't score at all. Everyone saying that it scores as a vehicle troop is adding something that is not there. It scores as a scoring troop, just like the MC's, the heavies and elites. Just because there is a rule prohibiting troop vehicles from scoring doesn't mean that a walker given the ability to score is now a troop vehicle...it's still a heavy or elite...just with the ability to score now.

Actually, it's not "scores as troops," it's "can hold objectives like troops".

A unit that holds objectives may not necessarily be scoring.

Shenra, you can't actually believe yourself can you? =p

Well, just got back from my FLGS, and a very interesting interpretation of the rule. According to (apparently) everyone at my FLGS, any Walker Troop choice (including Death Company Drednaughts and Big Mek Deffdreds) is scoring- because they're 'Walkers', not 'Vehicles', and apparently "Nowhere in the rulebook does it say that Walkers are Vehicles".

This is blatantly wrong, of course, but I though it was interesting.

People at your FLGS need to read a rulebook.

Or share their drugs.

-------

Shenra, Unyielding Anvil says nothing about scoring. This has been pointed out several times.

somerandomdude wrote:

Also, Lukus, no where does it state that only Troops can ever score. As I stated (much) earlier in the thread, Matt Ward wrote the Space Marine codex, which gives an Elite choice the ability to score, and it doesn't throw in the extra clause of "as if it were a Troop".

I already quoted the rulebook, page 90. But anyways, I am now finished in this thread. Good luck to everyone else.

Mannahnin wrote:People at your FLGS need to read a rulebook.

Or share their drugs.

-------

Shenra, Unyielding Anvil says nothing about scoring. This has been pointed out several times.

Hey, I'm gonna try and sway them, but if they aren't to be swayed, good for me! My army gets scoring Deffdredds!

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

DaNewBoy wrote:The rulebook also says that Codex rules trump the BRB rules correct?

If the only problem is what is being written in the Codex is contradicting the BRB then the BRB yields to the Codex.

Even if they score "as if" a troops, the passive voice is on the "troop", and the subject (dreadnaught) becomes scoring. The RAW makes the dreadnaught a scoring unit, this rule contradicts the BRB, the BRB always concedes to Codex rules.

Way to not read the thread. First of all, it's specific>general, not Codex>BRB. Secondly, this only works if there's a conflict of rules, which there isn't. Thirdly, scoring like a troop does not mean it's scoring by default. The rule says that the Dreadnought (in this case) claims objectives as troops. Troop Dreadnoughts still do not score. The rule doesn't contradict the BRB at all, you make the Dreadnought score as if it was a troop choice. Vehicles never score, unless there's a special rule outright stating that it does.

Sorry I didn't take the time to read 4 pages of bickering.

If it "holds an objective", how is that not scoring? Holding an objective at the end of the game means that you get the "score" for that objective, correct? Otherwise the language is wasted here because if it "Holds" an objective but doesn't actually "score" then how it is any different then it was before? What I mean is, what would the rule actually be changing?

First of all, your "Secondly" is completely dependent on your "Thirdly". Aside from this being a bass akwords way of presenting your argument, you are also assuming quite a bit. I think that "as a troop" is not in the relation of "as a troop choice". If it were then the rule in question would not need to mention "scoring" because of the shared knowledge of what troops are and are not scoring. Thus the distinction being made that it make "score as a troop". It does what? "Score". How? "As a troop". If it were simply made a troops choice, then the rules would say (as many do) "may be taken as a troops choice".

It would be even poorer writing to say "Is a troop" that it would be to say "scores as a troop."

Can I take 2 dreadnoughts, then, since I can make them the troops for my army? What if I roll a one?

It is much simpler to say "These units score as if they were troops," very clearly (unlike SOME GK rules) that the Dreadnoughts do not score and are not troops.

I still don't understand how if it "does not score" then how it "Holds" an objective "as a troop". Is there some special way a "troop holds" an objective in contrast to the rest of the fielded army. Cause the only way that comes to mind is that a troop scores. I know this is not ALWAYS true, however it is true that ONLY troops can score, again highlighting the difference and the need for the need to say "holds objective as a troop."

There are already rules to make Dreadnaughts 'Troops choice," in this language they are troops but not scoring. This rule highlights specifically that these "hold objective" like "troops." Which the troops choice wording ignores.

DaNewBoy wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

DaNewBoy wrote:The rulebook also says that Codex rules trump the BRB rules correct?

If the only problem is what is being written in the Codex is contradicting the BRB then the BRB yields to the Codex.

Even if they score "as if" a troops, the passive voice is on the "troop", and the subject (dreadnaught) becomes scoring. The RAW makes the dreadnaught a scoring unit, this rule contradicts the BRB, the BRB always concedes to Codex rules.

Way to not read the thread. First of all, it's specific>general, not Codex>BRB. Secondly, this only works if there's a conflict of rules, which there isn't. Thirdly, scoring like a troop does not mean it's scoring by default. The rule says that the Dreadnought (in this case) claims objectives as troops. Troop Dreadnoughts still do not score. The rule doesn't contradict the BRB at all, you make the Dreadnought score as if it was a troop choice. Vehicles never score, unless there's a special rule outright stating that it does.

Sorry I didn't take the time to read 4 pages of bickering.

If it "holds an objective", how is that not scoring? Holding an objective at the end of the game means that you get the "score" for that objective, correct? Otherwise the language is wasted here because if it "Holds" an objective but doesn't actually "score" then how it is any different then it was before? What I mean is, what would the rule actually be changing?

First of all, your "Secondly" is completely dependent on your "Thirdly". Aside from this being a bass akwords way of presenting your argument, you are also assuming quite a bit. I think that "as a troop" is not in the relation of "as a troop choice". If it were then the rule in question would not need to mention "scoring" because of the shared knowledge of what troops are and are not scoring. Thus the distinction being made that it make "score as a troop". It does what? "Score". How? "As a troop". If it were simply made a troops choice, then the rules would say (as many do) "may be taken as a troops choice".

My second point doesn't depend on my third at all. It refers to my first point, that it's specific>general and clarifies that this only works when there's an actual conflict. Besides, having a swing at someone for not being at the same skill level in a language as a native speaker is gereally frowned upon.

That said, you're still missing the point. The Dreadnought scores as a troop. How do troop Dreadnoughts score? Not at all, that's how. It doesn't matter if it's made a troops choice or not. It scores as troops, i.e. it follows all the rules for troops in regards to scoring. How can "as a troop" mean anything else than "as a troops choice"?

DaNewBoy wrote: I think that "as a troop" is not in the relation of "as a troop choice". If it were then the rule in question would not need to mention "scoring" because of the shared knowledge of what troops are and are not scoring. Thus the distinction being made that it make "score as a troop". It does what? "Score". How? "As a troop". If it were simply made a troops choice, then the rules would say (as many do) "may be taken as a troops choice".

Now I see how you read it. The problem with that interpretation is that you're not following all the rules for troops scoring. Vehicles and swarms that happen to be troops don't. Thus, if you're a vehicle that "claims objectives as troops", you effectively count as troops for the purpouse of holding objectives.

Again can someone explain how "holding" an objective works? From my understanding "holding" an objective at the end of the match counts as "scoring" the objective.

If it means only that the objective is "contested" and neither team can claim the score as no troops capable of scoring are close enough, then this rule doesn't actually "do" anything because nothing is changing.

If it means the former and to me the intuitive conclusion, then the dreadnaught for all intents and purposes is scoring.

It doesn't say that you "Hold an objective." It has a modifier on it, that you "Hold and objective as a troop." That modifier changes the meaning of the first part, to include in the rule the rules for how all troops hold objectives. And holding objectives like a troop doesn't always mean that you successfully hold that objective, namely if you're a vehicle (or swarm), which the Drednaught is.

The thing is, you need to look at a bigger picture. This rule can be used on any of the Grey Knights units, and so must be able to be applied properly to any of them- proper in this case apparently meaning that Drednaughts cannot score, while the others can. The easiest way (though not the best, obviously) to do this is to add a modifier to Unyielding Anvil that would allow all units effected by it, except Walkers, to hold objectives, because there aren't any more specific rules preventing them from doing that.

If the rule had said "Allows units effected by this rule to score" there wouldn't be any argument, and Walkers could score. "Allows units effected by this rule, except for Walkers, Swarms, and units with special rules saying they never count as Scoring units, are allowed to score."

The first, again, brooks no argument, but arguably makes the Grey Knights OP (ha!). The second is long and unwieldy, and probably wouldn't fit into the codex that well, though it, also, is very clear. However, "as if they were Troops," instead of taking up Codex space reprinting a rule, redirects your inquiries of "does it score?" to the BRB, where there is a rule that says Vehicles and Swarms cannot score if they are troops.

AS far as i know when the main rule book and the codex contradict each other, the codex over-rules the main rule book. So normally a Troops Walker couldnt hold objectives, like a Deffdread for instance, but in the GK Codex it includes Walkers as a unit type to be included by Grand Strategy. So IMO Dreadnoughts with Grand Strategy: Unyielding Anvil are scoring.

A Tactical Squad's empty Rhino is a Troop, because the Tactical Squad is a Troop. When you put the empty Rhino on an objective, how well does that Troop hold the objective?

The Dreadnought scores and hold objectives exactly as well as the Tactical Squad's empty Rhino does.

Drake118 wrote:AS far as i know when the main rule book and the codex contradict each other, the codex over-rules the main rule book. So normally a Troops Walker couldnt hold objectives, like a Deffdread for instance, but in the GK Codex it includes Walkers as a unit type to be included by Grand Strategy. So IMO Dreadnoughts with Grand Strategy: Unyielding Anvil are scoring.

And you're not the first to post this theory in the thread, let alone this page. For the umpteenth time: It ISN'T Codex>BRB it's specific>general, and it doesn't even apply here, as there's no conflict in the first place!

This rule if it is to be interpreted the way you, it still not actually "doing" anything. Nothing is being changed.

DaNewBoy wrote:This rule if it is to be interpreted the way you, it still not actually "doing" anything. Nothing is being changed.

Try reposting that message. I'm having a hard time deciphering what you mean, other than something being wrong with my interpretation?

What i dont get is why it lists jump infantry when there are not any in the codex.

Just for the record i say dreads can score

I think it's something about the whole 'specific>general:Codex>BRB, and about that not being relevant to the discussion?

My point is, the rule should serve a purpose. If the dread doesn't count as scoring, then the rule isn't actually changing anything and is an effect waste of ink and paper.

A dread is already not a scoring unit, and therefore it does not need a rule stating that it can "hold an objective as a troop," as some kind of cleverly confusing way of saying it doesn't actually hold objectives (which was the case before the rule as well).

It would be like making rule called "Dread swarm" and the rule states "All dreads fielded count as a scoring unit, unless they are a vehicle type unit."

Except, as has been repeated over and over, Grand Strategy has FOUR effects, only one of which does not benefit walkers.

The "as a Troop" part is totally meaningless and a useless waste of text UNLESS it is intended to exclude the dreadnoughts.

If they wanted the Dreadnoughts to score, Unyielding Anvil could have more easily just said that the selected units become scoring units.

I can't believe that people are arguing that "as a troop" = "is a troop" which it clearly isn't. In practical terms the GM has stuck a bit of cardboard on the front of a dread saying "this is a troops choice" when in reality it's still a dread underneath and doesn't in anyway shape or form become a troops vehicle, it becomes an elite/heavy support vehicle that scores as if it were a troops choice.

It doesn't score. It holds objectives as if it were a troop.

Troop Dreadnoughts (like the Death Company Dreadnought, and Ork Deth Dread taken in an army with a Big Mekk) don't hold objectives. The GK Dread, if selected for the Unyielding Anvil portion of Grand Strategy, holds objectives in exactly the same way at those two Dreads. That is, it doesn't.

It can still benefit from the other three effects of GS just fine.

I can't believe how badly people are at reading the actual rules. The amount of time the"can score" people have misquoted the Unyielding Anvil text under Grand Strategy is mindblowing.

Just putting my thoughts here as to why I believe that when following the rules GK Dreadnoughts do not score:

Step 1. Unyielding Anvil allows you to make a Dreadnought claim objectives as if it was troops (GK codex page 22).
Step 2. As it will claim objectives as if it is a troop we will have to look to see how this works on the field.
Step 3. We read rules in the rulebook
Step 4. The rules in the rulebook specify that a unit can be scoring if it is troops, except when it is a vehicle, swarm or has a special rule that says it can never score (rulebook page 90).
Step 5. As a Dreadnought is a vehicle this means that claiming objectives as if it was a troop choice means it can not be a scoring unit.

Now there are a lot of people that are claiming Dreadnought can score. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find an argument based on the actual rules (or quotes or page numbers for that matter). Many posts either misquote Unyielding Anvil to have scoring already in it or they are misusing the specific > general idea. So to clear that up:

- Unyielding Anvil specifies Infantry, Jump infantry, Monstrous Creatures and Walkers units can claim objectives as if they were troops. This does not automatically make those selections scoring units, they still need to abide by the rules for scoring units.
- There is no contradiction between the Unyielding Anvil entry in the Grey Knight codex and the Scoring units entry in the rulebook, as such there is no general vs specific issue.

Also something that keeps bothering me is that somehow there is an argument that if dreadnoughts can not score with this rule the entire rule is useless, completely negating that this rule also can make your paladins,purifiers,interceptors,purgators and dreadkights scoring. As well as that there are 3 more strategies that are perfectly useful for dreadnoughts.

fox40 wrote:What i dont get is why it lists jump infantry when there are not any in the codex.

Just for the record i say dreads can score

Wrong and wrong. Interceptors are Jump Infantry, GK Dreads don't score.

DutchSage wrote:

Just putting my thoughts here as to why I believe that when following the rules GK Dreadnoughts do not score:

Step 1. Unyielding Anvil allows you to make a Dreadnought claim objectives as if it was troops (GK codex page 22).
Step 2. As it will claim objectives as if it is a troop we will have to look to see how this works on the field.
Step 3. We read rules in the rulebook
Step 4. The rules in the rulebook specify that a unit can be scoring if it is troops, except when it is a vehicle, swarm or has a special rule that says it can never score (rulebook page 90).
Step 5. As a Dreadnought is a vehicle this means that claiming objectives as if it was a troop choice means it can not be a scoring unit.

Reading through this thread, I have went back and forth as to what I think on this issue. While I really feel that RAI, GS was intended to make dreads able to score; DutchSage makes a really good case as to why they can not score. I think that, until an FAQ is written on this subject, that dreads should not be able to hold an objective.

fox40 wrote:What i dont get is why it lists jump infantry when there are not any in the codex.

Just for the record i say dreads can score

Just for the record, I say that when I play against you, every weapon in my army is STR10 AP1 Ordinance.

That is...unless we're going to both agree to follow the rules presented to us in our respective codices?

Dreadnoughts as a general rule can't score. Troop dreadnoughts can't score. Dreadnoughts that score as if they were troops can't score. Grand Strategy doesn't give them permission to score. What makes you think they can?

Please, oh mighty lords of Dakka, save these GK RAW threads -- then cross reference the most adamant, flowchart-ridden posts when GW declines their entreaties with a simple Yes or a No, as has happened with the last few FAQs.

Dash disagrees with pretty much every use of Grand Strategy. New codex is bad! Grr!

Got it -- STR10 AP1. Take your toys and go home.

Well in the end of course when GW adds an errata or FAQ that says something different we will abide. But currently the rules are clear on how they work and there is no reason to play it differently. The only reason to play them as scoring is because you want them too, not because the rules say they can.

Similarly I want my warrior acolytes to have strength 10 AP 1 laspistols. According to your logic I should play them like that as even though nothing in the current rules justify doing that, but because I think it should of course GW will FAQ it in the future that they will. And when my opponent would object me not playing according to the rules he is the one that is at fault, because obviously GW intended it that way.

There is a reason RAW is the default. Especially in cases where there is no ambiguity in the written rules. What we have here is one group of players that argues the intention of the rule is different from what it says while the other group argues that the intention of the rule is what the rule says. Seeing as one side has no other argument than "because I think it should" the discussion mostly comes down to, "I will play it as scoring and if my opponent wants me to play by the rules he is a jerk". No amount of clarification why the rules say Dreadnoughts do not score will convince this group as they believe their view on what the intention is supersedes what the actual rules say.

I wouldn't say that... I think we've convinced a fair few with this thread, actually.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

fox40 wrote:What i dont get is why it lists jump infantry when there are not any in the codex.

Just for the record i say dreads can score

Wrong and wrong. Interceptors are Jump Infantry, GK Dreads don't score.

personally i say you are wrong. Under there unit type interceptors are infantry.
they dont follow the standard jump infantry rule of 12 inch moves, they just have wargear that allows them once per game they can jump, or are you going to a agree a dreadknight with pt is a jump infantry unit and not a monsterous creature.

As for the dread point. I understand why people say no, but the rule has no exclusion of the dread and it says as if a troop, not as if a troop walker. Troops score, troop walkers dont, the dread for grey knights is a heavy or elite walking that can claim objectives as if a troop( not as if a troop walker) the walker status does not transfer to the anvil rule, the anvil rule transfers the ability to the dread.

Lets be honest if ruled that dreads cant score all the player does is take more dreadknights. Do you wanna face scoring dreads or scoring dreadknights.

fox40 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

fox40 wrote:What i dont get is why it lists jump infantry when there are not any in the codex.

Just for the record i say dreads can score

Wrong and wrong. Interceptors are Jump Infantry, GK Dreads don't score.

personally i say you are wrong. Under there unit type interceptors are infantry.
they dont follow the standard jump infantry rule of 12 inch moves, they just have wargear that allows them once per game they can jump, or are you going to a agree a dreadknight with pt is a jump infantry unit and not a monsterous creature.

"Personal Teleporters: Units with Personal Teleporters are Jump Infantry." Took me 2 seconds to find after flipping the book open. Regarding the Dreadknight, it's jump infantry with a teleporter. Doesn't say that it ceases to be an MC.

fox40 wrote:
As for the dread point. I understand why people say no, but the rule has no exclusion of the dread and it says as if a troop, not as if a troop walker. Troops score, troop walkers dont, the dread for grey knights is a heavy or elite walking that can claim objectives as if a troop( not as if a troop walker) the walker status does not transfer to the anvil rule, the anvil rule transfers the ability to the dread.

"The nominated unit may claim objectives as if they were Troops." Tell me, if a walker is a troop, does it score?

It says as if they where troops, not troop, walker.
If somebody wants to argue the point in a game ill just replace the dreadnought with a dreadknight. Then no arguement.

fox40 wrote:It says as if they where troops, not troop, walker.

Of course it doesn't say 'troop, walker'... that wouldn't make much sense if th eunit in question was infantry.

Being Troops has no impact on the unit type, though. Infantry are Infantry, whether they come from Troops, Elites, Heavy Support, or whatever. Same with vehicles. So a vehicle that comes from a different section of the army list is still a vehicle if some rule allows it to count as Troops.

The rule doesn't say to ignore the fact that it is a vehicle. It just says to count it can capture an objective as if it were a Troop choice. A Troops choice vehicle is a vehicle... and so can not capture objectives. So a vehicle that is allowed by a rule to capture objectives as if it were a Troops choice can not capture objectives.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Just for the record, I say that when I play against you, every weapon in my army is STR10 AP1 Ordinance.

That is...unless we're going to both agree to follow the rules presented to us in our respective codices?

These are prime examples of why YMDC is unnecessarily hostile. You can an argument, albeit a weak one, that the rule reads that Dreads can score.

When you say they can hold objectives, "as if they were a troops choice," I agree with the majority that the most natural reading is that the Dreadnought has the qualities of a troops choice, for the purposes of holding objective. In this case, "as if" means "just like"

You could read the "as if" to mean, "in the manner of," which would mean the sentence reads "hold objectives the same way a troops choice does." Now, again, I think that you should interpret even that to mean that a dread wouldn't score, but I think at some point you can argue that it's just a poorly written way of saying "the damn thing can hold an objective."

While it's easy to get short tempered when people who clearly haven't followed the thread chime in, being hostile and hyperbolic doesn't solve much. If for no other reason, they're only likely to read responses to them, see an over the top and insulting reply, and decide that only TFG disagrees with them.

I agree with Polonius.

Since the thread has not managed to reach a conclusion in six pages and it is starting to get flamey, I shall lock it.