Yes, i know aircraft cant control markers. But aircraft can gain obsec. For example, necron aircraft with the custom dynasty eternal conquerors get obsec. The obsec rule says :

OBJECTIVE SECURED​
Some units have an ability called Objective Secured. A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker, even if there are more enemy models within range of that objective marker. If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has this ability (or a similar ability), then the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal.

The obsec rule says that i control an objective marker if i have any models with obsec in range of that objective marker. It doesnt say that the models have to be able to control objective markers. The ability obsec is what makes me control that marker, not the model(s).

ETERNAL CONQUERORS
Units with this code have the Objective Secured ability. If a model in such a unit already has this ability, that model counts as one additional model when determining control of an objective marker.

 p5freak wrote:
Yes, i know aircraft cant control markers. But aircraft can gain obsec. For example, necron aircraft with the custom dynasty eternal conquerors get obsec. The obsec rule says :

OBJECTIVE SECURED​
Some units have an ability called Objective Secured. A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker, even if there are more enemy models within range of that objective marker. If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has this ability (or a similar ability), then the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal.

The obsec rule says that i control an objective marker if i have any models with obsec in range of that objective marker. It doesnt say that the models have to be able to control objective markers. The ability obsec is what makes me control that marker, not the model(s).

ETERNAL CONQUERORS
Units with this code have the Objective Secured ability. If a model in such a unit already has this ability, that model counts as one additional model when determining control of an objective marker.

No Aircraft and Fortifications can never control an objective.

Objective marker: 40mm round marker
Model in range of objective marker if within 3" horizontally and 5" vertically.
Objective marker controlled by player with most models in range.
AIRCRAFT and Fortifications cannot control objective markers.

As that and Objective Secured are both in the rulebook, I'd assume they don't trump, so you're stuck with Aircraft unable to control the objective, but theoretically able to force the most models in the area - but you still can't count the aircraft.

You dont seem to understand that its not the aircraft that is controlling the marker. Its the ability objective secured which lets me control that objective marker. Its irrelevant that the aircraft cannot control objective markers.

Obsec merely gives you the ability to claim an objective regardless of whether there are greater number of enemy models around the said objective.

It doesn't give you the ability to hold an objective; proximity and lack of explicit exception is what enables a model to hold an objective.

 p5freak wrote:
The obsec rule says that i control an objective marker if i have any models with obsec in range of that objective marker. It doesnt say that the models have to be able to control objective markers. The ability obsec is what makes me control that marker, not the model(s).

Underlined is incorrect.

OBJECTIVE SECURED​
Some units have an ability called Objective Secured. A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker, even if there are more enemy models within range of that objective marker. If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has this ability (or a similar ability), then the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal.

Obsec is a rule that allows you to contest and claim an objective even if there are more enemies than your unit that is contesting it, and it is not a rule that gives a model/unit the ability to hold an objective.

Thats not what the obsec rule is saying. It says that i control the marker when a unit with the obsec ability is in range of that marker. It doesnt require a model which is able to hold that marker. Please cite the part in the obsec rule where it says that a model is needed to hold the marker.

This probably needs an FAQ.

The last paragraf under Objective markes states: Aircrafts and Fortifications are spesifically called that they cannot cotrol objective markers.

In the next paragraf on the same page it talks about objective secure. A player controlls an objective marker if they have any models with objective secure within range.

One could argue that objective secure is the genral rule and that calling out aircrafts and fortifications to not beeing able to hold them is the more spesific rule. You can also land on the other side of the coin with the same arguments, just flipping them around. (Coin, get it?) You can also argue that controlling with objective secure has to be read into contect of 'even if the enemy has more models then you' but that is very ambigius.

Anyway, send an email to GW, discuss it with your opponent or tournament organizer beforehand. Arguing it further here unless there is some information I have missed (like an FAQ) will probably lead nowhere. Hopefully GW will adress this at some point if we send them the emails.

Models control Objective markers.

Aircraft and Fortifications can never control an objective.

It is pretty clear when they say AIRCRAFT and Fortifications cannot control objective markers.

The rules for Objective Markers state "Aircraft units and units with the Fortification Battlefield Role can never control objective markers -- exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker."

I will also note that the sentence above is literally the last sentence before the Objective Secured rule in the rulebook.

So, it doesn't matter how you want to parse what Objective Secured says or doesn't say, Aircraft units can never control objective markers.

Pretty clear Aircraft can’t claim an objective, and a rule that says “I claim objectives better than your doods” means squat if you can’t control an objective with that Aircraft.

 alextroy wrote:


So, it doesn't matter how you want to parse what Objective Secured says or doesn't say, Aircraft units can never control objective markers.

Even moreso, it says

exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker

ObSec may not be worded to prevent an AIRCRAFT, but the objective rules do. The model has ObSec, the model is still excluded. I would say that also ruins the ObSec Aircraft puts you back on most models in range idea.

Look you are arguing back and forth just as I stated.

Interpretation 1. Aircrafts can't hold objectives. But objective secure is a spesific rule that overules this. (Not unjustefied.)

Interpretation 2. Aircrafts can't hold objectives. But objective secure. Does not overule this. (Not unjustefied.)

Both sides can be argued quite pasionetly. We need an FAQ:

 Niiai wrote:
Look you are arguing back and forth just as I stated.

Interpretation 1. Aircrafts can't hold objectives. But objective secure is a spesific rule that overules this. (Not unjustefied.)

Interpretation 2. Aircrafts can't hold objectives. But objective secure. Does not overule this. (Not unjustefied.)

Both sides can be argued quite pasionetly. We need an FAQ:

an FAQ really is not needed, as Interpretation 1 is not correct. there is nothing in the objective secured rule that over-rides the rule about AIRCRAFT and Objectives.

 p5freak wrote:
Thats not what the obsec rule is saying. It says that i control the marker when a unit with the obsec ability is in range of that marker. It doesnt require a model which is able to hold that marker. Please cite the part in the obsec rule where it says that a model is needed to hold the marker.

The rules for objective markers literally instructs the player to "exclude these units [i.e. AIRCRAFT and Fortifications] when determining which player controls an objective marker."

Obsec doesn't need to call out AIRCRAFT because you are simply not permitted to use them to determine which player holds the objective.

 Cheex wrote:


Obsec doesn't need to call out AIRCRAFT because you are simply not permitted to use them to determine which player holds the objective.

Exactly - to use the summary above -

Interpretation 1. Aircrafts can't hold objectives. But objective secure is a spesific rule that overules this. (Not unjustefied.)

Interpretation 2. Aircrafts can't hold objectives. But objective secure. Does not overule this.

Problem 1. Neither interpretation probably matters because you can't get to ObSec from the Aircraft because it's excluded.

Only valid interpretation because aircraft can never hold objectives

Aircraft can't hold the objective but is objective secured

Why this matters

In a situation in which the opposing player has an obsec unit on the objective having the aircraft there means that obsec is nullified and you go to number of models the aircraft doesn't count but a second friendly non obsec unit would

(If both players have an obsec unit you go to number of models not number of obsec models)

U02dah4 wrote:
Only valid interpretation because aircraft can never hold objectives

Aircraft can't hold the objective but is objective secured

Why this matters

In a situation in which the opposing player has an obsec unit on the objective having the aircraft there means that obsec is nullified and you go to number of models the aircraft doesn't count but a second friendly non obsec unit would

(If both players have an obsec unit you go to number of models not number of obsec models)

Even that doesn't work. The Aircraft model is excluded so you never get to it's ObSec.

It's excluded from control not obsec

U02dah4 wrote:
It's excluded from control not obsec

Except ObSec says

OBJECTIVE SECURED​
Some units have an ability called Objective Secured. A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker, even if there are more enemy models within range of that objective marker. If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has this ability (or a similar ability), then the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal.

Emphasis mine.

So it clearly is excluded from Ob Sec.

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It's excluded from control not obsec

Except ObSec says

OBJECTIVE SECURED​
Some units have an ability called Objective Secured. A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker, even if there are more enemy models within range of that objective marker. If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has this ability (or a similar ability), then the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal.

Emphasis mine.

So it clearly is excluded from Ob Sec.

Is the aircraft in range of that marker ? Yes. Is the aircraft any model ? Yes. Does the aircraft have obsec ? Yes. I control that marker.

Again, its not the aircraft that controls the marker (because its excluded), but its any model that is within range of that marker, and it has the obsec ability.

So even though the aircraft model cannot control it, you're claiming the aircraft model can control it?

The rule prohibiting aircraft from ever controlling an objective is far more specific.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So even though the aircraft model cannot control it, you're claiming the aircraft model can control it?

The rule prohibiting aircraft from ever controlling an objective is far more specific.

100% this.

p5freak, The aircraft model cannot control it, yet you are claiming the aircraft model can control it...

So maybe do not make false claims.

 p5freak wrote:
Again, its not the aircraft that controls the marker (because its excluded), but its any model that is within range of that marker, and it has the obsec ability.

This of course is 100% false because AIRCRAFT cannot control objective markers.

"Objective marker: 40mm round marker
Model in range of objective marker if within 3" horizontally and 5" vertically.
Objective marker controlled by player with most models in range.
AIRCRAFT and Fortifications cannot control objective markers."

Objective markers are controlled by player with most models in range, but AIRCRAFT cannot control objective markers. So you ignore AIRCRAFT since they cannot control objective markers.

Breton wrote:
Even moreso, it says

exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker

ObSec may not be worded to prevent an AIRCRAFT, but the objective rules do. The model has ObSec, the model is still excluded. I would say that also ruins the ObSec Aircraft puts you back on most models in range idea.

I was unconvinced until this was brought up, but it seems pretty cut-and-dry. Aircraft are literally not taken into consideration when determining who has what objective, so therefore they are incapable of using ObSec no matter whether they would have "counted" otherwise.

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It's excluded from control not obsec

Except ObSec says

OBJECTIVE SECURED​
Some units have an ability called Objective Secured. A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker, even if there are more enemy models within range of that objective marker. If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has this ability (or a similar ability), then the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal.

Emphasis mine.

So it clearly is excluded from Ob Sec.

Your emphasised quote is irrelevant. it is the rule that says the aircraft can't control objectives that means the part you emphasise is overridden. It doesn't however state the whole rule is overridden

The part you didn't emphasise still applies

"If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has this ability (or a similar ability), then the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal"

The only requirement for this clause is that an enemy in range has this ability so an aircraft with obsec would activate the clause as control is not a requirement

Just the aircraft wouldn't count as a model because it can't control an objective

If a melee model gets a +1 to shooting attacks, can they now shoot?
Aircraft cannot claim objectives. If they can claim better with ObSec, they still cannot claim.

Though, it does seem to read that an Obsec aircraft in range of an objective gives other friendly models Obsec:

A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker

It does not seem to imply that the models claiming the objective have to be the ones with ObSec. To claim it, they need a model to claim the objective, and an Obsec model control that claim. Maybe. Just to confuse things.

But, an aircraft model cannot be the model that claims the objective.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So even though the aircraft model cannot control it, you're claiming the aircraft model can control it?

The rule prohibiting aircraft from ever controlling an objective is far more specific.

I am not claiming that the aircraft is controlling the marker. I already agreed that the aircraft model is excluded when it comes to determine who has control of a marker. However, an aircraft is any model which has the obsec ability, and thats enough to make me control that marker, as per the obsec rule.

So the aircraft MODELcannot control, but you're saying the model...can...control?

There are no circumstances where the aircraft can be used to determine why controls the marker. It's completely excluded.

 p5freak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So even though the aircraft model cannot control it, you're claiming the aircraft model can control it?

The rule prohibiting aircraft from ever controlling an objective is far more specific.

I am not claiming that the aircraft is controlling the marker. I already agreed that the aircraft model is excluded when it comes to determine who has control of a marker. However, an aircraft is any model which has the obsec ability, and thats enough to make me control that marker, as per the obsec rule.

False, as AIRCRAFT cannot control objective markers.

An aircraft is any model which has the obsec ability, but AIRCRAFT cannot control objective markers, so it having the obsec ability means nothing.

If one rule says you can do something, and another rule says you can not do something, the only way to adhere to both rules is to not do that thing.

I am NOT saying the model controls the marker. I am saying the obsec ability lets me control the marker, which is exactly what the obsec rule says. There are two ways to control a marker. First is having models in range, excluding aircraft. Second is having any model with the obsec ability in range, not excluding aircraft.

This is just Pfreak bending himself into ever increasing pretzels because he can't accept he's ever slightly wrong.
When someone unironically uses the sentence "I'm not claiming the aircraft is controlling the marker... but the aircraft is controlling the marker" you know there is nothing left to argue.

 p5freak wrote:
I am NOT saying the model controls the marker. I am saying the obsec ability lets me control the marker, which is exactly what the obsec rule says. There are two ways to control a marker. First is having models in range, excluding aircraft. Second is having any model with the obsec ability in range, not excluding aircraft.

Except the ObSec ability is on a model you're explicitly told to ignore and exclude.

AIRCRAFT units and units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role can never control objective markers – exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker."

Edit: Lets try putting it another way. The ability is on the model. The model is ignored and excluded. The ability on the model is ignored and excluded.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
This is just Pfreak bending himself into ever increasing pretzels because he can't accept he's ever slightly wrong.
When someone unironically uses the sentence "I'm not claiming the aircraft is controlling the marker... but the aircraft is controlling the marker" you know there is nothing left to argue.

No, its you who doesnt understand that its not the aircraft that is controlling the marker. And i never said that the aircraft is controlling the marker.

If it isn't the aircraft controlling the objective what is?
The model of the aircraft?
Listen to yourself.

P5 freak except you are saying that. The ability requires the model to be there to control the objective. Yet the model csn NEVER under any circumstance control an objective. You've got a model controlling an objective despite that being explicitly disallowed.

 p5freak wrote:
I am NOT saying the model controls the marker. I am saying the obsec ability lets me control the marker, which is exactly what the obsec rule says. There are two ways to control a marker. First is having models in range, excluding aircraft. Second is having any model with the obsec ability in range, not excluding aircraft.

Emphasis mine, the underlined is 100% false because we know aircraft are excluded always.

Models are the only thing that are expressly allowed to control Objective markers.

The rules for Objective markers are clear, but your arguments ignore them.

"Objective marker: 40mm round marker
Model in range of objective marker if within 3" horizontally and 5" vertically. Objective marker controlled by player with most models in range. AIRCRAFT and Fortifications cannot control objective markers."

If it helps, I think this is what p5freak is saying:

He is not saying the model controls the marker.

Instead his point is linguistic.

He is saying that he, the PLAYER, is controlling the marker, and his argument is based on:

In the rules discussing objective secured, it states that the PLAYER controls the marker so long as a model with the objective secured ability is in range of it.

On this basis, his argument flows that the restriction preventing AIRCRAFT from controlling markers is irrelevant because it isn't the aircraft doing so on this occasion, it is the PLAYER.



I am not commenting on whether this position is right or wrong under RAW (it's obviously incorrect under RAI)--though I do suspect it is also incorrect under RAW.

But if this helps prevent people from arguing in circles, I hope it assists.

If the PLAYER controlled the marker, then the rule that says "AIRCRAFT and Fortifications cannot control objective markers." Would be meaningless, as players would control the markers.

This is of course false, because controlling a marker is dependent on who has the "most models in range."

 DeathReaper wrote:

This is of course false, because controlling a marker is dependent on who has the "most models in range."

Not true. You can have a trillion models on a marker, but if i have just a single model with obsec on that same marker, i (the player, not the model) control that marker.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

This is of course false, because controlling a marker is dependent on who has the "most models in range."

Not true. You can have a trillion models on a marker, but if i have just a single model with obsec on that same marker, i (the player, not the model) control that marker.

But it is true... It is the base rule.

Ob Sec just alters the base rule.

Either way "AIRCRAFT cannot control objective markers." so you do not count an AIRCRAFT at any time. To do so is breaking the rules.

P.S. I can see you are not arguing in good faith, so it seems we are done here.

This thread is quite something. Come on p5freak, give it a rest trying to prove that up = down.

sieGermans wrote:
If it helps, I think this is what p5freak is saying:

He is not saying the model controls the marker.

Instead his point is linguistic.

He is saying that he, the PLAYER, is controlling the marker, and his argument is based on:

In the rules discussing objective secured, it states that the PLAYER controls the marker so long as a model with the objective secured ability is in range of it.

On this basis, his argument flows that the restriction preventing AIRCRAFT from controlling markers is irrelevant because it isn't the aircraft doing so on this occasion, it is the PLAYER.



I am not commenting on whether this position is right or wrong under RAW (it's obviously incorrect under RAI)--though I do suspect it is also incorrect under RAW.

But if this helps prevent people from arguing in circles, I hope it assists.

Right, but the rules for objective markers specifically instruct us to "exclude" AIRCRAFT models when determining which player controls an objective.

So even if you are arguing on a linguistic basis, the player is not permitted to use AIRCRAFT to work out if they control an objective or not.

One aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that an ObSec Aircraft (regardless of if it can control an objective or not), can wipe out an opponents ObSec ability.

For example, imagine you have 10 warriors on an objective and an opponent uses an ability to remove their obsec, while at the same time moving a unit of 5 troops with obsec onto the objective. At this stage your opponent controls the objective. If the obsec Aircraft moves up within range of the objective marker, it then forces it back to model count of 10 warriors vs 5 troops, at which point the objective is yours again.

Wrong, Jake, due to “ exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker”. As you aren’t counting them it doesn’t matter what objective control ability they may or may not have conferred on them… you exclude them and thus their ability is excluded.

Aircraft simply cannot control Objectives or count towards them. It’s black and white. No stapling together of rules will make it happen, no matter how much p5 contorts themself.

 Cheex wrote:

sieGermans wrote:
If it helps, I think this is what p5freak is saying:

He is not saying the model controls the marker.

Instead his point is linguistic.

He is saying that he, the PLAYER, is controlling the marker, and his argument is based on:

In the rules discussing objective secured, it states that the PLAYER controls the marker so long as a model with the objective secured ability is in range of it.

On this basis, his argument flows that the restriction preventing AIRCRAFT from controlling markers is irrelevant because it isn't the aircraft doing so on this occasion, it is the PLAYER.



I am not commenting on whether this position is right or wrong under RAW (it's obviously incorrect under RAI)--though I do suspect it is also incorrect under RAW.

But if this helps prevent people from arguing in circles, I hope it assists.

Right, but the rules for objective markers specifically instruct us to "exclude" AIRCRAFT models when determining which player controls an objective.

So even if you are arguing on a linguistic basis, the player is not permitted to use AIRCRAFT to work out if they control an objective or not.

(Just an FYI, I am not advocating for this--I was just re-stating his position to provide clarity for the discussion.)

Kinda sounds like a corner case at best. You land an aircraft with Objective Secured.... it counts as zero models, but allows your superior numbers of other models to claim the objective back from your opponent with objec secured but with fewer models.

Maybe... But zero chance that the aircraft can otherwise count to claim the objective, it counts as zero models in any case. And a player is not a controlling interest in an objective, models are.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
Kinda sounds like a corner case at best. You land an aircraft with Objective Secured.... it counts as zero models, but allows your superior numbers of other models to claim the objective back from your opponent with objec secured but with fewer models.

Maybe... But zero chance that the aircraft can otherwise count to claim the objective, it counts as zero models in any case. And a player is not a controlling interest in an objective, models are.

As mentioned by me and others above, you exclude the Aircraft, it doesn’t count as zero. It is excluded, so your method doesn’t work. Aircraft just don’t come into objective control full stop.

I will use the relevant portions quoted below to try to help explain my interpretation of the necron aircraft vs obsec ability granted by Eternal Conquerors interaction.

The objective markers quote: " AIRCRAFT units and units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role can never control objective markers – exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker."

The objective secured quote:" Some units have an ability called Objective Secured.A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker, even if there are more enemy models within range of that objective marker."

The yellow text is just a general rule of aircraft and fortifications never being able to control and objective marker.

The red text in both quotes are the relevant portions to this argument.

you can see it never talks about a unit or model controlling the objective marker it specifically states a player controlling the objective marker. With this specific wording the Obsec quote says: "A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker" but the Objective marker quote says: "exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker."

So according to the rules present with the Necron Flyer having Obsec from Eternal Conquerors, yes your aircraft has OBSEC added to its abilities but, as broken down above, Obsec allows a PLAYER to control the objective and because the objective markers rules of excluding aircraft of being able to give PLAYERS control of an objective the OBSEC for the necron flyer would then be a useless ability and not be useable.

Interesting read. Obviously from reading the rules seems clear to me and even intention.

Can I ask you, would you ever argue this with your opponent or in a tournament bring this up?

This seems like if unclear email the tournament organiser before hand, because 99.9% of people will say no. If the tournament organiser said yes (you will hear 10 million screams of why didn't I know from most players) make sure make it clear to opponents before game, because it will be a mega surprise.

This game is about fun and being a mate and not being that "rules guy", and not to spring it on someone if was ruled in your favour, just suggesting.

An ob sec aircraft will not control an objective marker.

For the same reason an aircraft cannot control an objective marker, the rules prohibit aircraft from controlling objective markers.

Objective secured on an aircraft would cancel
objective secured for relevant models at that objective.

The comments that it is a player controlling the objective is completely ignoring all the use of "if they have any models...". So yes players control objectives but per the raw that control is based on models, and plainly written aircraft are ignored for this purposes. There is no other basis for controlling objectives in the rules other than through models.

blaktoof wrote:
An ob sec aircraft will not control an objective marker.

For the same reason an aircraft cannot control an objective marker, the rules prohibit aircraft from controlling objective markers.

Objective secured on an aircraft would cancel
objective secured for relevant models at that objective.

No it wouldn't for the same reason the Aircraft doesn't count in the first place. Aircraft models - and thus the abilities they have - are excluded from the ObSec portion of tonight's festivities.

The comments that it is a player controlling the objective is completely ignoring all the use of "if they have any models...". So yes players control objectives but per the raw that control is based on models, and plainly written aircraft are ignored for this purposes. There is no other basis for controlling objectives in the rules other than through models.

The player/model thing started with someone claiming they controlled the objective because of the wording on ObSec going around the model count. The rest of the quotes on player/model control is just pointing out the wording is such that the player controls - via models - and uses this language to keep scoring/obsec/Controlling Objectives in the same relation - i.e. The Player controls, the player scores,

It’s all some attempted rules-stapling-together that simply doesn’t work.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Wrong, Jake, due to “ exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker”. As you aren’t counting them it doesn’t matter what objective control ability they may or may not have conferred on them… you exclude them and thus their ability is excluded.

Aircraft simply cannot control Objectives or count towards them. It’s black and white. No stapling together of rules will make it happen, no matter how much p5 contorts themself.

I'm not counting the Aircraft for controlling the objective, so I don't understand your objection. I'm doing a plain reading the second sentence of Objective Secured that says "If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has this ability (or a similar ability), then the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal."

So in my example, the 5-man ObSec ability checks, is there an enemy model within range of this objective marker that also has ObSec (or similar ability)? The answer is yes, the Aircraft is within range of the objective marker and has the Objective Secured ability. As you would know, we then go onto "then the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal", which in this case we know that the aircraft doesn't count towards controlling the objective, but the 10 warriors would win out against the 5-man unit.

Except you are specifically told to exclude Aircraft.

Exactly. All the interpretations treating the aircraft as “zero models” but applying other rules aren’t valid, as they are still using the aircraft in some way. We’re told to exclude it, so exclude it. Those interpretations then fall apart.

Can either of you quote me the exact rules purposes that you exclude Aircraft and explain how it's relevant?

As you would know the core rule book says "Aircraft and Fortifications cannot control objective markers". However that isn't a catch all of "all rules purposes", nor does it give you permission to exclude Aircraft when considering abilities like Objective Secured.

Again, the 5-man ObSec unit, when checking if there is another ObSec unit within range of the objective, would find that yes, the Aircraft is in range of the objective, and that yes, it has the ObSec ability. So therefore need to go to model count (which the Aircraft *is* excluded from being included in that tally)

Just look up the definition of "Exclude"

Since the 40K rules do not define it, we need to use basic English to do so.

That's a disappointing response DeathReaper. We have a rule that excludes one specific thing. Checking if another unit in range has the same ability isn't that thing. But I think you understand that given your response, do you not?

JakeSiren wrote:
That's a disappointing response DeathReaper. We have a rule that excludes one specific thing. Checking if another unit in range has the same ability isn't that thing. But I think you understand that given your response, do you not?

Disappointing? Not sure why you would say that.

We have a rule that excludes one specific thing.

Why are you trying to include that one specific thing?

JakeSiren wrote:
Can either of you quote me the exact rules purposes that you exclude Aircraft and explain how it's relevant?

As you would know the core rule book says "Aircraft and Fortifications cannot control objective markers". However that isn't a catch all of "all rules purposes", nor does it give you permission to exclude Aircraft when considering abilities like Objective Secured.

Again, the 5-man ObSec unit, when checking if there is another ObSec unit within range of the objective, would find that yes, the Aircraft is in range of the objective, and that yes, it has the ObSec ability. So therefore need to go to model count (which the Aircraft *is* excluded from being included in that tally)

Yes.

“Exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker.”

As this has no limiters such as “except for” we follow plain English and ignore the model and all it’s rules. Plain English.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
That's a disappointing response DeathReaper. We have a rule that excludes one specific thing. Checking if another unit in range has the same ability isn't that thing. But I think you understand that given your response, do you not?

Disappointing? Not sure why you would say that.

We have a rule that excludes one specific thing.

Why are you trying to include that one specific thing?

Disappointing because you haven't explained how you came to your conclusion, and you still have not. It's obvious that you haven't explained what exclusion you think you are using and why it applies, is it not? I've addressed the exclusion that I believe is common knowledge, and addressed the fact that it has no bearing checking if another unit in range has the same ability. Yet you baselessly assert otherwise with no substance in your retort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Can either of you quote me the exact rules purposes that you exclude Aircraft and explain how it's relevant?

As you would know the core rule book says "Aircraft and Fortifications cannot control objective markers". However that isn't a catch all of "all rules purposes", nor does it give you permission to exclude Aircraft when considering abilities like Objective Secured.

Again, the 5-man ObSec unit, when checking if there is another ObSec unit within range of the objective, would find that yes, the Aircraft is in range of the objective, and that yes, it has the ObSec ability. So therefore need to go to model count (which the Aircraft *is* excluded from being included in that tally)

Yes.

“Exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker.”

As this has no limiters such as “except for” we follow plain English and ignore the model and all it’s rules. Plain English.

Yes.

ObSec is an ability that has additional conditions, and over rides the normal rules for determining which player controls an objective marker. An ObSec Aircraft in range of an ObSec unit interacts with that units ObSec rule, and not the Objective Markers rules, which it is excluded from. That's simple to understand, is it not?

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Can either of you quote me the exact rules purposes that you exclude Aircraft and explain how it's relevant?

As you would know the core rule book says "Aircraft and Fortifications cannot control objective markers". However that isn't a catch all of "all rules purposes", nor does it give you permission to exclude Aircraft when considering abilities like Objective Secured.

Again, the 5-man ObSec unit, when checking if there is another ObSec unit within range of the objective, would find that yes, the Aircraft is in range of the objective, and that yes, it has the ObSec ability. So therefore need to go to model count (which the Aircraft *is* excluded from being included in that tally)

Yes.

“Exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker.”

As this has no limiters such as “except for” we follow plain English and ignore the model and all it’s rules. Plain English.

Yes.

ObSec is an ability that has additional conditions, and over rides the normal rules for determining which player controls an objective marker. An ObSec Aircraft in range of an ObSec unit interacts with that units ObSec rule, and not the Objective Markers rules, which it is excluded from. That's simple to understand, is it not?

Are you using the Aricraft in any way to determine control of an objective? If so you're not excluding it "when determining which player controls an objective marker.”

That's it. That's all you need to determine. You don't need mental gymnastics over how it's not the model but the concept of ObSec that controls an objective.

JakeSiren wrote:
ObSec is an ability that has additional conditions, and over rides the normal rules for determining which player controls an objective marker. An ObSec Aircraft in range of an ObSec unit interacts with that units ObSec rule, and not the Objective Markers rules, which it is excluded from. That's simple to understand, is it not?

Except that you're told to "exclude these units [Aircraft units and units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role] when determining which player controls an objective marker". So let's look at Objective Secured again:

Some units have an ability called Objective Secured. A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker, even if there are more enemy models within range of that objective marker. If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has this ability (or a similar ability), then the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal.

Okay, so A player controls an objective marker if... that means these rules are telling us how to determine which player controls an objective marker. Hmm If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has that ability, lets check, well that 10 man unit doesn't have it, and I'm excluding that aircraft over there... Nope no enemy model within range of this objective marker has that ability, so the objective is mine.

I hope that clears it up for you, but I doubt it will.

There’s not actually any doubt here, just people trying to find unintended advantage. Luckily the wording of the rule precludes their extrapolation working, but it appears we’re at that point in the thread where blinkers go on and people bark the same thing til thread lock. Nothing new is being said.

If everyone wearing a hat gets a high five except Timmy, then Timmy puts on a hat, Timmy still doesn't get a high five.

Timmy is excluded from high fives with or without a hat.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
That's a disappointing response DeathReaper. We have a rule that excludes one specific thing. Checking if another unit in range has the same ability isn't that thing. But I think you understand that given your response, do you not?

Disappointing? Not sure why you would say that.

We have a rule that excludes one specific thing.

Why are you trying to include that one specific thing?

Disappointing because you haven't explained how you came to your conclusion, and you still have not.

I have though, it is in the definition of excluded. ("AIRCRAFT... cannot control objective markers." this is saying to exclude AIRCRAFT)

It's obvious that you haven't explained what exclusion you think you are using and why it applies, is it not? I've addressed the exclusion that I believe is common knowledge, and addressed the fact that it has no bearing checking if another unit in range has the same ability. Yet you baselessly assert otherwise with no substance in your retort.

We are specifically told to exclude Aircraft for control of Objectives.

Checking if another unit in range for control of the objective is against the rules if you are trying to check for an AIRCRAFT, as "AIRCRAFT... cannot control objective markers."

You can not check if AIRCRAFT are in range, because they "cannot control objective markers"

The Objective marker rules make it clear that Objective markers are controlled by player with most models in range, excluding AIRCRAFT. to try to use ObSec from an AIRCRAFT to control an Objective marker is expressly forbidden.

Objective marker: 40mm round marker
Model in range of objective marker if within 3" horizontally and 5" vertically.
Objective marker controlled by player with most models in range.
AIRCRAFT and Fortifications cannot control objective markers.

@Slipspace and M0ff3l,
This is a simple case of direct vs indirect. The aircraft is not directly determining which player controls an objective marker. It's directly interfering with an enemy unit's ObSec ability (which it's not excluded from doing) which in turn means the Aircraft indirectly affects who controls an objective maker.

Consider when an Aircraft is sitting on top of an objective marker directly interferes with an enemy's movement so it indirectly means they can't control an objective marker. This is exactly the same, the Aircraft directly interferes with an enemy's ability to do something, and in turn indirectly affects who controls the objective maker.

@deviantduck, thanks for the false equivalent. This is why we use the rules in a rules discussion.


@DeathReaper,

DeathReaper wrote:You can not check if AIRCRAFT are in range, because they "cannot control objective markers"

Being in range of something and being in control are two completely different concepts. You are not excluded from checking if an AIRCRAFT is within range of an objective. It would be unwise for a person to excluded more than has been expressly stated by the exclusion.

DeathReaper wrote:The Objective marker rules make it clear that Objective markers are controlled by player with most models in range, excluding AIRCRAFT. to try to use ObSec from an AIRCRAFT to control an Objective marker is expressly forbidden.

The Aircraft isn't trying to control the objective though. It's interfering with an enemy unit's ObSec ability, which it's not excluded from doing. I'll refer you to my response above to Slipspace and M0ff3l about direct vs indirect.

JakeSiren wrote:

@DeathReaper,

DeathReaper wrote:You can not check if AIRCRAFT are in range, because they "cannot control objective markers"

Being in range of something and being in control are two completely different concepts. You are not excluded from checking if an AIRCRAFT is within range of an objective. It would be unwise for a person to excluded more than has been expressly stated by the exclusion.

DeathReaper wrote:The Objective marker rules make it clear that Objective markers are controlled by player with most models in range, excluding AIRCRAFT. to try to use ObSec from an AIRCRAFT to control an Objective marker is expressly forbidden.

The Aircraft isn't trying to control the objective though. It's interfering with an enemy unit's ObSec ability, which it's not excluded from doing. I'll refer you to my response above to Slipspace and M0ff3l about direct vs indirect.

Being in range of something and being in control are two completely different concepts if they werent both talking about control of an objective. Aircraft ist trying to control the objective because you are trying to use ObSec from the AIRCRAFT to control the Objective, which can not be done.

Objective Secured is a rule used to determine who controls an objective. Aircraft are excluded when determining who controls an objective.

Objective Secured does not have a "second ability" to turn off ObSec on other units, its all part of the same rule used to determine who controls an objective, ergo Aircraft can not be counted for any part of it.

@DeathReaper and M0ff3l,
The Aicraft isn't determining who controls the objective though, and I'm not claiming it does.

As you would both know, Objective Secure is an ability that over rides the default way to determine who controls the objective. The rules for ObSec say that you determine who controls the objective either by method A (you control it regardless of number of enemy models), or, if a condition is met, by method B instead (number of models in range).

I don't believe the exclusion on "can't control an objective" is sufficient to invalidate the Aircraft from the ObSec condition check (is there an enemy unit with ObSec in range of the objective marker?)

When you check who controls which objective, yes or no, are you "determining which player controls an objective marker"?

Doesn't matter if the units in question have obsec or not, you are still determining which player controls an objective marker right?

AIRCRAFT units and units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role can never control objective markers – exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker.

Think of it like the shooting phase, you go through different steps. In this case checking if you have any obsec units is step one, checking if the opponent has any obsec units is step two, but because you are currently determining who controls an objective you are told to exclude aircraft.

I see what you are saying M0ff3l, however I disagree. To me ObSec is about determining which controlling method to use, which is distinct from the determination itself.

Objective Secured literally starts with: A player controls an objective marker if...

It's not about determining which method to use, its telling you how to determine who controls the objective.

 M0ff3l wrote:
Objective Secured literally starts with: A player controls an objective marker if...

It's not about determining which method to use, its telling you how to determine who controls the objective.

When we are told how to do something, that's a method. Which method do we use? Well that depends on if there is an enemy ObSec unit in range of an objective.

In the default rules, how do you determine which player controls an objective marker? Answer: "a player controls an objective maker while they have more models within range of it than their opponent does". So when we talk about Aircraft, and how they "exclude these units when determining which player controls and objective maker", that's precisely talking about which player has more models within range of the marker and excluding their Aircraft. Anything else is an incorrect extrapolation of the exception.

We use the method that excludes Aircraft, as that is what the Objective markers rules say to do.

 DeathReaper wrote:
We use the method that excludes Aircraft, as that is what the Objective markers rules say to do.

That's an odd way to agree with my second paragraph, but I'll take it.

You can't skip the first part of obsec to fit your narrative.

Yes if the second part was separate, maybe it would work with aircraft. However, the first part will always come first, you can't go to a rule and start halfway through. ObSec is a rule about determining who controls an objective, in such determinations you exclude aircraft, that means you exclude aircraft for all purposes within that rule.

Do we agree that the Aircraft has the ObSec ability in the first place, and that it can be in range of an Objective?

My point has nothing with how the Aircraft may utilise it's own instance of the ObSec ability, and is certainly not about starting half way though an ability.

Rather this is fully about how the other ObSec unit utilises their ability. When that unit uses their ObSec ability there is a check, is there an enemy unit within range of an Objective that has the ObSec ability? I contend that yes, an Aircraft with ObSec in range of an objective fulfills these conditions, and as of such the objective marker is controlled by the player who has the most models within range of that objective marker as normal. The exclusion only exists for the model count, and no for any other rules purposes.

I know exactly what you are trying to say. I'm just trying to tell you that ObSec is a rule to determine who controls an objective, you go through some steps (first check if you have obsec near an objective, then check if any enemy models have obsec near that objective etc.) However you are told to exclude aircraft when determining who controls an objective.

And yeah, there is an aircraft with obsec in range of that objective, that doesn't stop it from being excluded when determining who controls an objective. The exclusion is not just model count, it's to be excluded "when determining who controls an objective".

If you are taking the aircraft into account while you are determining who controls an objective (which you are doing by saying it hinders a different units obsec), you are breaking this rule.

Let me use a simple metaphor:

You are told to select what type of cake to order. You are told to exclude lactose intollorant people.

You have to check if anyone has a peanut allergy, if so you can't order a peanut butter cake. Timmy is lactose intollorant and has a peanut allergy.

Do you ask Timmy about his peanut allergy?

I think we fundamentally disagree with what the exclusion does and doesn't actually include or influence. I provided my reasoning on why I believe it to be for model count purposes, and you have provided your reasoning for why it's more than that. The rule outcomes vary as a result of this difference. Yet I think neither of us are convinced of the others reasoning. I'm happy to leave it here as I feel further discussion will likely rehash the same points.

Sure. I wish you luck trying to argue this if it ever comes up in a game.

Yep, I disagree with Jake as well
It is absolutely in range, but you cannot use the aircraft to determine who controls an objective. Period. The objective secured rule is a rule that determines who controls an objective. You cannot use this rule.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
We use the method that excludes Aircraft, as that is what the Objective markers rules say to do.

That's an odd way to agree with my second paragraph, but I'll take it.

If you thought I agreed, you did not understand what I wrote.

As Nos said, The Aircraft with ObSec is in range, but you cannot use Aircraft to determine who controls an objective. Ob Sec lets you determine who controls an objective. So Ob Sec from an Aircraft can not be used.

JakeSiren wrote:


ObSec is an ability that has additional conditions, and over rides the normal rules for determining which player controls an objective marker. An ObSec Aircraft in range of an ObSec unit interacts with that units ObSec rule, and not the Objective Markers rules, which it is excluded from. That's simple to understand, is it not?

The abilities on an excluded model are excluded.

AIRCRAFT units and units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role can never control objective markers – exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker.

It doesn't say skip counting the model, it says exclude it from determining control - so you exclude it from everything related to determining control up to and including its abilities - like Objective Secured.

So under the rules of this forum.
"Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule"."

That said if in the objective markers rules it states to exclude aircraft in cotrol of objectives and in objective secured it gives the unit, the aircraft in question, the ability to take control of objectives and as you cannot be in conflict with any of these rules, thus the aircraft would not be allowed to contest objective control with the ability objective secured.

I was going to leave this, but seeing as there are so many passionate posters, I feel it's only fair to reciprocate the effort that everyone has made.

@M0ff3l,
Not too much of a risk of that. Chaos Daemons aren't know for their aircraft.

@nosferatu1001,
If you re-read my comments, I am not using the aircraft to determine who controls the objective (To quote myself from above: how do you determine which player controls an objective marker? Answer: "a player controls an objective maker while they have more models within range of it than their opponent does"). The condition on the ObSec rule (range + enemy unit with ObSec) is not a part of determining who controls the objective.

@DeathReaper,
To be honest, your response ignored the context of what I had written, and was in essence, not actually objecting to anything. I responded in kind. Maybe rather than trying for witty one liners, you explain yourself and provide reasoning. Not just for the person you are conversing with, but for anyone else who is reading the thread.

@Breton,
If you read later in the thread, you can see where I addressed this very concern to M0ff3l. The exclusion only applies to what is outlined as "determining control" in the "objective makers" header, which is 100% model count. *That* is what the Aircraft is excluded from. Anything else is an incorrect extrapolation.

@FunkAztec,
I'm not even suggesting the Aircraft is controlling the objective. I'm saying that if you have an ObSec unit on an Objective, and an enemy Aircraft with ObSec comes up to the objective, then when you check your ObSec unit, that fulfills the condition on their ObSec ability of "If an enemy model within range of an objective marker also has this ability (or similar ability)".

JakeSiren wrote:


@Breton,
If you read later in the thread, you can see where I addressed this very concern to M0ff3l. The exclusion only applies to what is outlined as "determining control" in the "objective makers" header, which is 100% model count. *That* is what the Aircraft is excluded from. Anything else is an incorrect extrapolation.

AIRCRAFT units and units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role can never control objective markers – exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker.

A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability

Sounds to me like Objective Secured is part of "Determining Control" The Model is excluded, the ability is excluded.

Breton, this is basically the same argument that M0ff3l put forwards. I'ld rather not repeat the whole thread again. I'm sure other readers can make up their mind without recycling the same discussion.

In short, I find the argument unconvincing as you are not reading the exclusion in context. Maybe include the rest of the paragraph where it talks about how controlling an objective is based on model count - this is what Aircraft are excluded from participating in. Extrapolating it for other rules purposes is incorrect. There are many other situations where an Aircraft indirectly influences who controls an objective (think shooting, movement blocking, etc), yet I doubt you would try to apply this exclusion to those situations because it's absurd. An ObSec Aircraft forcing an ObSec unit to go back to model count for determining who controls an Objective is just another indirect way that the Aircraft can influence who controls an objective.

Unless you can present something that hasn't yet been discussed by others, I don't see the benefit in rehashing this any further.

JakeSiren wrote:
Breton, this is basically the same argument that M0ff3l put forwards. I'ld rather not repeat the whole thread again. I'm sure other readers can make up their mind without recycling the same discussion.

In short, I find the argument unconvincing as you are not reading the exclusion in context. Maybe include the rest of the paragraph where it talks about how controlling an objective is based on model count - this is what Aircraft are excluded from participating in. Extrapolating it for other rules purposes is incorrect. There are many other situations where an Aircraft indirectly influences who controls an objective (think shooting, movement blocking, etc), yet I doubt you would try to apply this exclusion to those situations because it's absurd. An ObSec Aircraft forcing an ObSec unit to go back to model count for determining who controls an Objective is just another indirect way that the Aircraft can influence who controls an objective.

Unless you can present something that hasn't yet been discussed by others, I don't see the benefit in rehashing this any further.

Which is why you're... rehashing it?

Its pretty simple. Aircraft are excluded. There's more to "determining control" than counting despite your unsubstantiated claim. That's the whole thrust of the premise Objective Secured doesn't require a model count if its just the aircraft. Objective Secured and count (or modified count with some abilities) within distance, and Battlefield Role all apply. And no ObSec is not indirect. Its direct.

Breton wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Breton, this is basically the same argument that M0ff3l put forwards. I'ld rather not repeat the whole thread again. I'm sure other readers can make up their mind without recycling the same discussion.

In short, I find the argument unconvincing as you are not reading the exclusion in context. Maybe include the rest of the paragraph where it talks about how controlling an objective is based on model count - this is what Aircraft are excluded from participating in. Extrapolating it for other rules purposes is incorrect. There are many other situations where an Aircraft indirectly influences who controls an objective (think shooting, movement blocking, etc), yet I doubt you would try to apply this exclusion to those situations because it's absurd. An ObSec Aircraft forcing an ObSec unit to go back to model count for determining who controls an Objective is just another indirect way that the Aircraft can influence who controls an objective.

Unless you can present something that hasn't yet been discussed by others, I don't see the benefit in rehashing this any further.

Which is why you're... rehashing it?

Its pretty simple. Aircraft are excluded. There's more to "determining control" than counting despite your unsubstantiated claim. That's the whole thrust of the premise Objective Secured doesn't require a model count if its just the aircraft. Objective Secured and count (or modified count with some abilities) within distance, and Battlefield Role all apply. And no ObSec is not indirect. Its direct.

I was stating my reasoning in brief for your convenience as I presumed you didn't read the whole thread (notice how I used the word further). Otherwise I don't understand why you would have put forwards the same argument that has already been discussed and remains unconvincing.

JakeSiren wrote:
I was stating my reasoning in brief for your convenience as I presumed you didn't read the whole thread (notice how I used the word further). Otherwise I don't understand why you would have put forwards the same argument that has already been discussed and remains unconvincing.

It seems convincing to a lot of people

Objective Secured wrote:A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker

Objective Markers wrote: AIRCRAFT units and units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role can never control objective markers – exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker.

Objective Secured is part of determining control, and aircraft are excluded from determining control. It doesn't say ignore these models when counting like you claimed. It says when determining. You exclude the unit, you exclude the ability.

JakeSiren, the argument seems only to be unconvincing to you. Notice the number of people disagreeing with you? That’s called consensus. ;-)

@Breton,
It sure does seem convincing for them. I still disagree for the reasons explored earlier in the thread.

@JohnnyHell
It appears that way. Others haven't found my argument persuasive. Therefore, there's no real need for further discussion.

@jakesiren it's not that your argument isn't persuasive it's that both arguments are equally persuasive there is nothing RAW or RAI to seperate them. There is nothing provable either way.

As a general rule HIWPI if you explicitly decided to mix aircraft and obsec be sporting and take the interpretation that disadvantages you so you don't accidently cheat your opponent

While at an event get a TO ruling before the event

Ob sec aircraft cannot control an objective.



The argument that they can would be similar to arguing that if an aircraft which is excluded from being able to declare a charge had a rule that gave it +1 to hit when charging could now charge because of that rule. It cannot.

Aircraft bare RAW excluded from determining control of an objective, if they gain objective secured it doesn't change that.

If a model is effected by a rule that does not allow it to do something, it would need a other rule to explicitly say it can in regards to the normal denial, objective secured does not do that.

The other argument is that the aircraft isn't controling the objective the obsec rule is therefore the aircraft exclusion doesn't apply.

Both are valid interpretation based on whether
you view obsec as a substrata of objective control as in your example or a seperate rule that creates additional forms of objective control more akin to the pistol rule letting a unit fire in combat when by default it cannot

You cannot disprove his interpretation

He cannot disprove your interpretation

Restating the interpretations adds nothing

With the third valid alternative being the halfway house of obsec on the aircraft disables another units obsec but the aircraft itself counts as zero models and cannot be the only model on an objective and hold it

15 days later I quote myself.

 Niiai wrote:
This probably needs an FAQ.

U02dah4 wrote:
The other argument is that the aircraft isn't controling the objective the obsec rule is therefore the aircraft exclusion doesn't apply.

Both are valid interpretation based on whether
you view obsec as a substrata of objective control as in your example or a seperate rule that creates additional forms of objective control more akin to the pistol rule letting a unit fire in combat when by default it cannot

You cannot disprove his interpretation

He cannot disprove your interpretation

Restating the interpretations adds nothing

With the third valid alternative being the halfway house of obsec on the aircraft disables another units obsec but the aircraft itself counts as zero models and cannot be the only model on an objective and hold it

It has already been disproven by the same rules they qouted.

Ob sec refers to the model controlling objectives, not the rule in some vacuum not being tied to the model.

Aircraft as a model are ignored for controlling objectives.

Nothing in ob sec explicitly says "units that cannot control objectives or are excluded from controlling objectives may control objectives now if x" or anything like that.

Ob sec does not make aircraft able to control objectives.

I'm not sure you understand what proof means

I'm not sure you understand what proof means.

If you had proven it would be incontrovertible and we would all agree multi people don't therefore you haven't proved it.

Asserting that you have isn't a proof.

My position is you can't prove it as the argument are based on opposing premises that cannot be proven. you say there connected he says there not and no rules quote says either way.

If you can't prove your premise you can't prove your argument. Proving the rest of your argument matters not a jot unless you can prove that foundational premise and you cannot it is a matter of interpretation

Blaktoof, repeating the same talking points ad infinitum does nothing to progress either side of the discussion.

If you pay attention, the difference in interpretation is based on how the words are to be understood, and the reasoning behind that understanding. Repeating "but it says it's excluded" without understanding and responding to the other point of view gets you nowhere, and fundamentally ignores the point of contention.

I've previously stated that I find the argument to extend the exclusion beyond model count unconvincing and you haven't provided anything new. U02dah4 has provided a nice breakdown of where the discussion is at.

The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. I still haven't seen you fellas show any rule that counters the exclusion portion of aircraft holding objectives.

However, this thread is very reminiscent to everyday 7th edition life here on Dakka and it's bringing me great nostalgia and joy.

I see we have reached the “I’m right, your wrong” portion of this debate. How about we let this tread die a nice death?

Indeed this thread died a while ago...

but as a fool trying to teach people what proof is so it doesn't cloud future cases.

The burden of proof is on both sides of the debate claiming RAW and unless you can acknowledge your opponent's assumption and then disprove that assumption without referring to your own you won't prove anything. All you do create is a circular argument of I'm right because I'm right. if aircraft overrule obsec then it cant hold an objective vs if obsec overule aircraft then it doesn't matter that their aircraft and it can.

Proof also comes in the form of explicit rules quotes. Fact as quoted not opinion

In this case if your saying obsec doesn't grant control of an objective you need to prove it doesn't with a rules quote not referencing that aircraft can't control objectives. Because that clause is not relevant to the position your opponents are arguing. So you have to prove obsec cannot hold the objective irrespective of whether the unit it is on could normally hold the objective.

If your arguing obsec does grant control of an objective you need to prove with a rules quote that granting control of the objective from obsec is not overridden by the aircraft not being able to control your objective.

Those quotes do not exist

Anything that is not quotes to those explicit points is not relevant!!!


phrases like I think (only acknowledging own argument and not evidence just opinion)... I still havn't seen anything that counters my position so I'm right (Ignoring the opposing argument and your interpretation which is opinion not evidence)... I have proven (with no quote and no evidence countering the opposing argument - just a waste of text space).... Aircraft cannot control an objective (restating own case)... obsec can control an objective separate from the aircraft (restating own case)... are all not relevant to a proof so please don't include any just the relevant quotes no explanation needed.

If you can't or post anything else this will be taken as proof that you are

1) Unable to prove your case
2) Unable to understand what proof is
3) Should not be contributing to a rules forum due to tunnel vision and not honestly trying to address the issue
4) Are either a troll/or to foolish to understand where you are going wrong

So I eagerly await your quotes with baited breath...

The rules state that aircraft are excluded when determining models that control objectives.

Objective secured has no wording that explicitly grants permission for aircraft do so.

A written rule prevents an unit from counting for controlling objectives.

The other rule modifies how units that can control objectives do so, but does not grant the ability for things to control objectives in of itself, nor any permission for things that are excluded for determining control of objectives to do so should they have that rule.

One rule specifically says they can't, the other being quoted does not specifically say they can.

So one rule proves they can't explicitly, and one rule lacks any explicit proof to change that.

Requiring that the explicit aircraft rule have a comment about objective secured makes little sense. It would be like requiring space wolves chapter bonus to comment on aircraft not being able to charge for the bonus hits in assault phase, or for the aircraft rules to make a doublely are redundant statement that they cannot charge and therefore cannot get multiple hits on 6s when charging. The rulebook would be 40k pages long if every rule had to doublely redundant comment on all the rules they cannot benefit from, and then when some rule modifies the rule they are excluded from state that rule and they still cannot use the rule they are excluded from just because they have some other rule that would modify the excluded rule if they were not excluded from using it.

JUST A REMINDER FROM OUR FIRST CONTENDER BLAKTOOFS SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT WHAT HE NEEDS TO PROVE TO WIN THE CHALLENGE

"If your saying obsec doesn't grant control of an objective you need to prove it doesn't with a rules quote not referencing that aircraft can't control objectives. Because that clause is not relevant to the position your opponents are arguing. So you have to prove obsec cannot hold the objective irrespective of whether the unit it is on could normally hold the objective."

"If you can't or post anything else this will be taken as proof that you are

1) Unable to prove your case
2) Unable to understand what proof is
3) Should not be contributing to a rules forum due to tunnel vision and not honestly trying to address the issue
4) Are either a troll/or to foolish to understand where you are going wrong"



AND WE HAVE A 1ST LOSER 1,2,3 and 4 WELL DONE BLAKTOOF! SOMEONE HAD TO FAIL FIRST AND YOU STEPPED RIGHT UP

This is a QUOTE

"A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker,"

Note the quotation mark before and after

and the exact rules text in the middle copied and pasted

Funnily enough this quote direct from OBSEC does in fact directly state aircraft can because aircraft are models.

Disproving your statement at the second line and every line that follows.

That is what a RAW quote does.

Why don't you try again maybe you won't lose quite so hard! And maybe you wont be mocked mercilessly for a second fail. I'll even help you by showing you exactly where you went wrong and what you need to complete your proof.



SO LETS BREAK THIS DOWN

"if your saying obsec doesn't grant control of an objective you need to prove it doesn't with a rules quote" not referencing that aircraft can't control objectives.

YES YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE A QUOTE. A ROOKIE MISTAKE, FALLING FLAT AT THE FIRST HURDLE, COMPLETELY EMBARASSING, AND WORSE YOU REFERENCED AIRCRAFT NOT CONTROLLING OBJECTIVES AS JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR ANSWER AN AUTO HARD LOSS AS IT DOESN'T ADDRESS YOUR OPPONENTS ALTERNATE ASSUMPTION AND SO CAN BE DISMISSED INSTANTLY BECAUSE ANYONE SAYING OBSEC OVERULES THE AIRCRAFT RULE WILL POINT TO THAT QUOTATION OF MINE "A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker," AS ALL THE PROOF THEY NEED

so "you have to prove obsec cannot hold the objective irrespective of whether the unit it is on could normally hold the objective."

I WILL EVEN AWARD SOME BONUS FAIL POINTS FOR "So one rule proves they can't explicitly, and one rule lacks any explicit proof to change that." FOR THE MISSUSE OF THE WORD PROOF REPEATEDLY WHEN YOU MEAN STATES - TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
So your final point should be "So one rule STATES they can't explicitly, and the THE OTHER RULE EXPLICITLY STATES THE OPPOSITE AS DIRECTLY QUOTED". Which nicely sums up the problem with your proof.



SO COME ON WHO CAN DO IT, WHO CAN BE THE NEXT TO LOSE BY NOT PROVIDEING A QUOTE AND NOT ADDRESSING THEIR OPPONENTS ARGUMENTS.

blaktoof wrote:
It would be like requiring space wolves chapter bonus to comment on aircraft not being able to charge for the bonus hits in assault phase, or for the aircraft rules to make a doublely are redundant statement that they cannot charge and therefore cannot get multiple hits on 6s when charging.

I realise I can't add anything further to the core discussion at this stage (the rules and reasoning have all been laid out plain by both sides), but I find this part funny.

Blaktoof, if you are going to try and draw parallels, at least get them right. Space Wolves don't get multiple hits on 6's when charging. Their chapter tactic is +1 to hit if they charge, were charged, or performed a heroic intervention. In addition units with the tactic are eligible to perform heroic interventions as if they were characters (Pg:94 Codex: Space Marines). The exploding 6's comes from their detachment ability "Savage Fury" (Pg:45 Codex Supplement: Space Wolves) which activates during the Assault Doctrine.

The full irony is that Aircraft actually get the +1 to hit in combat when charged, and if the assault doctrine is active, get the exploding 6's.

You should qoute what comes after the comma for objective secured. It says more and references that it modifies the normal control.

As you have quoted it incompletely whoever had the current turn with objective secured models would control an objective, as you have left out all the content and context of the rule by quoting only part of a sentence-

"A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker,"

Literally the incomplete sentence you are quoting would allow for a single objective secured model to control an objective without any other circumstances if it were the entirety body the rule.

Also I didn't call out the +1 to hit, and I didn't state chapter tactics. I called out the space wolf bonus when they get bonus hits on 6s. If you would like to actually comment on the rule being discussed be my guest but calling out rules not quoted to discuss someone's quote is akin to saying a model that is excluded for controlling an objective can control objectives when it gains some other rule that modifies how models control objectives count but doesn't itself grant the ability to be included when determining which models control objectives.

blaktoof wrote:
You should qoute what comes after the comma for objective secured. It says models.

Also I didn't call out the +1 to hit, and I didn't state chapter tactics. I called out the space wolf bonus when they get bonus hits on 6s. If you would like to actually comment on the rule being discussed be my guest but calling out rules not quoted to discuss someone's quote is akin to saying a model that is excluded for controlling an objective can control objectives when it gains some other rule that modifies how models control objectives count but doesn't itself grant the ability to be included when determining which models control objectives.

So your complaint is that I called you out on incorrectly stating rules and providing the correct information so that you can be better informed?

You will find that saying "Space Wolf Bonus" is vague, and potentially covers a number of rules. For example, shock assault could be considered a Space Wolf bonus - my Chaos Daemon's don't get the bonus, but my Space Wolves do. More importantly, if you look at the wording, you will find that the big difference between the Savage Fury and Objective Secured is that Savage Fury uses the style of "When X happens do Y". Objective Secured isn't written like that at all. Therefore you can not conclude anything based on the irrelevant rule you brought up.

Note: It appears that you are still editing what you actually want to say. I find the Preview button to be useful for that and leave editing limited to spelling / grammar mistakes. It makes it easier for other posters to understand your well thought out argument, and prevents someone replying to an older version of your comment.

My complaint is that your statement is not about my point, and didn't even directly comment on what I am bringing up.

You are claiming that a rule that modifies another rule will grant permission to use the rule it is modifying regardless of any other restrictions or exclusions. An example of any unit which is excluded from charging gaining a rule that modifies what happens when it charges is a comparison in that your argument would then suppose said unit may now ignore the exclusion to charging because it has a rule modifying what happens when it charges.

Much like the false claim that a model that is excluded from controlling an objective gaining a rule that modifies how it could control an objective (ob sec) would gain ob sec.

Gaining a rule that lets you modify how a rule behaves does not by default grant that rule to a model that explicitly cannot use the basic rule being modified.

blaktoof wrote:
My complaint is that your statement is not about my point, and didn't even directly comment on what I am bringing up.

You are claiming that a rule that modifies another rule will grant permission to use the rule it is modifying regardless of any other restrictions or exclusions. An example of any unit which is excluded from charging gaining a rule that modifies what happens when it charges is a comparison in that your argument would then suppose said unit may now ignore the exclusion to charging because it has a rule modifying what happens when it charges.

Much like the false claim that a model that is excluded from controlling an objective gaining a rule that modifies how it could control an objective (ob sec) would gain ob sec.

Gaining a rule that lets you modify how a rule behaves does not by default grant that rule to a model that explicitly cannot use the basic rule being modified.

Your point was poorly formed because you didn't understand the rules you were trying to parade. Trying to discern what someone might have meant from their ambiguity isn't a game I want to play.

In regards to your second paragraph. 1) I'm not, maybe go back to my second reply to you and try to understand the point of contention? And 2) everything else you have written after this is irrelevant because it's addressing something that I haven't advocated.

If you want a response to the first 6 paragraphs you put previously:

blaktoof wrote:
The rules state that aircraft are excluded when determining models that control objectives.

Objective secured has no wording that explicitly grants permission for aircraft do so.

A written rule prevents an unit from counting for controlling objectives.

The other rule modifies how units that can control objectives do so, but does not grant the ability for things to control objectives in of itself, nor any permission for things that are excluded for determining control of objectives to do so should they have that rule.

One rule specifically says they can't, the other being quoted does not specifically say they can.

So one rule proves they can't explicitly, and one rule lacks any explicit proof to change that.

Paragraph 1: Which is determined by the process of counting models in range of an objective. This is what Aircraft are excluded from. Nothing else.
Paragraph 2: Doesn't require it given above.
Paragraph 3: See response to paragraph 1
Paragraph 4: ObSec is about the player controlling objectives, not models or units. "A player controls an objective marker if..."
Paragraph 5: Irrelevant, see response to paragraph 1.
Paragraph 6: Incorrect conclusion based off an incorrect premise.

JakeSiren wrote:
Paragraph 1: Which is determined by the process of counting models in range of an objective. This is what Aircraft are excluded from. Nothing else.

The big disagreement comes from this. This is not specifically written as such in the rules, in the rules it only says:

"AIRCRAFT units and units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role can never control objective markers – exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker."

So the real hang up is if the entirety of Objective Secured is part of determining which player controls an objective marker, and that is what aircraft are excluded from, or just as you claim only the model count.

So this just boils down to badly written rules, RAW is ambiguous so agree on RAI before you play until it maybe gets an FAQ.

At this point an faq is unlikely being as we are so deep in the edition

Yes it is ambiguous anyone who is not a fool can see that

Which is why to actually prove either outcome you have to address that ambiguity and you can't because no quote exists. Its A overules B vs B overules A