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

This came up in my game last night and (surprising to me) raised a question.

Can troops that have 'gone to ground' claim an objective?

I had a mob of 20 Orks disembark in ruins, slaughter a squad of Marine scouts, and objective sit through two turns of enemy fire. My opponent said that he had been at tournaments where troops 'gone to ground' could not claim/hold objectives. Since I could, I just had them stand up and 'take it like a man' for turn 5 - but am I misunderstanding this one?

(I think it is prob just an 'old' rule from another edition.)

I don't see anything that suggests that going to ground affects your relationship to objectives or scoring, unless I'm missing something.

Lostboyz wrote:Can troops that have 'gone to ground' claim an objective?

Short Answer: Yes.

Long Answer: Yes.

Really Long Answer: Yes and anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy and needs to be "introduced" to Mr. Brick and Mrs. Pillowcase.

Nothing at all in the rules for them not to claim.

I guess they were thinking of pinned or fleeing (or dead)!

I will put the big lead Ork Dreadnaught & Sock in my army bag.

Pinned wouldn't have any effect as it is basically the same thing as gone to ground...............

Gwar! wrote:Really Long Answer: Yes and anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy and needs to be "introduced" to Mr. Brick and Mrs. Pillowcase.

Doesn't the rulebook restrict us to Mr. Dreadnought and Mrs. Sock?

Thor665 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Really Long Answer: Yes and anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy and needs to be "introduced" to Mr. Brick and Mrs. Pillowcase.

Doesn't the rulebook restrict us to Mr. Dreadnought and Mrs. Sock?

TMIR lets us house rule it

I thought that pinned units couldn't claim an objective and that going to ground = pinned.

Clarification please?

Aya wrote:I thought that pinned units couldn't claim an objective and that going to ground = pinned.

Clarification please?

Can you show me where you got the idea? The rules for Pinning and Going to Ground don't mention objectives or scoring, and the rules for scoring, objectives and game types don't mention pinning or going to ground either.
Unless I'm missing something.

Gorkamorka wrote:

Aya wrote:I thought that pinned units couldn't claim an objective and that going to ground = pinned.

Clarification please?

Can you show me where you got the idea? The rules for Pinning and Going to Ground don't mention objectives or scoring, and the rules for scoring, objectives and game types don't mention pinning or going to ground either.
Unless I'm missing something.

I sadly do not have my rule book on me (my friend stole it >_&gt but I believe it's in the section for pinning that it says a a pinned unit can't claim an objective. Again, lacking a rule book at the moment I''m not totally positive. Thats why I asked

Aya wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:

Aya wrote:I thought that pinned units couldn't claim an objective and that going to ground = pinned.

Clarification please?

Can you show me where you got the idea? The rules for Pinning and Going to Ground don't mention objectives or scoring, and the rules for scoring, objectives and game types don't mention pinning or going to ground either.
Unless I'm missing something.

I sadly do not have my rule book on me (my friend stole it >_&gt but I believe it's in the section for pinning that it says a a pinned unit can't claim an objective. Again, lacking a rule book at the moment I''m not totally positive. Thats why I asked

Nope. In the brb the rules for pinning do not mention objectives.

One of the many situations where "It doesn't say i can't" is a completely valid point. It's covered by the broader rules unless stated otherwise.

Ridcully wrote:One of the many situations where "It doesn't say i can't" is a completely valid point. It's covered by the broader rules unless stated otherwise.

Sorry mate but that answers absolutely zero questions.

Aya wrote:

Ridcully wrote:One of the many situations where "It doesn't say i can't" is a completely valid point. It's covered by the broader rules unless stated otherwise.

Sorry mate but that answers absolutely zero questions.

Huh? This was a reply to the OP. It adds just as much serious information as other posts in this thread.

Ridcully wrote:

Aya wrote:

Ridcully wrote:One of the many situations where "It doesn't say i can't" is a completely valid point. It's covered by the broader rules unless stated otherwise.

Sorry mate but that answers absolutely zero questions.

Huh? This was a reply to the OP. It adds just as much serious information as other posts in this thread.

If you don't want to get chased by a bunch of torch wielding RaW fanatics, you really want to say "The rules say you can, and nothing else which applies says you can't".

That other thing you wrote isn't the same thing.

No, what i wrote is crystal clear. It's people using "'It doesn't say i can't' isn't an argument" at every turn, without showing why you can't under the broader rules, that need correcting. Unless the rules for going to ground say you CAN'T then it follows the general rules.

Can we get back to Mr. Brick and Mrs. Pillowcase?

Sanctjud wrote:Can we get back to Mr. Brick and Mrs. Pillowcase?

I approve and endorse this persons product and/or service!

Pinning on page 31 of the BRB says nothing to the effect of not being able to claim an objective, and it also states that pinning is the same as Going to ground, though it is forced by failing a leadership test. When you go to ground, you gain a Cover save if you didn't have one, or improve you're cover save by one, though you can do nothing the following turn with that unit. But it states nothing to the Objective matter. (going to ground on page 24 of the BRB)


Objectives However are covered by Mission types. Page 90 of the BRB you have "Scoring Units" which counts troops as the only units who count for "Scoring" their are very few things that disallow a unit from "Scoring" they are

If it is a vehicle ( I.E. tau devilish)
if it has the swarm special rule (I.E Ripper Swarms)
if it has a special rule specifying it never counts as a scoring unit (I.E Fenrisian Wolves)

So even there pinning would not effect the counting. However under Victory Conditions, it states that you "Control" an objective if you're scoring unit is within 3" of a objective and no enemy units withing 3" of the objective. The two Objective battles of course are Seize Ground, and Capture and Control.


So There ya go, Pinning or Going to ground in no way effects scoring an objective.




(btw Seize ground, and capture and control are on page 91 ^^)

Just to nitpick, your use of "I.E." should actually be "i.e."

And in actual fact, it should be "e.g.", as Devilfish are not the only vehicles, Rippers are not the only Swarms and Fenrisian Wolves are not the only unit with such a rule

hey now, you are the founder of Mr. Brick and Mrs. Pillowcase! so C'mon,

Actually the examples im putting forward were just that, In example.

Devilfish count under the Troops in the Tau Codex, and are a vehicle thus they cannot claim the objective.
and the Fenrisian wolves can be made troops, but have the special rule that disallows them from claiming the objective.
and im not sure if ripper swarms are troops, i just used them cause i know scarab swarms are not, and they both have the swarm rule!



So aye, im useing I.E as In Example! but i suppose i can lowercase em

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases:_I#id_est

id est (i.e.) "that is" "That is (to say)" in the sense of "that means" and "which means", or "in other words", or sometimes "in this case", depending on the context; may be followed by a comma, or not, depending on style (American English and British English respectively). It is often misinterpreted as "in example". In this situation, e.g. should be used instead.

You owe me a beer

Well as i am one of the Wolves of Russ, i have plenty o beer/alcohol to spare, so that is no problem

However i use I.E as "in example" and i speak broken English

Well, then, pup, it is time to learn that 'i.e.' = 'in effect'. This means a specific mention of the whole of a grouping.

The effect you were going for is more in line with the 'e.g.' = 'example given'. This shows one of more than one item that may fit into the parameters laid down by the example.