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.

Hi all.

Played in a doubles competition today and last turn my partner contested one of my opponents objectives whilst spreading out his remain troop unit to cover two of our objectives.

I thought we had the win however our opponents called over a judge as they thought a unit could only hold one objective.

I'd never heard of this.

We asked them and the blue shirt to show us this in the rule book and after 10 mins the blueshirt gave up as he couldn't find it.

He then got a second opinion from another blueshirt who agreed with him.

We accepted this at this point however I am curious as to where this rule appears.

Can anybody help me with this one?

Brother Bartius wrote:Hi all.

Played in a doubles competition today and last turn my partner contested one of my opponents objectives whilst spreading out his remain troop unit to cover two of our objectives.

I thought we had the win however our opponents called over a judge as they thought a unit could only hold one objective.

I'd never heard of this.

We asked them and the blue shirt to show us this in the rule book and after 10 mins the blueshirt gave up as he couldn't find it.

He then got a second opinion from another blueshirt who agreed with him.

We accepted this at this point however I am curious as to where this rule appears.

Can anybody help me with this one?

Your opponent was completely wrong.

Not only does the RaW allow the capturing of multiple objectives, so does the main rulebook FAQ.

Q. Can the same unit control several objectives, providing it is large enough to be within 3" of each one of them ?
A. Yes, absolutely, but we find this does not happen that often when enemies are around...

You can contest/hold more than one objective with one squad.
The rule book and faq don't say otherwise. Edit: Thx to Gwar! the FAQ makes things clear.

It is IMO allowed, because it is something easily manipulated to not work from the enemy...either by assaulting a tip of it or shooting casualties...etc.

I thought as much.

Thanks guys for the prompt answers.

Does the unit controlling or contesting multiple objectives have to be in coherence?

Kilkrazy wrote:Does the unit controlling or contesting multiple objectives have to be in coherence?

Nope. As long as it isn't falling back (and thus removed at the end of the game) It can capture as many objectives as it wants, even if coherency is broken.

And remember, a Gone to Ground unit doesn't move in it's movement phase, so doesn't have to annoyingly move off that 2nd objective to regain coherency.

So if you stretch your 30 Termagants across three objectives and they get shot up, you can just remove casualties from the middle of the line, leaving clumps of Gants on the objectives, and go to ground to avoid having to move back into coherency.

Nice!

Unless the enemy scored 25% hits in the shooting round and forced a morale check.

Kilkrazy wrote:So if you stretch your 30 Termagants across three objectives and they get shot up, you can just remove casualties from the middle of the line, leaving clumps of Gants on the objectives, and go to ground to avoid having to move back into coherency.

Nice!

Unless the enemy scored 25% hits in the shooting round and forced a morale check.

That's what synapse is for

What's great as well is because of the way the IB rule is written, if you go to ground, you don't take IB.

I thought GtG only restricted Voluntary movement, and not compulsory i.e. get back in coherency you clot movement?

nosferatu1001 wrote:I thought GtG only restricted Voluntary movement, and not compulsory i.e. get back in coherency you clot movement?

Moving back into coherency is not mandatory movement. The rule even says if you are pinned you do not move (page 12: If the unit cannot move for some reason in its next turn (because they are pinned down by a barrage or sniper fire, for example), then they must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity.)

Ah right, blame it on too much scripting....

Huh, I was unaware they didn't have to be in coherency. That's pretty darn nice... my Mega Nobz are going to be hiding behind rocks all over


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Huh, I was unaware they didn't have to be in coherency. That's pretty darn nice... my Mega Nobz are going to be hiding behind rocks all over

Wehrkind wrote:Huh, I was unaware they didn't have to be in coherency. That's pretty darn nice... my Mega Nobz are going to be hiding behind rocks all over

It's of limited use, though, as you can't voluntarily move them out of coherency. It only applies if they're taking casualties.

Yes. My idea was to make use of the huge mobs of cheap Troops available to Tyranids.

It would be a very dodgy move, in terms of practicality. I suppose it depends on the layout of the objectives.