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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Scoring as if they are troops"

is the same as

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Scott-S6 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, it was metnioned here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

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

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

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

There is. The Ork FAQ.

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

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

Here's what you're referring to:

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

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

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

Not sure how much clearer to make it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like most of this codex, there is no clear answer

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

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

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

juppy wrote:Grand Strategy ALLOWS dreads to score period,

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

This just lets you add another troop to that list.

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

kirsanth wrote:

juppy wrote:Grand Strategy ALLOWS dreads to score period,

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

This just lets you add another troop to that list.

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

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

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

Vehicular troops cannot score.

So dreads DO score EXACTLY like troops in that regard.

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

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

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

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

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

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