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.

Tanks/skimmers can take an objective, but they can't hold it. 

But the rules say they can hold it. They are a scoring unit so they can hold an objective that is what scoring means.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Tanks/skimmers can take an objective, but they can't hold it. 

But the rules say they can hold it. They are a scoring unit so they can hold an objective that is what scoring means.

In his example, taking is scoring and holding is denial. Which makes sense.

I chose option B. the way we play at our FLGS is that because the vehicles/swarms/ whatever are now scoring units they should also be denial units. This is not the RAW from the rulebook but the RAI. If a unit can score why can't it contest?


Like said this may not be the absolute 100% correct way to play it, but to our gaming group it feels the most intuitive and intended way.

FYI - Swarms still don't score in Scouring/BGNT. Vehicles are allowed because the rule says so. Swarms don't have an exception, so still aren't scoring.

rigeld2 wrote:
FYI - Swarms still don't score in Scouring/BGNT. Vehicles are allowed because the rule says so. Swarms don't have an exception, so still aren't scoring.

on a related note. Does anyone know the rules reference that prohibits flyers from being scoring? I've heard people say that at my FLGS but have not been able to find it in the book.

It doesn't exist.

Normally objectives are farther than 3" from the hull, however, so they can't get in range to score.

rigeld2 wrote:
It doesn't exist.

Normally objectives are farther than 3" from the hull, however, so they can't get in range to score.

I KNEW IT!!!!! Thanks.

Comes in handy for line breaker though, or objectives on a ruin.

I agree rigeld, except in the new Tournament FAQ for the events it pertains to, they are allowing Swarms to score and deny in Big Gunz and Scouring.

I voted A, because it makes games a bit more "interesting" , because it adds a bit more tactical play in it because you still can't use flyers or land speeders and so on, to speed forward and contest other objectives

Where's the confusion? A - clearly.

If two land speeders from different armies are within 3", both score. No big deal, adds another layer to the game. If it gets FAQd that's fine but there's no point trying to work out what GW was trying to do.

Its not unfair, its there in the rules. Take FA/HS units, know their capabilities.

but there's no point trying to work out what GW was trying to do. 

You really think there's no point to trying to work out what the rules are? Then why even bother reading the rulebook?

 FlingitNow wrote:

but there's no point trying to work out what GW was trying to do. 

You really think there's no point to trying to work out what the rules are? Then why even bother reading the rulebook?

What's the point intentionally trying to misunderstand someone's words? Does it further the thread discussion?

I'll go slow for the people in the back.

1. Rules are clear on the subject.
2. Trying to work out what the GW writer *really* means when the rules are clear implies that you think the writer meant something other than what was written.
3. This is going to accomplish nothing other than putting your own bias on the rules.

Read the rulebook. Rulebook says, they are scoring it does not say they are denial. Rules successfully "worked out".

Rules are clear on the subject.

Can someone please point me to the rulebook reference that allows two units from opposing armies to claim the same objective? I seem to have missed it.

1. Rules are clear on the subject. 
2. Trying to work out what the GW writer *really* means when the rules are clear implies that you think the writer meant something other than what was written. 

?

Did that make sense when you wrote it? Have you ever read an FaQ? GW often write rules that by RaW are wrong. Are you really saying that the rules are always written 100% accurately? Are you saying that RaW = The rules? That for instance it was their intention for FMCs to not have relentless or smash but instead to have as yet undefined "relentless smash"? Is that what you actually meant?

muwhe wrote:

Rules are clear on the subject.

Can someone please point me to the rulebook reference that allows two units from opposing armies to claim the same objective? I seem to have missed it.

It's allowed based on the fact that they can be scoring but not denial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

1. Rules are clear on the subject. 
2. Trying to work out what the GW writer *really* means when the rules are clear implies that you think the writer meant something other than what was written. 

?

Did that make sense when you wrote it? Have you ever read an FaQ? GW often write rules that by RaW are wrong. Are you really saying that the rules are always written 100% accurately? Are you saying that RaW = The rules? That for instance it was their intention for FMCs to not have relentless or smash but instead to have as yet undefined "relentless smash"? Is that what you actually meant?

I'm not sure you read his statement correctly. In the FMC case, it's clear that there is a typo. In this case it's not clear that anything other than what was typed was meant. There's no basis for disagreement other than "How can a scoring unit not be denial!?"

I'm not sure you read his statement correctly. In the FMC case, it's clear that there is a typo. In this case it's not clear that anything other than what was typed was meant. There's no basis for disagreement other than "How can a scoring unit not be denial!?"

Why is one clear and the other not? He implied he believed RaW= the rules which not only shows a basic lack of understanding of the purpose of language but is also ridiculous when you consider things like the FMC.

We are trying to work out the rules yes? So we need to work out what the writter meant when he wrote the rules down. Thus we work out what the rule actually is. Him stating this is pointless makes reading the rulebook redundant.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm not sure you read his statement correctly. In the FMC case, it's clear that there is a typo. In this case it's not clear that anything other than what was typed was meant. There's no basis for disagreement other than "How can a scoring unit not be denial!?"

Why is one clear and the other not? He implied he believed RaW= the rules which not only shows a basic lack of understanding of the purpose of language but is also ridiculous when you consider things like the FMC.

Because a single missing character that makes rules work is far, far easier to make the leap for than at least a sentence of rules text.

We are trying to work out the rules yes? So we need to work out what the writter meant when he wrote the rules down. Thus we work out what the rule actually is. Him stating this is pointless makes reading the rulebook redundant.

Determining RAW does not require "[working] out what the writter meant when he wrote the rules down."
That would be determining Intent. For the purposes of yakface's question, neither is relevant. He asked how your group and you play.

 FlingitNow wrote:

1. Rules are clear on the subject. 
2. Trying to work out what the GW writer *really* means when the rules are clear implies that you think the writer meant something other than what was written. 

?

Did that make sense when you wrote it? Have you ever read an FaQ? GW often write rules that by RaW are wrong. Are you really saying that the rules are always written 100% accurately? Are you saying that RaW = The rules? That for instance it was their intention for FMCs to not have relentless or smash but instead to have as yet undefined "relentless smash"? Is that what you actually meant?

Am I saying that RAW = the rules? Well, yes. What are you saying?

If something is stupid but still written in the rules, until it is FAQd it continues to be a rule.

What about point 2 doesn't make sense to you? The rules are clear, you're saying the GW writers got it wrong. There's nothing to imply they have here. That's different from a typo. You are putting your bias into the rules.

I've noticed a few people saying "well it doesn't make sense that they can score but not deny". I understand where they're coming from, since as far as I'm aware there hasn't been a case of a scoring unit not being a denial unit in previous editions. But this isn't a previous edition we're playing, this is 6th edition, we have allies and flyers and rulebook powers and deny the witch and all sorts of other new things, just because it "doesn't make sense" that a Tau Fire Warrior can deny a blast of psychic energy doesn't mean that isn't how the game is played.

hmm make me wounder about the ork deathdred now. so wood a defdred be able to score if it is a troop choice. i see on page 123 . in bold
"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the force organisation chart- the main exception are in big guns never tire mission and the scouring mission."

then it list a few exceptions

like
if it is a vehicle, or unit currently embarked on transport vehicle,or is occupying a building.

Is a deff dread a vehicle? If it is, it cannot normally score.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I've noticed a few people saying "well it doesn't make sense that they can score but not deny". I understand where they're coming from, since as far as I'm aware there hasn't been a case of a scoring unit not being a denial unit in previous editions. But this isn't a previous edition we're playing, this is 6th edition, we have allies and flyers and rulebook powers and deny the witch and all sorts of other new things, just because it "doesn't make sense" that a Tau Fire Warrior can deny a blast of psychic energy doesn't mean that isn't how the game is played.

It also doesn't make sense because:

1) From the way GW talks about it they had no idea that you could have two opposing units simultaneously claiming an objective without contesting each other. It's never said explicitly, but it always sounds like there is a single player in control of an objective. Therefore it seems like GW just didn't realize that they had forgotten to explicitly make FA/HS denial units as well as scoring.

2) Having scoring-but-not-denial units creates weird situations that don't fit with how the game normally works. When the rulebook never mentions the possibility of two opposing units claiming the same mysterious objective (a weird situation that would deserve some kind of mention) it makes it a lot more likely that it's something that isn't really supposed to happen. The whole thing is just completely counter-intuitive even without going back to earlier editions.


Now, RAW this doesn't matter obviously. But when deciding what GW probably intended, or the best way to play it, it's very relevant.

1). They also make it sound like a unit can only have one shooting target.

2). I disagree that it would deserve some kind of mention - iirc there's nothing in the mysterious objectives that breaks with multiple scoring units...

rigeld2 wrote:
1). They also make it sound like a unit can only have one shooting target.

Except that they also provide explicit rules for when and how it can have multiple shooting targets, making a clear situation of a default with specific and deliberate exceptions.

2). I disagree that it would deserve some kind of mention - iirc there's nothing in the mysterious objectives that breaks with multiple scoring units...

I didn't say that it breaks, it just creates a weird situation that you would expect to be explained if it was deliberate.


Anyway, RAW everything still functions, but the way it was written it sounds like GW didn't even realize that the situation was possible. This doesn't mean that RAW is any different, it just gives a lot of support to the idea that RAI is supposed to be option B and GW just screwed up.

Am I saying that RAW = the rules? Well, yes. What are you saying? 

That RaW is not equal to RaI. Do you really think GW always writes perfect rules so that RaW = RaI. Or do you think that words them selves are capable of thought and therefore RaW = The Rules because the rulebook itself came up with the ideas for the rules?

The change to have a unit score and not deny is a big rule change that is unintuitive I personally think that they spell it out if it was the case. This clearly seems to be a mistake of omission.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Determining RAW does not require "[working] out what the writter meant when he wrote the rules down." 
That would be determining Intent. For the purposes of yakface's question, neither is relevant. He asked how your group and you play.

Well we always try to play by the Rules. So determining intent is necessary. What do you do to work out how to play if not trying to work out the Rules?

Yes, RAW technically option A but i still voded B - why? because it makes sense....if you played strictly by RAW this game would be uber stale and irritating as hell because there are soooo many rules the RAW is too vague to not just go "This makes sense how bout this?" with it.

It makes sense from their vehicles-are-second-best attitude to 6th; vehicles have so many draw backs now that making them still secondary to those who are meant to be better at claiming and holding objectives makes sense.

Fling - it is most certainly not "clearly" an error of omission. Perfectly valid, logical and fits-with-6th edition reasons why have been given. Dont claim you know intent here with any certainty

 FlingitNow wrote:
The change to have a unit score and not deny is a big rule change that is unintuitive I personally think that they spell it out if it was the case. This clearly seems to be a mistake of omission.

And you have no real basis for that besides an assumption.

Determining RAW does not require "[working] out what the writter meant when he wrote the rules down." 
That would be determining Intent. For the purposes of yakface's question, neither is relevant. He asked how your group and you play.

Well we always try to play by the Rules. So determining intent is necessary. What do you do to work out how to play if not trying to work out the Rules?

I read the rules. I don't try and divine intent.
Sometimes divining intent is required to make a rule work - in those cases RAI is obviously required.
I don't need to resort to figuring out what someone meant when they say you can only target one unit with shooting.

I read the rules. I don't try and divine intent. 

So you read the rulebook with no intention of working out the Rules? Why?

 FlingitNow wrote:

I read the rules. I don't try and divine intent. 

So you read the rulebook with no intention of working out the Rules? Why?

Okay, the two of you can stop now please.