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.

 Happyjew wrote:
I can tell you exactly where it is. Page 125, right before the description of the various mysterious objectives.

I love how that blurb is not in the controlling objectives section. Stupid GW.

Thanks Happy, knew it was in there somewhere. Maybe I should stop giving my memory so much flak as well, for while it was a little fuzzy over the details it did remember that the answer was somewhere berried in an off-topic but semi-related section of the book. Then again, it is a common enough occurrence for Games Workshop that it could of been a fluke and not my memory actually improving for a change.

In the OP's scenario...

If his vehicle is closer to to the objective then his opponents unit then technically no units are in control of that objective correct? His vehicle is not a denial unit but it is a scoring unit closer to the objective and that prevents his opponent;s unit from being in control of that objective.

 DJGietzen wrote:
In the OP's scenario...

If his vehicle is closer to to the objective then his opponents unit then technically no units are in control of that objective correct? His vehicle is not a denial unit but it is a scoring unit closer to the objective and that prevents his opponent;s unit from being in control of that objective.

Nope, you don't control an objective by being closest to it.
In the ssenario above, the vehicle does not fit the critea to control the objective, while the non-vehicle unit does.

a little bit of desperate measures to win by the sounds of it

How is following the rules a "desperate measure"?

In my opinion it's just one of those rules that can take you by suprise if you don't know about them. Having your opponent do this to you the first time is disconcerting, but so is witnessing zooming an Eldar jetbike 46" across the board to the objective you thought safe, Both rules are brow-raising, but they're still quite clear and not overly in the "TFG" category.

Actually, now that I read it again, the player controlling the objective does not have to own the unit controlling the object

Lets say I have a Land Raider in a BGNT game 1" from the Objective and my opponent has 3 members of Tactical Squad 2.5" from the same Objective. Lets also say the Objective is a scatterfield.



A player who has at least one model from a scoring unit in range of an objective controls it.
If the enemy has at least one model from a denial unit in range you do no control it.
The land raider is in range of the objective,
The Land Raider's player controls the objective.
The Tactical Squad is in range of the objective.
The Tactical Squad's player controls the objective
The Tactical Squad's player has a denial unit in range of the objective.
The Land Raids's player does not control the objective.
The Tactical Squad's player will score the VP for the objective.

The Land Raider and the Tac squad are both scoring units.
The Land Raider and the Tac Squad are both in range of the objective.
When two ore more scoring units are in range of the objective the closest one controls it for the purposes of the objective's affect.
The Land Raider is the closest scoring unit in range.
The Land Raider controls the objective.
The Land Raider receives a +1 bonus to its cover save.

So the Land Raider gets the effects of the Mysterious objective, but the tac squad gets the VP for controlling the objective.
Bizarre but correct as far as i can tell.

Looks legit to me

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It's a known technical loophole in the rules, but I have never heard anyone actually playing like that. As Peregrine points out, it makes things act really weirdly. I'm 99.5% sure that they absolutely meant all scoring units to deny as well.

I'm 99% sure the other way, based on chatting with some of the studio at games day.

Makes sense in fluff logic (which GW is found of using sometimes for some reason). In "real life", tanks generally have infantry moving with them to keep enemy infantry from doing unpleasant things when they are up close.

Your Chimera "claiming a hill" for the Glory of the Emperor is a bit vulnerable just sitting there if a squad of enemy infantry came up. Frag grenade in a hatch and the problem is taken care of.

And Happyjew is right (as is nosferatu1001 by a lucky guess ). If two units are equidistant to a Mysterious Objective you randomise to see which is in control.