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.

Bojazz wrote:
Denial units do not require the opponent to be a scoring unit to contest objectives.

Actually... they do. There is no blanket rule saying they will always stop any unit from controlling an objective. That is the assumption you are making.

Their description says they "can prevent an enemy from controlling an objective"; but does not say they always do, and also does not give any direction as to how they do it.

That is because that information is covered in the rules for how *scoring units* control an objective.


You are correct that the Garg rule does not give a distance, and so it could be argued that they can control any objective on the board.... but I wouldn't play it that way.

At the same time, Objective Secured says that Gargoyles control objectives, but doesn't tell you how they do so. So I think using the scoring rules, allowing them to capture objectives but also allowing denial units to contest them, is a good compromise.

Bojazz wrote:
Nos - If it doesn't want you to use the BRB rule for controlling objectives, then why stipulate that it even works in the presence of enemy scoring units? That is a BRB reference. And even then, your enemy does not have the skyblight rule, and so (S)HE would be using the BRB definition, which entitles their denial units to prevent objective control. Nothing in the skyblight rule takes that ability away from your opponent.

You do not need to use the rules for Scoring units, as it is not a Scoring unit. Only scoring units control objectives unless..... - this isnt a scoring unit, so even in the presence of a denial unit, it will still control the objective. As it is a denial unit, it will stop an enemy unit scoring the objective.

It is a reminder, functionally. It states that you still score even if the enemy thinks they are scoring.

A scoring unit is prvented from controlling an objective by a denial unit. What "takes away" your opponents ability to use a denial unit is that they are NOT a scoring unit. They skip straight past the "am I scoring?" check, straight to "I am controlling an objective."

Nos are you really claiming Gargoyles control all objectives on the board at once? That I can just hunker them down in a corner behind a bastion out of LoS and say I have every objective on the board?

The way the rule was written an enemy denial unit that doesn't score denies gargoyles. If it wasn't intended then hope they address this in an FAQ.

Hah, don't hold your breath. They haven't released a FAQ since October last year.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The way the rule was written an enemy denial unit that doesn't score denies gargoyles. If it wasn't intended then hope they address this in an FAQ.

Not true. The function denial units hve only affects scoring units ability to control objectives

They are not a scoring unit, they simply control objectives.

But how do they control objectives? What requirement do they need to fulfil to control the objectives?

Currently, none. THat is however NOT the question that was asked.

Making them obey 3" rule makes sense, however saying their special rule is utterly useless is NOT correct. CUrrently their special rule operates just fine if there are denial units within 3" f the objective. What GW missed is that they do not appear to be within range of the objective at all

So strict RAW you have to measure to every objective on the board to see which one they are closest to, randomising when equal.

They are a scoring unit but not a troop.

The wording for Objective Secured is:

"A unit with this special rule controls Objective Markers even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule."

Disagreement seems to stem from different interpretations as to the scope of this rule.

In one camp we have those who see this as giving blanket permission to control objectives and disregard all external requirements for controlling objectives that are not a part of this rule (nos and coredump). This leads to some rather strange situations such as no specified range (meaning they can control from across the board), and possibly also the limit on only controlling one objective at a time (since I suspect that's also only in the BRB and not part of this rule). By following this interpretation, one unit of gargs can control every objective on the table at the same time regardless of enemy units or how far away they are, which I'm fairly certain isn't how the rule is supposed to work. A considerable amount house ruling is required to get to a point where the rule seems reasonable.

In the other camp are those (such as myself), that see this as an addition to the normal rules for controlling objectives. So gargs must follow all of the normal rules for controling, but can still control " ...even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker...". This interpretation leads to the situation that (by RAW) the rule has no effect in non-Scouring missions, since Gargs aren't actually a scoring unit (unless I missed something). While this certainly limits the usefulness of the rule, it is still fully functional within the current rules. I suspect that most people will use a slightly modified version of this interpretation since it appears evident to most people that the Gargs are supposed to be scoring. Something along the lines of:

"A unit with this special rule is scoring and controls Objective Markers even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule, but otherwise follows all the normal rules for contolling objectives."

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:
The wording for Objective Secured is:

"A unit with this special rule controls Objective Markers even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule."

Disagreement seems to stem from different interpretations as to the scope of this rule.

In one camp we have those who see this as giving blanket permission to control objectives and disregard all external requirements for controlling objectives that are not a part of this rule (nos and coredump). This leads to some rather strange situations such as no specified range (meaning they can control from across the board), and possibly also the limit on only controlling one objective at a time (since I suspect that's also only in the BRB and not part of this rule). By following this interpretation, one unit of gargs can control every objective on the table at the same time regardless of enemy units or how far away they are, which I'm fairly certain isn't how the rule is supposed to work. A considerable amount house ruling is required to get to a point where the rule seems reasonable.

Only if you fail to read the rules. In order to "control" an objective you have to be within 3". That is the first sentence in the rule. So none of that "can control every objective across the board argument."

In the other camp are those (such as myself), that see this as an addition to the normal rules for controlling objectives. So gargs must follow all of the normal rules for controling, but can still control " ...even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker...". This interpretation leads to the situation that (by RAW) the rule has no effect in non-Scouring missions, since Gargs aren't actually a scoring unit (unless I missed something). While this certainly limits the usefulness of the rule, it is still fully functional within the current rules. I suspect that most people will use a slightly modified version of this interpretation since it appears evident to most people that the Gargs are supposed to be scoring. Something along the lines of:

"A unit with this special rule is scoring and controls Objective Markers even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule, but otherwise follows all the normal rules for contolling objectives."

The "is scoring" is redundant. There is nothing in the rules that state that a unit must be "scoring". The Missions state that you get points for "controlling" or "capturing" objectives. It just so happens that up until now, only Scoring units could do that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The way the rule was written an enemy denial unit that doesn't score denies gargoyles. If it wasn't intended then hope they address this in an FAQ.

Not true. The function denial units hve only affects scoring units ability to control objectives

They are not a scoring unit, they simply control objectives.

Actually, the rules for controlling objectives (not scoring units) causes denial units to still deny in this instance. The controlling objectives bit puts down 2 requirements to hold an objective. First is to be a scoring unit, and second is to have no enemy denial units within 3" of the objective. The Gargoyles bypass the first part of the rule, but do not bypass all of the second rule (only denying scoring unit denial). They also can't make use of mysterious objectives, but that is another matter.

Goobi2 wrote:
They also can't make use of mysterious objectives, but that is another matter.

All of objectives are mysterious objectives unless you're playing the relic.

 deviantduck wrote:

Goobi2 wrote:
They also can't make use of mysterious objectives, but that is another matter.

All of objectives are mysterious objectives unless you're playing the relic.

Which "only scoring units can make use of"

Can some one quote the actual rule? The summry in the OP means the rule does nothing. Two scoring units from different armies can both control and score the same objective if neither of them are denial units.

Goobi2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The way the rule was written an enemy denial unit that doesn't score denies gargoyles. If it wasn't intended then hope they address this in an FAQ.

Not true. The function denial units hve only affects scoring units ability to control objectives

They are not a scoring unit, they simply control objectives.

Actually, the rules for controlling objectives (not scoring units) causes denial units to still deny in this instance. The controlling objectives bit puts down 2 requirements to hold an objective. First is to be a scoring unit, and second is to have no enemy denial units within 3" of the objective. The Gargoyles bypass the first part of the rule, but do not bypass all of the second rule (only denying scoring unit denial). They also can't make use of mysterious objectives, but that is another matter.

Wrong. They control objectives, full stop. "Even if" is not a limitation, but functionally a reminder

You do not follow the rule stating denial units, as you already control the objective.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Goobi2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The way the rule was written an enemy denial unit that doesn't score denies gargoyles. If it wasn't intended then hope they address this in an FAQ.

Not true. The function denial units hve only affects scoring units ability to control objectives

They are not a scoring unit, they simply control objectives.

Actually, the rules for controlling objectives (not scoring units) causes denial units to still deny in this instance. The controlling objectives bit puts down 2 requirements to hold an objective. First is to be a scoring unit, and second is to have no enemy denial units within 3" of the objective. The Gargoyles bypass the first part of the rule, but do not bypass all of the second rule (only denying scoring unit denial). They also can't make use of mysterious objectives, but that is another matter.

Wrong. They control objectives, full stop. "Even if" is not a limitation, but functionally a reminder

You do not follow the rule stating denial units, as you already control the objective.

So, the Denial units are being denied ... ?

It's implicit they score.

"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it."

If you want to use this rule to control an objective within 3" of your Gargoyles, you are allowing denial units to deny you the objective.

If you do not want to use this rule to control an objective, you need to find some other that gives the Gargoyles a mechanism to capture the objective.

p. 123
"A unit can only control one objective at a time."

So we can skip this red herring, no one is claiming one garg unit can control all the objectives.


p. 123
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one ofyour scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it"

This rule allows denial units to prevent *Scoring units* from controlling an objective. For a *scoring unit* to control an objective, two conditions must be met:
1) the scoring unit must be within 3"
2) No denial units within 3"

These conditions do not, inherrently, apply to Gargs with Objective Secured.

Objective Secured:
"A unit with this special rule controls Objective Markers even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule."

For Gargs to control an objective, there is only 1 condition
1) no enemy scoring unit with OS is 'in range'


Now, as some have noticed... there is no range requirement... and that is stupid. (Sloppy GW rules...?? I am shocked)
However, since the rule does reference there being a "range" involved, it seems wise to assume that range is 3", and that it also applies to the Gargs.

But even assuming that.... does not mean that denial units have any effect on OS Gargs controlling an objective.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it."

If you want to use this rule to control an objective within 3" of your Gargoyles, you are allowing denial units to deny you the objective.

If you do not want to use this rule to control an objective, you need to find some other that gives the Gargoyles a mechanism to capture the objective.

Incorrect. That is how Scoring units can control an objective.

The Gargoyle rule states tehy Control an objective. No ifs, buts, conditions, etc. They skip directly to this state.

Yes, there is no range limitation. I have acknowledged this. It is irrelevant to this topic, however

coredump wrote:
p. 123
"A unit can only control one objective at a time."

So we can skip this red herring, no one is claiming one garg unit can control all the objectives.


p. 123
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one ofyour scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it"

This rule allows denial units to prevent *Scoring units* from controlling an objective. For a *scoring unit* to control an objective, two conditions must be met:
1) the scoring unit must be within 3"
2) No denial units within 3"

These conditions do not, inherrently, apply to Gargs with Objective Secured.

Objective Secured:
"A unit with this special rule controls Objective Markers even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule."

For Gargs to control an objective, there is only 1 condition
1) no enemy scoring unit with OS is 'in range'


Now, as some have noticed... there is no range requirement... and that is stupid. (Sloppy GW rules...?? I am shocked)
However, since the rule does reference there being a "range" involved, it seems wise to assume that range is 3", and that it also applies to the Gargs.

But even assuming that.... does not mean that denial units have any effect on OS Gargs controlling an objective.

I agree fully with this argument as put forward. EXALTED!

coredump wrote:
p. 123
"A unit can only control one objective at a time."

So we can skip this red herring, no one is claiming one garg unit can control all the objectives.

Fair enough, didn't have my book on me at the time.

coredump wrote:
p. 123
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one ofyour scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it"

This rule allows denial units to prevent *Scoring units* from controlling an objective. For a *scoring unit* to control an objective, two conditions must be met:
1) the scoring unit must be within 3"
2) No denial units within 3"

These conditions do not, inherrently, apply to Gargs with Objective Secured.

Objective Secured:
"A unit with this special rule controls Objective Markers even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule."

For Gargs to control an objective, there is only 1 condition
1) no enemy scoring unit with OS is 'in range'


Now, as some have noticed... there is no range requirement... and that is stupid. (Sloppy GW rules...?? I am shocked)
However, since the rule does reference there being a "range" involved, it seems wise to assume that range is 3", and that it also applies to the Gargs.

But even assuming that.... does not mean that denial units have any effect on OS Gargs controlling an objective.

So just to make sure I've got your logic down:

Objective Secured mentions nothing about denial units preventing Gargs controlling, so it's silly to assume it's the same as with scoring units.
Objective Secured mentions nothing about a specific range for Gargs controlling, so it's wise to assume it's the same as with scoring units.

Seems legit.

It also makes the unless part of the sentence non-functional as there are apparently no scoring units with OS...

So ultimately, if a pack of Gargs is on a point, they own it and there's nothing you can do unless you have a unit with Objective Secured, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
It also makes the unless part of the sentence non-functional as there are apparently no scoring units with OS...

Yet..

Scouring, FA score. So they would be scoring, with OS, when facing a nother nid army running this formation.

Bugs - no, one is called "a reasonable compromise" to not letting Gargs score any objective from anywhere on the board; the other is following the rules and not making OS useless. Your tactic, by pretending one is like the other, is noted

If you dont want to play the compromise I am sure any nid player will be happy to let them score any single objhective they like, from anywhere on the board.

"A unit with this special rule controls Objective Markers even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule."

If GW had just said denial unit instead of scoring unit (which I think was probably the intent, they just got sloppy), this wouldn't be so confusing. We'll probably play this way at my local, unless we see FAQs or some ruling once people start taking skyblight to tournaments.

Nos: I wouldn't, that's ridiculous and wouldn't make for a fun game at all.

p. 123
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one ofyour scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it"

This is the rules to control an objective, not just for scoring units to control an objective. It mentions scoring as per the basic rules that is all that can score.

The rules for controlling an objective specify that it is only controlled if a denial unit is not in range. It doesnt say that denial only blocks scoring, but that the objective cant be controlled if they are in range.