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.

If you string one unit across the board, can it hold multiple objectives?

Thanks!

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490286a_Warhammer_40,000_Rulebook_FAQ_V1_1.pdf

A bit of light reading which contains your answer.

Thanks dude.

Also one of the few cases where the "the rules doesn't say that I can't-argument" actually holds water.

EDIT.

This is usually not the case as the rules for 40k is generally understood to be permissive (there is another word that more correctly describes this. Some geek will most likely correct me ).

As opposed to most national laws the rules are a list of things we are allowed to do. Asking a player to prove a negative, ie show where it is disallowed/prohibited, is going against the basic setup of the rules.

The burden of proof is always on the person taking the action. He/she must show where it is allowed, not the other way around.

Actually the rules do specifically allow it. All that is required to hold an objective is a figure from a scoring unit. If you have fulfilled that requirement then all is good.

Steel - well, not really. The rules DO say you can claim multiple objectyives with one unit, but not explicitly - you need to combine measuring to units and the unit rules, along with the requirement for a scoring unit to be within 3" to achieve this permission.

Where you are correct is tehre is then nothing withdrawing that permission.

That is exactly my point.

"The rules doesn't say I can't do it" can only be used in situations where you are given permission to do one thing, in this case claim/contest an objective if within 3", and your (as always a generic "you") argument is that there are no other restrictions imposed upon you other that being within 3".

"The rules doesn't say I can't do it" is usually only relevant when the rules are NOT explicit, as in the case of objectives.

@Nos. The "nothing is withdrawing the permission" is exactly why "the rules doesn't say that I can't" works.
All I am getting from your post is that you agree with me, but felt a need to give it a negative spin.

I don't think he meant to be negative, I just think his point was that "it doesnt say I cant" is a bad term to use, because it has so many negative connotations. For example, it doesn't say in the rulebook that i cannot pick up your land raider and place it at the opposite end of the table, therefore I can.

A ridiculous example I know, but thats the effect of that phrase.

Steel - that was what i was (badly) trying to say: the argument isn't "it doesnt say i can't" but "it says I CAN because of x, y, z"

It's easy for people to get confused and think this is a restrictive ruleset (what your phrasing could imply) and not a permissive one.

liam0404 wrote:For example, it doesn't say in the rulebook that i cannot pick up your land raider and place it at the opposite end of the table, therefore I can.

Actually you can't, Land Raider can only move up to it's maximum speed, and it's questionable whether the rules for 'the turn' would really permit you to move your opponents models, or if it would really impact the game when you consider the wobbly model rule negates the need for the model to actually be on the table.

liam0404 wrote:I don't think he meant to be negative, I just think his point was that "it doesnt say I cant" is a bad term to use, because it has so many negative connotations. For example, it doesn't say in the rulebook that i cannot pick up your land raider and place it at the opposite end of the table, therefore I can.

A ridiculous example I know, but thats the effect of that phrase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steel - that was what i was (badly) trying to say: the argument isn't "it doesnt say i can't" but "it says I CAN because of x, y, z"

It's easy for people to get confused and think this is a restrictive ruleset (what your phrasing could imply) and not a permissive one.

Which was why I said this.

Steelmage99 wrote:Also one of the few cases where the "the rules doesn't say that I can't-argument" actually holds water.

Implying that when it is not one of the few cases, ie. the vast majority of the time, the argument doesn't hold water.

But I truly understand where you both are coming from.

"The rules doesn't say I can't" is almost all the time an argument that should be dragged out back and put down like Ol' Yellow. This was why I brought up one of the few times it actually works (disembarking from a 7"+ moving transport and then firing the disembarked squads weapons is another).
The same goes for "codex trumps rulebook". "Specific trumps general" is the correct wording.

I will edit my post to reflect this.

Steel, you're correct about specific & general vs. codex & rulebook, but (with respect) you're still off base on this "doesn't say I can't" business.

None of the rules in 40k work on the basis of "it doesn't say I can't." None. Not even a few.

The rules grant permission for a scoring unit to hold objectives. That permission is not limited to a single objective, sure, but it's still explicit permission.

Mannahnin wrote:
None of the rules in 40k work on the basis of "it doesn't say I can't." None. Not even a few.

Which you will be hard pressed to find me saying anywhere.

I speak of the argument "the rules doesn't say I can't" and how it rarely ever holds any weight.
Not of the basis on which the rules are built.

Player A: "It's a draw. We both hold two objectives."
Player B: "No, I actually hold two objectives with this squad, so I have three"

Player A: "How can one squad hold two objectives?"
Player B: "Well, the rules tells us how to hold an objective and the rules doesn't say I can't hold two, as the only requirement is for the squad to be within 3" and able to score."

My objection is to the whole phrase "the rules don't say I can't." I would strongly encourage people not to use it at all, as other players may misunderstand the point and try to use that phrase to justify other things.

You DID write

one of the few cases where the "the rules doesn't say that I can't-argument" actually holds water.

In which you are saying that there are a "few cases" where that rationale works. Which isn't really true, as you know. This case, and every other case, works because of permission. Sometimes that permission is obvious, and sometimes you have to put it together from looking at a couple of rules in combination. But it's never NOT based on permission.

It's really a bit of a semantic point that I'm arguing, but I think it's important to use clear wording and avoid bad and confusing phrasing.

I've seen quite a number of shorthand ways of summarizing a rule or an explanation which end up misleading people, like that "codex vs. rulebook" thing, over the years, and causing confusion later, because people got sloppy with the terminology.

I understand.

You are a scholar and a gentleman, sir.

Mannahnin wrote:My objection is to the whole phrase "the rules don't say I can't." I would strongly encourage people not to use it at all, as other players may misunderstand the point and try to use that phrase to justify other things.

It's not like people don't use "the rules don't say you can" to justify extremely warped and nonsensical interpretations of the rules too.

Clearly the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are some things you can do even though the rules don't explicitly say you can, such as check LoS for rage, and touch your own models... I think largely it comes down to common sense.

I would say a single unit can hold more than one objective providing it can fulfil the criteria given for holding said objectives, like being within 3 inches.

It is not really a case of "the rules don't say I can't so I can" it's more a case of "the rules say I can so I can, unless they say I can't which they don't".

It's worth noting that there are actually exceptions given in the rule book for scoring units, I.e. a list of things that the rules say you can't do, such as score with a vehicle or swarm. There is no mention of units already holding objectives not being able to score. You would think that if it was really an exception it would be listed under the exceptions.

Right. They give permission, and no special exception is made to withdraw that permission.

Remember also that they went ahead and made it explicit in the FAQ.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490286a_Warhammer_40,000_Rulebook_FAQ_V1_1.pdf