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.

Okay last big debate before Ard Boyz....was playing my friend again we were playing the second mission. He was using GK Interceptors and used Grand Master ability of Grand Strategy to make them scoring, or so we thought. We looked into the wording of Grand Strategy, it states under Unyielding Anvil that "unit came claim objectives as if they were troops". However in reading the mission 2 and other scenarios it calls for scoring units. I looked at Pedro Cantor's wording and it states that it makes sternguard scoring. So my question is two-fold...

1.) Since the wording is "can claim objectives...." does that mean their not scoring...?

2.) If so then during scenario 2 and 3, does this make Grand Strategy useless?

Is this correct??

Don't take my word for it, but going by RAW, no - Grand Strategy does not let the unit take the objective in 'Ard Boyz. Technically speaking, Grand Strategy allows it to claim an objective as though it were Troops. In 'Ard Boyz, there is no claiming an objective, only counting what units are closest to an objective. While the two are essentially the same, by the rules, they are different.

I've said my two cents. Now someone come in here and back me up or totally refute me.

Basically it makes the unit count as troop ... since troop score (excluding vehicles) that would mean that any unit could claim objectives.

Tri wrote:Basically it makes the unit count as troop ... since troop score (excluding vehicles) that would mean that any unit could claim objectives.

That is not what Grand Strategy does, and to imply that it does invites misunderstandings.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tri wrote:Basically it makes the unit count as troop ... since troop score (excluding vehicles) that would mean that any unit could claim objectives.

That is not what Grand Strategy does, and to imply that it does invites misunderstandings.

Exact wordings then ...
Assuming you looking at the preliminary ... "Objective:
This scenario uses a modified Seize ground (page 91) missions. Please note that there are
always 5 objectives, DO NOT ROLL."
BGB "An army's scoring units are all the units that come from it's Troop allowance. The presence of other units may deny an objective to the enemy, but only troop can controll it..."
GK codex "Unyielding anvil ... The nominated unit can claim objectives as if they were Troop"

... I see no confusion

Tri wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tri wrote:Basically it makes the unit count as troop ... since troop score (excluding vehicles) that would mean that any unit could claim objectives.

That is not what Grand Strategy does, and to imply that it does invites misunderstandings.

Exact wordings then ...
Assuming you looking at the preliminary ... "Objective:
This scenario uses a modified Seize ground (page 91) missions. Please note that there are
always 5 objectives, DO NOT ROLL."
BGB "An army's scoring units are all the units that come from it's Troop allowance. The presence of other units may deny an objective to the enemy, but only troop can controll it..."
GK codex "Unyielding anvil ... The nominated unit can claim objectives as if they were Troop"

... I see no confusion

Using the preliminary mission, yes, that's fine. But the OP is referring to the SEMI-FINAL missions. The wording on Mission 2's objective:

Place an objective marker in the exact center of the board. At the end of the game the player with
the most scoring units within six inches of the objective marker wins.

As you see, there is no objective claiming in it at all. You simply earn points for what scoring units are nearby. Grand Strategy does not make them scoring units, it allows them to claim objectives as though they were scoring units - which in itself does not make them scoring units for the purposes of 'Ard Boyz. It's a subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

There's actually a bit of an analogue in the Magic: the Gathering card game. In the game, any creature that attacks can be blocked by a creature that the opponent controls (at the blocking player's choice). Let's assume there's a creature with the special ability "This creature may only be blocked by creatures with Flying." (which is a common ability to have) It attacks. The blocker has two creatures out:

A creature with the ability of "Flying,"
and a creature with the ability of "Reach," (which states that this creature may block as though it had Flying)

The latter creature cannot block the attacker. Why? Because while it can block AS THOUGH it had flying, it does not have Flying to override the attacking creature's special ability. And while it may sound like I'm talking out of my arse here, these are some real rules disputes that have come up over the years, and have even to my knowledge been made as test questions for those seeking to become Judges (rules officials).

All that said, by RAW they don't score. By RAI, I would argue they do, since it's silly for Unyielding Anvil to be utterly useless because of strange wording on the writer's part.

Magic (for the most part) is well written and 40k is not. While true technically 'Unyielding anvil' doesn't do anything ever but play that way is silly. Still the is obviously enough confusion over the wording ... I'd contact some one at the event to get a ruling (preferably written with a name attached)

Tri wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Tri wrote:Basically it makes the unit count as troop ... since troop score (excluding vehicles) that would mean that any unit could claim objectives.

That is not what Grand Strategy does, and to imply that it does invites misunderstandings.

Exact wordings then ...

GK codex "Unyielding anvil ... The nominated unit can claim objectives as if they were Troop"

... I see no confusion

"Basically it makes the unit count as troop" is certainly not the same as "The nominated unit can claim objectives as if it were Troop".

Saying that "basically it makes the unit count as troop" implies that Grand Strategy/Unyielding Anvil has a more all-encompassing effect than it actually does. Making something "count as troop" affects deployment, the force organisation chart and other factors beyond simply being able to claim objectives.

That is why I said that doing so invites misunderstandings.

This is the "is a Demon a Demon" argument all over again.

Look, GW does not write precise rules. More specifically, they DO NOT use key word based rules. Magic the Gathering, for instance, does. If there's a "clown ork" card, but it doesn't have "ork" in the unit type space, then it's not an ork.

GW doesn't do that, though. As was eventually indicated in the FAQ, if a unit has Demon in the name (Daemon Prince) or even if the fluff indicates that their great uncle or something might have had some daemon blood (mandrakes) then it's a demon. It's a common-sense rule system. It's nice because it's easy and intuitive, but it's bad because it's imprecise.

The problem is of course, that many gamers try to interpret GW's rules through a "keyword" system, because that's how many smarter companies do it.

Botton line: "can claim objectives as if they were troops" really is the same thing as "scoring unit". Would it been much easier if GW had said it made it a scoring unit? Of course, it would even have avoided that whole silly Dreadnought thing. But they didn't, and whatever, GW does things sub-optimally.

SO yes, they count as scoring. That doesn't mean you can't get some TO to rule otherwise, we've all seen bad judge rulings, but frankly, if your opponent brings this up, he's a jerk, even at Ard Boyz.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Botton line: "can claim objectives as if they were troops" really is the same thing as "scoring unit". Would it been much easier if GW had said it made it a scoring unit? Of course, it would even have avoided that whole silly Dreadnought thing. But they didn't, and whatever, GW does things sub-optimally.

SO yes, they count as scoring. That doesn't mean you can't get some TO to rule otherwise, we've all seen bad judge rulings, but frankly, if your opponent brings this up, he's a jerk, even at Ard Boyz.

This. A thousand times this.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Botton line: "can claim objectives as if they were troops" really is the same thing as "scoring unit". Would it been much easier if GW had said it made it a scoring unit? Of course, it would even have avoided that whole silly Dreadnought thing. But they didn't, and whatever, GW does things sub-optimally.

SO yes, they count as scoring. That doesn't mean you can't get some TO to rule otherwise, we've all seen bad judge rulings, but frankly, if your opponent brings this up, he's a jerk, even at Ard Boyz.

While this is a wonderful house rule, none of this has any grounding in the actual rules. You would need to get a TO to rule in your favor in this case, not the other way around.

"can claim objectives as if they were troops" really is NOT the same thing as "scoring unit" In most situations they perform the same function, but they are not the same thing. Just like a model with BS 10 and a model with BS 5 and a twin-linked weapon are functionally the same in most cases, yet are not the same thing.

If the wording for a scenario specifies "Scoring units" then don't expect Unyeilding Anvil to do anything for you. If you talk with the TO about it ahead of time, you might get a ruling in your favor. But I wouldn't show up to a competitive event expecting everyone else to bend the rules to accomodate how you think the game should be played.

Tri wrote:Magic (for the most part) is well written and 40k is not. While true technically 'Unyielding anvil' doesn't do anything ever but play that way is silly. Still the is obviously enough confusion over the wording ... I'd contact some one at the event to get a ruling (preferably written with a name attached)

I agree with this - contact the TO before you go to the event. Let them know about the wording issues, and ask if they'll count it as wonky wording on GW's part. We can all argue about RAW vs. RAI and the wording on the ability till the cows come home, but ultimately in the case of 'Ard Boyz, it'll be down to the TO.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:But I wouldn't show up to a competitive event expecting everyone else to bend the rules to accomodate how you think the game should be played.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at such a comment.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Botton line: "can claim objectives as if they were troops" really is the same thing as "scoring unit". Would it been much easier if GW had said it made it a scoring unit? Of course, it would even have avoided that whole silly Dreadnought thing. But they didn't, and whatever, GW does things sub-optimally.

SO yes, they count as scoring. That doesn't mean you can't get some TO to rule otherwise, we've all seen bad judge rulings, but frankly, if your opponent brings this up, he's a jerk, even at Ard Boyz.

While this is a wonderful house rule, none of this has any grounding in the actual rules. You would need to get a TO to rule in your favor in this case, not the other way around.

"can claim objectives as if they were troops" really is NOT the same thing as "scoring unit" In most situations they perform the same function, but they are not the same thing. Just like a model with BS 10 and a model with BS 5 and a twin-linked weapon are functionally the same in most cases, yet are not the same thing.

If the wording for a scenario specifies "Scoring units" then don't expect Unyeilding Anvil to do anything for you. If you talk with the TO about it ahead of time, you might get a ruling in your favor. But I wouldn't show up to a competitive event expecting everyone else to bend the rules to accomodate how you think the game should be played.

Oh, buddy, you just went ahead accused someone who disagreed with you of making "houserules"? You're going to have to establish yourself a little smarter before you start looking down your nose at me.

That aside, your interpretation (and your haughty pronouncement) basically ignores 25 years of ambiguous rules and fluff-based FAQs, shows a complete misunderstanding of how GW goes about writing rules, and complete ignores the point that I, and several others, were making about the difference between a tightly written, key-word based system like magic (and for that matter, warmachine), and a much looser, fluffily written, imprecise game like 40k.

Truth is, I much prefer the former, it means I don't have to argue with folks like you. However, 40k isn't that kind of system, and you can't treat it as such. It leads to very strange interpretations. It would be like interpreting the phrase "We the people...." literally meant the constitution was written by all the people of US, together.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stavkat wrote:

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:But I wouldn't show up to a competitive event expecting everyone else to bend the rules to accomodate how you think the game should be played.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at such a comment.

Yup

So your point is that because GW writes sloppily, it's ok to change the rules so that the game works how you think it should. But that isn't a houserule because.....And if you don't bother to ask the TO about it beforehand, and one of your opponents isn't ok with the way you've changed the rules, then they are a jerk.


I would call that bad advice.

Much better advice (as has been said by a few previous posters) would be to sort it out with the TO ahead of time, and then explain it to your opponent at the start of the game, so that there's no surprises for anyone. If you don't, be prepared to get ruled against, because RAW Unyielding Anvil does not make units scoring (Unless someone can quote a rule or FAQ I might have missed that states that Unyielding Anvil makes units scoring). And if you wait till turn 6 to bring this up, when the outcome of the game is on the line, be prepared for the possibility of a big argument, which will be your fault for not sorting it out sooner.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Botton line: "can claim objectives as if they were troops" really is the same thing as "scoring unit". Would it been much easier if GW had said it made it a scoring unit? Of course, it would even have avoided that whole silly Dreadnought thing. But they didn't, and whatever, GW does things sub-optimally.

SO yes, they count as scoring. That doesn't mean you can't get some TO to rule otherwise, we've all seen bad judge rulings, but frankly, if your opponent brings this up, he's a jerk, even at Ard Boyz.

While this is a wonderful house rule, none of this has any grounding in the actual rules. You would need to get a TO to rule in your favor in this case, not the other way around.

"can claim objectives as if they were troops" really is NOT the same thing as "scoring unit" In most situations they perform the same function, but they are not the same thing. Just like a model with BS 10 and a model with BS 5 and a twin-linked weapon are functionally the same in most cases, yet are not the same thing.

If the wording for a scenario specifies "Scoring units" then don't expect Unyeilding Anvil to do anything for you. If you talk with the TO about it ahead of time, you might get a ruling in your favor. But I wouldn't show up to a competitive event expecting everyone else to bend the rules to accomodate how you think the game should be played.

I guarantee that you will not find any even 1/10 way decent TO that would rule that Unyielding Anvil didn't allow them to Score.

ANYONE who pulled this around here would get laughed out of the store, and if he didn't back down he would most certaintly be banned. I would call every GT organizer in the country, and possably several others, and get him banned there too.

If it was a TO who said it or agreed to it, well, that wouldn't go over well. Reputations can get ruined pretty easily and it isn't that hard to do.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:So your point is that because GW writes sloppily, it's ok to change the rules so that the game works how you think it should. But that isn't a houserule because.....And if you don't bother to ask the TO about it beforehand, and one of your opponents isn't ok with the way you've changed the rules, then they are a jerk.

My point is, that you trying to declare how things work, as if you understand how it wall works, but I obviously do not, and therefore anything that disagrees with you is a "houserule", makes you seem like a small, small man.

That's all completely aside from the fact that the consensus seems to be that you're wrong. Even if you were right, your holier (smarter) than thou attitude would be asinine.

And by the way, I never said don't ask the TO, don't try to make it sound like I did.

Grey Templar wrote:

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Botton line: "can claim objectives as if they were troops" really is the same thing as "scoring unit". Would it been much easier if GW had said it made it a scoring unit? Of course, it would even have avoided that whole silly Dreadnought thing. But they didn't, and whatever, GW does things sub-optimally.

SO yes, they count as scoring. That doesn't mean you can't get some TO to rule otherwise, we've all seen bad judge rulings, but frankly, if your opponent brings this up, he's a jerk, even at Ard Boyz.

While this is a wonderful house rule, none of this has any grounding in the actual rules. You would need to get a TO to rule in your favor in this case, not the other way around.

"can claim objectives as if they were troops" really is NOT the same thing as "scoring unit" In most situations they perform the same function, but they are not the same thing. Just like a model with BS 10 and a model with BS 5 and a twin-linked weapon are functionally the same in most cases, yet are not the same thing.

If the wording for a scenario specifies "Scoring units" then don't expect Unyeilding Anvil to do anything for you. If you talk with the TO about it ahead of time, you might get a ruling in your favor. But I wouldn't show up to a competitive event expecting everyone else to bend the rules to accomodate how you think the game should be played.

I guarantee that you will not find any even 1/10 way decent TO that would rule that Unyielding Anvil didn't allow them to Score.

ANYONE who pulled this around here would get laughed out of the store, and if he didn't back down he would most certaintly be banned. I would call every GT organizer in the country, and possably several others, and get him banned there too.

If it was a TO who said it or agreed to it, well, that wouldn't go over well. Reputations can get ruined pretty easily and it isn't that hard to do.

You about made me laugh myself out of my house, Banned from a store for not backing down. Firstly noone would get banned just told flat out they're wrong, secondly when you did call people they'd laugh you off the phone.

This whole counts as nonsense goes too far

WHY WASN'T i GIVEN SOMETHING TO YELL ABOUT!!?!!?!!... ahem....sorry about that.

GKs have a special rule called Psychic Pilot that allows their vehicles to be treated as Psykers for the use of one power. Are they Psykers? Consensus says Yes, they are Psykers, and can be effected by attacks that target Psykers.

GKs have special rule called Unyielding Anvil that allows some of their non-Troop units to claim objectives as if they were Troops. Are they scoring? Consensus says No, they are not scoring, and can only claim objectives because the special rule says so.

Seem like "consensus" enjoys using loopholes to deny any perceived advantage to others.

SJ

Everyone needs o take a deep breath and stop burning people up with their keyboards.

No more insults otherwise you are in violation of YMDC tenants as well as the rules for posting on this site at all.

Now, what we need is an actual argument supported by rules and not repelled by the fact that someone would get banned from their FLGS.

RAW unyeilding anvil only allows you to control objectives as troops. The words control objectives is very important there. What the words "as troops" do for you is make it so all the rules that apply for troops to control objectives apply to you. It dosent, however, make them troops. If it did that, it would say, make a unit a troop choice. So they cannot do anything other than control objectives. Otherwise it would say, the unit can control objectives and counts as a troop choice for force org, and ect.....

"Unyielding Anvil: A key position must be seized for victory to be won. The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were troops." GK Codex P.22

So they can claim objectives as If they were a troop choice.

"The concept of scoring units are all the 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..." P.90 brb

Any units with Unyielding Anvil count as scoring, if you understand the two rules in question.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:No more insults otherwise you are in violation of YMDC tenants as well as the rules for posting on this site at all.

Tenets, not tenants. YMDC tenants would be people renting the channel from its owners to live in it.

jeffersonian000 wrote:GKs have a special rule called Psychic Pilot that allows their vehicles to be treated as Psykers for the use of one power. Are they Psykers? Consensus says Yes, they are Psykers, and can be effected by attacks that target Psykers.

I would actually say the complete opposite, that the consesus is that they are not psykers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
RAW unyeilding anvil only allows you to control objectives as troops. The words control objectives is very important there. What the words "as troops" do for you is make it so all the rules that apply for troops to control objectives apply to you. It dosent, however, make them troops. If it did that, it would say, make a unit a troop choice. So they cannot do anything other than control objectives. Otherwise it would say, the unit can control objectives and counts as a troop choice for force org, and ect.....

How, exactly, is "controlling an objective" different from "scoring" ? The terms are synonymous, else we would not even have the two right?

@the OP (if you're even bothering to read this thread anymore): can we get some kind of verdict from the TO? 'Ard Boyz was 2 days ago, unless I'm mistaken...