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.

My friend and I were playing one of the new scenarios from the battle book he had recently purchased. There were four objectives scattered around the table centered on a "Chaos Warp Rift" from the scenario we had randomly chosen. Playing Space Orks, I had my usual large units of gretchin cluttering up the table in a long conga line. The unit was large enough to stretch around three of the four objectives but we weren't sure it was kosher for one troop unit to be holding three objectives. We were reading the rule book and searched this forum for any discussion of troops holding multiple objectives, but didn't find any references. The rule book didn't directly require one troop unit to be holding each objective, but on the other hand one troop unit holding three objectives seemed to be a bit of an abuse. Any suggestion on where to go to check on this issue?

Thanks

Per the BGB FAQ, it's allowed.

You check under 'Scoring Units' page 90.

It tells you that a non vehicle unit from the troops allowance can control objectives, without any restriction to how many they can control.

You can have one unit control 5 objectives if you wanted then to.

They can control 100 or more objectives if they were close enough.

See the Rulebook FAQ. http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1830600a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_4.pdf

The unit can control several objectives.

Now, the way I would play it is, (and there is absolutely no rules to back this up, it is simply a house rule) the unit must maintain coherency in order to do so. Otherwise, you get a lot of long strung out units with huge gaps in them. It just looks silly, IMHO.

ToBeWilly wrote:Now, the way I would play it is, (and there is absolutely no rules to back this up, it is simply a house rule) the unit must maintain coherency in order to do so. Otherwise, you get a lot of long strung out units with huge gaps in them. It just looks silly, IMHO.

100% houserule, as there are no requirements to be in coherency when controlling an objective.

Getting "a lot of long strung out units with huge gaps in them" is not possible, unless the unit that is holding multiple objectives have Gone To Ground.

The unit that is holding multiple objectives MUST move to restore coherency in their next movement phase, unless that unit has Gone To Ground.

Unless they start in coherency, say in 5th turn, then get shot up...remove the models not by objective, etc, then. Some ends. They control all the objectives they are by

DarthSpader wrote:Unless they start in coherency, say in 5th turn, then get shot up...remove the models not by objective, etc, then. Some ends. They control all the objectives they are by

That is why I said:

"MUST move to restore coherency in their next movement phase"

DeathReaper wrote:100% houserule, as there are no requirements to be in coherency when controlling an objective.

Never said it was anything but a houserule.

DeathReaper wrote:Getting "a lot of long strung out units with huge gaps in them" is not possible, unless the unit that is holding multiple objectives have Gone To Ground.

The unit that is holding multiple objectives MUST move to restore coherency in their next movement phase, unless that unit has Gone To Ground.

It is entirely possible!! On the last turn, on the previous to last turn, even, to remove models in such a way to still be within 3" of an objective and still move to regain coherency.

I've done it, and it's been done to me. Hence, the houserule.

Granted, it isn't something that will come up often. But, it still came up enough for us to do something about it.

I know you said it was a house rule. I even quoted you saying that it was a house rule.

I just posted that to emphasize that it was a house rule.

The "Getting "a lot of long strung out units with huge gaps in them" is not possible" was explained in my next sentence that they need to move to restore coherency.

Why would they need to move to restore coherency if there weren't already huge gaps in the unit.

I thought it was self explanatory, but hopefully this has clarified my previous post.

I lost my last game in 'ard boys due to this very situation.

Last turn,10 man squad with a commissar lord strung out between 2 objectives. I did 9 wounds to the squad leaving the commissar at one objective and the sergeant on the other. Game ends without my opponent taking another turn. The commissar is still part of the unit so he still has both objectives.