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.

I was having a discussion with a co worker about scoring non denial units. Now I haven't played 40k since November but I am getting back to it and this came up:
If heavy support are a scoring unit for the mission, and I have my vindicator within 3 inches if an objective and my opponent has his manticore within 3 inches how does that work since neither are denial units but both are scoring... Any input is welcome I honest haven't a clue and he seems to think neither would get it which makes sense but also makes the other persons tank a denial unit in a sense.

They both get the objective.

I'm not sure why that's difficult to understand.

In essence its just the same as if they were denial. Since both teams would score the point for the objective, neither team gets ahead.

rigeld2 wrote:
They both get the objective.

I'm not sure why that's difficult to understand.

It seems a little counter intuitive. I agree that you're right, rigeld, but I think it's easy to see where some folks can get confused.

Fragile wrote:
In essence its just the same as if they were denial. Since both teams would score the point for the objective, neither team gets ahead.

depending on the scoring of the tourney, possibly. some tourneys I've been to rely on how many points you have over your opponent and this would be true. Others went on a set scoring system and this could make a difference if it was your opponents only objective while you gained others. (in terms of draw to minor, minor to major etc) essentially bumping you into a better bracket of players for next round. Rare in the extreme, but I feel that if any unit is capable of scoring for a paticular mission (such as big guns) then it should be a denial unit as well. You can't necessarily share a nuclear bomb can you?

Paitryn,

If you are in a tournament where the scoring rules have been changed to fit said tournament then nothing we say here matters. It would be up to you to discuss it with the people organizing said tournament to find out what happens in this situation. This forum has no change over what the organizers of a tournament may enact, and yes they are likely to enact changes to make it easier on their system if they have dramatically changed how scoring works.

Inside the standard format of a normal game I have no qualm about it either way as it is completely irrelevant! It doesn't matter what the objective may be, fluff wise, at the end of the game it is simply converted into points. In a situation where both sides may either score the same amount of points of a single objective, or deny each other the objective outright, the distinction is moot. Under normal scoring mechanisms either way will lead you to the same result: one side will have the same number of points over the other, excluding ties, no matter how it is determined.

JinxDragon wrote:
Under normal scoring mechanisms either way will lead you to the same result: one side will have the same number of points over the other, excluding ties, no matter how it is determined.

But that's just the VP count. You're forgetting mysterious objectives, where both players simultaneously controlling an objective is very different from neither player controlling it.

Of course this is why the simplest way to do it is to just count all scoring units as denial units even though it isn't explicitly stated that they are. It might not be strictly RAW, but the way the rules are written there's no sign that GW ever realized that this situation should come up and the "all scoring are denial" modification brings the rules in line with how GW seems to have meant it to work.

JinxDragon wrote:
Inside the standard format of a normal game I have no qualm about it either way as it is completely irrelevant! It doesn't matter what the objective may be, fluff wise, at the end of the game it is simply converted into points. In a situation where both sides may either score the same amount of points of a single objective, or deny each other the objective outright, the distinction is moot. Under normal scoring mechanisms either way will lead you to the same result: one side will have the same number of points over the other, excluding ties, no matter how it is determined.

That's not actually the case. If you're playing HS/FA are Scoring, but not Denial, in Big Guns/Scouring, then a Troops unit will basically trump a HS/FA vehicle if they're both on an objective. I nearly* lost a GT game this way at the Onslaught GT (TempleCon) in February. My Heldrake was on the same objective as an opponent's unit of Cultists. He was able to score it and deny it to me, as the tournament was running that the Heldrake did not become a Denial unit.

(*We then remembered to count dead Fast Attack units, and I had killed enough to nose ahead on points.)

 Mannahnin wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Inside the standard format of a normal game I have no qualm about it either way as it is completely irrelevant! It doesn't matter what the objective may be, fluff wise, at the end of the game it is simply converted into points. In a situation where both sides may either score the same amount of points of a single objective, or deny each other the objective outright, the distinction is moot. Under normal scoring mechanisms either way will lead you to the same result: one side will have the same number of points over the other, excluding ties, no matter how it is determined.

That's not actually the case. If you're playing HS/FA are Scoring, but not Denial, in Big Guns/Scouring, then a Troops unit will basically trump a HS/FA vehicle if they're both on an objective. I nearly* lost a GT game this way at the Onslaught GT (TempleCon) in February. My Heldrake was on the same objective as an opponent's unit of Cultists. He was able to score it and deny it to me, as the tournament was running that the Heldrake did not become a Denial unit.

(*We then remembered to count dead Fast Attack units, and I had killed enough to nose ahead on points.)

Your no longer talking about the same thing though.

Paitryn wrote:
You can't necessarily share a nuclear bomb can you?

You can if its a Mysterious Objective bomb... that thing can explode as often as you like

Fragile wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Under normal scoring mechanisms either way will lead you to the same result: one side will have the same number of points over the other, excluding ties, no matter how it is determined.

That's not actually the case. If you're playing HS/FA are Scoring, but not Denial, in Big Guns/Scouring, then a Troops unit will basically trump a HS/FA vehicle if they're both on an objective. I nearly* lost a GT game this way at the Onslaught GT (TempleCon) in February. My Heldrake was on the same objective as an opponent's unit of Cultists. He was able to score it and deny it to me, as the tournament was running that the Heldrake did not become a Denial unit.

(*We then remembered to count dead Fast Attack units, and I had killed enough to nose ahead on points.)

Your no longer talking about the same thing though.

What do you mean? I'm explaining why his thesis, that it makes no difference in the standard book mission whether a given unit is denial as well as scoring, is incorrect.

Neither player controls the objective for scoring or mysterious objective purposes as they both have units within 3'' of it.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
Neither player controls the objective for scoring or mysterious objective purposes as they both have units within 3'' of it.

RAW that is not true. The test for scoring objectives doesn't care about any random unit, it specifically mentions denial units. If you have a scoring unit within 3" and your opponent doesn't have a denial unit within 3" you control the objective. If your opponent also has a scoring unit within 3" and you don't have a denial unit within 3" your opponent controls the objective as well. Both of you gain the points for it, and count as controlling it for mysterious objective purposes.

Of course the fact that the rules don't say anything about this possibility suggests that GW didn't realize that it was possible to have a scoring unit that is not also a denial unit, and therefore that RAI the missions that make non-standard units scoring also make them denial units.

I did overlook the mysterious objective angle, that is correct.

RAW still is quite clear, both get to benefit from the ability that is being generated, or suffer if it is a bomb. I can put forth some theories as to why they could share without issue too, but I really wouldn't make any solid arguments based on it because it really would simply be 'fluff' explications. Just trying to make light of the situation more then provide any wisdom on the rules.

Skyfire Nexis and Targeting relay could simply 'broadcast' advanced targeting information over a short distance. This is why you need to be close to it, as any further out and you lose the signal or can't hear what the thing is saying. While scatterfield and grav generators are even more easy to explain as they create a protective barrier over a short distance.

If you want to rule that both are denied the benefits of Mysterious Objectives then I wouldn't have a problem with it personally. Just talk to your opponent when it happens, cause it isn't likely to occur enough to bring up before the game that is for sure. I bet they would be more then willing to side with you as it isn't at all unreasonable.

The Mysterious Objective rules state that the benefits are conveyed on the unit that controls them. I believe enemy units can therefore Deny control and thus the benefits, if in range.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The Mysterious Objective rules state that the benefits are conveyed on the unit that controls them. I believe enemy units can therefore Deny control and thus the benefits, if in range.

Except we're talking about a case where you have two units that are scoring but not denial. Let's say it's two IG players, each with a single LRBT within 3" of the objective in big guns never tire.

LRBT #1 controls the objective because it is within 3" and there are no enemy denial units within 3".

LRBT #2 controls the objective because it is within 3" and there are no enemy denial units within 3".

Now, it was probably intended that big guns never tire makes the LRBTs into scoring AND denial units (in which case they deny each other and nobody holds the objective), but strictly by RAW there is no way to argue that they deny control of the objective.

Well, yes, of course. That follows from what I posted before. I was addressing the tangential question Jinx seemed to be raising, about whether one can (in general) Contest a Mysterious Objective to deny its benefits.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Well, yes, of course. That follows from what I posted before. I was addressing the tangential question Jinx seemed to be raising, about whether one can (in general) Contest a Mysterious Objective to deny its benefits.

But they were talking about the specific case of opposing units simultaneously controlling an objective, not the incredibly obvious general case that no, a contested objective does not give its benefits. It's just an attempt to make a "fluff" explanation for how the absurd RAW situation could make sense.

I read over that section of the rule book again and noticed something this time. A paragraph, just above the d6 randomization table, that may cover what happens if two opposing squads are in control of an objective. In short, you randomize who is in control if you can't decide who is closest to the objective. I guess that works, and there is words to back it up, but that is even less logical then 'they are fighting over the object, so they are too busy trying not to be shot to use it.'

Good catch. (BRB p125)

Note that it also has the proviso "for the purposes of the rules discussed below"

This addresses the Mysterious Objective power usage, but not the end of game Victory Points question.

Apparently not incredibly obvious, P.

FM, JD, refer back two paragraphs. The benefit is conferred to the unit that controls the objective. The paragraph you're looking at, I believe is talking about the situation when the controlling player has multiple scoring units in position. If so, the closest automatically holds it, or you randomize if they're equidistant. You don't get to choose.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The paragraph you're looking at, I believe is talking about the situation when the controlling player has multiple scoring units in position.

Nope, it's about determining which unit, if any, is the controlling unit.

If so, the closest automatically holds it, or you randomize if they're equidistant. You don't get to choose.

Who said choose?

I have read over it again and I think the fact it uses the words 'in control' is the key here. Only one unit may be in control of the objective at any time, as per the limitations found in the objective sections and an additional one here. That additional limitation is used if multiple units capable of 'controlling' the objective are in 3" of it. Nothing suggests that those units have to be of the same army, just the closest.

To be really fair though, I think it is an oversight. It can be argued either way, of course, but I personally lean towards the fact they didn't take into account some mission allows non-denial units to be considered scoring. These mission modifiers should of made vehicles scoring and denial, that way it wouldn't be a debatable point. A friend also pointed something out using allied tables, discussed here in depth in past threads so I won't bring it up, but it highlights that they really didn't consider the way scoring/controlling/Victory Points work very well.

This screams, to me, of rules not clashing very well... surprise!

foolishmortal wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The paragraph you're looking at, I believe is talking about the situation when the controlling player has multiple scoring units in position.

Nope, it's about determining which unit, if any, is the controlling unit.

Right, it's about determining which unit is the controlling unit, if multiple units are in a position to control it. This is within the greater context of the rules for objectives, which state clearly that my unit only controls an objective if there are no enemy Denial units in range to contest it. Nothing in the Mysterious Objective rules says that enemy units can't contest/deny them, so to my read they still do. What the paragraph we're discussing clarifies is who gets the benefits if multiple units are in a position to control one; which can only happen when those units are on the same side (or if they're both opposing, scoring, non-denial units, assuming someone is playing by the interpretation that there are such things).

foolishmortal wrote:

If so, the closest automatically holds it, or you randomize if they're equidistant. You don't get to choose.

Who said choose?

No one in this thread. I'm saying that the rules are making clear that if I have multiple units in position to control a given objective, I don't get to choose which one gets the benefit; it's purely based on distance, or randomized if equidistant. This can have tactical ramifications.