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 playing at game at the store the other day, and we rolled for it, we played big guns never tire

So heavies (including vehicles) are scoring units

I had my hammerhead skimmer scoring an objective

but in the last turn my opponent moved a unit into range of the objective as well, his were infantry type

He tells me that he won, because he was scoring the objective and denying me... while vehicles can't deny so I didn't get the objective or deny it...

Seems fishy but as far as reading what I've found in the rules... I couldn't argue with him

Is that legit?

Yes. While in BGNT and Scouring vehicles are given permission to score, they are not given permission to deny.

Most (from what I've heard anyway) tournaments house rule that vehicles are also denial units in those games, but again that is a house rule.

By RAW, scoring and denial are separate characteristics.

Vehicles are not scoring but BGNT makes them scoring. It does not make them denial units, so by RAW your opponent was correct.

Some tournaments have ruled that units made scoring by special scenarios are also denial units, so it's best to clarify with the TO if you're in a tournament.

It wasn't a tournament so I took it as me having learned a new sneaky rule to use in the future lol

RAW this is correct, but it's also kind of absurd. For example, you could have a situation where both players have a scoring vehicle on an objective and claim it successfully (including getting the benefits of a mysterious objective). IMO the rule wasn't intended to work like that, and GW just forgot that scoring units aren't automatically denial units.

It's a known technical loophole in the rules, but I have never heard anyone actually playing like that. As Peregrine points out, it makes things act really weirdly. I'm 99.5% sure that they absolutely meant all scoring units to deny as well.

 Crimson wrote:
It's a known technical loophole in the rules, but I have never heard anyone actually playing like that. As Peregrine points out, it makes things act really weirdly. I'm 99.5% sure that they absolutely meant all scoring units to deny as well.

I'm 99% sure the other way, based on chatting with some of the studio at games day.

as far as it goes, I'm going to go with the way the rules are written now, and if it comes up again ill use it against someone.. it make me feel better about losing over that

having re-read the rules on p123, it is very clear that they intended scoring and denial units to NOT be the same or inherent of each other.

by ensuring that vehicles are not denial units this prevents a vehicle such as a fast moving skimmer from simply bombing halfway across the battlefield on the last turn or a flyer going into skimmer mode and floating over to an objective right at the end to deny it to the opponent.

very clear distinction in that a vehicle regardless of scenario is never a denial unit and only in some scenarios is a scoring unit.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
a flyer going into skimmer mode and floating over to an objective right at the end to deny it to the opponent.

What does a Flyer being in Hover mode have to do with anything? A zooming Flyer is just as able to score in Scouring/BGNT as a Hovering Flyer.

 Happyjew wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
a flyer going into skimmer mode and floating over to an objective right at the end to deny it to the opponent.

What does a Flyer being in Hover mode have to do with anything? A zooming Flyer is just as able to score in Scouring/BGNT as a Hovering Flyer.

Only if the objective is >18" and within the 90* turn arc.
With the last turn there's no fear of being shot down/assaulted, so making your flyer able to actually park on the objective (not always possible with their limited maneuverability) can be a good strategy.

 Happyjew wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
a flyer going into skimmer mode and floating over to an objective right at the end to deny it to the opponent.

What does a Flyer being in Hover mode have to do with anything? A zooming Flyer is just as able to score in Scouring/BGNT as a Hovering Flyer.

A Zooming Flyer only has a 90 degree pivot, has to move over 18 inches and measures distance with objectives from the hull. A Hovering Flyer can move in any direction, does not have a minimum move, and measures distance from the base when it comes to objectives. So, according to the placement on the board the Flyer may not be able to Zoom over to the objective, and if the vertical distance between the Flyer and the objective is greater than 3 inches it cannot capture it while Zooming.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
a flyer going into skimmer mode and floating over to an objective right at the end to deny it to the opponent.

What does a Flyer being in Hover mode have to do with anything? A zooming Flyer is just as able to score in Scouring/BGNT as a Hovering Flyer.

A Zooming Flyer only has a 90 degree pivot, has to move over 18 inches and measures distance with objectives from the hull. A Hovering Flyer can move in any direction, does not have a minimum move, and measures distance from the base when it comes to objectives. So, according to the placement on the board the Flyer may not be able to Zoom over to the objective, and if the vertical distance between the Flyer and the objective is greater than 3 inches it cannot capture it while Zooming.

a hovering flyer/skimmer still doesn't measure from its base for objectives

Oh, really? Excellent, no more scoring Vendettas in The Scouring then.

Unless your opponent sticks objectives high up in a ruin.

Yeah, but those will be their objectives, presumably on their side of the board. I'm more concerned about a Flyer zooming over to grab an unguarded objective on my side of the board.

Why would I leave objectives on MY side of the table that I want my flyer to claim? Placing objectives in yoru deployment zone, to deny you placing somewhere more useful to yourself (ex - stopping you placing it behind LOS blocking terrain as it is within 12") is a very common tactic

Because I play Tyranids with a lot of deep striking so you know I'm going to be pushing you back into your deployment zone. Also, your flyers are a high priority target so it's not a safe assumption that they'll be around at the end of the game to claim objectives unless you're running a lot of them. I'm not saying it's something people don't have to worry about, it's just something I don't have to worry about as much.es of.

Ah, with more information it makes more sense.

Still, I would rather force you to hold an objective, to deny claiming it myself, and force you backwards. Splitting bugs up is a very effective counter

We are possibly a litlte OT by now though

I know this was already discussed,
but i have a new question and didn't want to start a new thread

Say the vehicle is on the objective,
and a enemy scoring unit charges the vehicle

how does that work?
IIRC the enemy unit being engaged means that its not scoring
technically the vehicle doesn't count as being engaged in cc so would still be scoring.. but does the enemy model in cc still count as denying?

 KonTheory wrote:
IIRC the enemy unit being engaged means that its not scoring

This is not a rule.


In your example, both units are scoring, but the non-vehicle unit is also denial... so only the non-vehicle unit is holding the objective.

Ok I dunno, I just assumed I guess that units locked in CC aren't scoring...
thanks

Brb mentions "the unit controlling the objective" but never any distinction as to who that is. It seems to be using singular, but if 2 units are next to it from the same team, are they actually both the controlling unit(s)?
I feel like these rules are almost as poorly written as the building/fortifications rules.

Nope, again it tells you which unit is controlling the objective in that instance - the one with the model closest to the objective.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, again it tells you which unit is controlling the objective in that instance - the one with the model closest to the objective.

Does it say what happens when there are two units equidistant from said objective?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, again it tells you which unit is controlling the objective in that instance - the one with the model closest to the objective.

Had a situation where my opponent put two units with a model in base contact with the objective to gain skyfire on both.
Argued they were both "closest."

I argued they were both "furthest away" by the same logic, but there is a rule stating that the closest has it and no rule stating that the one the farthest away doesn't.

DR - then youd have to randomise what is the closest, I guess.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - then youd have to randomise what is the closest, I guess.

That seems like a good way to play it since I can not find the rules for the situation (I do not think they exist), considering the rulebook talks about randomizing, albeit for some wound allocation and not this, but the situation seems similar enough to use the randomizing rules.

I will return once I can confirm with the book, but I am sure there is a single sentence within the scoring section that highlights what you do when two units are equal distance away. If I am remembering correctly, it wasn't the best written and was hidden within a much larger paragraph that detailed something completely different. Which, sadly, is pretty standard for Game Workshop and how it handles rules.

I can tell you exactly where it is. Page 125, right before the description of the various mysterious objectives.