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.

The FAQ says they are a normal Scoring unit for the purposes of Victory Points, because the question is about sodding victory points.

Thanks, nurglitch. Which ruleset does that come from? I need to be able to point it out to opponents.

It's how the 5th edition rulebook is set up.

Gwar, the question could be about bananas, and if it said they were a scoring unit, they would be a scoring unit. I repeat, does the term scoring unit even make sense in the context of VPs?

And, no, the question does not say they're a normal scoring unit for the purposes of VP. It says they're a normal scoring unit.

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, the question could be about bananas, and if it said they were a scoring unit, they would be a scoring unit. I repeat, does the term scoring unit even make sense in the context of VPs?

Yes, they score you victory points.

Oh, well, Nurglitch. I guess if you can't give me some sort of reference I'll be stuck arguing it out based on common sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwar, where does GW use the term scoring unit in the context of VPs? Scoring unit is a term that's used to refer to being able to capture objectives. It has a rules meaning, so making one up based on conjecture as to what "scoring" and "unit" mean together is simply ignoring the rules for scoring units, listed on p. 90.

I would read "normal scoring unit" as "they score as normal for their unit type", not "they gain the ability to score".

ajfirecracker:

The reference is the rulebook.

The rulebook doesn't contain a sentence explicitly telling you that the rules are written in English (or German, etc) either, and asking for a reference for such a sentence would be missing the point that the rulebook being written in English is what tells you it's written in English.

Likewise with the definitions of "normal" and other terms of art in the book: their definition is made through their mode of use.

Nurglitch, that may be true, but when someone disagrees with the meaning of an instance of normal, I'd still be stuck arguing it out.

That's why you deal with rules disputes prior to play.

ajfirecracker wrote:Nurglitch, that may be true, but when someone disagrees with the meaning of an instance of normal, I'd still be stuck arguing it out.

The same can be said of "is" and a ridiculous amount of other words.
If it is not a game term, it is a word.

If that's the case, then there should be no rules version thereof, and nurglitch should not be insisting that it has a special meaning in regards to the rules. Just using it as a word would be sufficient.

Misfire.

I did not read that he was.

It seemed to me that he was asserting that the rule used "normal".

As above, I originally thought his point with the normal definition and such was to deny Death Company scoring based on checking whether or not "scoring" applied using normal rules.

I read it as supporting this:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I would read "normal scoring unit" as "they score as normal for their unit type", not "they gain the ability to score".

Which I thought was rather succinct.

shrug

I agree that it looked like nurglitch supported that position. I agree that its succinct. But I also think the position is completely wrong.

A normal scoring unit is a unit that is both normal and scoring. There's simply no rules to the contrary.

The obvious implication is that they should be considered normal "scoring unit" as opposed to a special "scoring unit". If they were not normal in their scoring, they would face some additional restriction or benefit (relative to other scoring units), which they do not.

Responding more directly to Orkeosaurus' argument: there's simply no way to take X scoring unit and argue that it's something other than a scoring unit which is also X, especially since scoring unit is well-defined (by GW standards) in the rulebook.

ajfirecracker wrote:
A normal scoring unit is a unit that is both normal and scoring. There's simply no rules to the contrary.

The obvious implication is that they should be considered normal "scoring unit" as opposed to a special "scoring unit". If they were not normal in their scoring, they would face some additional restriction or benefit (relative to other scoring units), which they do not.

If the FAQ were refering to a question about holding objectives I would agree.

It remains about Victory Points. VP are scored as well. As the unit is not costed normally, without upgrades, scoring as normal means you count the points spent - as normal, for scoring.

shrug

Right, but the term "scoring unit" means something very specific. I don't think the intent of that particular phrase was to say to count the points spent, since the end of the sentence about scoring is an explanation of how much the squad is worth in VPs.

This six-strong initial squad is a normal scoring unit worth 0 VPs.

I think it's a screw-up on GW's part, I just don't see how that screw-up can be interpreted other than to give them scoring status.

ajfirecracker wrote:Right, but the term "scoring unit" means something very specific.

In the rules.

So are you saying that the six-strong initial squad is scoring? That is the only allowance for it - not the unit at large, without touching on the fact that the question itself is now . . . moot, as "kill points" are used now.

kirsanth wrote:So are you saying that the six-strong initial squad is scoring? That is the only allowance for it - not the unit at large, without touching on the fact that the question itself is now . . . moot, as "kill points" are used now.

Well, KP are used in Annihilation. VPs are farther back in the rulebook, but they are still in there, so the question isn't 'moot'.

ajfirecracker. I see what you're saying, but in context, it's pretty obvious that the question is referring to VP status only and not their ability to control an objective. I wouldn't argue it if an opponent wanted his DC to be scoring, but I do not believe that to be the intent behind the FAQ answer.

Moot:
• adjective subject to debate or uncertainty: a moot point.

• verb put forward for discussion.

Ahhh, I was reading it as:
Moot=of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.

don_mondo wrote:Ahhh, I was reading it as:
Moot=of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.

That is how most people see it. However it reeeeeeeealy annoys kirsanth when people use it "wrong". Something I use to great delight

But the codex is silent on whether BA are scoring. It's a mute point.

Hehehehehehehehehe, sounds like fun to me!!

I just got ninja'd on an explaination of my own foible.

American (and even so, colloquial) usage is self-contradictory.
Moot was a gathering of elders for discussion.
A point brought before them was a moot point.
The negative usage is based upon the notion that debate is not worth time/too hard/takes thought. The usage of which makes me sort of annoyed, in that it is claiming that "This subject is too hard for me to discuss, stop it!!"

Off-topic: The usage of moot to indicate not worthy of debate is not saying that it's too hard to discuss, it's that it's not worth time because the point does not really matter either way.

Incorrect.
Editing to add:
Let's leave this as . . . moot.
Way off topic.