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.

uhuh go on and play by yourself then. I never mentioned my dreadnought could fly, I only made it claim obj because the codex says I can. Your analogy is way off, anyway you guys can all argue about it all year long. Different people play with different interpretations of the rule, no matter how silly it is sometimes. To each his own, my bet FAQ will be out before months end if not then whatever fits your shoe

juppy wrote:uhuh go on and play by yourself then. I never mentioned my dreadnought could fly, I only made it claim obj because the codex says I can. Your analogy is way off, anyway you guys can all argue about it all year long. Different people play with different interpretations of the rule, no matter how silly it is sometimes. To each his own, my bet FAQ will be out before months end if not then whatever fits your shoe

The response was hyperbolic, but you need to apply some of your own wisdom. You read the codex a certain way, and another person could read it another way, as I've posted.

As I have stated only an official FAQ can resolve it. Both sides have their valid/invalid arguments and the discussion will not end until official word is done.

juppy wrote:As I have stated only an official FAQ can resolve it. Both sides have their valid/invalid arguments and the discussion will not end until official word is done.

Which is why statements like "I only made it claim obj because the codex says I can" can be construed as inflammatory, as they seem to imply that you are rules the only way they can be read.

or, this whole gem:

"Ugh ugly rules lawyering, you all are really making a big fuss out of a simple rule.

Grand Strategy ALLOWS dreads to score period, they do not make dreads into troops, they just allow them to claim and score LIKE troops, in all respect of the units and their type they ARE NOT troops only they can score and claim LIKE troops.... is that so hard to understand? no? Read again, arguing over a rule that is written as bright as day and if all else fails codex will always trump the BRB. (refer to codex DA and check under ravenwing rules) GK codex says they can score > BRB says vehicles cannot score. (again codex overrules rulebook unless stated otherwise)

Where I come from we play it the way it is written and intended. We want scoring dreads? then by all means go ahead, use grand strategy to make them."

In which you explicitely say it's written clear as day.

juppy wrote:

and grand strategy is a codex SR that allows dreads to claim obj as if they where troops and you keep arguing that because as per definition of troops vehicles cannot claim (like death company dreads) then the counter argument was actually simple the grand strategy specified unit types (why bother with specifics if it would just exclude the dreadnoughts?) unless an FAQ comes out disallowing dreads to claim then by all means the codex says they can and we shall follow that they can. (it isn't as game breaking or an uber omg ability that people are making a huge fuss about) many places play them this way and find no huge fuss about it. It isn't a rule that wins you every game, it is just an option.Besides the way I understand it "they may claim as if they are troops" clause is clear enough for me that they can claim regardless if unit type, the word "they may claim" and "as if they are troops", the rule does not make them into troops, they just give the dreads the capability to claim as if they are troops. If the rule was worded "they counts as troops" then I agree they cannot claim for they fall under the restrictions of troops that cannot claim, but the GS rule says they may claim, so in the effect that overrides the rulebook entry.

Then as long as we're arguing from the point of view of things that don't relate to the rules which we must assume we can't sufficiently understand (such as game balance), why was adding the "as if they were troops" section significant? If it was not to (apparently all too subtly) indicate to you that you were supposed to follow ALL the rules for scoring, that is, emphasizing that you do it like the unit is a troop, including the restrictions built into the rules, then I can only assume that the designers must have been charging by the letter, because that clause would become completely redundant at that point. Unless of course the designers thought people playing the game were too stupid to understand what "scoring for the purposes of objectives" actually meant.

Also, no one is arguing that they BECOME a troop choice. Not a person has said that. But they do become a troop choice for all intents and purposes of scoring for objectives, then they follow all the rules that troop choices do for objectives, including that vehicles do not score. It's like the JotWW stuff; you can't just cherry pick which parts of being a psychic shooting attack suit you best at the time.

Also, if it's not game breaking or a rule that wins you every game, why are you campaigning for it so hard?

Here's an interesting thought process I've had after reading this thread.
Raw-wise:
pg.90 BRB
"An army's scoring units are all the units that come from its Troops choice. The presence of other units may deny an objective to the enemy, but only Troops can control it. There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of Troops does not count as scoring:
- If it is a vehicle."
etc. etc.

Pg.91 BRB goes on to define how objective are claimed. It is interesting to note that neither Pg. 90 nor Seize Ground or Capture and Control define Contesting an objective, merely stating how an objective may be denied.


So we know what a scoring unit is (Troops allowance that is not x,y, or z) and that scoring units are allowed to claim objectives.

Pg. 22 Codex: Grey Knights
"Unyielding Anvil: A key position must be seized for victory to be won. The nominated units can claim objectives as if they were Troops."

Now here's something to notice: NO WHERE DOES IT STATE THE UNIT IS SCORING. This makes it's interaction with the BRB really funky.

1. Pg. 91 states how scoring units claim objectives.

2. Pg. 90 Stating how Troops are allowed to be scoring.

Therein: The Walker is allowed to claim objectives following the rules of Troops. As it is a vehicle, it does not count as scoring, BUT IT ISN'T SCORING ANYWAYS.

Let me repeat that: Walkers follow the rules of Troops for claim objectives, they are not scoring.

The closest I can think of rulewise is the interaction between powerfists and Thunder Hammers. Powerfists are defined, and Thunder Hammers follow the rules of Powerfists, but Thunder Hammers are not Powerfists.

RedDevil you did quote the book correctly. However the part under Sieze Ground and Capture And Control on page 91 clearly states that for you to claim an objective, it must be within a certain distance of a Scoring Unit.

Keeping that in mind, note that the book makes it very clear that:

The Dreadnought and it's variant can be subjected to the Grand Strategy Rule

The Grand Strategy Rule has 4 speciflc rules you can bestow upon a unit. Unyielding Anvil allows a unit to claim objectives as if they were troops.

The Dreadnoughts are, for the purposes of objectives, counted as troops now ("...as if they were troops").

The Dreadnought is still a vehicle, and under page 90 says that a unit of Troops is no longer scoring if it's a vehicle.

None of the rules contradict eachother. The Dreadnought did indeed become allow to claim objectives as if it was a troop choice, as any other Dreadnought or Deff Dred taken as a Troop Choice. If the rule had said "They now count as Scoring" that'd open up space for debate.

EDIT: Edited the comment I made. I still think some people are taking this way off though.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:This argument really shouldn't have gotten past page 1. All of the people who are claiming that the Dreadnought can indeed claim an objective either has reading comprehension problems or are just trying to grasp at straws to get a broken unit.

I've always felt that the best way to preface any argument is to establish that the only people that disagree with you are either stupid or jerks.

Mecha, I think is a little bit less clear than that.

"claim objectives as if they were troops"
Since Troops only can claim objectives when they are scoring, the unit must be scoring. But since it's a vehicle, it can't be scoring, even if it's a troops.

It can't follow both rules. I happen to think it should defer to the GK rule.

TheRedDevil wrote:Mecha, I think is a little bit less clear than that.

"claim objectives as if they were troops"
Since Troops only can claim objectives when they are scoring, the unit must be scoring. But since it's a vehicle, it can't be scoring, even if it's a troops.

It can't follow both rules. I happen to think it should defer to the GK rule.

The rule never said it became scoring. It simply says "claim objectives as if they were troops". The Dreadnought is claiming an objective as if it was a troop choice. A troop choice vehicle cannot be scoring. Non-scoring units can't claim objectives. It's not contradicting anything and is quite literally following both rules (similar to how a Deff Dred, made into a troop choice by a Big Mek, still cannot claim objectives despite being a troop choice). The Specific > General clause only comes in if there is a contradiction.

There are three other valid and effective rules to choose from under Grand Strategy, as others have pointed out.

@ Polonius: It doesn't help your point when you're trying to infer something negative about me

@TheRedDevil:

Wow. It only took three pages, but now there's an argument on the "Yes" side that is more informed and compelling than "Nuh-uh!" I commend you.

I reading the book now. I'd completely agree with you if it didn't say on page 91: "At the end of the game you control an objective if there is at least one of your scoring units, and no enemy unit (...) within 3" of it." I mean, what all is a part of "following the rules for claiming objectives"? Just that it has to be within 3" of an objective? If it's claiming "as troops" then I would think, as not all troops CAN claim, that it would have to inherit the rules from page 90 as well. Otherwise, who's to say that it doesn't follow the rules of claiming objectives of troops that can't claim objectives?

Really, though it might be getting to the point of dangerous levels of pedantry, there's nothing explaining what it even means to "claim" an objective. All terminology I'm seeing very specifically references "controlling" objectives.

Grand Strategy trumps the Rulebook.

A dreadnought given Unyielding Anvil can absolutely score.

The rule should have been worded a little bit better, but at this point the game is so complex that it's pretty much to be expected. A little common sense will go a long way until the FAQ comes out.

Ok, let me get this straight...

For: A dreadnought can score because "as if they were troops" is simply a clarification in the rulebooks which states only troops can score. Not troops, but acts like troops in that respect.

Against: "As if they were troops" literally makes them a troops choice. They can't score because troops vehicles can't.

Is that right? If so I think I still hold my stance. Dreadnoughts would otherwise take up a troop slot. If that's the case what happens if you have already maxed out your troops choices?

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:@ Polonius: It doesn't help your point when you're trying to infer something negative about me

To the contrary,Polonius' point was very elegantly made. You very bluntly stated that everyone who disagrees with you has problems reading or is seeking an advantage for themselves. No inference is needed to establish that this is pretty negative behaviour. It's also trolling. If you can't address the argument without insulting those making it, I would recommend staying out of the topic.

insaniak wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:@ Polonius: It doesn't help your point when you're trying to infer something negative about me

To the contrary,Polonius' point was very elegantly made. You very bluntly stated that everyone who disagrees with you has problems reading or is seeking an advantage for themselves. No inference is needed to establish that this is pretty negative behaviour. It's also trolling. If you can't address the argument without insulting those making it, I would recommend staying out of the topic.

Edited out that portion now. I apologise. I admit the first half was insulting, but as for the second half I dont see how making a Dreadnought Scoring is either fluffy or RAI.

What the point of this arguement? FYI Codex Trumps 40k Rules book. Under the Grand Stragtey you can made your Dreadnought of monster Creature scoring. So show me in the codex where is does it states that under Grand Stragtey can't make walkers or monster creatures scoring, RAW doesn't overrule Codex, only the rules for the general rule book

Sigh. No wonder I can go to Adepticon and play four different games against different opponents and have all of them somehow come up with a different way they think cover is supposed to be determined.

You guys have fun, play how you want. I've stopped caring. Hopefully nos or someone can step in and type till their arms fall off.

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:What the point of this arguement? FYI Codex Trumps 40k Rules book. Under the Grand Stragtey you can made your Dreadnought of monster Creature scoring. So show me in the codex where is does it states that under Grand Stragtey can't make walkers or monster creatures scoring, RAW doesn't overrule Codex, only the rules for the general rule book

But that's *not* what it says.

<-- Best I can do without a "tears of frustration" emote.

It says "the nominated units can claim objectives as if they were Troops." Troops that are vehicles cannot claim objectives.

Okay, one more: CODEX DOES NOT TRUMP RULEBOOK.

Specific rules trump general rules. It just happens that typically rules are more specific in the Codex than in the rulebook. Even so, NONE OF THESE RULES CONFLICT. Thats right, you can follow every single last rule following the method's we've been describing without breaking ANY of them. "But...but... but...dwednots are scoring" DOES break a restriction, without specifically allowing for it. It does not say "These units count as scoring objectives even if they could never otherwise." It says "Pretend they're troops for purposes of claiming objectives". Well, what happens with troop choice dreadnoughts? Do they claim objectives?

Lukus83 wrote:Ok, let me get this straight...

For: A dreadnought can score because "as if they were troops" is simply a clarification in the rulebooks which states only troops can score. Not troops, but acts like troops in that respect.

Against: "As if they were troops" literally makes them a troops choice. They can't score because troops vehicles can't.

Is that right? If so I think I still hold my stance. Dreadnoughts would otherwise take up a troop slot. If that's the case what happens if you have already maxed out your troops choices?

Perhaps only troops can score, but not all troops can score. Namely, Vehicles. It can score as a Troop, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a vehicle, and therefore can't score.

Making it act as a troop does not automatically make it scoring, since it doesn't say which type of troop. If it said "Scores as though Infantry", then it'd fall more on the side of scoring Dreadnaughts. But as it stands, it scores as a 'troop', which can include non-scoring troops.


Say instead of calling them Troops, Vehicles, and such, it's instead "Pegs are used to fit into holes. All holes are round. Everything is 2" across in size in all dimensions. Certain pegs cannot fit into holes, such as square pegs, and octahedral pegs. If you jump five times in rapid succession, this Grey square prism may be fit to the hole as though it were a peg."

There is room there to argue that, 'hey, it can be fit as a peg, and pegs fit into holes', but that doesn't change the fact that it is a type (shape) that will not fit into the hole, because, though you can now count a prism as a peg, it is still shaped wrong.


Man, that was a weird metaphor.

juppy wrote: I never mentioned my dreadnought could fly, I only made it claim obj because the codex says I can. Y

No....your codex does not say that. It says that for scoring purposes, your dreadnought counts as a troops choice. That's quite different, and still doesn't let your dreadnought score.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lukus83 wrote:Ok, let me get this straight...

For: A dreadnought can score because "as if they were troops" is simply a clarification in the rulebooks which states only troops can score. Not troops, but acts like troops in that respect.

Against: "As if they were troops" literally makes them a troops choice. They can't score because troops vehicles can't.

Is that right? If so I think I still hold my stance. Dreadnoughts would otherwise take up a troop slot. If that's the case what happens if you have already maxed out your troops choices?

It doesn't make them troops, it makes them "counts as" troops. Like it says. And there *are* troop choice dreadnoughts. They don't score either.

I think we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this. I'm going to bow out at this point since I still think my point still stands (it's not a troop, but scores just like it is one...again a clarification from the rulebook to state that only troops score). I could be wrong, but I think both sides of the argument have merit and we won't get a united decision until the FAQ is out.

Only Troops score, but not All troops score is the big issue here, I think. If the rule clarified which type of Troop the unit scored as, (Infantry, Bike, Jump Infantry, MC, Walker, or non- any of those things) there'd be less room for confusion.

Lukus83 wrote:it's not a troop, but scores just like it is one...

...which means that if it's a vehicle, it doesn't, because Troops vehicles don't score.

The rule says they score. Anything past that point is just bad wording by Ward, IMO.

Wait, I'm a little confused here.

The Grey Knights codex says that units with the Unyielding Anvil strategy can claim objectives as if they were troops.

But the BRB says that troops vehicles cannot claim objectives. And Dreadnoughts are vehicles.

So wouldn't that mean that Dreadnoughts, even with the Unyielding Anvil, cannot claim objectives, since it's a vehicle?

As for bad wording by Matt Ward, remember - this went through GW as a whole. It's not as if Ward worked on this for a couple of years in secret, then decided it was ready for print. Games Workshop itself ok'd the production of the codex.

infinite_array wrote:The Grey Knights codex says that units with the Unyielding Anvil strategy can claim objectives as if they were troops.

But the BRB says that troops vehicles cannot claim objectives. And Dreadnoughts are vehicles.

So wouldn't that mean that Dreadnoughts, even with the Unyielding Anvil, cannot claim objectives, since it's a vehicle?

That about sums it up, yes. Troops can capture objectives unless they are vehicles. So a rule that allows a non-Troops unit to captur obtectives as if they were Troops would allow that unit to capture objectives... but only so long as the unit is not a vehicle.

To work on vehicles, the rule would need to specify that they can capture objectives as if they were infantry Troops, or non-vehicle Troops.


Whether or not that's the intention of the rule is anybody's guess. The way vehicles interact with the rest of the game has been the subject of many an oversight in the rules for as long as there have been vehicles in the game.

I would agree, except that this isn't the first time that Ward has crafted a poorly thought-out/worded codex that somehow made it through GW... Let's face it, they're still just human over there and the game is getting very complex. Things like this are going to happen, and it won't be until it's in the hands of the masses that further bugs will be found. It's the same in the software industry.

I honestly believe that Ward put in walkers as a unit type eligible to receive the ability in the same fashion that the other unit types do, but inadvertently shot himself in the foot with the "count as troops" bit.

bushido wrote:It says "the nominated units can claim objectives as if they were Troops." Troops that are vehicles cannot claim objectives.

This sums it up, any of the units can claim objectives as if they were troops.

A Death Company dreadnought IS a troop choice for the Blood Angels and it is not a scoring unit, since it is a vehicle.

Therefore a GK Dreadnought with the Unyielding Anvil strategy is still a vehicle and can not score, since vehicle that are troops can not score. (unless specifically allowed, but that is not the case here)

Abaddon wrote:I honestly believe that Ward put in walkers as a unit type eligible to receive the ability in the same fashion that the other unit types do, but inadvertently shot himself in the foot with the "count as troops" bit.

That's certainly possible. However, it's equally possible that he put in walkers as a unit type eligible to receive the ability so that they can benefit from the other uses of Grand Strategy. It wouldn't be the first time that a rule has been written in such a way as to deliberately exclude a certain unit type that looks at a first glance to be able to benefit from it from making full use of it...