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.

How can you say those are the rules for controlling an objective in general, not for scoring units alone, when it specifically mentions scoring units in the sentence you've posted?

The BRB cites how you control an objective using a scoring unit.

The dataslate cites how you control an objective with the special rule.

The BRB applies an extra condition applied to (conventional) scoring units, but there's no reason at all that the extra condition applies to the special rule.

I argues against Coredump but have seen the error of my ways and repented. You have to look at both statements together.

The basic problem is that GW assumes everyone understands alot of things when writing rules.

So it's okay to reference rules for scoring units in one case but not the other? That is illogical.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:

coredump wrote:
p. 123
"A unit can only control one objective at a time."

So we can skip this red herring, no one is claiming one garg unit can control all the objectives.

Fair enough, didn't have my book on me at the time.

coredump wrote:
p. 123
"You control an objective if there is at least one model from one ofyour scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it"

This rule allows denial units to prevent *Scoring units* from controlling an objective. For a *scoring unit* to control an objective, two conditions must be met:
1) the scoring unit must be within 3"
2) No denial units within 3"

These conditions do not, inherrently, apply to Gargs with Objective Secured.

Objective Secured:
"A unit with this special rule controls Objective Markers even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule."

For Gargs to control an objective, there is only 1 condition
1) no enemy scoring unit with OS is 'in range'


Now, as some have noticed... there is no range requirement... and that is stupid. (Sloppy GW rules...?? I am shocked)
However, since the rule does reference there being a "range" involved, it seems wise to assume that range is 3", and that it also applies to the Gargs.

But even assuming that.... does not mean that denial units have any effect on OS Gargs controlling an objective.

So just to make sure I've got your logic down:

Objective Secured mentions nothing about denial units preventing Gargs controlling, so it's silly to assume it's the same as with scoring units.
Objective Secured mentions nothing about a specific range for Gargs controlling, so it's wise to assume it's the same as with scoring units.

Seems legit.

I don't understand why people keep saying that allowing denial units to contest makes Objective Secured Useless. You still get to control objectives with a fast attack formation unit, and you still get to ignore enemy scoring units trying to contest. How is that useless? It seems pretty damn good to me. Also - changed the thread topic to better represent the conversation in the thread.

Because only in big guns or scouring can you have non denial scoring units. So yes, it is mostly useless.

You are told you control an objective. So you control it. That's it, raw.

I agree Bojazz, but I haven't really seen many argue that the rule is useless even with the contestation from denial units. IMO it's a good compromise given how powerful OS can be. I mean really, skyblight and OS guarantees nids, with the exception of the Relic mission, its only 12" moving Objective Controlling unit that beats out other Troops when sitting on an objective. Not to mention they can come back from DS directly on top of (or can run from DS to) an objective on a 4+ if the unit gets wiped out.

You don't compromise when the rule is clear. A special ability allows you to hold an obj. unless a unit w/ obj. secured is there.

No where does it say unless a denial or obj. secured unit is there.

It is not a scoring unit. It is a special rule holding it UNLESS an obj. secured unit is there. Denial units only affect scoring units not special rules. Show me where denial units have permission to affect special rules? Show me where Obj. secured unit becomes a scoring unit.



EDIT : Now in the mission that makes fast attack scoring do the denial units over ride the Obj. secured?

 Happyjew wrote:

Bojazz wrote:
Similarly, all Scoring units are Denial units, but not all Denial units are scoring units.

Not necessarily. In The Scouring/BGNT, FA and HS vehicles become Scoring, but nothing gives them permission to be denying.

Knights are also scoring, without being listed as denial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ol'Dirty wrote:
"A unit with this special rule controls Objective Markers even if an enemy scoring unit is within range of the Objective Marker, unless the enemy unit also has this special rule."

If GW had just said denial unit instead of scoring unit (which I think was probably the intent, they just got sloppy)....

It has to be the intent, because the reference to enemy scoring units is pointless... Having an enemy scoring unit within range of the objective never has any effect on whether or not a unit (ANY unit) controls that objective. It's only enemy denial units that affect your control of the objective.

So either they added a qualifier to Objective Secured that means absolutely nothing, or they actually meant 'enemy denial unit' rather than 'enemy scoring unit'... (Well, or whoever wrote that rule just didn't realise that scoring units and denial units are two separate things in the current rules....)

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
How can you say those are the rules for controlling an objective in general, not for scoring units alone, when it specifically mentions scoring units in the sentence you've posted?

The BRB cites how you control an objective using a scoring unit.

The dataslate cites how you control an objective with the special rule.

The BRB applies an extra condition applied to (conventional) scoring units, but there's no reason at all that the extra condition applies to the special rule.

I argues against Coredump but have seen the error of my ways and repented. You have to look at both statements together.

I probably say that since its in the paragraph about controlling objectives. The second half of the sentence isnt applying to the scoring unit but the objective.

 Mythra wrote:
You don't compromise when the rule is clear. A special ability allows you to hold an obj. unless a unit w/ obj. secured is there.

No where does it say unless a denial or obj. secured unit is there.

It is not a scoring unit. It is a special rule holding it UNLESS an obj. secured unit is there. Denial units only affect scoring units not special rules. Show me where denial units have permission to affect special rules? Show me where Obj. secured unit becomes a scoring unit.

Denial units effect units that control objectives, NOT scoring units.

BRB 123
"Denial units are those squads that can prevent an enemy from controlling an objective. In Eternal War missions, all units (including toops) are denial units, save for a few exceptions." It goes on to list vehicles, swarms, special rules indicating it is never denial, or if the unit is falling back.

Note - it does not say "denial units stop scoring units" from controlling objectives, just that they disrupt the unit that is currently controlling the objective. To me, OS only implies that it stops denial scoring units, not denial units in general. Further, OS only states that the gargs control the objectives, not that they are scoring, and that it stops scoring units from denying. It makes no mention of any other unit type.

You guys are mixing up what I'm saying. I'm not talking about non-denial scoring units. I'm talking about non-scoring denial units. Examples being elite/fast attack/heavy support infantry units. They are not scoring units. They are SOLELY denial units. I am not saying that scoring denial units can't be ignored, I agree 100% that they can. Because they are "scoring" units in addition to being denial units. But denial units are not scoring, and they have permission to contest objectives held by "enemy units". Whether or not skyblight gargoyles are "scoring" units has no bearing on whether or not they are enemy units.

 Mythra wrote:
You don't compromise when the rule is clear. A special ability allows you to hold an obj. unless a unit w/ obj. secured is there.

No where does it say unless a denial or obj. secured unit is there.

It doesn't need to.

If a special rule allows a unit to move, say, 12" instead of 6", it will still be unable to move through impassable terrain. It doesn't need a specific mention in the special rule that Impassable terrain rules still apply... it would need a specific mention for them to not apply.


This is the same situation. A special rule allows the Gargoyles to hold an objective. Any rule that would deny them that objective is still going to apply unless their special rule specifically addresses it.



The problem here is that their special rule was probably supposed to address it, but the writer apparently got confused with the difference between scoring and denial units...

Citadel - "that CAN...."

Not "always will", or "do", but "CAN". You are then told how Denial units CAN deny objectives - and that ONLY applies to Scoring units, as only Scoring units are told how to claim objectives.

I am told I claim the objective. None of the rules for denying me the objective affect me, as I am not a scoring unit. Therefore I still control the objective. RAW

Since this rule is super nonfunctional RAW, what's the HIWPI?

Gargoyles can't be contested in holding an objective by units that are scoring (only relevant for scoring denial units)? Best functional RAW.

Gargoyles can't be contested? RAI guessing.

Gargoyles still can be contested since nothing is mentioned about denial units? RAW but clearly not RAI

Don't worry anyway since the Tau formations have already ruined formations for almost every GT. So we'll never see this outside club play and in club play everyone will be worried about being TFG for dropping this on the table?

Except the only non-functional part is there is no range for them to be within in order to control and objective - they just control it, from anywhere on the table, your choice.

That is unlikely to be RAI, given the mention of range for scoring units, however anyone claiming they can be denied by 3/4 of the units in the game (based on how often troops are not taken, relative force org etc), making their rule significantly less useful on an extremely expensive formation, suggests that reading is less likely to be correct (and has shown to be incporrect as well)

ANyone claiming they follow the rules for scoring units and holding objectives, which is the only way to say that denial units have ANY interaction with them at all, is also saying they cannot control objectives - as you have to be scoring to control objectives. Except we know that isnt correct, as they are explicitly stated as being able to "control an objective, even it..." (butchered quote)

The even if is a reminder, functionally. It has no purpose here beyond being a reminder (of something irrelevant)

So the only relevant part is that they control an objective. You cannot place any further restrictions on them, as those apply to scoring untis abilities to control objectives. So, barring another unit with OS turning up, they do control the objective, and score points as appropriate. RAW.

I fail to see where you get that denial only effects scoring, when it says that nowhere in the Denial section, and only mentions units that they effect units that control objectives (such as gargs with OS).

The opening line on pg 123 refers to the most basic level of objective controlling, that of scoring units proper. Entries in DSlates/Supps that state the fact that other units can control objectives are still effected by information contained in the "Controlling Objectives" main heading (because they control objectives), sans scoring units information (because they are not scoring), but includes the entry for denial, which again, makes no mention of scoring - only units that control.

citadel wrote:
I fail to see where you get that denial only effects scoring, when it says that nowhere in the Denial section, and only mentions units that they effect units that control objectives (such as gargs with OS).

The opening line on pg 123 refers to the most basic level of objective controlling, that of scoring units proper. Entries in DSlates/Supps that state the fact that other units can control objectives are still effected by information contained in the "Controlling Objectives" main heading (because they control objectives), sans scoring units information (because they are not scoring), but includes the entry for denial, which again, makes no mention of scoring - only units that control.

The "Controlling Objectives" section does not provide any information on how Denial units "can prevent" OS from controlling an objective. It only tells you how Scoring units "can" be prevented from controlling an objective by Denial units, which Gargoyles in a Skyblight formation are not.

The rule is called "Objective Secured" not "Objective please don't come near it with your Denial units.

If the denial section read "Denial units are those squads that can prevent an enemy scoring unit from controlling an objective," I would agree with you.

RAI /HIWPI-

If a scoring unit [which is also a "denial unit" by default] cannot prevent gargoyles with this special rule from scoring, then a unit that is not scoring, but also a "denial unit" should not either.

RAW- murky.

citadel wrote:
If the denial section read "Denial units are those squads that can prevent an enemy scoring unit from controlling an objective," I would agree with you.

Where in the denial section does it tell you how it prevents any unit from controlling an objective? If your premise is that because it says "can" that it automatically does deny control, how is it that the denial section does not automatically deny every single unit on the table the ability to control an objective? Because "can" is capacity, not means. The only means by which its capacity is expressed is the section above it. Therefore, Denial only affects Scoring, not Objective Secured.

Angelic wrote:

citadel wrote:
If the denial section read "Denial units are those squads that can prevent an enemy scoring unit from controlling an objective," I would agree with you.

Where in the denial section does it tell you how it prevents any unit from controlling an objective? If your premise is that because it says "can" that it automatically does deny control, how is it that the denial section does not automatically deny every single unit on the table the ability to control an objective? Because "can" is capacity, not means. The only means by which its capacity is expressed is the section above it. Therefore, Denial only affects Scoring, not Objective Secured.

Interesting theory. But if we accept that as the correct interpretation then we must also apply it to the OS rule, which does not specify how the gargoyles hold an objective. And therefore they will hold the objective from anywhere on the board since we must ignore the rule about Scoring Units controlling objectives while within 3" of the objective.

Since this is clearly not how it should be played, we must assume your theory is incorrect and therefore the rules for Scoring Units apply to any unit capable... or 'can'... hold an objective. Which means that denial units 'can' prevent OS units from holding an objective.

Zimko wrote:

Interesting theory. But if we accept that as the correct interpretation then we must also apply it to the OS rule, which does not specify how the gargoyles hold an objective. And therefore they will hold the objective from anywhere on the board since we must ignore the rule about Scoring Units controlling objectives while within 3" of the objective.

Since this is clearly not how it should be played, we must assume your theory is incorrect and therefore the rules for Scoring Units apply to any unit capable... or 'can'... hold an objective.

That's already been brought up and addressed previously. It's a logical fallacy to "assume" a theory is incorrect. A theory must be proven to be correct (becoming fact/law), or proven to be incorrect, else it remains. Is it not better for everyone to assume the distance is 3" regardless of the other issues involved?

Though hilariously that interpretation leads to the Gargoyles becoming worse at taking objectives during the scouring as they are then scoring so can be denied by denial units...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Though hilariously that interpretation leads to the Gargoyles becoming worse at taking objectives during the scouring as they are then scoring so can be denied by denial units...

They couldn't control as a Scoring unit, but they would still control due to OS. However, there is the debate as to whether they would even count as Fast Attack choices since they are in the Formation and are not part of the FOC, per se. I think there was a similar thread when the last Formation was released. Probably shouldn't be discussed here.

No they are a scoring unit so Denial units can deny them.

 FlingitNow wrote:
No they are a scoring unit so Denial units can deny them.

Yes. They cannot control the objective as a scoring unit

However they have a separate rule stating they control the objective. Show how THIS control is denied. Page and para

Oh, and for those ig poring the CAN in denial units rules, don't. It is can, not will always, or do. It is can. And how are you told they actually DO deny? Against scoring units, and scoring units only

Insaniak - "even if" means it is not a qualifier, but a reminder.

Are you a scoring unit? Are you controlling an objective?

That is all the rules care about not what rule you're using to score.

Wrong, I control the objective for two reasons. Denial removes one. I still have the other. Prove it is removed, page and para, bearing in mind OS states inCONTROL THE OBJECTIVE. Find this being removed.

Or are you saying removing the restriction on one action removes it for all restrictions on that action? I can assault from reserves if I do so from an assault vehicle?

Bikes and Jetbikes "CAN" move up to 12" in the movement phase. Not will "always" or "do". It's can.

A unit with "And They Shall Know No Fear" CAN move move, shoot (or run) and declare charges normally in the turn in which it regroups.

the word "can" is found ALL over the rulebook as a word meaning "has permission to".

Denial units CAN contest objectives from enemy unit. They have permission to. Skyblight gargoyles are an enemy unit. Denial units CAN contest.

Bojazz wrote:
Bikes and Jetbikes "CAN" move up to 12" in the movement phase. Not will "always" or "do". It's can.

A unit with "And They Shall Know No Fear" CAN move move, shoot (or run) and declare charges normally in the turn in which it regroups.

the word "can" is found ALL over the rulebook as a word meaning "has permission to".

Denial units CAN contest objectives from enemy unit. They have permission to. Skyblight gargoyles are an enemy unit. Denial units CAN contest.

So if I have any denial units left in my army you can't control any objectives anywhere on the board?