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.

B.O.W made a video explaining my question.

Can Allies of Convenience hold objectives?

Link to video: http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/cheese-hunters-allies-convenience-super-cheese/

No. They are treated as enemy units. Enemy units cannot hold objectives for you.

 McNinja wrote:
No. They are treated as enemy units. Enemy units cannot hold objectives for you.

However, Desperate Allies, implies that Allies of Conviennce are Scoring/Denial units.

 Happyjew wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
No. They are treated as enemy units. Enemy units cannot hold objectives for you.

However, Desperate Allies, implies that Allies of Conviennce are Scoring/Denial units.

Nope. That line says desperate allies are non scoring-non Denial units. Allies of Convenience however, can deny, in fact, they can deny your primary detachment from scoring too.

Will be FAQ'ed imo, why have different levels of allies (desperate and convenience) if they do the same thing.

MarkyMark wrote:
Will be FAQ'ed imo, why have different levels of allies (desperate and convenience) if they do the same thing.

Because they don't?
Even ignoring he scoring bit, Desperate Allies do different things than Allies of Convenience.

i do not think it will be F.a.q. I feel like this is the the way they intended it to work.

No one is forcing you to take allies of Convenience or Despite Allies. And if you do decide to take allies you will have to tighten up your play a little bit more.

The rule lawyers will litigate. It will come out that they can score(FAQ'd at some point). For the time being, debate away.

 TheContortionist wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
No. They are treated as enemy units. Enemy units cannot hold objectives for you.

However, Desperate Allies, implies that Allies of Conviennce are Scoring/Denial units.

Nope. That line says desperate allies are non scoring-non Denial units. Allies of Convenience however, can deny, in fact, they can deny your primary detachment from scoring too.

I don't agree. The allied scoring unit (a troops choice for example) is a scoring unit in your army. The allied detachment is still part of the force org chart, its just optional. Just because Allies of Convenience are considered an enemy unit in some respects doesn't stop it from being a scoring unit for your army as defined on page 123. Desparate Allies, however specifically states that even though the unit is in your army it should not be conisdered to be scoring or denial.

 Flinty wrote:

 TheContortionist wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
No. They are treated as enemy units. Enemy units cannot hold objectives for you.

However, Desperate Allies, implies that Allies of Conviennce are Scoring/Denial units.

Nope. That line says desperate allies are non scoring-non Denial units. Allies of Convenience however, can deny, in fact, they can deny your primary detachment from scoring too.

I don't agree. The allied scoring unit (a troops choice for example) is a scoring unit in your army. The allied detachment is still part of the force org chart, its just optional. Just because Allies of Convenience are considered an enemy unit in some respects doesn't stop it from being a scoring unit for your army as defined on page 123. Desparate Allies, however specifically states that even though the unit is in your army it should not be conisdered to be scoring or denial.

you can not agree all you want. There is nothing in the rule book saying they are scoring. It says they are enemies.

For tournaments R.a.r. Allies of convenience do not score. I guess the T.o. can always change the rules and say they can score. And you are always welcome to ask your opponent in casual games, if they mind that your allies of convenience can hold objectives.

I understand some people are going to get mad and call names, but if you'renot going to play by the rules what is the point of playing at all?

Is an Ally of Convenience troop unit
A) from the Troop force org slot?
B) a vehicle?
C) a swarm?
D) have some special rule saying that it isn't scoring?

As long as the answers are yes, no, no, no it scores. Page 123. Those rules encompass the army as a whole, not just your main force.

This is true, there is nothing intrinsic in being an enemy unit that prevents a unit that is otherwise allowed to do so like a troop choice from counting as scoring. The only reason 'desperate ally' troop choices don't count as scoring is there is a specific rule saying they don't.

Well if being counted as enemy unit prevented from scoring for you (allies of convenience troops), then one can even debate they would score for your opponent or even a third party.

Counting as being an enemy doesn't prevent being scoring imo.

This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen. Of course they score - the fact that they're treated as enemies makes literally no difference. Can enemy troops score? Yes, if they couldn't then why bother playing, you always tie objective games. Are they part of your army? Yes, by any reasonable definition of "your army". In summary:
A) All troops score
B) They are part of your army
So they score and it counts as your army scoring. There's no debates over this at tournaments because the rules are very simple and reasonably clear. Arguably you could claim they deny from your primary attachment, but that doesn't mean they magically stop being scoring.

Of course enemy troops can score, but they don't score for you. If you want to use the "Can enemy troops score?" argument, then yes, allies of convenience do score. For your opponent.

EDIT: Having re-read the objectives rules, I can see the argument for allies of convenience scoring. I hereby retract my prior opposition.

Avatar 720 wrote:Of course (ally of convenience) enemy troops can score, but they do score for you. If you want to use the "Can enemy troops score?" argument, then yes, allies of convenience do score. For their controlling player.

There. I've went ahead and corrected that for you...

Indeed. Your army treating them as enemies doesn't mean they're in control of your opponent. Hence, they score for YOU, not your opponent, regardless of what your models might think of the situation.

 Neorealist wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:Of course (ally of convenience) enemy troops can score, but they do score for you. If you want to use the "Can enemy troops score?" argument, then yes, allies of convenience do score. For their controlling player.

There. I've went ahead and corrected that for you...

No, you just bastardised a reply I made to the post above me, which used the argument that enemy troops scoring allows allies of convenience to score, but failed to address that enemy troops do not score for you.

As far as I can tell, the allies of convenience rules do not give an allowance for units counted as enemy troops to claim objectives for you, and so the argument that enemy troops being able to score = allies of convenience being able to score means that they will, in fact, score as if they were an enemy unit, I.E. for your opponent.

Please do not 'correct' posts, it's just childish, and has no effect whatsoever on your argument.

EDIT: Having re-read the objectives rules, I can see the argument for allies of convenience scoring. I hereby retract my prior opposition. That does not mean, however, that editing in 'corrections' to posts without actually providing a reason why is any more acceptable.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:Of course (ally of convenience) enemy troops can score, but they do score for you. If you want to use the "Can enemy troops score?" argument, then yes, allies of convenience do score. For their controlling player.

There. I've went ahead and corrected that for you...

No, you just bastardised a reply I made to the post above me, which used the argument that enemy troops scoring allows allies of convenience to score, but failed to address that enemy troops do not score for you.

As far as I can tell, the allies of convenience rules do not give an allowance for units counted as enemy troops to claim objectives for you, and so the argument that enemy troops being able to score = allies of convenience being able to score means that they will, in fact, score as if they were an enemy unit, I.E. for your opponent.

Please do not 'correct' posts, it's just childish, and has no effect whatsoever on your argument.

If you argue that my ally units score for the opponent, i can argue they score for "a third party" just the same. And, as far as i can tell the allies of convenience don't have a ability to score for you opponent .
Allies of convenience such as battle brothers don't have scoring in their rules, so one can argue no allies score what so ever.

Having re-read the objectives rules, I can see the argument for allies of convenience scoring. I hereby retract my prior opposition.

rigeld2 wrote:
Is an Ally of Convenience troop unit
A) from the Troop force org slot?
B) a vehicle?
C) a swarm?
D) have some special rule saying that it isn't scoring?

As long as the answers are yes, no, no, no it scores. Page 123. Those rules encompass the army as a whole, not just your main force.

I'm just going to repeat this as it encompasses the entirety of the method for determining if a unit is scoring. As long as the unit is in your army (I.e. part of your force org chart) then it will be scoring if it satisfies the rules on p123. Only Desparate Allies are considered non-scoring becausecthey are specifically noted as such.

For those still confused, let me quote it all for you:

Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units - p112

Scoring units says this:

You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units, and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it. - p123

Are you a unit in your army? No? Then on what basis are you not counting your allies as scoring for you? Are they scoring units within 3" of an objective? Then it's yours. That's it, end of story. You are not your army; you do not treat your allies as enemy units for all intents and purposes.

First: The BRB says that "your units" treat them like enemies, not you ... and it also specify the most important implications of this (they cannot be joined by ICs, they don't benefit from warlord trait etc...) How could something like: "They don't score" simply be skipped is beyond me...

Second: Desperate allies "FURTHERMORE(...) they are non-scoring, non denial units"

Why saying they are not scoring if the only difference is that they are also non denial?
This is pretty clear from a RAW and a RAI perspective

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Having re-read the objectives rules, I can see the argument for allies of convenience scoring. I hereby retract my prior opposition.

It's not even an argument. It's fact.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Having re-read the objectives rules, I can see the argument for allies of convenience scoring. I hereby retract my prior opposition.

It's not even an argument. It's fact.

Was stating that I've retracted my opposition to it really not enough?

Regardless of who ends up with more of the split hair the argument/disagreement will continue until clarified by GW. Not even worth discussing or getting worked up about. Check your TO's or club's "house rule".

How is NOVA running it?

Convenience score

Desperate do not

Avatar 720 wrote: Please do not 'correct' posts, it's just childish... EDIT: Having re-read the objectives rules, I can see the argument for allies of convenience scoring. I hereby retract my prior opposition. That does not mean, however, that editing in 'corrections' to posts without actually providing a reason why is any more acceptable.

That is a lot of angst there. As for the reason? i already gave that in my prior post. Editing your post provided a succinct method to indicate the proper way to play. Attributing childishness to it says more about you and your proclivities than it does about the content of my post. That said given this part of my response has little to do with the OPs posited question, that is the last i'll say of it.

 Neorealist wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote: Please do not 'correct' posts, it's just childish... EDIT: Having re-read the objectives rules, I can see the argument for allies of convenience scoring. I hereby retract my prior opposition. That does not mean, however, that editing in 'corrections' to posts without actually providing a reason why is any more acceptable.

That is a lot of angst there. As for the reason? i already gave that in my prior post. Editing your post provided a succinct method to indicate the proper way to play. Attributing childishness to it says more about you and your proclivities than it does about the content of my post. That said given this part of my response has little to do with the OPs posited question, that is the last i'll say of it.

So "see my post above" would not have been an acceptable response, in your eyes? I attribute childishness to it because it was childish, especially when there was a far more mature way of saying what you obviously intended (and ultimately failed) to portray.

'Correcting' someone's post without providing any reason why you have done so adds nothing to the discussion save flamebait. Again, why did you not simply quote my post and ask me to look at your other one? Was assuming I simply ignored it more logical than assuming I missed it? Even if you believed it was, was bastardising a quote and giving no reason for doing so really the best way of going about replying?

I think that perhaps you need to take a look at the way you post in future if you believe it was.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Having re-read the objectives rules, I can see the argument for allies of convenience scoring. I hereby retract my prior opposition.

It's not even an argument. It's fact.

Was stating that I've retracted my opposition to it really not enough?

"I can see the argument" != "I was wrong."