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.

So I was looking at the rules for allies of convenience carefully and I noticed something that kind of scared me and I wondered what everyone else thought.

Those rules (pg 112) say:

"Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot, targeted with psychic powers or have templates or blast markers placed over them."


At first I thought this might mean that AoC Troops units couldn't be scoring units for your side...if they're enemy units surely they can't score for you! But then I noticed that first bit in the quote above ("Units in your army..."). That bit of text means that only the units in your army treat them as enemy. You (as the player) still treat them as friendly models, so combined with the fact that the Desperate Ally rules actually specify that these units cannot score or deny, makes it pretty clear that AoC Troops units can score for you.


But the bigger question is: Are your own AoC units denial units against your own side? I've looked at all the rules and I think by the RAW they would be denial units against your own side, as much as that sucks.

Do you guys agree or disagree based on the rules, and how have you been playing this situation if you have already thought of this?

As you said only your units treat them as enemy units, you do not, so they do not deny your own units from capturing an objective.

This is because you only count enemy units that deny, not your units.

"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." P. 123

You control the objective if the conditions are met, you only count enemy units as denial units based on context. Enemy denial units references your opponents units, and not the units your units consider enemy units.

My interpretation of the RAW is that AoC units are denial units against your main detachment units. I wouldn't play it that way, but thats how its written.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also there was this discussion a while back on this matter

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/504549.page

This is painfully simple.

1) What are your scoring denial/units? Listed in that part of the rulebook. It lays out the scoring/denial units for each player. The relationship between individual units on the battlefield is irrelevant beyond Player A and Player B.

2) "Units in your army treat..."

3) Does this effect 1? No. Moving swiftly on.

Obvious case of someone thinking they've found a loophole when they haven't.




Automatically Appended Next Post:


"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."

The only thing determining your scoring and denial units is your army composition. Whether or not one unit treats another as an enemy unit within your army, has no effect on the above.

 DeathReaper wrote:
As you said only your units treat them as enemy units, you do not, so they do not deny your own units from capturing an objective.

This is because you only count enemy units that deny, not your units.

"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." P. 123

You control the objective if the conditions are met, you only count enemy units as denial units based on context. Enemy denial units references your opponents units, and not the units your units consider enemy units.

Exactly this. You do not treat AoC as enemy denial units and therefore they do not deny.

What about in a Kill Points game?

If they are "enemy" units and they are killed, do both side gets the points?

From BRB
"At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed."

40k-noob wrote:
What about in a Kill Points game?

If they are "enemy" units and they are killed, do both side gets the points?

From BRB
"At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed."

Does the player treat the AoC as enemies, or do your units?

It's really not hard to follow the logic here - your units do not gain points, you do. Your units are the only things treating the AoC as enemies in certain circumstances.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
What about in a Kill Points game?

If they are "enemy" units and they are killed, do both side gets the points?

From BRB
"At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed."

Does the player treat the AoC as enemies, or do your units?

It's really not hard to follow the logic here - your units do not gain points, you do. Your units are the only things treating the AoC as enemies in certain circumstances.

Just asking a question.

 Flinty wrote:
My interpretation of the RAW is that AoC units are denial units against your main detachment units. I wouldn't play it that way, but thats how its written.

No, that is not how it is written.

The RAW is that the player counts victory points, therefore only your opponents units are denial units.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
My interpretation of the RAW is that AoC units are denial units against your main detachment units. I wouldn't play it that way, but thats how its written.

No, that is not how it is written.

The RAW is that the player counts victory points, therefore only your opponents units are denial units.

I can see the distinction you're making but I've read through the relevant sections and something doesn't sit quite right with me about your logic. I'm not particularly concerned either way really as I think the intent is clear enough.

Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it's incorrect?

There's literally no other way to read it.

This has been debated at length.

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

Desperate allies specifically states "non scoring".

Really guys?

I had a reply written, then deleted it and posted this. Because there's no way this should have ever been asked. If anyone tried to lever this rule on you you should facepalm them. Because they didn't think for two seconds and do it themselves, and they rightly deserve it. While fascinating that the English language has once again failed GW and their 'three-year-old-hamfisitng-a-crayon' rules writing style,(as one forum member put it.), and props for finding it BTW, use common sense please. Most players should realize by now that you can't 100% go by Games-Workshop RAW. Sorry rules lawyers, no dice.

Allow me to emphasize: LMAO <---This is the reaction if someone brings this up again.

It'd be awesome if you'd read the thread before throwing your derision into it.

Nothing "failed" GW. Yakface had a question, it was answered. What's with the insults and patronizing?

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Really guys?

I had a reply written, then deleted it and posted this. Because there's no way this should have ever been asked. If anyone tried to lever this rule on you you should facepalm them. Because they didn't think for two seconds and do it themselves, and they rightly deserve it. While fascinating that the English language has once again failed GW and their 'three-year-old-hamfisitng-a-crayon' rules writing style,(as one forum member put it.), and props for finding it BTW, use common sense please. Most players should realize by now that you can't 100% go by Games-Workshop RAW. Sorry rules lawyers, no dice.

Allow me to emphasize: LMAO <---This is the reaction if someone brings this up again.

Angry much? Last I checked, this was still a discussion forum.

rigeld2 wrote:
Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it's incorrect?

There's literally no other way to read it.

Yeah, sorry... baby related distraction. Changing nappies is nasty but it at least gives you time to think

I think there is an issue of consistency of preciseness. I agree the first paragraph on p123 says "your" scoring units but then just goes on to reference "enemy denial units". Not "your enemy denial units". If you then see what is defined as a denial unit the description again is more general by just saying those squads that can prevent "an enemy from controlling an objective". Applying the same level of preciseness in the language implies to me that an ally of convenience is still an "enemy denial unit" and therefore can affect your scoring units as described in the first paragraph of p123.

I'd like to see a poll for the general consensus here on YMDC. If GW should FAQ it they don't count as scoring then I'll play it that way but not until then.

 Flinty wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it's incorrect?

There's literally no other way to read it.

Yeah, sorry... baby related distraction. Changing nappies is nasty but it at least gives you time to think

I think there is an issue of consistency of preciseness. I agree the first paragraph on p123 says "your" scoring units but then just goes on to reference "enemy denial units". Not "your enemy denial units". If you then see what is defined as a denial unit the description again is more general by just saying those squads that can prevent "an enemy from controlling an objective". Applying the same level of preciseness in the language implies to me that an ally of convenience is still an "enemy denial unit" and therefore can affect your scoring units as described in the first paragraph of p123.

Well that is fine, but it ignores context.

P. 123 talks of your scoring units, so in context "enemy denial units" are anything that is a enemy unit as far as the players are concerned.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it's incorrect?

There's literally no other way to read it.

Yeah, sorry... baby related distraction. Changing nappies is nasty but it at least gives you time to think

I think there is an issue of consistency of preciseness. I agree the first paragraph on p123 says "your" scoring units but then just goes on to reference "enemy denial units". Not "your enemy denial units". If you then see what is defined as a denial unit the description again is more general by just saying those squads that can prevent "an enemy from controlling an objective". Applying the same level of preciseness in the language implies to me that an ally of convenience is still an "enemy denial unit" and therefore can affect your scoring units as described in the first paragraph of p123.

Well that is fine, but it ignores context.

P. 123 talks of your scoring units, so in context "enemy denial units" are anything that is a enemy unit as far as the players are concerned.

Playing devil's advocate and all that, the text is so precise otherwise that I don't think we need to rely on context. The sentence says "You" and "your scoring unit" but doesn't say "your enemy's denial units" but rather just "enemy denial units". This doesn't specify by whom it needs to be considered an enemy.

Well considering you have scoring units, it follows that they are talking about the opposing players denial units.

The first Your sets the context for talking about the players, ans not the models on the field. Players have scoring and denial units units do not.

"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."

They could just have easily said ', and no models from your enemies denial units' but that language is not needed if you parse the sentence correctly.

I'm personally satisfied by the logic presented in this thread.

But I am curious as to if anyone has encountered other players, judges or T.O.s wanting to rule the opposite way (that AoC units do deny your own units from capturing and objective)?

Yeeeeah. Came back to apologize. That was uncool of me in the extreme. Just had a DnD rule fight before I posted, was tired as all get out, you know, the usual angry nerd conditions. So sorry. Disregard the earlier post, if you can. Though even with a far cooler head, still find it hard to believe this actually came up. I desperately want to know if this has ever come up in an official capacity like yakface said.

I read the rules top-down again. Won't bother complicating this argument with the logic, but will say I found no reason for the RAW to have allied units of any classification deny you an objective or not claim it for you themselves. Except in the most extreme grammatical context of explanations given that were intended for clarification of functional meanings.

Sorry again

The Beasts of War guys did something hilarious.

They multi-assaulted allies of convenience, because they count as enemies and a pile-in-move isn't a charge move, some of the other players units had to pile in against each other and hit each other (Thunder hammer is in base with only a Necron Warrior while the Orks are attacking both units, the thunder hammer hits the Necrons?)

So I wanted to add my own opinions on this as the way I'm reading it they would deny against your own side.

One of the big points here seems to be drawing a distinction between your units and how your units treat them. Saving that thats purely artificial (the rules don't say other players denial units, just enemy) simply by them saying "your units" that includes the unit itself as it is one of "your units" and thus it is an enemy (To itself). That means an AoC can score *but* when checking that objective will also find an enemy denial unit within 3" because all your units treat them as such and so will fail to claim the objective. They can still deny however as your opponent treats them as an enemy unit as well.

Now the addition of "Non Scoring/Non Denial" on desperate allies takes it a step further, now they cannot score for you but also cannot even be used as a denial unit to block enemy objective taking, definately worse even before the 1/6 chance to do nothing.

It's not an elegantly worded solution, hey this is GW after all, but it seems to be the way. It also fits the fluff, you may bring in some Ork Freebooters to serve as cannon fodder but you can't expect them to secure the objective for you and not wreck/steal it.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
So I wanted to add my own opinions on this as the way I'm reading it they would deny against your own side.

One of the big points here seems to be drawing a distinction between your units and how your units treat them. Saving that thats purely artificial (the rules don't say other players denial units, just enemy) simply by them saying "your units" that includes the unit itself as it is one of "your units" and thus it is an enemy (To itself). That means an AoC can score *but* when checking that objective will also find an enemy denial unit within 3" because all your units treat them as such and so will fail to claim the objective. They can still deny however as your opponent treats them as an enemy unit as well.

Now the addition of "Non Scoring/Non Denial" on desperate allies takes it a step further, now they cannot score for you but also cannot even be used as a denial unit to block enemy objective taking, definately worse even before the 1/6 chance to do nothing.

It's not an elegantly worded solution, hey this is GW after all, but it seems to be the way. It also fits the fluff, you may bring in some Ork Freebooters to serve as cannon fodder but you can't expect them to secure the objective for you and not wreck/steal it.

Yes you can have Allies of Convenience hold an objective.

Allies of Convenience are scoring units for your side and denial units for your opponent.

Players count scoring units and objective points, the units on the table do not . Therefore Allies of Convenience being enemy units to your units is not relevant to the scoring of the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
So I wanted to add my own opinions on this as the way I'm reading it they would deny against your own side.

One of the big points here seems to be drawing a distinction between your units and how your units treat them. Saving that thats purely artificial (the rules don't say other players denial units, just enemy) simply by them saying "your units" that includes the unit itself as it is one of "your units" and thus it is an enemy (To itself). That means an AoC can score *but* when checking that objective will also find an enemy denial unit within 3" because all your units treat them as such and so will fail to claim the objective. They can still deny however as your opponent treats them as an enemy unit as well.

Now the addition of "Non Scoring/Non Denial" on desperate allies takes it a step further, now they cannot score for you but also cannot even be used as a denial unit to block enemy objective taking, definately worse even before the 1/6 chance to do nothing.

It's not an elegantly worded solution, hey this is GW after all, but it seems to be the way. It also fits the fluff, you may bring in some Ork Freebooters to serve as cannon fodder but you can't expect them to secure the objective for you and not wreck/steal it.

Yes you can have Allies of Convenience hold an objective.

Allies of Convenience are scoring units for your side and denial units for your opponent.

Players count scoring units and objective points, the units on the table do not . Therefore Allies of Convenience being enemy units to your units is not relevant to the scoring of the game.

^^^
That's how I even understood it from the get-go...and really, it makes sense.

 whembly wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
So I wanted to add my own opinions on this as the way I'm reading it they would deny against your own side.

One of the big points here seems to be drawing a distinction between your units and how your units treat them. Saving that thats purely artificial (the rules don't say other players denial units, just enemy) simply by them saying "your units" that includes the unit itself as it is one of "your units" and thus it is an enemy (To itself). That means an AoC can score *but* when checking that objective will also find an enemy denial unit within 3" because all your units treat them as such and so will fail to claim the objective. They can still deny however as your opponent treats them as an enemy unit as well.

Now the addition of "Non Scoring/Non Denial" on desperate allies takes it a step further, now they cannot score for you but also cannot even be used as a denial unit to block enemy objective taking, definately worse even before the 1/6 chance to do nothing.

It's not an elegantly worded solution, hey this is GW after all, but it seems to be the way. It also fits the fluff, you may bring in some Ork Freebooters to serve as cannon fodder but you can't expect them to secure the objective for you and not wreck/steal it.

Yes you can have Allies of Convenience hold an objective.

Allies of Convenience are scoring units for your side and denial units for your opponent.

Players count scoring units and objective points, the units on the table do not . Therefore Allies of Convenience being enemy units to your units is not relevant to the scoring of the game.

^^^
That's how I even understood it from the get-go...and really, it makes sense.

I think most did. Just a RAW thing. There is room for debate. Not one that sticks. OP was just throwing it up there.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Players count scoring units and objective points, the units on the table do not . Therefore Allies of Convenience being enemy units to your units is not relevant to the scoring of the game.

The problem lies in pointing out where this is written in the rules, because it's not to the best of my knowledge. What you are suggesting is that you the player can win, because your AoC troops are on the relic/objective but your army would lose, because to them an enemy is on the Relic/objective...
It's an artificial disconnect that doesn't make sense.

It very clearly states your units (not your primary detachment either but all units) treat them as enemy units and having an enemy denial unit within 3" means you cannot capture. The units capture points, not the player, and to your units they are the enemy and sat on the objective. The player is essenitally an omnipotent godlike force and has no bearing on the battlefield objectives.

It makes more narrative sense which is GW's big thing, those IG are not gonna celebrate that the Orks are running off with the relic...

You're the one creating any artificial disconnect. Your army doesn't win or lose a match - you do.

Not really, all the rules relate to the models, their LoS, their position, not the players. You are trying to defend that the rule doesn't apply to you the player despite the fact they are to *all* your units as is clearly written in the rules.

AoC Models are the enemy to my units and thus to me.
AoC Models are the enemy to my troops but not to me the player.

One of these statements has created an artificial line between player and unit, the other has not. As such you have to have a reason why this is different.

Point me to a place in the rulebook where it says something to support that line and i'll happily agree with you. As it stands you cannot say a rule applies to your units but not the player and ignore it as a result. There has to be a actual rules based reason why it doesn't apply to you, otherwise we must assume it does.