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.

I have two friends who are currently arguing atm about it, I can't see where in the BRB its denied but I just glanced through. Anyone know and have page numbers to back up the answer ?

Thanks

BRB pg 123, 2nd para, 1st sentence.

Might be. But why would you put objectives that close to each other?

chain a line of grots to hold both .... or put a 40-50 man guard platoon holding 3 objectives backfield, just a disagreement they got into.

Thanks

The separate units in an IG platoon can hold an objective each so that's not really a problem. A blob formed from those IG infantry squads can still hold only one onjective since it's now one unit.

I do it every now and again, And I see it a lot too.

Chaos cultists can scatter in large groups. I have seen IG and Tyrinids do it too. And objectives can be as close as a foot together, while a Defensive line is much much longer. Hence why you would want to place objectives so close.

ya .... its a shame a unit cannot hold more than one objective, even if it is a 50 man blob combined together = /

 Adrian Fue Fue wrote:
I do it every now and again, And I see it a lot too.

Chaos cultists can scatter in large groups. I have seen IG and Tyrinids do it too. And objectives can be as close as a foot together, while a Defensive line is much much longer. Hence why you would want to place objectives so close.

So your saying even though a single unit can only control one objective you play where a single unit can deny multiple objectives? Or claim one and deny another? Doesn't sound right to me.

It's the RAW though. Unless you'd care to cite otherwise?

rigeld2 wrote:
It's the RAW though. Unless you'd care to cite otherwise?

If your talking to me, I'm not looking at splitting hairs just asking how he plays it. So no, I don't care to cite otherwise, just that I don't play or see it played that way. Interesting hole in the rules. I'm sure its not by intent. Or maybe it is... who knows...

 Byte wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's the RAW though. Unless you'd care to cite otherwise?

If your talking to me, I'm not looking at splitting hairs just asking how he plays it. So no, I don't care to cite otherwise, just that I don't play or see it played that way. Interesting hole in the rules. I'm sure its not by intent. Or maybe it is... who knows...

It's certainly correct RAW, and for my money, it seems like the way it was intended to be played, too.

Typically the units that horde well enough to have the physical daisy chain to hold (or deny) two objectives are squishy as hell. If they are denying two of your objectives somehow, I'd like to ask how you let 50 T3 guys without saves march themselves on your side of the board in enough numbers to still actually manage to deny two objectives from you.

The reason units can only hold one objective at a time in 6E is there was no restriction for that in 5E and people abused it with some silly things. A friend of mine who has an Ork army used to run a Big Mek that had some sort of forcefield that as worded before the 6E FAQ, gave any unit that had models in range of him a 5+ cover save or something like that, so he'd daisy chain ork boys to capture several objectives while still maintaining decent saves (for orks.) The rest of the opponent's army would spend most their time tied up in close combat, so he won a lot of games doing that.

Kustom Forcefield.

It still does give any UNIT within 6'' a 5+ cover save.

The 6th ed FAQ didn't change that. It did change which vehicles (squadrons etc) were affected.

Page 34 – Mekboyz, Kustom Force Field.
Change the second sentence to read “A kustom force field
gives all units within 6" of the Mek a coversave of 5+. Friendly
vehicles within 6" are counted as being obscured and have a 5+
cover save”.

Daisychaining objectives no longer works, which is fine by me as it made for some very silly looking battlefields.

honestly 50 guardsman + inquisitor (for stubborn & divination) and a primarius psyker (biomancy, hopefully roll a 3 on the chart for feel no pain) behind a aegis defense line is alot more durable than you would think.

or 50 guardsmen with 5 sgts w/ power axes & melta bombs and 5 flamers with the setup (minus the adl) does alot more damage than you would think too ... lol


It would be nice however if the guard blob could hold 2 objectives at the same time .... but throwing 30-40 stubborn ones in your backfield for holding isn't a bad idea (and less than 400 points for 40 w/ max autocannons / special wep + pcs + inquisitor)

thanks for the cite on the rule though, helped alot =)