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.

P 134 Any unit can be scoring unless:

….it is currently embarked on a zooming flyer.

That is one of the only restrictions I could find about embarked units not scoring. They can also score if in a building according to the rules.

So if it is embarked on a Zooming flyer it can’t score --- otherwise it looks to me an embarked unit can score. I think if the can be counted as next to an objective marker in a transport then they would probably also count for the Culexus Assassin.
I think that is a major change from 6th. Units in transports were considered to be off the board.

Culexus reads " For every psyker with in 12' of the assassin add +1 to his weapons assault value." It is Str 5 AP 1 Assault 2.

Well, it doesn't matter if the unit inside the transport can score, since the transport itself can score.

And you don't get double points for a single objective.

Yes but I have had a troop unit in my Land Raider or Storm Raven. That means the troop is objective secured and the Land Raider is only scoring.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Well, it doesn't matter if the unit inside the transport can score, since the transport itself can score.

And you don't get double points for a single objective.

It would also matter if you are in range of 2 objectives, can you claim both with one each then?

Well we definitely know a build can hold 1 and the unit inside another. P. 134 Says any unit in a building is considered to be with in 3" of an objective mark if the building is.

And under exceptions only an unclaimed building is not scoring. A claimed building scores for the player that controls it.

There isn't anything that ive seen that states a unit inside a transport cant claim objectives, but there is one issue.


Other than whats described in the embarked buildings rule, there is no method to determine if a unit inside a transport is "within 3 inch's of an objective".

There are rules that sort of overlap but nothing concrete.

Vehicle and building rules say you measure from the hull so I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for vehicles but your right it isn't spelled out.

Here's an addendum to the question then. If the objective is held by an enemy Elite choice and a battleforged army has a friendly troop choice inside of a Heavy Support transport (eg. Land Raider or Falcon), does the friendly unit take the objective or is it contested by the Heavy externals instead?

Another addition, if the friendly transport is dedicated to a unit of troops (eg. Wave Serpent or a Rhino) but holds a unit of Elites instead of the troops it deployed with (tank wandered off to be used by the Elites) does the tank steal the objective from the enemy Elites or is now contested with the Elites inside.

The rules if you have multiple units in range of an objective you must state which is holding the objective. You would prob want to pick the troop inside the raider that has OS or the OS transport in the 2nd instance to be the one you declare.

Eihnlazer wrote:
There isn't anything that ive seen that states a unit inside a transport cant claim objectives, but there is one issue.


Other than whats described in the embarked buildings rule, there is no method to determine if a unit inside a transport is "within 3 inch's of an objective".

There are rules that sort of overlap but nothing concrete.

The transport rules explicitly allow you to measure to the vehicles hull, so it is entirely covered

This is going to sound VERY stupid but..

As per the BRB units inside transports are not on the table.

This has raised many issues about Scout redeployment recently. (Another topic for another thread, not trying to Derail)

Also, you have to nominate what unit is holding the objective, even if your opponent comes to an agreement on said grey area of the game / rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
There isn't anything that ive seen that states a unit inside a transport cant claim objectives, but there is one issue.


Other than whats described in the embarked buildings rule, there is no method to determine if a unit inside a transport is "within 3 inch's of an objective".

There are rules that sort of overlap but nothing concrete.

The transport rules explicitly allow you to measure to the vehicles hull, so it is entirely covered

Is this not for shooting purposes etc. ?

I would like a page number.

Given you may have the ebook, page numbers are not entirely relevant any longer

Look for embarked units under the transport rules. Talks about measuring to the unit, not for shooting (given you DONT measure to the hull in general for shooting from a vehicle, you measure to the fire point)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Given you may have the ebook, page numbers are not entirely relevant any longer

Look for embarked units under the transport rules. Talks about measuring to the unit, not for shooting (given you DONT measure to the hull in general for shooting from a vehicle, you measure to the fire point)

This information is on page 80 and confirms what I have said, thank you.

"When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked units (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

Guess I was thinking open topped when I asked about shooting in relationship to measuring. Too many orky games recently haha.

That being said, unit is not on the table so make sure your opponent knows which unit is "holding the objective" as I mentioned before.

Well, their position is known, so it isnt difficult for the opponent to know. If you have 2 objectives close enough that it could be claiming either, then the other rules kick in anyway meaning you have to state which of the two objectives theyre holding.

Objectives need to be 12" apart.

The only way it could be any different is with the relic, in which case it becomes very obvious since the relic is tied to a unit.

No?

Some vehicles can be 9" long. Meaning they could claim either

I don't doubt you, just did not know that.

What are some of the vehicles that are 9 inches long?

I've seen Ork battle fortresses that big, you have the Tau Manta which has a wingspan measured in feet, etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I've seen Ork battle fortresses that big, you have the Tau Manta which has a wingspan measured in feet, etc.

Fortresses are not a vehicle and have rules specific to them for EXACTLY this reason.

I have never seen or heard of a Tau Manta, Nor do I think wingspan modeled on anything being relevant as it is not the hull.

An Ork Battle Fortress is a Super Heavy Vehicle with a Transport Capacity (which they can completely remove in favor of stuffing three HUGE GUNS in it...), so it could come up.

Interesting ruling though. Would this mean that models inside of a transport can benefit from things such as Mysterious Objectives or Ammo Dumps?

Im literally slowed.

Wasn't thinking about the Forge World model at all.
Thing is that there is a picture I think.


And yeah believe that is probably true.

 Awfeel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I've seen Ork battle fortresses that big, you have the Tau Manta which has a wingspan measured in feet, etc.

Fortresses are not a vehicle and have rules specific to them for EXACTLY this reason.

I have never seen or heard of a Tau Manta, Nor do I think wingspan modeled on anything being relevant as it is not the hull.

The wings are most definitely, 100% the hull.

I guess I would have to see the model.

hull1
həl/
noun
noun: hull; plural noun: hulls

1.
the main body of a ship or other vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck but not the masts, superstructure, rigging, engines, and other fittings.

Cool. Have you read the tenets for this site, or indeed the vehicle rules for Warhammer 40000?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cool. Have you read the tenets for this site, or indeed the vehicle rules for Warhammer 40000?

It says to ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, etc etc

Couldn't you just clip off the wings and model the plane with Chopper blades?

They could be considered decorative.

You could model wings 20" wide otherwise....

No?

 Awfeel wrote:
I guess I would have to see the model.

hull1
həl/
noun
noun: hull; plural noun: hulls

1.
the main body of a ship or other vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck but not the masts, superstructure, rigging, engines, and other fittings.

The Actual Rules wrote:“Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements."

Are wings decorative?

Your second "etc" is utterly redundant.

SO you want to model for advantage? Cool. While there is no RULE against this, player convention would soon destroy your ability to actually play a game...

It says to ignore decorative elements. Are Wings decorative on a flying vehicle?

My point is that it depends on the vehicle.

As per my example..

But you're right, there is no rule against clipping off your wings and putting smaller deffkopta blades on top for size scale.

I don't personally do those kinds of things, but eh.

As for the "etc etc"... I type exactly as I would talk.

On a plane wings are not decorative

They would be on a Stormtalon that was converted no ?

Like I said, it just depends on the model.

Honestly, I personally feel all models need a Min / Max size set for them in FAQs to avoid things like the current Mek Gunz for Orkz.

There is a player (the owner, mind you) at the local FLGS who uses the OLD Mek Gunz because they are some 30% of the size of the oversized and overpriced new ones.