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.

@Breton,
It sure does seem convincing for them. I still disagree for the reasons explored earlier in the thread.

@JohnnyHell
It appears that way. Others haven't found my argument persuasive. Therefore, there's no real need for further discussion.

@jakesiren it's not that your argument isn't persuasive it's that both arguments are equally persuasive there is nothing RAW or RAI to seperate them. There is nothing provable either way.

As a general rule HIWPI if you explicitly decided to mix aircraft and obsec be sporting and take the interpretation that disadvantages you so you don't accidently cheat your opponent

While at an event get a TO ruling before the event

Ob sec aircraft cannot control an objective.



The argument that they can would be similar to arguing that if an aircraft which is excluded from being able to declare a charge had a rule that gave it +1 to hit when charging could now charge because of that rule. It cannot.

Aircraft bare RAW excluded from determining control of an objective, if they gain objective secured it doesn't change that.

If a model is effected by a rule that does not allow it to do something, it would need a other rule to explicitly say it can in regards to the normal denial, objective secured does not do that.

The other argument is that the aircraft isn't controling the objective the obsec rule is therefore the aircraft exclusion doesn't apply.

Both are valid interpretation based on whether
you view obsec as a substrata of objective control as in your example or a seperate rule that creates additional forms of objective control more akin to the pistol rule letting a unit fire in combat when by default it cannot

You cannot disprove his interpretation

He cannot disprove your interpretation

Restating the interpretations adds nothing

With the third valid alternative being the halfway house of obsec on the aircraft disables another units obsec but the aircraft itself counts as zero models and cannot be the only model on an objective and hold it

15 days later I quote myself.

 Niiai wrote:
This probably needs an FAQ.

U02dah4 wrote:
The other argument is that the aircraft isn't controling the objective the obsec rule is therefore the aircraft exclusion doesn't apply.

Both are valid interpretation based on whether
you view obsec as a substrata of objective control as in your example or a seperate rule that creates additional forms of objective control more akin to the pistol rule letting a unit fire in combat when by default it cannot

You cannot disprove his interpretation

He cannot disprove your interpretation

Restating the interpretations adds nothing

With the third valid alternative being the halfway house of obsec on the aircraft disables another units obsec but the aircraft itself counts as zero models and cannot be the only model on an objective and hold it

It has already been disproven by the same rules they qouted.

Ob sec refers to the model controlling objectives, not the rule in some vacuum not being tied to the model.

Aircraft as a model are ignored for controlling objectives.

Nothing in ob sec explicitly says "units that cannot control objectives or are excluded from controlling objectives may control objectives now if x" or anything like that.

Ob sec does not make aircraft able to control objectives.

I'm not sure you understand what proof means

I'm not sure you understand what proof means.

If you had proven it would be incontrovertible and we would all agree multi people don't therefore you haven't proved it.

Asserting that you have isn't a proof.

My position is you can't prove it as the argument are based on opposing premises that cannot be proven. you say there connected he says there not and no rules quote says either way.

If you can't prove your premise you can't prove your argument. Proving the rest of your argument matters not a jot unless you can prove that foundational premise and you cannot it is a matter of interpretation

Blaktoof, repeating the same talking points ad infinitum does nothing to progress either side of the discussion.

If you pay attention, the difference in interpretation is based on how the words are to be understood, and the reasoning behind that understanding. Repeating "but it says it's excluded" without understanding and responding to the other point of view gets you nowhere, and fundamentally ignores the point of contention.

I've previously stated that I find the argument to extend the exclusion beyond model count unconvincing and you haven't provided anything new. U02dah4 has provided a nice breakdown of where the discussion is at.

The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. I still haven't seen you fellas show any rule that counters the exclusion portion of aircraft holding objectives.

However, this thread is very reminiscent to everyday 7th edition life here on Dakka and it's bringing me great nostalgia and joy.

I see we have reached the “I’m right, your wrong” portion of this debate. How about we let this tread die a nice death?

Indeed this thread died a while ago...

but as a fool trying to teach people what proof is so it doesn't cloud future cases.

The burden of proof is on both sides of the debate claiming RAW and unless you can acknowledge your opponent's assumption and then disprove that assumption without referring to your own you won't prove anything. All you do create is a circular argument of I'm right because I'm right. if aircraft overrule obsec then it cant hold an objective vs if obsec overule aircraft then it doesn't matter that their aircraft and it can.

Proof also comes in the form of explicit rules quotes. Fact as quoted not opinion

In this case if your saying obsec doesn't grant control of an objective you need to prove it doesn't with a rules quote not referencing that aircraft can't control objectives. Because that clause is not relevant to the position your opponents are arguing. So you have to prove obsec cannot hold the objective irrespective of whether the unit it is on could normally hold the objective.

If your arguing obsec does grant control of an objective you need to prove with a rules quote that granting control of the objective from obsec is not overridden by the aircraft not being able to control your objective.

Those quotes do not exist

Anything that is not quotes to those explicit points is not relevant!!!


phrases like I think (only acknowledging own argument and not evidence just opinion)... I still havn't seen anything that counters my position so I'm right (Ignoring the opposing argument and your interpretation which is opinion not evidence)... I have proven (with no quote and no evidence countering the opposing argument - just a waste of text space).... Aircraft cannot control an objective (restating own case)... obsec can control an objective separate from the aircraft (restating own case)... are all not relevant to a proof so please don't include any just the relevant quotes no explanation needed.

If you can't or post anything else this will be taken as proof that you are

1) Unable to prove your case
2) Unable to understand what proof is
3) Should not be contributing to a rules forum due to tunnel vision and not honestly trying to address the issue
4) Are either a troll/or to foolish to understand where you are going wrong

So I eagerly await your quotes with baited breath...

The rules state that aircraft are excluded when determining models that control objectives.

Objective secured has no wording that explicitly grants permission for aircraft do so.

A written rule prevents an unit from counting for controlling objectives.

The other rule modifies how units that can control objectives do so, but does not grant the ability for things to control objectives in of itself, nor any permission for things that are excluded for determining control of objectives to do so should they have that rule.

One rule specifically says they can't, the other being quoted does not specifically say they can.

So one rule proves they can't explicitly, and one rule lacks any explicit proof to change that.

Requiring that the explicit aircraft rule have a comment about objective secured makes little sense. It would be like requiring space wolves chapter bonus to comment on aircraft not being able to charge for the bonus hits in assault phase, or for the aircraft rules to make a doublely are redundant statement that they cannot charge and therefore cannot get multiple hits on 6s when charging. The rulebook would be 40k pages long if every rule had to doublely redundant comment on all the rules they cannot benefit from, and then when some rule modifies the rule they are excluded from state that rule and they still cannot use the rule they are excluded from just because they have some other rule that would modify the excluded rule if they were not excluded from using it.

JUST A REMINDER FROM OUR FIRST CONTENDER BLAKTOOFS SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT WHAT HE NEEDS TO PROVE TO WIN THE CHALLENGE

"If your saying obsec doesn't grant control of an objective you need to prove it doesn't with a rules quote not referencing that aircraft can't control objectives. Because that clause is not relevant to the position your opponents are arguing. So you have to prove obsec cannot hold the objective irrespective of whether the unit it is on could normally hold the objective."

"If you can't or post anything else this will be taken as proof that you are

1) Unable to prove your case
2) Unable to understand what proof is
3) Should not be contributing to a rules forum due to tunnel vision and not honestly trying to address the issue
4) Are either a troll/or to foolish to understand where you are going wrong"



AND WE HAVE A 1ST LOSER 1,2,3 and 4 WELL DONE BLAKTOOF! SOMEONE HAD TO FAIL FIRST AND YOU STEPPED RIGHT UP

This is a QUOTE

"A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker,"

Note the quotation mark before and after

and the exact rules text in the middle copied and pasted

Funnily enough this quote direct from OBSEC does in fact directly state aircraft can because aircraft are models.

Disproving your statement at the second line and every line that follows.

That is what a RAW quote does.

Why don't you try again maybe you won't lose quite so hard! And maybe you wont be mocked mercilessly for a second fail. I'll even help you by showing you exactly where you went wrong and what you need to complete your proof.



SO LETS BREAK THIS DOWN

"if your saying obsec doesn't grant control of an objective you need to prove it doesn't with a rules quote" not referencing that aircraft can't control objectives.

YES YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE A QUOTE. A ROOKIE MISTAKE, FALLING FLAT AT THE FIRST HURDLE, COMPLETELY EMBARASSING, AND WORSE YOU REFERENCED AIRCRAFT NOT CONTROLLING OBJECTIVES AS JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR ANSWER AN AUTO HARD LOSS AS IT DOESN'T ADDRESS YOUR OPPONENTS ALTERNATE ASSUMPTION AND SO CAN BE DISMISSED INSTANTLY BECAUSE ANYONE SAYING OBSEC OVERULES THE AIRCRAFT RULE WILL POINT TO THAT QUOTATION OF MINE "A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker," AS ALL THE PROOF THEY NEED

so "you have to prove obsec cannot hold the objective irrespective of whether the unit it is on could normally hold the objective."

I WILL EVEN AWARD SOME BONUS FAIL POINTS FOR "So one rule proves they can't explicitly, and one rule lacks any explicit proof to change that." FOR THE MISSUSE OF THE WORD PROOF REPEATEDLY WHEN YOU MEAN STATES - TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
So your final point should be "So one rule STATES they can't explicitly, and the THE OTHER RULE EXPLICITLY STATES THE OPPOSITE AS DIRECTLY QUOTED". Which nicely sums up the problem with your proof.



SO COME ON WHO CAN DO IT, WHO CAN BE THE NEXT TO LOSE BY NOT PROVIDEING A QUOTE AND NOT ADDRESSING THEIR OPPONENTS ARGUMENTS.

blaktoof wrote:
It would be like requiring space wolves chapter bonus to comment on aircraft not being able to charge for the bonus hits in assault phase, or for the aircraft rules to make a doublely are redundant statement that they cannot charge and therefore cannot get multiple hits on 6s when charging.

I realise I can't add anything further to the core discussion at this stage (the rules and reasoning have all been laid out plain by both sides), but I find this part funny.

Blaktoof, if you are going to try and draw parallels, at least get them right. Space Wolves don't get multiple hits on 6's when charging. Their chapter tactic is +1 to hit if they charge, were charged, or performed a heroic intervention. In addition units with the tactic are eligible to perform heroic interventions as if they were characters (Pg:94 Codex: Space Marines). The exploding 6's comes from their detachment ability "Savage Fury" (Pg:45 Codex Supplement: Space Wolves) which activates during the Assault Doctrine.

The full irony is that Aircraft actually get the +1 to hit in combat when charged, and if the assault doctrine is active, get the exploding 6's.

You should qoute what comes after the comma for objective secured. It says more and references that it modifies the normal control.

As you have quoted it incompletely whoever had the current turn with objective secured models would control an objective, as you have left out all the content and context of the rule by quoting only part of a sentence-

"A player controls an objective marker if they have any models with this ability within range of that objective marker,"

Literally the incomplete sentence you are quoting would allow for a single objective secured model to control an objective without any other circumstances if it were the entirety body the rule.

Also I didn't call out the +1 to hit, and I didn't state chapter tactics. I called out the space wolf bonus when they get bonus hits on 6s. If you would like to actually comment on the rule being discussed be my guest but calling out rules not quoted to discuss someone's quote is akin to saying a model that is excluded for controlling an objective can control objectives when it gains some other rule that modifies how models control objectives count but doesn't itself grant the ability to be included when determining which models control objectives.

blaktoof wrote:
You should qoute what comes after the comma for objective secured. It says models.

Also I didn't call out the +1 to hit, and I didn't state chapter tactics. I called out the space wolf bonus when they get bonus hits on 6s. If you would like to actually comment on the rule being discussed be my guest but calling out rules not quoted to discuss someone's quote is akin to saying a model that is excluded for controlling an objective can control objectives when it gains some other rule that modifies how models control objectives count but doesn't itself grant the ability to be included when determining which models control objectives.

So your complaint is that I called you out on incorrectly stating rules and providing the correct information so that you can be better informed?

You will find that saying "Space Wolf Bonus" is vague, and potentially covers a number of rules. For example, shock assault could be considered a Space Wolf bonus - my Chaos Daemon's don't get the bonus, but my Space Wolves do. More importantly, if you look at the wording, you will find that the big difference between the Savage Fury and Objective Secured is that Savage Fury uses the style of "When X happens do Y". Objective Secured isn't written like that at all. Therefore you can not conclude anything based on the irrelevant rule you brought up.

Note: It appears that you are still editing what you actually want to say. I find the Preview button to be useful for that and leave editing limited to spelling / grammar mistakes. It makes it easier for other posters to understand your well thought out argument, and prevents someone replying to an older version of your comment.

My complaint is that your statement is not about my point, and didn't even directly comment on what I am bringing up.

You are claiming that a rule that modifies another rule will grant permission to use the rule it is modifying regardless of any other restrictions or exclusions. An example of any unit which is excluded from charging gaining a rule that modifies what happens when it charges is a comparison in that your argument would then suppose said unit may now ignore the exclusion to charging because it has a rule modifying what happens when it charges.

Much like the false claim that a model that is excluded from controlling an objective gaining a rule that modifies how it could control an objective (ob sec) would gain ob sec.

Gaining a rule that lets you modify how a rule behaves does not by default grant that rule to a model that explicitly cannot use the basic rule being modified.

blaktoof wrote:
My complaint is that your statement is not about my point, and didn't even directly comment on what I am bringing up.

You are claiming that a rule that modifies another rule will grant permission to use the rule it is modifying regardless of any other restrictions or exclusions. An example of any unit which is excluded from charging gaining a rule that modifies what happens when it charges is a comparison in that your argument would then suppose said unit may now ignore the exclusion to charging because it has a rule modifying what happens when it charges.

Much like the false claim that a model that is excluded from controlling an objective gaining a rule that modifies how it could control an objective (ob sec) would gain ob sec.

Gaining a rule that lets you modify how a rule behaves does not by default grant that rule to a model that explicitly cannot use the basic rule being modified.

Your point was poorly formed because you didn't understand the rules you were trying to parade. Trying to discern what someone might have meant from their ambiguity isn't a game I want to play.

In regards to your second paragraph. 1) I'm not, maybe go back to my second reply to you and try to understand the point of contention? And 2) everything else you have written after this is irrelevant because it's addressing something that I haven't advocated.

If you want a response to the first 6 paragraphs you put previously:

blaktoof wrote:
The rules state that aircraft are excluded when determining models that control objectives.

Objective secured has no wording that explicitly grants permission for aircraft do so.

A written rule prevents an unit from counting for controlling objectives.

The other rule modifies how units that can control objectives do so, but does not grant the ability for things to control objectives in of itself, nor any permission for things that are excluded for determining control of objectives to do so should they have that rule.

One rule specifically says they can't, the other being quoted does not specifically say they can.

So one rule proves they can't explicitly, and one rule lacks any explicit proof to change that.

Paragraph 1: Which is determined by the process of counting models in range of an objective. This is what Aircraft are excluded from. Nothing else.
Paragraph 2: Doesn't require it given above.
Paragraph 3: See response to paragraph 1
Paragraph 4: ObSec is about the player controlling objectives, not models or units. "A player controls an objective marker if..."
Paragraph 5: Irrelevant, see response to paragraph 1.
Paragraph 6: Incorrect conclusion based off an incorrect premise.

JakeSiren wrote:
Paragraph 1: Which is determined by the process of counting models in range of an objective. This is what Aircraft are excluded from. Nothing else.

The big disagreement comes from this. This is not specifically written as such in the rules, in the rules it only says:

"AIRCRAFT units and units with the Fortifications Battlefield Role can never control objective markers – exclude these units when determining which player controls an objective marker."

So the real hang up is if the entirety of Objective Secured is part of determining which player controls an objective marker, and that is what aircraft are excluded from, or just as you claim only the model count.

So this just boils down to badly written rules, RAW is ambiguous so agree on RAI before you play until it maybe gets an FAQ.

At this point an faq is unlikely being as we are so deep in the edition

Yes it is ambiguous anyone who is not a fool can see that

Which is why to actually prove either outcome you have to address that ambiguity and you can't because no quote exists. Its A overules B vs B overules A