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.

Hello,

I need help with settling a rules dispute in a 10th edition Combat Patrol game. My opponent is playing Chaos Space Marines and has selected the optional secondary objective "Sites of Power" from their index.

Sites of Powers states "From the second battle round onwards, at the end of your turn, you score 2VP if you control at least as many objective markers as your opponent does".

My question is: If neither of us control any objective markers, does my opponent score points?

My opponents arguement is that as we both control zero objective markers, 0 = 0, therefore my opponent would score 2 points as they control at least as many as I do.

My arguement is that since neither of us controls an objective marker therefore all markers would be classified as contested, no points should be scored.

Which interpretation is correct?

Thanks

You are.

If neither of you have any models on an objective neither of you "control" them so his secondary does not trigger, neither of you are even contesting they are irrelevant.

Your opponent is being that guy.

I think both interpretations are valid. There is no correct answer. Decide with a roll off.

 KingGarland wrote:
You are.

If neither of you have any models on an objective neither of you "control" them so his secondary does not trigger, neither of you are even contesting they are irrelevant.

Your opponent is being that guy.

I agree.

 KingGarland wrote:
You are.

If neither of you have any models on an objective neither of you "control" them so his secondary does not trigger, neither of you are even contesting they are irrelevant.

Your opponent is being that guy.

Not sure I agree here and I certainly think it's harsh to accuse the opponent of being TFG.

The argument essentially comes down to whether you interpret 0 as a number in this case. If both players do not control any objectives it is technically the case that both control the same number (0), which would fulfil the criteria for the CSM secondary. It seems ambiguous enough to require an FAQ, I think.

Slipspace wrote:

 KingGarland wrote:
You are.

If neither of you have any models on an objective neither of you "control" them so his secondary does not trigger, neither of you are even contesting they are irrelevant.

Your opponent is being that guy.

Not sure I agree here and I certainly think it's harsh to accuse the opponent of being TFG.

The argument essentially comes down to whether you interpret 0 as a number in this case. If both players do not control any objectives it is technically the case that both control the same number (0), which would fulfil the criteria for the CSM secondary. It seems ambiguous enough to require an FAQ, I think.

This is actually the side I'm inclined to take. If your opponent controls zero objectives, and you control at least zero, you control at least as many as your opponent and thus score the two points.

If I had written the rule, I would probably have added the clause, "If you control one or more objective markers and..." at the beginning of the rule.

Given the low possible VP for this Secondary Objective over the course of a 5 turn game (2 for 4 turns = 8 Maximum), I'm inclined to go with the more liberal interoperation that 0 >= 0 rather than 0 is a nullity in this case. It simply isn't power-gaming when other Secondaries can award 12 VP.

0 is indeed a number. Controlling 0 is as many as your enemy controlling 0.

I guess I could be wrong.