Allies and scoring...

[evil_red_orks]

Just came across this link from the adepticon website.

Let me know what u think..




www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zEQUeD-Rl7Q

[sinistermind]

Just another case of GW wording and people who read it as read vs as intended, would seem obvious when they wrote it they didnt realise saying they are enemy units would make them technically denial units to your own force, further reinforced by the fact they bother stating that desperate allies cannot score objectives

So TECHNICALLY they are right but thats not how GW intended the allies to work

P.s this is my unbiased opinion, not influenced at all by the fact i will sometimes be running traitor IG with my CSM ;D

[hyv3mynd]

It's made the rounds on dakka also. The 6th ed rulebook was poorly written from many standpoints.

Allies of convenience are treated as enemy units by your units (which cannot be shot or assaulted) but they certainly do not deny objectives to your own army. AoC troops are still troops in your army and as such are scoring units (as so noted desperate allies are non-scoring units).

[chaoscraig]

i think its a ridiculous vieo. yes maybe the raw is correct but i cant see it being viably correct to play it that way . GW should faq this asap. I hate that they suggest it be used as a surprise against opponents in a tournament.

[MajorSoB]

I believe the rules are quite clear here and that the guys at Beast of War are 100% correct. Look it up, Allies of Convenience are defined as enemy units ( that cannot be shot or charged), and enemy units are indeed denial units. You can say that you think ( or want ) GW to have intended it another way but it is written clearly and until an updated FAQ comes out that is the way the rules read. I could start listing a few rules that I believe GW intended to have used differently like turbo-boosting, sky fire and the omission of Interceptor on a few entries, etc but until it is FAQ'ed I believe the correct way is to play it as it is written.

EDIT- In addition, if you look up the paragraph defining Allies of Convenience they went to the trouble to print it in bold typeface which indicates emphasis. This would further lead me to believe GW knew exactly what they were writing and went to the trouble of emphasizing it to denote special attention.

[hyv3mynd]

Funny but no.

Notice in desperate allies - in addition, these units are not scoring units.

When counting up objectives, it's the number your army controls. AoC are part of your army despite being treated as enemy units.

This has been discussed and debunked on dakka YMDC.

The amount of rules lawyering and loophole easter egging with 6th and its newest codices is ridiculous.

AoC score for your army and do not deny your own objectives.

[hyv3mynd]

Here's the dakka discussion also based on the BoW video.

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

If you wanna say a guardsman from the same army and FoC as a grey knight stops his buddy from scoring, fine with me. I'll then argue that wraithlords cannot shoot because they have no eyes to draw LoS from. Also RaW.

[MajorSoB]

Today's lesson in reading comprehension:

Page 112 - "Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units..."

Page 123 - "Controlling Objectives - 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."

Page 123 - "Denial Units - Denial units are those squads that can prevent an enemy from controlling an objective."

In all cases the word enemy is used. It is quite clear. As usual I could give a crap what Dakka or anyone else short of GW has to say on the subject. Maybe you believe that the members of Dakka were given some sort of power to dictate and interpret rules but I would rather read it out of an official GW rule book or an official GW FAQ. Again I am sure you would like it to work another way but as it reads now the interpretation by Beasts of War stands correct.

Your example regarding Grey Knights and guard is 100% correct. Grey Knights do not have any Battle Brothers per the chart on page 113.

Wraithlords are walkers correct? Walkers measure the distance and line of sight from the weapon as per page 84, subsection, Shooting With Walkers.

[pogysnacks]

Rules lawyering--another reason Matt Ward shouldnt be rules writing..considering he headed the 6th ed development..instead of writing a crappy version of 40k fantasy rules mash ups, why not just revert to 4th ed and edit some of the rules/add some in..that way we can skip the crap from the last 5 years...
To alleviate this before major tourneys, TO's and the community should work hand in hand to alleviate some of the horrid writing, obviously this is altering the RAW, but it'll lead to less disputes theoretically..

[hyv3mynd]

They are only treated as enemy models by models in your army, not by you the player.

An AoC troop is still a troop (scoring unit) in your (the controlling player) army, from your FoC. The only thing preventing them from scoring would be swarm status, being a vehicle, or being denied by a unit from the opposing player.

BoW have a long history of pushing the rules limits including placing a flamer template under and through the firing model because it is RAW. If you wish to play this way, fine with me. Over 4 armies and 12000pts of models, my AoC consist of 500pts in necrons. I have no stake in the discussion. I will, however in a game against RAW hardliners, insist that wraithlords and guards can never shoot, and prone models behind an aegis can never shoot due to TLoS.

[sinistermind]

I simply cannot see how it can be argued that GW meant to make AoC denial units to the army that takes them when in the desperate allies rules it states they cannot claim objectives or deny the enemy objectives
so now they wrote that in there for kicks?

since desperate allies also count as enemy units just like AoC but with some additional rules that are clearly spelled out(and irrelevant) why if they intended by calling them enemy units would they then go to the trouble just for the desperate allies to say they do not score and deny???

its obvious that there entire intent(and poorly executed method) behind saying they are considered enemy units is to say how your other units react to them i.e share transports or psyker buffs, and join IC's into units

the only bit of the video i believe can be argued by the whole labeling allied units as enemies is the multi-assault how pile in is against unengaged enemy models since none of allied levels address combating your enemy allied units..... but again i think this whole thing WILL be FAQ'd

[Goldeagle]

I think there is a simple solution to this issue that honors both rules as written and as intended. It also means that both sides of this discussion have points that are correct.

As clearly stated AOC are enemies, while desperate allies are not only enemies they also can't be used as scoring units.

The implications of the wording and the bolded section seem straight forward. Because AOC are enemies, you can't use scoring units from your primary detachment and your AOC to hold the same objective because it triggers the denial units rule.

However, even though they are enemies, in this battle they are allies, so you could hold different objectives, since both count as scoring units for you the player.

When you use desperate allies they are not only enemies, and hence denial units, they also are not scoring units.

The in-game consequence of this rule is that you can't try to hold an objective with units from both your primary detachments and your AOC (i.e. they don't trust each other enough) ... so a clever opponent who sees you trying to pull off this maneuver could back off and leave you denying yourself. Thus, the intended drawback to using AOC is that you don't have the flexibility in using your scoring units like you do when you use one detachment.

my two cents worth ...

[hyv3mynd]

I still find it hilarious arguing that they intended tau to score for ultramarines, but not grey knights. No way. I won't play it like that, but if you can tell someone they just lost because one of their silver armored marines stood too close to their blue marine, go for it.

[MajorSoB]

I really don't have any stake in this discussion either, however I do believe that GW intended these rules to be played as written. From what I can read it looks like AoC trigger denial in both your army and your opponents army since they have been classified as enemy units. The difference between Aoc and Desperate Allies is that you cannot use Desperate Allies to as denial units for your opponent. This new literal translation doesn't affect Eldar/Dark Eldar alliances, nor does it affect Tau/Eldar alliances or any other Battle Brothers combo. It is a silly argument that you use stating we should ignore BoW since they have a history of false interpretations. Dakka and the INAT also has a similar history (The Doom and embarked units, just for one example). Again, we should wait until GW further elaborates on this rule but as written it seems very clear. Of course TOs will most likely make their own rulings since they cater to a very small populace that likes the game "their way", you know, set terrain, ignoring some of the missions ( Mission 4 ), ignoring Battlefield terrain (pages 102-107), the inclusion of table quarters and victory points in scoring (pages?...oh yeah...two rules sets ago!), etc. This will have a very small affect on the way I choose to play since the vast majority of my games now consist of games with friends who share the love (or in your case C4, tolerance) of painting models and pushing them around a table mixed in with some casual conversation. Beer and Pretzels baby, just like GW has preached time and time again. Hey here is an idea, if you want to play all your little plastic dude together where they don't have any affect on each other, try Apocalypse but if you want to play standard 40K missions, I think the rules in the main rule book and the official FAQ from GW work best.

[teecypher]

I cant believe im typing this but i agree with the major here i feel games workshop realized the potential for ridiculous combos and also saw the potential to sell more models so they needed to

restrict it and thats how they did it. On the other hand how meany games have you played where you had two squads on one objective in the way this rule would effect you.