How do we fight the Grey Knights?

[greatcrusade08]

let me put this another way, the BRB says walkers may not claim objectives... thats fine.

the codex says that these chosen units (inc walkers) may claim objectives as if they were troops.

 

so we have one rule saying they cant and one rule saying they can.

 

codex trumps rulebook.. good day to you

[appiah4]

let me put this another way, the BRB says walkers may not claim objectives... thats fine.

the codex says that these chosen units (inc walkers) may claim objectives as if they were troops.

 

so we have one rule saying they cant and one rule saying they can.

 

codex trumps rulebook.. good day to you

 

The codex does not say that unit can claim objectives.

 

The codex says that unit may claim objectives as TROOPS, and does not elaborate on what 'claiming objectives as Troops' means so you HAVE TO go back to the BRB for that rule, which you would not have had to if it actually said only 'may claim objectives', which it does not, for reason.

 

BRB says Vehicles, even as Troops, can not claim objectives.

 

Your codex trumps nothing.

 

Good day to you as well.

[greatcrusade08]

not as troops, as if they were troops.. the devil is in the details..

given that weve already established the clear intent to the rule and your trying to ruleslawyer a different meaning youd think youd get the wording right.

 

now if they were troops you could argue that they cant score becuase they are also vehicles.. but the rule says they score as if they were troops, not troops and vehicles..

when the rule allows them to be something else in temrs of rules thats all they are..

 

if they are allowed to claim "as if they were" troops then the faqct they are also vehicles doesnt come into the matter..

this nonsense about going back to the BRB is rubbish, we all know what troops are and what scoring is, your adding another step to try and bypass the argument that codex trumps rulebook.

 

the codex clearly says may "claim objectives as if they were troops".. so you go to the BRB and check it out, it says troops mjay claim objectives but not if they are vehciles..

so we have two possibilites.

 

the first being that your right and the rule is saying they become troops for the puirposes of this rule... in this case the BRB say no but the codex says yes they may score.. BRB trumps rulebook.

the second being that they are no longer vehciles for the purposes of claiming obejctives, the rule says they are like troops.. not troops which are also vehciles

[Chapter Master Ignis Domus]

But Troops is a chart slot, and vehicle is a unit type. The two are not mutually exclusive. The codex says as if they were troops, meaning any restrictions and benefits of troops claiming objectives apply. In the BRB it says that vehicles may not score. Now, they still claim objectives as if they were troops and that rule still has an effect, but it simply does nothing because of the vehicle restriction.

[greatcrusade08]

ive condensed the argument for ease of understanding

 

A = troops

B = Vehicles

 

The BRB says A may score, but A+B may not

The codex says B may claim objectives as if they were A.

 

if they are A they can score...

your trying to say they are treated as A+B.. thats not what the rule says it says "as if they were A"

[appiah4]

But Troops is a chart slot, and vehicle is a unit type. The two are not mutually exclusive. The codex says as if they were troops, meaning any restrictions and benefits of troops claiming objectives apply. In the BRB it says that vehicles may not score. Now, they still claim objectives as if they were troops and that rule still has an effect, but it simply does nothing because of the vehicle restriction.

 

Bravo. Exactly.

 

ive condensed the argument for ease of understanding

 

A = troops

B = Vehicles

 

The BRB says A may score, but A+B may not

The codex says B may claim objectives as if they were A.

 

if they are A they can score...

your trying to say they are treated as A+B.. thats not what the rule says it says "as if they were A"

 

No.

 

I am NOT saying they are treated as A+B. I am saying they are treated as A, but the rules for A state A+B can't score. Stop putting words in my mouth, you are still attacking strawmen.

 

I'm saying that They are B, and can score as A - but since they score as A, all rules of scoring as A as stated in the BRB apply, which explicity excludes being A+B, so the rule is in effect but does nothing for them.

[greatcrusade08]

its very sad when people ignore common sense in order to win an argument..

they are claiming as if they were troops, they are not claiming as troops which are also vehicles...

 

the rule is changing how they are treated for the purposes of the rule.. they are treated as troops... not troops which are also vehicles...

why is this so hard to understand?

why are we even arguing this point, for your interpretation to be correct the rule would be self defeating... this would be stupid

 

you are still attacking strawmen.

sod off with the strawman argument, its getting old... if im attacking strawmen your argument is toto humping dorothys leg.

 

they arent treated as a vehcile for the purposes of scoring they are treated as troops.. thats RAW... whatever else they may be is irrelevant becuase the rule is substituting it with them counting as troops..

You cant ignore the part of the rule that says "they may claim objectives" and then claim your following RAW

[TyrionTheImp]

BRB says Vehicles, even as Troops, can not claim objectives.

 

Wrong. The BRB says Troops cannot claim objectives if they are vehicles. Not Vehicles can not claim objectives even as troops.

 

The reason the BRB has the vehicle omission in it is to prevent people from spamming Dedicated Transports (that COUNT AS Troops even though they don't take FoC slots) and not having anything inside to claim objectives. This would be an unfair disadvantage to some armies who lack Dedicated Transports (Tyranids, necrons, etc), and an advantage to those who have powerful hard to kill Dedicated Transports (Eldar Wave Serpents).

 

However, that part does not apply to Grand Strategy because it says nothing about making them Troops, merely claim objectives. Regardless of whether they're a vehicle or not takes no bearing because they simply are not Troops in any way shape or form. They do not take the FoC slot, they do not count as being, and they are not treated as, there merely can claim objectives as if they were.

[appiah4]

its very sad when people ignore common sense in order to win an argument..

they are claiming as if they were troops, they are not claiming as troops which are also vehicles...

 

the rule is changing how they are treated for the purposes of the rule.. they are treated as troops... not troops which are also vehicles...

why is this so hard to understand?

why are we even arguing this point, for your interpretation to be correct the rule would be self defeating... this would be stupid

 

I feel sad for you then.. as being treated as Troops and still being Vehicles are not mutually exclusive..

 

You are making a Fallacy of Composition..

 

Unit A scores as if it were a Troop choice

Troops can score

Unit A can score

Troops can not score if vehicles

Unit A is a vehicle

Unit A can't score even if it counts as a Troop choice

Unit A can score and Unit A can't score

 

Now find where the error is..

Line 3, of course, as it is a premature conclusion.

 

 

Emphasis mine..

[greatcrusade08]

A scores as if it were a Troop choice

Troops can score

A can score

Troops can not score if vehicles

A is a vehicle

A can't score

A can score and A can't score

 

Now find where the error is..

 

the error is human, and yours.. and btw many people dont understand fallacy of compostion or strawman arguments.. stop trying to make yourself look smart, it doesnt serve a reasoned and public discussion.

Your not taking into account that the vehcile in question isnt a troop trying to score..

 

its not that the walker is a troops choice that suddenly cant score becuase its also a vehcile... it is treated like a troops choice for the purposes of scoring

theres a difference between the two.. a big difference.

the rule in question allows the unit to be treated like a troops choice... note its a mirage.. it doesnt chnage what they are only how they are treated for rules purposes... your still trying to claim they are vehciles.. but the RAW only states they are troops for the purposes of claiming objectives.

 

Any other argument is non valid.. and tbh im getting sick of listening to your nonsense

so ill bid you good day before my unrelenting need to unload on rules lawyers comes to the fore

[appiah4]

Any other argument is non valid.. and tbh im getting sick of listening to your nonsense

 

And I am to yours, feel free to ignore me.

[greatcrusade08]

And I am to yours, feel free to ignore me.

 

im just glad we dont game in the same circles....

 

edit: remember that any rules conclusions must be applicable and arguable over the tabletop.. if someone has a rule that lets his chosen units score or scout.. then trying to negate it with some clever wordsmith ability only makes you look like a rules lawyer.

if this is a grey area or if its difficult to understand then you go with whats most reasonable.. he has a rule that allows him to score... go with it

[MagicMan]

Warhammer 40k, serious business.

[greatcrusade08]

Warhammer 40k, serious business.

 

I hate rules lawyering

 

edit: rules lawyering and WAAC gaming are the pimple on the buttcrack of my beautiful hobby... im not saying appiah is a rules lawyer, but we pretty much argued a page ago that the intent was clear...

whether or not thier is some room for argument doesnt mean we should use it.. after all GW has set a precedent of bad wording

[TyrionTheImp]

Probably wouldn't let my Ravenwing Land Speeder score, because it's not a Troop and it's a Vehicle, even though the Dark Angels codex says "Always count as scoring" :lol:

 

Not like I use those pieces of garbage anyways, Assault Cannon and Heavy Bolter on a Land Speeder? Eeewwww....

 

This is an important topic of debate though when one thinks about it. Scoring Walkers is certainly something new in 5th edition that GK's bring to the table. I would imagine Psyflemen dreads would be made as home objective keepers, mostly because they have the range compared to the rest of the army and could now contribute in more than one way.

 

Only other unit I would make scoring are Interceptors with their spiffy shunt move, or maybe a Dreadknight. Nothing says :angry: off like a Monstrous Creature coming for your objective.

[Thantoes]

I cant understand this argument.

 

Precedent is that codex trumps BRB.

 

Codex clearly states that for the purpose of Unyielding Anvil, infantry, jump infantry, monstrous creatures or WALKERS can claim objectives.

 

It cant get clearer. The writers of the codex didnt sit there and think "Hey, our word count is low, lets put some gibberish in there to confuse the proles". They went "Hey GK are special so lets give them some nice shiny special rules"

 

As the previous poster stated, its like saying that DA Ravenwing or Deathwing cant score because they arent troops. Oh, and that rule for Pedro Kantor that makes Sternguard score as troops, forget it because they are actually elites and the wording of the rule doesnt actually declare them as troops.

 

These are exceptions. They supercede the BRB in very specific circumstances only.

[greatcrusade08]

the thing people need to realise with new codexes is that new rules hit the tables.. there will always be a little bit of difficult overlap with wording.

we should just accepot that codex overrules rulebook and play the game as it was meant.. in a friendly and polite way.

 

people always say i overreact when i discuss rules, and they are probably right, but RAW isnt always clear cut, whilst what we refer to as RAI can be..

RAI should really be called RAP rules as practical

i get in heated debates becuase i dont want someone picking up these weird and wonderful arguments and challengingin me or my friends with them later on.. its nonsense.. just go with whats written..

the things may claim objectives... thats the steak.. argue over the peas later with your mates and come to a conclusion that suits everyone

[Chapter Master Ignis Domus]

But it doesn't say only that. It also says 'as if they were Troops', meaning all restrictions on Troops scoring apply. Also, the intent isn't clear, as walkers could also outflank or use any of the other Grand Strategy bonuses.

 

And on the Ravenwing Land Speeder, that would be scoring, because the codex says that it is scoring, with no added 'as if it was Troops'.

 

Ninja'ed by GC08. This is in response to Thantoes.

[appiah4]

But it doesn't say only that. It also says 'as if they were Troops', meaning all restrictions on Troops scoring apply. Also, the intent isn't clear, as walkers could also outflank or use any of the other Grand Strategy bonuses.

 

And on the Ravenwing Land Speeder, that would be scoring, because the codex says that it is scoring, with no added 'as if it was Troops'.

 

Ninja'ed by GC08. This is in response to Thantoes.

 

You talk too much sense.

[DarkGuard]

It sounds like he had the first turn and sat back on his side of the board with his troops inside his Rhinos. Is that correct? How would the game have changed if he had capitalized on having the first turn and zipped across the board, deploying his troops behind Rhino bunkers, ready to open fire on turn 2?

 

Hmmm, well despite the long Rules argument on scoring units, I'll still answer this. To be honest, I got the first turn, which meant I was able to open fire before him and press forward. That being said, with one lone Rhino going forward (the other sitting back on my objective), and lots of mid-range guys plus two psyfleman Dreads I'd have expected my Rhino to be cracked open and him to subsequently dominate midfield, before pushing towards my objective, with me needing to turbo boost Speeders to salvage a win/draw.

 

However, I had deployed my army on the side of the board with better cover for vehicles, meaning most of his vehicles were in open, but I still reckon he should deployed them further forward with the intent to drive forward. It would have made me think twice about my flank attack to his objective, and I might have diverted firepower away from his psyfleman to his Rhinos to prevent them getting closer. As it happened if I shut down his long-range firepower I would dominate, which is what happened.

 

As for the scoring Dreadnoughts, this is a tactics discussion, so we'll answer it tactically. If it's not allowed, we can hit them with the Codex and tell them they're wrong. Are we can focus firepower on them, taking them out or preventing them from scoring. A Tactical squad cannot be removed from an objective with a sole meltagun, a Dreadnought can :).

[Mysticaria]

Can Ork Deff Dreads, taken as Toops, claim objectives?

 

-Myst

[greatcrusade08]

Can Ork Deff Dreads, taken as Toops, claim objectives?

 

-Myst

 

if they are vehicles/walkers then no.. the excpetion is he grey knight rule which treats the units like they are troops and only troops (by pure RAW).. what they are doesnt matter, its how they are treated thats the crux of the issue

[Hellios]

Can Ork Deff Dreads, taken as Toops, claim objectives?

 

-Myst

 

if they are vehicles/walkers then no.. the excpetion is he grey knight rule which treats the units like they are troops and only troops (by pure RAW).. what they are doesnt matter, its how they are treated thats the crux of the issue

 

Except Deff dreads that are taken as troops are treated as troops as well... Nowehere in the rule does it state you can ignore being a vehicle. Now personally I would allow someone to have a scoring dread but I do think the rule is unclear and there isn't anything else that is similiar enough in terms of rules to allow me to infer intent.

 

I think the best course of action is talk it over with friends (or TOs) and wait for the FAQ which I guess won't cover it knowing GW :)

[greatcrusade08]

Except Deff dreads that are taken as troops are treated as troops as well...

 

not the same thing..

a deff dread is a troops choice thats also a walker.. under the rules it cannot claim objectives becuase of this.

A GK dread is a walker, but under the special grand strat rule it can claim objectives as if it were a troops choice..

 

it does not gain the 'troops' rule nor does the fact its a walker matter... the rule is specific and the pure RAW argument says that for the purposes of claiming obs it is treated as troops (and troops only) for all other rules its a non troops walker..

again the rule is specific, and people are mixing rules to claim a RAW argument that doesnt fit this scenario...

 

troops can score/claim obs.. unless its a walker/vehicle..

if something is treated as troops then it can score unless the rules say its treated as a troops/vehicle... "treated as" is vastly different than "becomes"

 

a example: a man has two children A and B, his wife has a third child be a previous marraige child C... in his will the man bequeaths his money to his children, so only A and B are beneficiaries. however the man made a supplementary note that for the purposes of benefitting from the sale of his house child C was to benefit as if he were his child.

this does not mean that child C, has suddenly become his child, nor does it mean child C can benefit from anything else.. but for the purposes of inheriting from the house the child is to be treated like the rest of the children even though the previous rule states that only his true children may benefit.

 

the same goes here, the GK dread does not become troops, nor does his being a walker preclude him from claiming objectives.. for the purposes of this one rule he is able to claim an objective as if he were a troops choice.. the argument that hes a troops choice aswell as a walker doesnt hold weight, becuase his only actual rule is walker, but he is treated as being troops and troops only as per the rules.

[Hellios]

if the rules just said makes the chosen units count as scoring for the purposes of cpaturing objectives then people wouldn't have this issue the problem is the as if they were troops that causes the issue which if they just want to say a unit can score isn't required.

 

The problem is with the codex overiding rule book they just needed to say it counts as scoring and didn't need to put as if it were a troops choice. He is still treated as a walker who can't capture because he is a walker.

 

Mr.X has children A and B who are both sons his wife has a daughter© and son (D) from another marriage. Mr.X leaves stuff to his children so C & D not being his children cannot claim any of that. However any profits made from the sale of the house are to count C & D as his children for the purposes of dividing money. Children C & D are not suddenly suddenly one of his children and are not entitled to anything else just because they has been provided for in this case.

 

This man and his family live in Bhindibajibat and under Bhindibajibat law woman cannot own property or recieve inheritance. So while D can gain the benefit of the money from the sale of the house C cannot.

 

C is a dread and D is a NDK.... A & B are Grey Knight Terminator squads.