Can an OC zero unit claim objectives?

[Zoatibix]

Rules question about OC. There are some units that have OC 0.

 

I assumed that if they weren’t ever allowed to contest objectives they would have a rule saying so, or an OC entry of ‘-‘.

 

Does OC 0 mean they can’t contest against even a single OC 1 model, or that they can never contest claim?

 

I assume that if the former is the case, then two opposing OC 0 units would be stuck glaring at each other.

 

Thank you.

[Emperor Ming]

I think that's a grey area, certainly not if there is any enemy oc1 unit within range, but if its just themselves, 

 

I think many of us would like to think oc0 cant capture, but if that was the intention I think it would state in black and white, zero can not capture, and it never says that

 

the rules defiantly don't say oc0 cant capture: 

 

Every model has an Objective Control (OC) characteristic listed on its datasheet. To determine a player’s Level of Control over an objective marker, add together the OC characteristics of all the models from that player’s army that are within range of that objective marker. A player will control an objective marker at the end of any phase or turn if their Level of Control over it is greater than their opponent’s. If both players have the same Level of Control over an objective marker, that objective marker is contested.

 

 

[Karhedron]

I read this as meaning OCO units cannot claim Objectives. Even if there are no enemy units there, both players still have the same level of OC so the Objective remains contested.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

By my read of it, that's exactly what it says.  Since each side has 0 OC within range of the objective, it is unclaimed by either side, just as if there were no units in range of it at all.

 

See here for previous discussions on this topic - it (and variations thereof) are one of the more common rules questions here in 10th:

 

 

 

Edited May 19 by Dr_Ruminahui

[Emperor Ming]

If two oc0 zero units can contest an objective then one without contest would capture?

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I'm not sure what you are asking - contested isn't an ability of a unit, but a state for an objective.

 

Any objective where one player doesn't have more OC within range than the other player is contested.  This can be because no one has any units within range, they both have models with an equal amount of OC within range (so, for example, 1 has a model with OC 2 and the other 2 models with OC 1), or because the models in range don't have a positive (aka 1 or higher) OC value at all.

 

So, to address your example, it doesn't matter how many models with 0 OC the two players pile onto or remove from an objective, neither is ever going to take it until one of them brings a model with an OC of 1 or more into range.

Edited May 20 by Dr_Ruminahui

[Xenith]

20 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

the rules defiantly don't say oc0 cant capture: 

 

Every model has an Objective Control (OC) characteristic listed on its datasheet. To determine a player’s Level of Control over an objective marker, add together the OC characteristics of all the models from that player’s army that are within range of that objective marker. A player will control an objective marker at the end of any phase or turn if their Level of Control over it is greater than their opponent’s. If both players have the same Level of Control over an objective marker, that objective marker is contested.

 

I'd counter that those rules say they cannot capture. If you have an OC0 model on an objective, and your opponent has no models on that objective, your level of control over that objective is not greater than your opponents and you cannot claim it. 

 

OC0 cannot control objectives, or claim them. I think there's one weird interaction where they can un-claim a sticky objective from an opponent that has moved off it, but they cannot claim it themselves. 

[Karhedron]

12 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

If two oc0 zero units can contest an objective then one without contest would capture?

 

Contest is not an ability of a unit, it is the state of an Objective.

 

An Objective where neither side has a higher OC than the other is Contested.

 

To work out who controls an Objective, simply add the OC of all the models in range. The player with the higher OC controls the Objective. If neither side is higher then it is Contested. The presence of models is not important, just the amount of OC present on each side.

[Brother Nathan]

For an interesting interaction iv not seen discussed. Spawn give a minus 1 to oc to units with a model within 3 inches. Possible for a unit to be battleshocked then minus 1 and to loose objective with no enemy in range of objective then right?

[Arikel]

22 hours ago, Brother Nathan said:

For an interesting interaction iv not seen discussed. Spawn give a minus 1 to oc to units with a model within 3 inches. Possible for a unit to be battleshocked then minus 1 and to loose objective with no enemy in range of objective then right?

This would be where GW has proven over and over again how they can’t write rules correctly. RAI, I would assume that it is not possible to reduce the OC of a unit below 0.
 

However, It would be very typical of GW that this is not specifically stated in the  rules anywhere, as they tend to assume (to the detriment of everyone) that all players will will interpret things the same way as they do. You would think they would have learned something from 30 years. I haven’t played 10th much so couldn’t tell you if they have written it down anywhere, perhaps someone with a better knowledge of them could point it out if they have.

[Karhedron]

On 6/2/2024 at 10:10 PM, Brother Nathan said:

For an interesting interaction iv not seen discussed. Spawn give a minus 1 to oc to units with a model within 3 inches. Possible for a unit to be battleshocked then minus 1 and to loose objective with no enemy in range of objective then right?

 

If a unit fails it's battleshock test, it is reduced to OC zero anyway. That means it will lose control of an Objective it is holding anyway, even if there are no enemy nearby.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I think what's being suggested is that if a unit becomes negative OC, it essentially counts for the opponent .  So, the 40K equivalent of scoring on ones' own goal.

 

So, definitely not something intended by the rules, but I haven't picked through their exact wording to see if that's the actual result.

Edited June 3 by Dr_Ruminahui

[DemonGSides]

Nothing to worry about. As pointed out in the Rules Commentary, you can't worsen AP or OC below 0 so negative of either are literally impossible.

 

Now, to comment on the question that resurfaced the topic;

On 6/2/2024 at 5:10 PM, Brother Nathan said:

For an interesting interaction iv not seen discussed. Spawn give a minus 1 to oc to units with a model within 3 inches. Possible for a unit to be battleshocked then minus 1 and to loose objective with no enemy in range of objective then right?

 

A unit with 0 OC is no longer in control of the objective it's on, which would mean that the player also loses control, unless they had already stickied that objective or have another scoring unit in range.  Totally possible to lose the obj, that's the point of some armies that really care about OC (Tyranids and Chaos Knights are both pushing for 0 OC due to battleshock hits).  This does not give the objective to the enemy until they bring a scoring unit there.

So pretty well established as intentional.  It's a good reason to have indirect fire too; can knock off back line holding units while staying under cover.  IG have made a name for it all edition long, but early 10th was a lot of Indirect keeping people off their home objectives.

Edited June 4 by DemonGSides

[Zoatibix]

I agree my Rippers shouldn't and won't be claiming / contesting objectives, but I just wanted to explain why I'd asked the question. 

 

This seems like one of those situations that @Arikel has mentioned where GW has assumed everyone will read a rule in the same way.

 

To me 0 is a value. I know that 'zero' can mean 'nothing' but in this context it is being used as a value. If I'm asked to compare my value versus someone else's value and they don't have a value then I 'win'.  

 

It's just coming from an IT background my brain says that OC 0 should have been 'OC -' or 'N'.  Or, better yet, a flat statement that Ripper Swarms or Swarm keywords can't ever contest / claim objectives. IIRC 'Swarm' units in previous editions either had a general rule or specific text that stopped them doing such things.

 

Hence my initial question - I was wondering if they intended OC 0 units to now be able to contest an objective it nobody else was in range. (After all, Nids are now taking Battleshock tests.)

 

Again, I won't be trying to take objectives with Rippers, I just wanted to explain why I'd asked the question.

 

Thank you for the replies.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Right, but I'm not sure where you get with the "zero is a value" position.  Comparing zero to no value at all, zero isn't higher, which is what is required to hold an objective.  I know analogies can be problematic, its akin to having a bank account with no money in it and not having a bank account at all - on your practical analysis the guy with the bank account doesn't win the "who has more money in the bank" comparison just because he has a zero and the other guy doesn't.  At best it is notional difference which I can't see GW as having intended to have rules significance.  For example, no AP could be shown as AP 0 or AP - and I can't see how, without language indicating such, that this would be anything more than different ways of showing the same thing.  There may be a difference of significance in higher level mathematics or the like (can't say, not my area), but I can't see that as having been carried over and intended by GW.

 

To me this is reinforced by the rules clarification appearing to require that you check every objective at the end of every phase, comparing OC values in the range of each and giving control to the player who has the most OC in range.  Realistically, players will only check for control when and where it matters - so, where there are actually models in range - but that doesn't mean that it is the models themselves that give control, its the positive OC value over that of your opponent. 

 

I appreciate your explanation as to why you asked your question (and even more your pointing out that you wouldn't use the rules in this way), so I'm sorry if my answer appears kind of confrontational in that light.  I guess I just see you as thinking on a higher level than GW intended - kind of like responding to the question of "is your model in range" with "do models actually exist" - a perfectly valid question in the context of philosophy and such, but not the same plane of thought as GW is drafting its rules.

 

 

Edited June 6 by Dr_Ruminahui

[Xenith]

On 6/6/2024 at 12:49 PM, Zoatibix said:

It's just coming from an IT background my brain says that OC 0 should have been 'OC -' or 'N'. 

 

This was a problem in previous editions, if a unit has OC- and is his with an effect that gives +1OC, what do they have? Same with armour saves, where units that were previously  Sv- went to Sv 7+ to allow them to have benefits of cover. 

 

Units have OC0 the same way some models have Sv7+, it provides an actualmodifiable number, nd makes the rest of the language used work - one cannot increase or decrease '-'.

[Zoatibix]

Sure, but that’s why it’s better to just give them a rule that they can never contest.

[Karhedron]

10 minutes ago, Zoatibix said:

Sure, but that’s why it’s better to just give them a rule that they can never contest.

 

But that is exactly what Zero OC means. It means they can never contest. Having OC 0 means they don't have to write the rule for every unit that has it and it also means that when units suffer Battleshock, they also experience the same condition.

[Zoatibix]

They could copy paste the rule onto the datacard handful of models that would be affected. 
 

The Battle-shock rule could simply swap ‘The Objective Control characteristic of all its models is 0’ line to be ‘This unit may not contest objectives.’ which is fewer words, but I take your point. 

 

If I look at it as the opponent having an implied OC 0 on all objectives that fixes the problem in my head. 
 

Thank you again for the patient replies, folks. 

[DemonGSides]

It can't have that rule because that'd invalidate the multiple units that retain OC even when battle shocked, as well as the entire Dark Angels detatchment.

 

It's very weird to ascribe value to 0 beyond "none".  I'm not sure I quite grok that line of thinking. 

 

Edit: there is also the fact that ' - ' as a value is used; fortifications get that as a value for their movement because they literally can't move. If something had OC -, the implication is that they wouldn't be able to benefit from anything that increased OC and would also retain an OC of 0 for all intents and purposes.

Edited June 16 by DemonGSides

[casb1965]

I'm not sure where the complexity comes from, if a unit has OC of 0 then it can never influence whether an objective is held or not as OC 0 does not increase the OC value of an objective. 

[Karhedron]

People are remembering older editions of the game, it is easily done. Objective Control is just one of those areas where they have completely abandoned what went before. OC follows its own rules with no bearing on anything that came before. In the past, some units had rules that they could never claim Objectives and some people are still looking for that sort of rule. However it is no longer needed because OC 0 explains exactly how it works.

Edited June 30 by Karhedron

[Lord_Ikka]

With the Pariah Nexus rules, OC 0 now are unable to do Actions as well as unable to hold objectives, so be warned that your formerly cheap action monkeys are now just fodder/distraction- they won't be scoring you many VP.

[Karhedron]

Still good for Engage on All Fronts I think as that does not require actions or OC.