Grey Knights

Do you know the best way to beat that unbeatable 40k army? Well post it here and share the knowledge.

Postby n00bzilla99 » Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am

GregSwanson wrote:You are right it doesn't say the dreadnoughts are troops it says it can claim objectives as if they are troops. How is that not clear? And I would think that codex would trump rulebook because it lists exceptions to the rule. Plus the rulebook only talks about troops that are vehicles not be able to score. The dreadnought is not a troop choice he is either heavy or elite. He just has the ability to claim objectives.......


Step 1. Unyielding Anvil allows you to make a Dreadnought claim objectives as if it was troops (GK codex page 22).
Step 2. As it will claim objectives as if it is a troop we will have to look to see how this works on the field.
Step 3. We read rules in the rulebook
Step 4. The rules in the rulebook specify that a unit can be scoring if it is troops, except when it is a vehicle, swarm or has a special rule that says it can never score (rulebook page 90).
Step 5. As a Dreadnought is a vehicle this means that claiming objectives as if it was a troop choice means it can not be a scoring unit.

Crystal Clear to me.

GregSwanson wrote:This is like arguing that a daemonic herald with mastery of sorcery could not use two shooting attacks. The rulebook says that no non monstrous creature may make two shooting attacks. However the mastery of sorcery is the exception allowing the Daemon to make two attacks. By your logic the herald would be unable to do so.


If the Daemonic Herald has a special rule that allows it to make 2 psychic shooting attacks then it may do so. There is no rule that allows the Dreadnought to score regardless if it is a vehicle or not. Scoring as troops is not the same as being able to score regardless if it's a vehicle or not. The rule on page 90 is never over-ridden.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Tue May 17, 2011 5:40 am

I agree with Greg on this one.
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby YeezyMozart » Tue May 17, 2011 8:53 am

AdeptusBrewCityJoe wrote:Step 1. Unyielding Anvil allows you to make a Dreadnought claim objectives as if it was troops (GK codex page 22).


I don't have the Grey knights book in front of me right now but if it says what you say it says on your step one. Then Greg is correct the Dred CAN claim objectives. It is as clear as day.

The rule in the rule book would be overridden by this rule. Codex's always take precedence over the rulebook. This rule specifically says: "Allows you to make a Dreadnought claim objectives".

Forget the troop part that does not bare any importance and you are merely including it to try to make a point to your argument. It is clear that author just put that in there because Troops score and GW never thinks of the silly loop holes they can open up sometimes.

The rule in the rule book is there because there are a lot of armies that can actually take TROOP choices that are vehicles but for some reason
5th ed didn't think they should score so that rule was created.

But this gray knight rule states the simple fact that "Allows you to make a Dreadnought claim objectives" that right there would override the rule in the rule book that states that troop vehicles can't score objectives.

What would be the point of this entry in the codex if it doesn't make it claim objectives? It doesn't make it a troop, so why is this even in here if you are right and it still is not able to claim objectives?
YeezyMozart
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:42 am

Postby Norbu the Destroyer » Tue May 17, 2011 11:16 am

For what its worth...I think they can claim objectives as well....and I HATE this codex :evil:

I also think Hammerand does NOT stack, +1 to reserves does NOT stack.

At least thats how we play 'round these paaarts *spits tobacco*

Just trying to shake the hornets nest a little.
Norbu the Destroyer
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:10 pm

Postby GregSwanson » Tue May 17, 2011 11:22 am

Hans
I also agree that hammerhand does not stack but will stack with Might of Titan. Also the reserve rolls do not stack as well. However dreadknights and dreadnoughts can claim objectives.
Greg
That crazy fireman!
I am not smart but I can lift heavy things!
In the grim darkness of the future, there is only war. There are not massive army costume parties and campy parade floats. - xNickBaranx
User avatar
GregSwanson
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:23 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Crumpsky » Tue May 17, 2011 12:22 pm

I too agree that the dreadnought and dreadknights can claim objectives, thats how I have been playing at least. Trying to figure out the best way to counter this codex is a pain.
Crumpsky
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:02 pm
Location: DG

Postby n00bzilla99 » Tue May 17, 2011 12:31 pm

B-Rad wrote:I don't have the Grey knights book in front of me right now but if it says what you say it says on your step one. Then Greg is correct the Dred CAN claim objectives. It is as clear as day.

The rule in the rule book would be overridden by this rule. Codex's always take precedence over the rulebook. This rule specifically says: "Allows you to make a Dreadnought claim objectives".

Forget the troop part that does not bare any importance and you are merely including it to try to make a point to your argument. It is clear that author just put that in there because Troops score and GW never thinks of the silly loop holes they can open up sometimes.

The rule in the rule book is there because there are a lot of armies that can actually take TROOP choices that are vehicles but for some reason
5th ed didn't think they should score so that rule was created.

But this gray knight rule states the simple fact that "Allows you to make a Dreadnought claim objectives" that right there would override the rule in the rule book that states that troop vehicles can't score objectives.


You can't simply forget the "As if they were troops part" because that is the integral part of the rule. And the BRB says that a troops choice cannot score if it is a vehicle.

The rule in the rule book would be overridden by this rule. Codex's always take precedence over the rulebook. This rule specifically says: "Allows you to make a Dreadnought claim objectives".


Have you read the rule? This is so wrong its not even funny. The rule says almost verbatim "The selected units can score as if they were troops choices."

Nowhere does it say "Dreadnoughts are scoring." The answer is still no. It allows D3 units to claim an objective as if they were troops. In order to figure out how that works, we must reference the BRB section on scoring units. Oh wait, that says that vehicles that are troops (or in this case acting like they are troops) may never score.

Argue all you want, but until you have a line of text that says "Vehicles may count as scoring" and not "They will score as if they are troops" the codex does not over-ride the BRB because they are not in conflict. The BRB specifically states that vehicles that are troops cannot score, and this is the case here.

What would be the point of this entry in the codex if it doesn't make it claim objectives? It doesn't make it a troop, so why is this even in here if you are right and it still is not able to claim objectives?

To let other, non-vehicle units, such as Interceptor and Purifiers (without Crowe) score using this rule.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Tue May 17, 2011 12:51 pm

I think the difference comes from table quarters. A scoring unit can claim a table quarter. GK dreads would be allowed to claim objectives, but not a table quarter.
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby Norbu the Destroyer » Tue May 17, 2011 12:59 pm

Joe I understand your point and I can see your interpretation of the rule.

The key is scoring as if they were troops and yes troop vehicles can not score. I think if you were a TO and made that ruling I would abide by that and I dont think it would be a big deal.

For me the key is the codex allows them to claim objectives as if they were troops. Its one of those impassable crossroads GW rule sets seem to hit every once in a while where the codex says the unit can claim objectives, but the rulebook says this must never happen.

The FAQ should clear it up, but I would allow Drednoughts to score as it is written.

I could be wrong...hell I thought "no way GW will allow the deffrolla to auto d6 S10 hit any vehicle it touches" but they did.

Until the FAQ its a tournament by tournament call and usually the INAT is the go to until the GW FAQ comes out. Until then people will read it how they want to read it.
Norbu the Destroyer
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:10 pm

Postby Norbu the Destroyer » Tue May 17, 2011 1:01 pm

Fred dont be bringing up no table quarters...thats another can of worms with how that dreadnought ruling could go. :?
Norbu the Destroyer
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:10 pm

Postby n00bzilla99 » Tue May 17, 2011 2:41 pm

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:Joe I understand your point and I can see your interpretation of the rule.

The key is scoring as if they were troops and yes troop vehicles can not score. I think if you were a TO and made that ruling I would abide by that and I dont think it would be a big deal.

For me the key is the codex allows them to claim objectives as if they were troops. Its one of those impassable crossroads GW rule sets seem to hit every once in a while where the codex says the unit can claim objectives, but the rulebook says this must never happen.

The FAQ should clear it up, but I would allow Drednoughts to score as it is written.

I could be wrong...hell I thought "no way GW will allow the deffrolla to auto d6 S10 hit any vehicle it touches" but they did.

Until the FAQ its a tournament by tournament call and usually the INAT is the go to until the GW FAQ comes out. Until then people will read it how they want to read it.


This. I can also see how it can be argued the other way as well. This is why I believe it needs to be FAQ'ed which is what I originally stated.

Also, I'm not sure you can make it scoring since vehicles cannot be scoring unless they are transports with troops inside. This needs to be FAQ'ed.


This ^^ Was one of my original posts here. I will argue my point because I believe it is the correct interpretation, however, I will not argue it for the sake of arguing, only if it comes up in a game. In which case, the need for an FAQ will arise. No need to derail a tactics thread with rules arguing anymore really...

Let the FAQ decide.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Previous

Return to Tactics (40K)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron