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.

 TheKbob wrote:
Unless you based your army on that fact and that, from my best understanding of 7E, Objective Secured is kind of a good thing. What's the difference between a scoring Land Raider and an Objective Secured Land Raider? A great deal. Billing a book a Codex, more so one that operated well by itself minus the lack of good AA, and turning it into now a supplement is a pile of crap. That's the fact you're losing.

Except you never had "objective secured". If you built your army on wishful thinking about how cool it would be if GW changed the rules to let you have it then you have only yourself to blame.

And no, C:I isn't a supplement, at least any more than it ever was (see previous comments about how you should never buy C:I for a pure inquisition army). Not having your army be as good at winning games as you think it should be is not the same as the LOTD codex, where it's supposedly an army that you can play by itself but you automatically lose the game if you ever do.

 TheKbob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You couldn't anyway , as the Inq detachment had no command benefit, and command benefits are what CAN give you objective secured

You had Lord of Formosa previously which would allow for Objective Secured, or how most people interpreted the book to work, much like the Grey Knights book.
.

No. "Most " people didn't make up an entirely different rule. I've not heard of this fallacious argument previously.

You have no argument here.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
The idea that Coteaz makes warbands scoring, per 6E, was a main reason to take the codex and a means of making the army work since it was legal to be fielded with itself.

No it wasn't, since the GK codex gives you the same Coteaz + warbands army but with more options. The only reason to buy C:I was to add allied inquisitors to your existing army, the option to take them as a primary detachment only exists so you can use your C:I rules/models without buying a second codex if you already have those allies and want to try a pure inquisition army.

Since Codex Grey Knights in 7E still makes warbands Objective Secured, the follow on logic is that the book which featured the exact same dude would also do so such that people already playing said army would be the same benefits.

Except the GK codex doesn't make them "objective secured", it makes them troops. They can then get the benefit of the "objective secured" as long as they are taken as part of a combined arms detachment in a battle-forged army.

And no, I wouldn't expect Coteaz to work the same way because he never worked the same way in both books. C:I made warbands scoring elite units, GK made them troops.

This new FOC thing is already pretty asinine, but to sit here and say that army you made can't be played like it was before due to an $85 rule change is asinine.

Except absolutely nothing has changed. You didn't have "objective secured" when C:I was published, you didn't have it when 7th edition was released, and you don't have it now. Not getting errata to add a powerful new rule that you wanted to have is not the same thing as not being able to play your army.

Wish I could exalt your post more than once, Peregrine.

Kbob, you seem to be under impression that your idea of what YOU THINK it should mean(even though it's separate rules) is how it actually is. You can't just go saying "scoring = objective secured" because those are two -utterly- different things no matter how hard you want to believe that. Of course Games Workshop -could have- reworded it for "objective secured" but as they didn't, explicitly deciding to just remove it as the rule that makes them scoring is no longer needed, because they're scoring even without it means that your interpretation and wishful thinking were utterly wrong as that's exactly what GW DID NOT mean through that rule in 7th. I'm sorry that you were mistaken and played it the way you thought it should, but apparently you were wrong and given the fact that people here disagree with you and GW didn't do it your way mean, thus rendering your idea of how it works invalid.

Just remember that the effect of Objective Secured is not given by just being troops, but by being troops in a particular type of a detachment, so even if the rule turned them into troops like in GK, you still would have to fulfill the FOC requirements to gain OS.

As simple as that. :-)

I think it can't be said more simple than Lynkon did:

Lord of Formosa was redundant since ALL units score now

Half of a sentence, and yet it's all that was needed to be said. The rule didn't magically transform, it just happened to be rendered unnecessary because the effect was already in play through BRB, so it got removed. :-)

Yet Kantor, whose rule functions identically (elite unit becomes "Scoring") Is FaQed to grant OS. Making Unbound Sternguard armies OS.

Good old GW.

 Eldarain wrote:
Yet Kantor, whose rule functions identically (elite unit becomes "Scoring") Is FaQed to grant OS. Making Unbound Sternguard armies OS.

Good old GW.

Did not know that. That's incredibly idiotic. It sounds like there's a lack of internal communication, because why would someone who ruled it one way for one model rule it the other for a comparable model? It seems like it had to be two separate people unaware of each other.

 Eldarain wrote:
Yet Kantor, whose rule functions identically (elite unit becomes "Scoring") Is FaQed to grant OS. Making Unbound Sternguard armies OS.

Good old GW.

Yeah, so wish folks would stop tearing into me because there was significant precedent in my favor.

But, you know, fire from the hip and all, that's cool.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Yet Kantor, whose rule functions identically (elite unit becomes "Scoring") Is FaQed to grant OS. Making Unbound Sternguard armies OS.

Good old GW.

Yeah, so wish folks would stop tearing into me because there was significant precedent in my favor.

But, you know, fire from the hip and all, that's cool.

Precedent or not, it was GW's decision to remove it from the Codex. You made an assumption based on your opinion/precedents, but if GW did that, then it means that they meant it. Maybe it was caused by incompetence, maybe it was an effect of intentional decision, but it happened. Not saying it was a good change, just that you shouldn't act like it was set in stone when all you did was assuming that it'll work that way, and then get mad that it didn't, that's all. :-)

IF the codex would have said he gives them objective secured then it doesn't matter what the BRB says. Codex >BRB.

I'm still here I have no idea what you lot are on about.

 Klerych wrote:
Precedent or not, it was GW's decision to remove it from the Codex.

And as always, it was a bad decision lacking in consistency. Brings to light how poorly GW have done these now "codices" which auto lose (lotd), get banned form tournaments (knights) or have ridiculous consistency issues (inquisition). If GW wants this to be a codex, the meat of the 'dex should be objective secured just like in other codices, calling them elites rather than troops was silly for a codex. That said, they were only called codex to increase the price.

 Yonan wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
Precedent or not, it was GW's decision to remove it from the Codex.

And as always, it was a bad decision lacking in consistency. Brings to light how poorly GW have done these now "codices" which auto lose (lotd), get banned form tournaments (knights) or have ridiculous consistency issues (inquisition).

Well, never said that it's good, only that it's final.

Just as a side, GW has never really considered Codex: Inquisition an actual codex. Knights, and Militarum Tempestus both are, both have a drop down menu under 40K Armies' on GW's site, but C:I is squirrelled away under 'supplements', as is LOTD. It says a little bit about it.

Objective secured would have been nice, but is it really essential? Inquisition doesn't really function that well as a stand alone, never has, to be honest, and as such there isn't really that great an effect.

My $0.02.

I can't get too excited about the Inquisition (being an ork player), but this just reinforces the perception I have that the GW Rules Development team (while likable) is a load of lazy fethers. "It's too hard to write rules!"

If something needs an update: drop it.
If something is unclear: drop it.
If something requires explanation: drop it.

From my perspective, the wholesale removal of Ork/Space Wolf/Blood Angel/etc. psychic powers was this sort of lazy goldbricking. With the orks, at least, they could have said "For now, orks have access to Daemonology, but expect new weirdboy powers soon!". Just dropping all of the old stuff for multiple armies (many without updates on the horizon) instead of working on the rules a little bit? Lazy.

I have to say I'm a bit disappointed. Taking inquisition as a primary detachment or including coteaz in your army used to improve your henchmen warbands. Now doing that does nothing. While we did'nt 'loose' anything it does feel like something has been taken away. I mean how would you feel about every unit being a scoring unit if the objective secured rule had not been invented? I know I'd feel like my troops where worth less than before.