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.

I am curious to know if people agree with this interpetation of daemonic corruption.
If you see it a different way, or I missed a rule, please let me know.
Thanks -- as always, for your help.

The Rules Behind Corruption

Objective markers controlled by units from this Detachment count as controlled for the rest of the game, even if the controlling player has no units within 3" of them. This effect lasts until an enemy scoring unit cleanses the objective by controlling it. -Curse of Wulfen p58

You control an Objective Marker if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units and no models from enemy scoring units with 3" -BRB p134

A unit with this special rule (Obsec) controls objectives even if an enemy scoring unit is within range, unless the enemy unit also has Objective Secured. -BRB p122

Looking at these three rules, you can determine the following about objectives. The concept of 'controlling' objectives is binary. You either control an objective or you do not. When the Daemonic Incursion player has met the criteria of 'controlling' an objective, then the effects of 'Daemonic Corruption' take place. This effects lasts until an enemy scoring unit 'controls' the objective.

This means that if you have a squad of plaguebearers on an objective, and a scoring unit of sternguard drops in a pod next to them, the Daemonic Incursion list will still control the objective, as the criteria for 'controlling' has not been made by the marine player -- therefore the 'Daemonic Corruption' rule still holds, giving control to the Daemonic Incursion list.

However, if the marines in the above example have Objective Secured, they will meet the criteria for controlling the objective, as the Daemonic Incursion list does not have the Objective Secured special rule. At this point, the objective will no longer have rule 'Daemonic Corruption' applying to it.

If the plaguebearers would leave within 3" of the objective, the objective would continue to count as 'controlled' by the daemon player until any enemy scoring unit got with in 3" of it

That is absolutely my interpretation.

Also, if you have a CAD accompanying your incursion, a CAD unit with objective secured will hold the objective for the daemons even if an enemy unit with objective secured is also within 3". The enemy must kill all the objective secured daemons within 3" of said objective to meet the criteria for controlling it.

Agreed with both of the above.

Also I interpret objectives as being able to be corrupted via "drive-by"; as in units passing within 3" but not necessarily ending that phase within 3" of the objective.

I personally don't believe that's the case, as you must have one model within 3" of an objective to control it... although it's unlikely to matter much because all you need to do is keep one model back to maintain coherency and control the objective at some point during some part of your movement (running and assault moves too).

I think people will have grounds to argue with you on that, Tonberry7. Although if I was playing you I would definitely agree to play it that way. It's simply a matter of whether you consider the model to have moved through the space between the points where you picked it up and placed it down, or if you consider the models placement to be fixed points dictated by their movement distance and not having relation to the space between the points.

Personally I think you check if you control an objective at the end of every time in which you move your model, not continuously through the movement itself, and if your model isn't within 3" of it at the end of some kind of movement it would be hard to convince someone you controlled it when you moved through the space it occupies. Like I said though, most infantry move 6" and beasts/jump units can easily keep one back during the movement phase just to corrupt the objective. It's still a huge boon.

I would play it either way depending on my opponent's preference.

I am inclined to agree that you must "be" within 3" at some point. Passing by it may not meet that criteria. However, I do not believe that means you must end a phase near the objective. You may actually start a turn on an objective, than move off of it, either at the beginning of the game, or by winning and assault.
You could actually "corrupt" an objective on your opponent's turn by consolidating onto an objective.

But yes, having a CAD along with your Incursion is a nasty way to "super-claim" objectives.

Another nasty trick would be using 1 unit to "corrupt" 2 objectives and hold them both. While a unit can only hold 1 objective at a time, an Incursion unit could corrupt objective A on turn 1, then move to corrupt objective B on turn 2, then stay within 3" of both so that enemy units cannot "claim & cleanse" either objective

Wow, pink horrors could really take advantage of that, being able to spread out across the backfield and not sacrifice damage for running. I hadn't thought of that before.

I gotta try that in my Warpflame host + tetrad list.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I personally don't believe that's the case, as you must have one model within 3" of an objective to control it... although it's unlikely to matter much because all you need to do is keep one model back to maintain coherency and control the objective at some point during some part of your movement (running and assault moves too).

I think people will have grounds to argue with you on that, Tonberry7. Although if I was playing you I would definitely agree to play it that way. It's simply a matter of whether you consider the model to have moved through the space between the points where you picked it up and placed it down, or if you consider the models placement to be fixed points dictated by their movement distance and not having relation to the space between the points.

Personally I think you check if you control an objective at the end of every time in which you move your model, not continuously through the movement itself, and if your model isn't within 3" of it at the end of some kind of movement it would be hard to convince someone you controlled it when you moved through the space it occupies. Like I said though, most infantry move 6" and beasts/jump units can easily keep one back during the movement phase just to corrupt the objective. It's still a huge boon.

I would play it either way depending on my opponent's preference.

I understand that some people might raise an eyebrow at the drive-by corruption but I do have a reasoned argument for it:

Firstly, afaik nowhere in the rules is it stated when you measure/check whether a unit is in range to control an objective. Before the corruption rule came out it was obviously at the end of the turn but not having to remain in range after having corrupted it has changed things.

Secondly, consider the common tactic of an enemy unit spaced in a line, blocking movement by preventing a unit moving through the gaps. This is based on the rule of not being able to move within 1" of an enemy model. But if you only measure ranges at the end of some kind of movement like you suggest, it would be perfectly legal to pass through the blocking line as long as all the models ended up at least 1" clear.

This is why I think as the game is commonly played that the drive-by corruption is legal. If someone disagreed then I'd expect to also be able to move through enemy lines as described above, as long as a consistent approach is taken.

I suppose that tactic, as well as moving through difficult/dangerous terrain when you didn't start or end the phase within it, does present an argument for drive-by corruption.

Fair enough. drive-by Flesh Hounds and Flamers it is.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Agreed with both of the above.

Also I interpret objectives as being able to be corrupted via "drive-by"; as in units passing within 3" but not necessarily ending that phase within 3" of the objective.

How can you see the rules as allowing for a 'drive-by' corruption? Thanks!

Edit : Ah, I see your logic. That's pretty cool.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Agreed with both of the above.

Also I interpret objectives as being able to be corrupted via "drive-by"; as in units passing within 3" but not necessarily ending that phase within 3" of the objective.

How can you see the rules as allowing for a 'drive-by' corruption? Thanks!

We just discussed it in this thread?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I personally don't believe that's the case, as you must have one model within 3" of an objective to control it... although it's unlikely to matter much because all you need to do is keep one model back to maintain coherency and control the objective at some point during some part of your movement (running and assault moves too).

I think people will have grounds to argue with you on that, Tonberry7. Although if I was playing you I would definitely agree to play it that way. It's simply a matter of whether you consider the model to have moved through the space between the points where you picked it up and placed it down, or if you consider the models placement to be fixed points dictated by their movement distance and not having relation to the space between the points.

Personally I think you check if you control an objective at the end of every time in which you move your model, not continuously through the movement itself, and if your model isn't within 3" of it at the end of some kind of movement it would be hard to convince someone you controlled it when you moved through the space it occupies. Like I said though, most infantry move 6" and beasts/jump units can easily keep one back during the movement phase just to corrupt the objective. It's still a huge boon.

I would play it either way depending on my opponent's preference.

I understand that some people might raise an eyebrow at the drive-by corruption but I do have a reasoned argument for it:

Firstly, afaik nowhere in the rules is it stated when you measure/check whether a unit is in range to control an objective. Before the corruption rule came out it was obviously at the end of the turn but not having to remain in range after having corrupted it has changed things.

Secondly, consider the common tactic of an enemy unit spaced in a line, blocking movement by preventing a unit moving through the gaps. This is based on the rule of not being able to move within 1" of an enemy model. But if you only measure ranges at the end of some kind of movement like you suggest, it would be perfectly legal to pass through the blocking line as long as all the models ended up at least 1" clear.

This is why I think as the game is commonly played that the drive-by corruption is legal. If someone disagreed then I'd expect to also be able to move through enemy lines as described above, as long as a consistent approach is taken.

So you would agree that I can start my turn within 3" of my objective, move 12" on bikes then turboboost to contest yours in the shooting phase while still claiming my own since I was within 3" at the beginning of the turn?

Fragile thats a pretty flimsy strawman.

Especially because Demonic Corruption actually DOES let you do something like that with Screamers, seeing as they where controlling it and as such corrupted it. Also, scoring does happen at the end of the turn, but controlling an objective does not explicitly do the same, which is where the difference comes in.

Fragile wrote:
So you would agree that I can start my turn within 3" of my objective, move 12" on bikes then turboboost to contest yours in the shooting phase while still claiming my own since I was within 3" at the beginning of the turn?

The second your bikes leave the first objective, they no longer count as 'controlling' the first objective. The rule states that you only control if you are within 3" of it.

I think that objectives can be corrupted in any phase of the game based on the fact that you get to reveal mysterious objectives as soon as you move within 3 inches of one. There is no requirement that you wait until the end of the movement phase.

Fragile wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I personally don't believe that's the case, as you must have one model within 3" of an objective to control it... although it's unlikely to matter much because all you need to do is keep one model back to maintain coherency and control the objective at some point during some part of your movement (running and assault moves too).

I think people will have grounds to argue with you on that, Tonberry7. Although if I was playing you I would definitely agree to play it that way. It's simply a matter of whether you consider the model to have moved through the space between the points where you picked it up and placed it down, or if you consider the models placement to be fixed points dictated by their movement distance and not having relation to the space between the points.

Personally I think you check if you control an objective at the end of every time in which you move your model, not continuously through the movement itself, and if your model isn't within 3" of it at the end of some kind of movement it would be hard to convince someone you controlled it when you moved through the space it occupies. Like I said though, most infantry move 6" and beasts/jump units can easily keep one back during the movement phase just to corrupt the objective. It's still a huge boon.

I would play it either way depending on my opponent's preference.

I understand that some people might raise an eyebrow at the drive-by corruption but I do have a reasoned argument for it:

Firstly, afaik nowhere in the rules is it stated when you measure/check whether a unit is in range to control an objective. Before the corruption rule came out it was obviously at the end of the turn but not having to remain in range after having corrupted it has changed things.

Secondly, consider the common tactic of an enemy unit spaced in a line, blocking movement by preventing a unit moving through the gaps. This is based on the rule of not being able to move within 1" of an enemy model. But if you only measure ranges at the end of some kind of movement like you suggest, it would be perfectly legal to pass through the blocking line as long as all the models ended up at least 1" clear.

This is why I think as the game is commonly played that the drive-by corruption is legal. If someone disagreed then I'd expect to also be able to move through enemy lines as described above, as long as a consistent approach is taken.

So you would agree that I can start my turn within 3" of my objective, move 12" on bikes then turboboost to contest yours in the shooting phase while still claiming my own since I was within 3" at the beginning of the turn?

This isn't really what we were discussing but I'd be interested to hear your reasoning behind this.

So I'll grant that by RAW there's no timetable as to when you actually control an objective marker; the moment you have a model within 3" of an unclaimed marker you control it. That's all fine and good, but if you're going to do that then you also have to do this by RAW:

BRB p.134 wrote:A unit can only control one Objective Marker at a time. If a unit moves into a position where it could control two Objective Markers, you must make it clear to your opponent which objective the unit is controlling.

CotW p.58 wrote:Daemonic Corruption: Objective Markers controlled by units from this Detachment count as controlled for the rest of the game, even if the controlling player has no units within 3" of them. This effect lasts until an enemy scoring unit cleanses the objective by controlling it.

Example: I start the game next to Objective Marker 1 in my deployment zone with unit A; no other units are nearby. I move unit A up the board and get within 3" of Objective Marker 2 towards the center of the board. Normally I would be able to just claim #2 as, more often than not, I don't have another model near #1. With Daemonic Corruption, this doesn't apply. Unit A already claimed #1. By RAW, Unit A has to keep claiming #1 until an enemy unit claims it, nor can Unit A claim more than one Objective Marker at a time. That last sentence - "This effect lasts until an enemy scoring unit cleanses the objective by controlling it" - precludes my ability to relinquish control of #1 in favor of #2. I don't even have the option to get another Daemon unit within 3" of #1 to take over claim duty as the only option to drop the claim is through enemy intervention.

I'm sure we can all agree this isn't RAI, but if you're going to do the RAW interpretation of objective control via the drive-by method, then you have to interpret the original claim by RAW and keep track of what units claimed what objectives as the game moves along. I inform my opponent at the start of the game that I don't deem I have control until we have a situation arise when you would check for control. Namely, in Maelstrom games where you check at the end of every turn when Secure Objective X cards could be read, or in ITC at the end of each game turn when the same condition is checked. It makes for a much more enjoyable and challenging game that way.

Tropic Thunder wrote:
So I'll grant that by RAW there's no timetable as to when you actually control an objective marker; the moment you have a model within 3" of an unclaimed marker you control it. That's all fine and good, but if you're going to do that then you also have to do this by RAW:

BRB p.134 wrote:A unit can only control one Objective Marker at a time. If a unit moves into a position where it could control two Objective Markers, you must make it clear to your opponent which objective the unit is controlling.

CotW p.58 wrote:Daemonic Corruption: Objective Markers controlled by units from this Detachment count as controlled for the rest of the game, even if the controlling player has no units within 3" of them. This effect lasts until an enemy scoring unit cleanses the objective by controlling it.

Example: I start the game next to Objective Marker 1 in my deployment zone with unit A; no other units are nearby. I move unit A up the board and get within 3" of Objective Marker 2 towards the center of the board. Normally I would be able to just claim #2 as, more often than not, I don't have another model near #1. With Daemonic Corruption, this doesn't apply. Unit A already claimed #1. By RAW, Unit A has to keep claiming #1 until an enemy unit claims it, nor can Unit A claim more than one Objective Marker at a time. That last sentence - "This effect lasts until an enemy scoring unit cleanses the objective by controlling it" - precludes my ability to relinquish control of #1 in favor of #2. I don't even have the option to get another Daemon unit within 3" of #1 to take over claim duty as the only option to drop the claim is through enemy intervention.

I'm sure we can all agree this isn't RAI, but if you're going to do the RAW interpretation of objective control via the drive-by method, then you have to interpret the original claim by RAW and keep track of what units claimed what objectives as the game moves along. I inform my opponent at the start of the game that I don't deem I have control until we have a situation arise when you would check for control. Namely, in Maelstrom games where you check at the end of every turn when Secure Objective X cards could be read, or in ITC at the end of each game turn when the same condition is checked. It makes for a much more enjoyable and challenging game that way.

You make some fair points but I don't think the RAW unambiguously support what you are claiming.

Firstly,with your interpretation it doesn't matter if objectives were corrupted via drive by. If you're saying units that corrupt an objective can't go on to claim other objectives this would apply even if you corrupt one at the end of a turn and then move on to another in the next turn. So even with your house rules for checking when objectives become corrupted, you would still have to keep track of which units corrupted what objective etc.

Secondly, the wording of the Daemonic Corruption rule itself isn't explicit enough to suggest that individual units corrupting an objective are somehow "tied" to that objective for the purposes of controlling it. If this was 100% RAW I would suggest that it would say something like:

Objective Markers controlled by a unit from this Detachment count as controlled for the rest of the game, even if the controlling unit is no longer within 3" of them. This effect lasts until an enemy scoring unit cleanses the objective by controlling it.

The fact that the rule refers to no units at all having to be within 3" indicates imo that the corruption mechanic is more of a global ability of the detachment rather than being separate effects from individual units. This would also tie in with the RAI as I see it, where the objectives themselves are corrupted and controlled by Daemonic influence rather than actual units on the battlefield.

In summary though the rule is too ambiguous to be 100% certain either way and I think that this is perhaps one aspect of the rule that does need an FAQ. The drive-by corruption though remains totally legal by RAW for me though with no ambiguity.

Note use of "controlling" unit

This indicates the unit that scored it is still the "controlling" unit for daemonic corruption, so the prohibition on not scoring more than one objective would apply.

Huh. So you could cap a Mysterious Objective and keep its benefit (or drawback) even if you're across the table?

Neat. And also a pain to keep track of.

"Controlling unit" simply refers to the unit that claimed it.

RAW state that the objective counts as controlled till it is cleansed. Not till any unit controls another objective, not till any unit is destroyed; until it is cleansed. The rule does not give the incursion's opponent any other way to stop that objective form counting as controlled.

The rule doesn't even use the phrase "controlling unit". It instead refers to the "controlling player" and that the corrupted objectives "count as controlled". It certainly doesn't demonstrate unequivocally that units are linked somehow to objectives they have corrupted.

I wasnt stating it was - just that it is yet another ambiguous rule.

"controlled by units" is continuing tense in this context, implying it is the same unit that controlled it that remains in control.

Tropic Thunder wrote:
. Unit A already claimed #1. By RAW, Unit A has to keep claiming #1 until an enemy unit claims it, nor can Unit A claim more than one Objective Marker at a time. That last sentence - "This effect lasts until an enemy scoring unit cleanses the objective by controlling it" - precludes my ability to relinquish control of #1 in favor of #2. I don't even have the option to get another Daemon unit within 3" of #1 to take over claim duty as the only option to drop the claim is through enemy intervention.

Respectfully, I disagree.

Unit A moves up to Objective #2. The player then makes it clear to his opponent that the unit is now controlling objective #2.
The rule for daemonic corruption states "Objective markers controlled by units from this Detachment count as controlled for the rest of the game".
Since codex rules trump BRB, the daemon player can give up control from Objective #1, but then gets to keep control of the objective because of the Daemonic Corruption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
The rule doesn't even use the phrase "controlling unit". It instead refers to the "controlling player" and that the corrupted objectives "count as controlled". It certainly doesn't demonstrate unequivocally that units are linked somehow to objectives they have corrupted.

After a lot of thought, I agree with this interpretation. The use of the term 'controlling player' indicates that the objective is owned by the player and not the unit.