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 didn't think it mattered how broad your Detachment was in terms of faction.... and all Troops were able to get Objective Secured, but I heard on a podcast that this was not the case and only certain faction Detachments were able to get it.

It does not really phase me too much. My example is... I am running Deathwatch, and want to splash in an Assassin. They all share the Imperium keyword, so I just assumed that's what I would run the Detachment as. If that removes Objective Secured, I will take the Assassin as an Auxiliary Detachment.

There is no current rule that would give Objective Secured to even an Imperial Guard detachment where all units share the Cadia keyword. There's a preview of the upcoming Chapter Approved book which includes an out-of-context snippet saying that "all Troops units in <Faction> Detachments gain" Objective Secured. We're not told what "<Faction>" can be, but obviously the intention here is to disallow "Imperium" and the like, because otherwise all battle-forged detachments would get the rule. Some tournaments are now using something like this rule, and they generally exclude keywords like "Imperium" from qualifying.

Ok ya I can certainly see the intent but the RAW in that snippet leave it pretty open. I just assumed it was a way to get people to take more Troops in general regardless of faction.

Dionysodorus wrote:
There is no current rule that would give Objective Secured to even an Imperial Guard detachment where all units share the Cadia keyword. There's a preview of the upcoming Chapter Approved book which includes an out-of-context snippet saying that "all Troops units in <Faction> Detachments gain" Objective Secured. We're not told what "<Faction>" can be, but obviously the intention here is to disallow "Imperium" and the like, because otherwise all battle-forged detachments would get the rule. Some tournaments are now using something like this rule, and they generally exclude keywords like "Imperium" from qualifying.

From Warhammer Community, emphasis added:

New Detachment Rules

Since Warhammer 40,000: Dark Imperium was launched, we have released several codexes, but there are still plenty of Factions – Orks, Drukhari, Necrons etc. – that don’t yet have a codex of their own. Chapter Approved gives these players a sneak peek of what many of these factions can expect when their codex is released (we are hard on work to get that done as quickly as we can), but one of the things we wanted to do was give everyone access to ‘objective secured’ right away:



As you can see, this is an ability that rewards you for grouping your warriors into faction-specific detachments by giving Troops units the ability to control objective markers even when outnumbered by the enemy. As you can imagine, it gives these units a real edge, and helps to ensure your line troops are not at a disadvantage compared to those factions that are lucky enough to have a codex already.

I could certainly see an argument for letting the more general factions use it as written. They are behind in other ways so allowing a bit more splashing with allied forces could be in order.

Curious to the thought process of TOs not allowing Imperium etc...

 Ghaz wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
There is no current rule that would give Objective Secured to even an Imperial Guard detachment where all units share the Cadia keyword. There's a preview of the upcoming Chapter Approved book which includes an out-of-context snippet saying that "all Troops units in <Faction> Detachments gain" Objective Secured. We're not told what "<Faction>" can be, but obviously the intention here is to disallow "Imperium" and the like, because otherwise all battle-forged detachments would get the rule. Some tournaments are now using something like this rule, and they generally exclude keywords like "Imperium" from qualifying.

From Warhammer Community, emphasis added:

New Detachment Rules

Since Warhammer 40,000: Dark Imperium was launched, we have released several codexes, but there are still plenty of Factions – Orks, Drukhari, Necrons etc. – that don’t yet have a codex of their own. Chapter Approved gives these players a sneak peek of what many of these factions can expect when their codex is released (we are hard on work to get that done as quickly as we can), but one of the things we wanted to do was give everyone access to ‘objective secured’ right away:



As you can see, this is an ability that rewards you for grouping your warriors into faction-specific detachments by giving Troops units the ability to control objective markers even when outnumbered by the enemy. As you can imagine, it gives these units a real edge, and helps to ensure your line troops are not at a disadvantage compared to those factions that are lucky enough to have a codex already.

Yeah, "right away" seems to be referring to December, when Chapter Approved releases -- Chapter Approved is giving these factions this ability right away, before their codices release. I mean, in the previous sentence they say that they "have released several codexes", which wasn't even true at the time of publication -- it seems likely that this was originally intended to be published later on. They also put up similar rules snippets for things like Chapter Tactics in the weeks before a codex releases, but presumably you can't just immediately start using those without any guidance on which units have them or how you unlock them. Even if we were to take this as a new source of rules for the game alongside the rulebook, the codices, the FAQs, the Designers' Commentary, and the Stepping Into a New Edition document, we have no idea how to apply the rule given because we're given no guidance as to how to replace the "<Faction>" keyword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 eekamouse wrote:
I could certainly see an argument for letting the more general factions use it as written. They are behind in other ways so allowing a bit more splashing with allied forces could be in order.

Curious to the thought process of TOs not allowing Imperium etc...

I mean, presumably their thinking is that the whole point of the rule is what's expressed in the article -- Objective Secured is a reward you get for bringing a narrow detachment rather than sampling as broadly as the matched play rules otherwise allow.

The <FACTION> keyword and what it means is found on page 240 of the main rulebook under the heading 'Factions'.

To be clear, I think part of what they intend with the article is to put the rules "out there" so that people can start using them, but obviously this is not the sort of thing that you can just assume you're playing with. You should check with your opponent before the game whether they're fine with using rules like these for flyers and Troops, and not spring these rules on someone who may never have heard of "Warhammer Community". If you're using it, you should discuss the application of the Objective Secured rule, because as written we can't say what <Faction> can be, though it seems likely that it is supposed to only be replaced by the narrowest sorts of faction keywords like "Iyanden" rather than "Aeldari" or "Asuryani".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
The <FACTION> keyword and what it means is found on page 240 of the main rulebook under the heading 'Factions'.

I don't see anything here explaining replacement of a <Faction> keyword in the same way that all of the codices and indices explain replacement of things like <Chapter> and <Craftworld> keywords. Of course this talks about "Factions", but by now you should be used to not being allowed to replace keywords with things that are a type of that keyword -- we are explicitly told that the <Legion> keyword cannot be made DEATH GUARD even though Death Guard is a Legion. And it really should be obvious to everyone that you're not supposed to be able to replace <Faction> with IMPERIUM.

You do realize that each and every datasheet has a list of keywords that can be used to replace the <FACTION> keyword? For example, an Ork Waboss has the ORK and <CLAN> faction keywords that can replace the <FACTION> keyword. You're trying to overcomplicate a simple rule mechanic and it works just like any other keyword between < and > in that it is a placeholder for any other specific keywords that denotes a Faction.

 Ghaz wrote:
You do realize that each and every datasheet has a list of keywords that can be used to replace the <FACTION> keyword? For example, an Ork Waboss has the ORK and <CLAN> faction keywords that can replace the <FACTION> keyword. You're trying to overcomplicate a simple rule mechanic and it works just like any other keyword between < and > in that it is a placeholder for any other specific keywords that denotes a Faction.

This is so weird. You were arguing that something which is very obviously not RAI is RAW, but now that you've seen that -- oops! -- your argument has a massive hole in it because we're never told how to replace <Faction>, you're now arguing that anything which is a Faction should be able to go there because surely that's reasonable (despite this leading to an absurd result, where even grab-bag IMPERIUM detachments get Objective Secured). Also, as I already pointed out, it is perfectly normal in these rules that you can't actually replace a generic keyword such as <LEGION> with the keyword for a specific Legion, so there's certainly no reason to think that this is how <Faction> should work.

 Ghaz wrote:
You do realize that each and every datasheet has a list of keywords that can be used to replace the <FACTION> keyword? For example, an Ork Waboss has the ORK and <CLAN> faction keywords that can replace the <FACTION> keyword. You're trying to overcomplicate a simple rule mechanic and it works just like any other keyword between < and > in that it is a placeholder for any other specific keywords that denotes a Faction.

This is also how I see the RAW.

FACTIONS
All units belong to one or more of the many Factions that fight for
dominance across the galaxy. A unit’s Faction is important when
building a Battle-forged army because some Detachments require all
units included in it to be from the same Faction. The Factions that a unit
belongs to will be listed in the keywords section of its datasheet. For
example, a Space Marine Captain has the IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS
ASTARTES keywords, so belongs to both the Imperium and Adeptus
Astartes Factions. This means that if a Space Marine Captain was part of
a Detachment with the restriction that all units must be from
the same Faction, all other units in that Detachment
must either be from the Imperium Faction,
or they must all be from the Adeptus
Astartes Faction.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK found something specific. It was a Frontline podcast and found their ITC FAQ which they updated as follows:

If your army is Battle-forged, all Troops units in <Faction> Detachments gain the Objective Secured rule, so long as every unit in a detachment has the same faction keyword from the following list: Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Astra Militarum, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Ministorum, Asuryani, Drukhari, Harlequins, Chaos Daemons, Renegades & Heretics, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Necrons, T’au Empire, Orks, <Hive Fleet>, and Genestealer Cults.

Troops units with Objective Secured that are within range of an objective marker (as specified in each mission's rules) control it even if there are more enemy models within range of it. If an enemy unit within range of an objective marker has a similar ability, then it is controlled by the player who has the most models within range as normal.

Note: Codex: Grey Knights, Codex: Chaos Space Marines, and Codex: Space Marines are explicitly not covered by Objective Secured because their Codexes provide a similar rule (i.e. Defenders of Humanity).

This is just them though. And, as far as I know they haven't actually done a tournament with this.... but it's also probably an insight into exactly which factions will get a Codex. The folks over there have been playtesting and know this information. They were running the +1 for initiative roll before GW announced it for example.

There is literally no reason to argue about it at this point because we don't know what the full rules for it will ultimately end up being. So why not just wait until the Chapter Approved book is released to do so?

Until then, tournaments that are utilizing a form of that rule are putting out lists of exactly what constitutes a 'faction' for this specific purpose...so if you're going to a tournament and they have a rule like that in play (like the ITC), they'll tell you what faction keywords work towards their version of that rule.