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.

The new CA2019 Maelstrom of War missions says that they replace the rules from the "Using Tactical Objectives" section in the core rulebook. It also says that the faction specific objectives "can be substituted" into the objective deck, it's optional.

However the rules for the faction specific objectives in my codexes are not optional, they are compulsory. If my army is lead by a Warlord of the faction then the objectives in the codex replace numbers 11 to 16, this is compulsory.

CA2019 doesn't say that it overrides the codexes, but does it override them by virtue of replacing the section in the core rulebook that the Codexes adjust?

I'd say specific trumps general here.

Generally you are forced to use your faction objectives. The specific mission rules override that.

 Uther wrote:
The new CA2019 Maelstrom of War missions says that they replace the rules from the "Using Tactical Objectives" section in the core rulebook. It also says that the faction specific objectives "can be substituted" into the objective deck, it's optional.

However the rules for the faction specific objectives in my codexes are not optional, they are compulsory. If my army is lead by a Warlord of the faction then the objectives in the codex replace numbers 11 to 16, this is compulsory.

CA2019 doesn't say that it overrides the codexes, but does it override them by virtue of replacing the section in the core rulebook that the Codexes adjust?

It literally (in all but one extreme edge case that I don't think even exists) doesn't matter.

11 to 16 are (almost) identical to 21 to 26 and more importantly they have the same name. "No more than one copy of each uniquely named Tactical Objective can be included in the deck." Even if GW literally sent real life Chimera IFVs with a squad of Ogryn and a Commissar of such Emperor bothering zeal the Maccabian Janissaries would ask them to tone it down to enforce that anyone using a codex army cannot take the BRB version of objectives 11 to 16 in their new and improved Malestrom deck, you have objectives 21 to 26 that are the same name anyway.

The only "downside" is that any mission that gave bonuses for "Capture and Control" objectives instead of "Take and Hold" objectives, you can't take the Capture and Control versions in your deck if your Warlord is from a Codex has tactical objectives that replace objectives 11 to 16. I remember vaguely some missions caring about the type of objective an objective is but I cannot remember where and am too tired to look.

prior to CA 2019 Tournaments using Maelstrom generally said you were not allowed to use the faction specific objectives. Donno if TO's are changing this with the new objective deck mechanics but I will suspect they won't since the qualify of faction objectives differ so wildly. Some have really easy ones and others are so bad.

By generally I'd say the exact opposite in the uk. You HAD to use your faction specific one

 BaconCatBug wrote:

11 to 16 are (almost) identical to 21 to 26 and more importantly they have the same name. "No more than one copy of each uniquely named Tactical Objective can be included in the deck." Even if GW literally sent real life Chimera IFVs with a squad of Ogryn and a Commissar of such Emperor bothering zeal the Maccabian Janissaries would ask them to tone it down to enforce that anyone using a codex army cannot take the BRB version of objectives 11 to 16 in their new and improved Malestrom deck, you have objectives 21 to 26 that are the same name anyway.

That's the answer that I missed, thank you for that, it settles the matter.