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 "Objective Secured" rule comes under "Factions", does it therefore only apply to the factions listed in that section?

Do you have the exact wording?

If it's the same as the preview...



...then it's all armies. (image from WHC)


Essentially, it buffs all Troops to have Codex benefits, even before the release of their Codex.

It brings all the factions without a codex, in line with those that have a codex.

As far as I know, all current codex's grant 'objective secured' to their detachments, though, it isn't called Objective Secured. Cause that would just be FAR to easy.

The text for "Objective Secured" is the same as the shot above from the preview.

But before it it says, "This section lists additional rules for several specific factions - Thousand Sons, Harlequins" and so on.

In a side bar on the same page it also states, "in this section we also refer to the <Faction> keyword. This is shorthand for one of the Faction keywords listed on the left."

So I presume that the <Faction> in the "Objective Secured" text must match one of the named "several specific factions", which is I think therefore my question answered.

Do Tyranids, for example, get an equivalent in their Codex? Which is how this question came up, trying to help a Tyranid player get into the game.

The codexes already give objective secured to their dudes. The CA rule is for guys without codexes yet.

 Uther wrote:
The text for "Objective Secured" is the same as the shot above from the preview.

But before it it says, "This section lists additional rules for several specific factions - Thousand Sons, Harlequins" and so on.

In a side bar on the same page it also states, "in this section we also refer to the <Faction> keyword. This is shorthand for one of the Faction keywords listed on the left."

So I presume that the <Faction> in the "Objective Secured" text must match one of the named "several specific factions", which is I think therefore my question answered.

Do Tyranids, for example, get an equivalent in their Codex? Which is how this question came up, trying to help a Tyranid player get into the game.

Yes, Tyranid's codex gives them Objective Secured. I think it is called...Extensions of the Hive Mind or something to that effect.

So.. I Guess Renegades and Heretics don't get it?

Captyn_Bob wrote:
So.. I Guess Renegades and Heretics don't get it?

Forge World armies never have and never will be acknowledged in the main line of Games Workshop rulebooks, with the exception of FW models that get turned into vanilla GW Plastic Kits.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
So.. I Guess Renegades and Heretics don't get it?

Forge World armies never have and never will be acknowledged in the main line of Games Workshop rulebooks, with the exception of FW models that get turned into vanilla GW Plastic Kits.

And all the FW points changes in CA.

In any case, the rulebook gives out a full list of Keywords the new rules apply to, so those are the only ones that get ObjSec anyway.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
So.. I Guess Renegades and Heretics don't get it?

Yes, they do as of now. If every other force does no reason not to. Your opponent could be a jerk and say no if they're not in some expressly-mentioned list but eh. Why be like that?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
So.. I Guess Renegades and Heretics don't get it?

Yes, they do as of now. If every other force does no reason not to. Your opponent could be a jerk and say no if they're not in some expressly-mentioned list but eh. Why be like that?

That might be how you would play it (and I agree) but the RAW is clear that they don't.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
So.. I Guess Renegades and Heretics don't get it?

Yes, they do as of now. If every other force does no reason not to. Your opponent could be a jerk and say no if they're not in some expressly-mentioned list but eh. Why be like that?

That might be how you would play it (and I agree) but the RAW is clear that they don't.

Calm it son, I don't have the damn book as it's been about about five minutes and no one has bothered posting the text. I'm going off the WHC article upthread.

Welj if you don't have the book don't claim what it says?

Even if I were to type the whole page it wouldn't quite get across the context of the text and side panel. I'm not sure if I can, or should, post up a photo of the entire page. So I attempted above to describe it as best I could.

So, doing my best...

Near the start of the page it says, "this section lists additional rules for several specific factions - Thousand Sons, Harlequins" and then names a few more.

The text for "Objective Secured" is the same as the shot above from the preview. That is to say that it includes the important phrase "all troops units in <Faction>" Detachments gain this ability"

A side bar on the same page states, "in this section we also refer to the <Faction> keyword. This is shorthand for one of the Faction keywords listed on the left."

So my interpretation of the RAW is that the new "Objective Secured" block should only apply to the Faction keywords listed and not to all of them.

They didn't put this new rule in the generic section that applies to all Battle Forged armies and they didn't put it in a section like the Matched Play either. They put it in a section about some specific factions right next to a box that defines <Faction> as meaning those, and only those, factions. So I think that this interpretation is also the RAI.

That said I've been miffed with GWs rule writing ability since 1987 so who knows...

This section lists additional
rules for several specific
Factions – THOUSAND SONS,
HARLEQUINS, DEATHWATCH ,
GENESTEALER CULTS,
DRUKHARI, T’AU EMPIRE,
ADEPTA SORORITAS ,
ORKS, NECRONS, IMPERIAL
KNIGHTS and SPACE WOLVES.

ABILITIES
To use these rules you must have
a Battle-forged army. If all of the
units in a Detachment have the
same Faction keyword, and that
keyword is one of those listed
above, that Detachment gains the
following ability:

OBJECTIVE SECURED
[fluff removed]
If your army is Battle-forged, all
Troops units in <FACTION>
Detachments gain this ability. Such
a unit that is within range of an
objective marker (as specified in the
mission) controls it even if there are
more enemy models within range of
it. If an enemy unit within range of
the objective marker has a similar
ability, then it is controlled by the
player who has the most models
within range as normal.

Edit: marked the important part bold, no doubt for which factions these rules are.

Thanks for the (politer) info guys, seems crazy when the WHC article was "here's a buff for everyone sans Codex". HIWPI is to allow R&H for sure.

It's 11 factions listed, missing from that list and don't have a codex are what:
Daemons, Imperial Agents, Custodes, SoS?

tneva82 wrote:
Welj if you don't have the book don't claim what it says?

Because what's intended is what's important, right? Rules are just being pedantic. Saying my Gulliman can't buff DARK ANGELS instead of ULTRAMARINES is just nitpicking! /s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
It's 11 factions listed, missing from that list and don't have a codex are what:
Daemons, Imperial Agents, Custodes, SoS?

Daemons is going to get a codex for sure. Notice how Blood Angels, Dark Angels aren't on the list? Because they are getting codexes soon. Obviously GW knows the print order of the Codexes and is excluding factions getting a codex soon anyway and/or ones who are so niche that they don't care about supporting them outside of the indexes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Welj if you don't have the book don't claim what it says?

Because what's intended is what's important, right? Rules are just being pedantic. Saying my Gulliman can't buff DARK ANGELS instead of ULTRAMARINES is just nitpicking! /s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
It's 11 factions listed, missing from that list and don't have a codex are what:
Daemons, Imperial Agents, Custodes, SoS?

Daemons is going to get a codex for sure. Notice how Blood Angels, Dark Angels aren't on the list? Because they are getting codexes soon. Obviously GW knows the print order of the Codexes and is excluding factions getting a codex soon anyway and/or ones who are so niche that they don't care about supporting them outside of the indexes.

Guys, I didn't write this:

"but one of the things we wanted to do was give everyone access to ‘objective secured’ right away"

Don't blame me for GW mis-selling a product. Always happy to be wrong if I don't have all the info. This is essentially a meaningless picking point for 99% of armies, and for the odd ones missed by GW ignoring FW lists, well, you can house rule it across.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
It's 11 factions listed, missing from that list and don't have a codex are what:
Daemons, Imperial Agents, Custodes, SoS?

SoS don't have any troop units, do they? ObSec wouldn't matter for them. A fair number of the subheadings in Imperial Agents were like that as well.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
So.. I Guess Renegades and Heretics don't get it?

Yes, they do as of now. If every other force does no reason not to. Your opponent could be a jerk and say no if they're not in some expressly-mentioned list but eh. Why be like that?

That might be how you would play it (and I agree) but the RAW is clear that they don't.

Calm it son, I don't have the damn book as it's been about about five minutes and no one has bothered posting the text. I'm going off the WHC article upthread.

Read Uther's post where he quotes the part that specifies the rule only applies to specific factions.

Also, if you haven't read the rules why are you telling people what the rules say?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Welj if you don't have the book don't claim what it says?

Because what's intended is what's important, right? Rules are just being pedantic. Saying my Gulliman can't buff DARK ANGELS instead of ULTRAMARINES is just nitpicking! /s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
It's 11 factions listed, missing from that list and don't have a codex are what:
Daemons, Imperial Agents, Custodes, SoS?

Daemons is going to get a codex for sure. Notice how Blood Angels, Dark Angels aren't on the list? Because they are getting codexes soon. Obviously GW knows the print order of the Codexes and is excluding factions getting a codex soon anyway and/or ones who are so niche that they don't care about supporting them outside of the indexes.

Guys, I didn't write this:

"but one of the things we wanted to do was give everyone access to ‘objective secured’ right away"

Don't blame me for GW mis-selling a product. Always happy to be wrong if I don't have all the info. This is essentially a meaningless picking point for 99% of armies, and for the odd ones missed by GW ignoring FW lists, well, you can house rule it across.

The Community posts have only ever been a summary to build hype, treating them as word for word the rules is a fools errand.