40k Chapter Approved Preview!

Well, well, well. Questions answered and positive changes inbound =)

Ahhhhh, it feels good. GW giving us more awesome adjustments to keep the game fun and fair! Read the full article over at the Warhammer-community site, here.

For those of you who trusted us on this, here is vindication =) Of course, if you want to use the auto go-first mechanic, you can but at least now everyone knows that this was not an arbitrary decision made by the community organizers.

A huge thanks to GW for showing this off in advance to alleviate any potential debate on the topic and make it quite clear. We love this new attention to the customer. Thanks, GW!

This is another positive change that just makes sense, IMO. Flyers are mega powerful, and still are, but you need infantry and ground units to win missions. I dig it!

Again, awesome! Folks were concerned about the balance inequities stemming from only Codex armies getting “ObSec” and GW responds, again. This is great and helps a ton for those armies that will be waiting a bit for their Codex to stay competitive and relevant.

Can’t wait for Chapter Approved! This looks to be a great way to periodically update the game, similar to the General’s Handbook in Age of Sigmar.

What are your thoughts?


About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

99 Responses to “40k Chapter Approved Preview!”

  1. Avatar
    Sunhero August 9, 2017 10:58 am #

    All great stuff!

  2. Avatar
    Threllen August 9, 2017 11:05 am #

    When you kept insisting the +1 to go first was going to stay and it wasn’t going to go up for a vote I knew GW was planning on changing it themselves.

    Didn’t think we’d get it this quick, haha! I welcome the change as a standard for all matched play games. It really does help out against alpha strike armies that take already good high point models and then obliterate you when they go first.

    • Avatar
      Lex August 9, 2017 11:14 am #

      It’s not really a “standard” as there are still official GW missions with the auto-first mechanic. It’s just an option to play different missions with a different first turn mechanic, which was always possible. Kind of a “meh” decision, really.

      • Avatar
        Threllen August 9, 2017 11:23 am #

        They make it sound as if it will be a tournament standard for any mission (which makes sense since tournaments use their own missions anyways).

        Because at the bottom they specifically call out the rule being in place for tournaments like the NOVA open which occurs well before the Chapter Approved book with the new missions is going to come out.

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 9, 2017 12:04 pm #

        It is significant because it quashes the arguments that the +1 to go first isn’t “official.” You’re correct in that it isn’t the defacto rule, but that is fine, IMO. It gives options.

        • Avatar
          Lex August 9, 2017 6:17 pm #

          I would have preferred a definitive rule rather than “play it how you want”. For tournaments, not such a big thing, but for pick up games, you’ll run up against people who design heir list specifically for one mechanic over the other. Would have preferred not to have the argument.

          • Avatar
            Bad Higad August 9, 2017 11:15 pm

            If it’s a pickup game and you can’t come to an agreement with your opponent on which deployment method to use, just roll off to decide. Besides, if his army is 100% optimized to abuse the auto go first mechanic, you always have the option of declining the match (unlike in a tournament).

            I personally like that they are giving players options and that there is no “one true way” to play the game.

          • Reecius
            Reecius August 10, 2017 8:11 am

            Leaving room for T.O.s to customize things is important, though. 40k is a hobby and played differently be different people. A formal tournament format is cool, I agree (and why the ITC exists) but I am not sure GW will take that stance in the near term, but I could be wrong.

  3. Avatar
    Jamahki August 9, 2017 11:09 am #

    So with flyers being unable to hold objectives, does that also mean that they do not count for the ‘have a unit within 12″ of the enemy deployment table edge’ and similar Maelstrom objectives?

    • Avatar
      David Hayden August 9, 2017 11:44 am #

      I’m assuming they still count for line breaker since they didn’t mention it specially, but you raise a very good point.

  4. Requizen
    Requizen August 9, 2017 11:10 am #

    Wording in the article makes it sorta sound like Orks, DE, and Necrons will be ones to not get a Codex this year. Which is fine, I suppose.

    • Avatar
      rvd1ofakind August 9, 2017 11:12 am #

      yeah, first thing I thought xD

  5. Avatar
    rvd1ofakind August 9, 2017 11:12 am #

    Sooooooooooooooooooooo good. Finally. Next issue up – wings counting for LoS when people bring models with wings down, while GW releases models with wings spread to high heaven. :thinking:

    • Avatar
      Lardus August 9, 2017 11:43 am #

      People shooting my Bloodthirsters when only seeing wings – makes me sad man, especially if they roll 16 damage on 3 dice…

    • Avatar
      Alex August 9, 2017 9:25 pm #

      wings and banners, man

    • Avatar
      KingAceNumber1 August 10, 2017 5:37 am #

      Yeah, it’s a tough one. I stopped trying to hide Magnus long ago.

  6. Avatar
    Threllen August 9, 2017 11:23 am #

    When they say “a dozen new matched play missions” is that going to be 6 more eternal war and 6 more maelstrom? Or some new sort of mission type?

    • Avatar
      Sanchezsam2 August 9, 2017 11:46 am #

      Are gw releasing typical multi layered tournament missions in this book?
      Also I’m still not getting what chapter approved is suppose to be.
      Is it just a random hodge podge book updating rules and armies who Need tweaks but haven’t been updated in a while for matched play? Or is it like old chapter Approved with special characters, unique chapter traits and conversion based units?

      • Avatar
        Threllen August 9, 2017 12:31 pm #

        This version of Chapter Approved is like the Generals Handbook for AoS. It provides gameplay updates to balance units/armies and other main rulebook rules as well (like mission structure). They’re going to do it every year to help keep things balanced without having to fully release a new rulebook or a new new codexes.

        • Avatar
          Sanchezsam2 August 9, 2017 1:58 pm #

          So random hide podge book updating rules and random army units.

    • Avatar
      Bad Higad August 9, 2017 11:47 am #

      I think they said it would be six new eternal war and six new maelstrom missions in the video.

  7. Avatar
    Tombz August 9, 2017 11:34 am #

    *crosses fingers for cover from terrain adjustments*

    • Avatar
      Alex August 9, 2017 9:26 pm #


  8. Avatar
    David Hayden August 9, 2017 11:45 am #

    I was about to spend money on the final few units I need for my tournament list. I wasn’t using troops in that list. Now rethinking my decision…

  9. Avatar
    Cephalobeard August 9, 2017 11:51 am #

    Daemons arbitrarily having no valid faction feels super weird. I know I’ve been told this multiple times, but it still FEELS weird that or doesn’t count as a faction.

    • Avatar
      Cephalobeard August 9, 2017 12:11 pm #

      Foregworld FAQs even literally refer to allegiances as factions, which makes hearing the contrary even more odd.

    • Avatar
      Threllen August 9, 2017 1:03 pm #

      I don’t know where you’re getting that daemons have “no valid factions.” This literally just means _insert faction keyword here_.

      It doesn’t mean that you have to have a faction keyword that allows you to insert your own entry like _Chapter_ or _legion_.

      Khorne or Daemon or Chaos are every bit as much factions as Ultramarines or Cadians are.

      • Avatar
        Ujayim August 9, 2017 1:22 pm #

        Not according to NOVA play testers, which leads me to believe Reece and Frankie will confirm the same thing, unfortunately.

        It’s a big discussion in the competitive 40K Facebook group.

        • Avatar
          Ytook August 9, 2017 1:57 pm #

          Chaos is a faction keyword, if you’re all chaos you get whatever’s coming to you from that (which would only be the ob sec on troops), you need more specific universal shared faction keyword to get stuff that requires it like the Chaos Space Marine stuff, but that specifically mentions that.

          • Avatar
            Ujayim August 9, 2017 2:05 pm

            That’s not what playtesters are saying. Again, I think most people would agree, but they do not.

          • Avatar
            MVB August 10, 2017 3:39 am

            Chaos is a faction keyword.

            It is not a keyword.

          • Avatar
            MVB August 10, 2017 3:40 am

            Shit. It isn’t a [faction] keyword. Can’t do the other ones, treats it as code.

  10. Avatar
    black mage August 9, 2017 11:52 am #

    for what reasons they didn’t put those rules in rulebook? they needed a CA just couple of months after 8th ed release? that sound like the same old stuff, milking money from playes….

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 9, 2017 12:01 pm #

      No, it is not a money grab at all. You would have to know when the BRB was finished and printed to know how long had passed between the first version of the rules and Chapter Approved. It is possible that a much longer span of time occurred between the writing of both than you are seeing between the release of each.

  11. Avatar
    Riddip August 9, 2017 11:54 am #

    I really like that GW is trying to balance this edition with updates to matched play, fast FAQs and errata. but man, this is starting to be complicated. To play an even and competitive match in the future and to answer all possible questions you will need:

    – Index of your faction (for units missing in the codex if you use them)
    – Forgeworld Index if desired
    – Codex of your faction
    – Rulebook
    – New chapter approved book
    – PDF with Main rules FAQ
    – Index FAQ
    – Forgeworld Index FAQ when released
    – Probably future Codex FAQ
    – Desingners Commentary PDF
    – Stepping in a new edition PDF

    Also you will have to check that all your PDFs are up to date. 😱

    I can only hope that there will be updates for all the digital codexes and codexes to add the newest FAQs to them, but until now there are no updates available.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 9, 2017 12:03 pm #

      It’s not complex. It’s far, far simpler than 7th.

      Rule Book.

      That’s really all you need. If you require FAQ’s then sure, print out the page that pertains to your units. I mean, I get the point you are making but it is still much better to have some increased complexity than not having the changes =)

      • Avatar
        Alex August 9, 2017 9:29 pm #

        nonetheless they should really provide a single, consolidated rules update online

    • Avatar
      Threllen August 9, 2017 12:58 pm #

      This is kind of an overdramatization of everything you really need.

      1) Throughout every edition there have been FAQs. Nothing new there. So if you want to use them then, yes, you have to reference them. I’d much rather they have FAQs than just leave things unanswered.
      2) Not everyone uses Forgeworld. It’s not required to play your army. However, if you want to play with stuff that Forgeworld makes then you’ll need to buy the rules for it. That’s how it has always been and how it will always be.
      3) The vast majority of lists won’t need to reference the index once the codex comes out. That will only be for special cases using OOP models. And, in many cases, all you’ll need to reference is the one model (like say a Librarian on bike) which really isn’t that hard. Take a photocopy of that specific page and stick it in your codex or just put a book marker on that index page. Everything else you’ll need will be in the codex itself.

      In all I’m much happier with this approach than needing a rulebook, a codex, a campaign book, a second campaign book, and a number of supplements just to play an army. Playing Tzeentch daemons by relying on charts/items from Wrath of Magnus, Curse of the Wulfen, and the Daemons codex was not fun. And, unlike this edition where maybe you’re using 1-2 unit profiles from the old index or Forgeworld, that system made gigantic changes to the core army that required you to reference large parts of all 3 books if you wanted to use them.

  12. Avatar
    TJ Atwell August 9, 2017 12:46 pm #

    It says Flyer Battlefield Role. Does this mean vehicles that fly? Supersonic vehicles or does it mean anything with the Fly Keyword like assault Marines too?

    • Avatar
      Cephalobeard August 9, 2017 12:49 pm #

      Flier. Like how you have troops, fast attack, and heavy support slots.

    • Avatar
      Threllen August 9, 2017 12:50 pm #

      It means the battlefield role that is flyer. That’s about as explicit as it gets. There’s literally a slot called “Flyer.”

  13. Avatar
    Andrew August 9, 2017 12:49 pm #

    What is a faction detachment? Don’t all battle forged detachments already share at least one faction keyword? How is a detachment any different from any detachment in any battle forged army?

    • Avatar
      Cephalobeard August 9, 2017 12:50 pm #

      Apparently things like , , and are not factions, but and are.

      • Avatar
        Cephalobeard August 9, 2017 12:50 pm #

        (Chaos) (Khorne) (Ynnari) are not, but Ultramarines, Cadia, etc, are.

        • Avatar
          Andrew August 9, 2017 12:56 pm #

          Im sorry but Im not following you

          • Avatar
            Ujayim August 9, 2017 1:45 pm

            Agreed. However, it’s apparently how it is.

      • Avatar
        Threllen August 9, 2017 1:01 pm #

        I don’t follow this logic at all.

        When I open my Chaos Index all of my Daemons have the Khorne faction keyword. My daemons have factions just like anyone else has factions.

        You don’t need to have a word in carrots in order for it to be a faction. Those are just the customizable factions.

        All they mean by this “(Faction) detachment” is just to say any detachment that is united by a single faction has objective secured. You can insert any word into (faction) whether it be Ultramarines, Khorne, Chaos, Imperium, Tau, Cadian, etc etc etc.

        • Avatar
          Ujayim August 9, 2017 1:24 pm #

          Agreed. However, it’s what the play testers are saying. Specifically the NOVA guys.

          • Avatar
            Threllen August 9, 2017 1:45 pm

            That really doesn’t make any sense to me considering 1) there are plenty of people who don’t get a bracketed keyword because they’re already bound to one faction only. Example – Black Templar crusaders or Deathguard Plague Marines (which makes them troop choices). Are we saying that, despite the fact that every other Space Marine gets ObSec, those ones wouldn’t because their chapter keyword is already picked out for them?

            Also GW literally said ‘everybody gets to have ObSec troops.’ Not sure why they would say that if one specific faction doesn’t. Or why they would have written a rule like that in the first place.

            No offense to any of the playtesters (either NOVA or FLG) but they’ve misinterpreted rules plenty of times in the past. I’m reading what’s in the rule itself and I don’t see how it supports their assertion.

          • Avatar
            Ytook August 9, 2017 2:00 pm

            Anything in the faction keyword box is a faction keyword

          • Avatar
            Ujayim August 9, 2017 2:03 pm

            Yeah. Again, I agree. Even FW in their FAQs calls a faction keyword, but they are adamant it is not the case and they are not factions.

          • Avatar
            Threllen August 9, 2017 2:12 pm

            So I’m supposed to believe some people who are rules lawyering to tell me a faction is not a faction instead of reading the rule that is right in front of my eyes saying any faction detachment gets ObSec? Along with the accompanying description *from GWs official page* that says EVERYONE gets it?

            No thanks. Until the word “faction” no longer appears next to all of my daemons I’m not believing some interpretation that would have me think a faction isn’t a faction.

          • Avatar
            Ujayim August 9, 2017 2:23 pm

            Considering they run major events, and likely the ITC, it’s not really up to you if you end up going to those style events.

            I get what you’re saying, but that’s why it’s an issue.

            My faction, specifically, arbitrarily being decided that it DOES NOT COUNT has me no longer attending Nova primers, or really wanting to attend nova at all.

          • Avatar
            MVB August 10, 2017 3:43 am

            It is as silly to think this is a NOVA only answer as it was to think +1 go first was a TO invention. Stop being so salty that you try to take out your frustration at the rule on a single person or event. That’s needlessly self-destructive.

            There is a difference between factions and [factions], and that’s not NOVA talking.

          • Avatar
            Eaux August 10, 2017 5:22 am

            I’m with Ujayim here. Genestealer Cults, Ynnnari, and Daemons don’t get obsec because NOVA thinks that brackets are the important part of the GW post?

            Am I in the twilight zone? That is one of the most inane rulings I’ve ever heard.

          • Reecius
            Reecius August 10, 2017 8:22 am

            Patience, gang. Clarification will come.

          • Avatar
            Threllen August 10, 2017 5:26 am

            @MVB. There’s a blatant difference between “we know this rule is coming so we’re going to implement it now” and them just straight-up misreading a rule.

            The brackets, just like with “chapter” or “legion” just mean you get to insert any “faction” into them. Hence literally any word that is a faction can be inserted into those brackets. It’s really simple. Like so simple a 6 year old could pick up a book and figure it out.

            Yet somehow they interpet it as “well if you don’t have bracket words then you’re not really a faction.” Which makes absolutely no sense.

            So all of a sudden daemons, GSC, black templar crusaders, and any other troop that belongs to one faction already is arbitrarily not allowed to have ObSec? Sorry. I’m not endorsing poor readings of rules no matter who is saying it.

          • Avatar
            Ujayim August 10, 2017 7:28 am

            You can call me Salty all you want, I’m not BLAMING you for the rule, I’m just calling you out for stating it.

            People don’t agree with the ruling. It happens. If you didn’t want a reaction you could have said NOTHING until you had confirmation from GW, instead of stating Daemons and Ynnari have no faction.

  14. Avatar
    Jumping monkey August 9, 2017 1:16 pm #

    With out trying to sound too negative as I’m not at all usually. It’s really hard to invest time making and painting an army at the moment. Things are changing so rapidly that as soon as I have made an army it’s out of date . 1st flyer are good , now they are not. Troops were bad now they are good to be vital. Then codexes realised every few weeks may change everything as well.

    Just wish that I can make an army and be able to actually get enough time to practise with it before it becomes obsolete . Hopefully things will settle down soon .

    Over all still really love 40k and 8th edition. It’s great they are trying to rebalance things and giving FAQs

    • Avatar
      Sanchezsam2 August 9, 2017 1:51 pm #

      That’s kinda the point of continual balance adjustments.
      If you are trying to chase the next meta breaking list you will likely not have fun. If you are trying to build a themed or even a certain concept list like alpha strike you will have more fun. The goal is to have everything be viable and not have anything completely dominant in the meta.
      Just build a list you like to play that fits how you enjoy playing using the units you think do well and it should be fine competitively worse case scenario you buy a few more units before a major tourney to optimize it.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 9, 2017 2:10 pm #

      Things will calm down soon. This is just the flurry of the release.

      Flyers are still just as powerful as they were, they’re just not good as all flyer armies.

      Troops are great now and should be. They just didn’t have ObSec in the indexes.

      I get the discomfort but the flurry of changes will slow down.

  15. Avatar
    Jonathan Ciscon August 9, 2017 1:31 pm #

    Showoff 😉

    I was hoping OS would remain something for elite troops/troops squads of <20 models but oh well. Still good changes.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 9, 2017 2:10 pm #


    • Avatar
      Dakkath August 9, 2017 2:47 pm #

      Well I’m personally holding out for the T’au codex to reuse the Farsight Enclave rule “Battlesuit Spearhead” to give ObSec to battlesuit units.

    • Avatar
      Desc440 August 10, 2017 10:44 am #

      Really not a fan of giving ObSec to every Troop again. It worked fine with the way 7th functioned for capturing objectives. Not so much with the way 8th works.

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 10, 2017 1:17 pm #

        It’s not EVERY troop, it is for faction specific detachments (excluding the super factions like Imperium, Chaos, etc.).

  16. Avatar
    Adam August 9, 2017 1:34 pm #

    This sucks. Love the ObSec, hate the Flyer rule. Hate the +1 for First rule. As someone who has played 3 Flyers in every list since 6h Edition (not a band-wagoner here), this is a big nerf when we have armies with 6 Razorbacks and 6 Dev Squads with re-rolls and insanely under-costed IG armies that have the ability to wipe my three drop Death Company list turn one. So much for playing themed lists.

    • Avatar
      Adam August 9, 2017 1:36 pm #

      The only limit should have been to Flyers. Make them 0-3 (with the exception of Flying Monsters). That would have fixed a lot of this bullshit that is now penalizing otherwise fluffy, middle-table lists.

    • Avatar
      Bad Higad August 9, 2017 11:29 pm #

      Razorbacks and Devs don’t have the mobility or -1 to hit that flyers have, and I don’t think conscript spam will be as big a deal as it is now when the guard codex drops.

      Ravenspam warped the format to such an extreme degree that all the flyer changes were necessary. Seeing as you still have boots on the ground with your Death Company you shouldn’t be as affected by the changes as people who ran nothing but flyers and a reroll bubble, and if you prefer to play auto go first just come to an agreement with your opponent if you aren’t playing in a tournament.

    • Avatar
      David Hayden August 10, 2017 6:52 am #

      Most of the problems right now aren’t really coming from the flyers or the Razorback parking lots themselves. These problems are all originating because of one single model you bring to buff them: Bobby G.

      They’re not going to fix him, though, because it’s Warhammer 40k Bobby G Edition. So they’ll keep making adjustments in other areas.

      I haven’t seen dominant all Flyer armies from non-Space Marines. Mostly because Bobby G plus shooting units will annihilate them. And I haven’t seen firing parking lots except from Astra Militarum, which is how they should play.

  17. Avatar
    Sanchezsam2 August 9, 2017 1:57 pm #

    You can still play flyers and they still do well. You just need ANYTHING else to claim an objective. It’s really a fairly well done rule. It’s not like your tabled turn 6 if you only have flyers on the board.

    The +1 for first rule was heavily tested. Even if you look at BAO results it made a big difference but still gives armies with less drops a good advantage since they effectively get 2 chances to go first. A roll off plus 1 and then a seize the intative if they fail.

    • Avatar
      Adam August 9, 2017 2:01 pm #

      I’ve tested it as well. With my 3 drop list, against any of the meta lists that standard go 2nd, I auto-lose.

      That said, I will still play Flyers, but the problem wasn’t with the people using them to deliver sub-par assault troops. It was with the players bringing 5-6 of them with one model to buff them. That’s not a first turn or flyer problem, it’s a Detachment problem. Change the detachment and everything else would be fine.

      I was one of three people who brought Stormravens as a transport mechanism for my troops/Dreads. That’s because GW decided to also kill drop pods.

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 9, 2017 2:13 pm #

        Your army still works as it did, flyers are still very powerful, you just don’t want to have an all flyer army.

        As SanchezSam says, the +1 to go first creates a more diverse meta. You can still play your army, and while things may change for you, it is certainly not a death sentence for your list from what I read.

  18. Avatar
    Jural August 9, 2017 4:10 pm #

    There is very little advantage to having the smaller army now-

    If nobody is willing to use a command point to go first, the breakdown is:

    larger army- 1st 38%, 2nd 62%

    If both sides are willing to use a command point

    larger army- 1st 43%, 2nd 57%

    But if the larger army is more willing to use a CP (which would be reasonable to assume), it becomes:

    larger army- 1st 48%, 2nd 52%

    • Avatar
      Sanchezsam2 August 9, 2017 6:15 pm #

      Those numbers look off considering the smaller army will have a range of rolls from 2-7 and the larger army is 1-6. Even with the larger army having rerolls the smaller army should always go first at min 1/6 the times.

    • Avatar
      N1njad4ve August 10, 2017 3:20 am #

      you were never meant to be able to use command points for seize rolls apprantly. The stratagems that are allowed to be use pregame are all meant to have it in the stratagem itself. GW just forgot to mention that to anyone except the test team.

      so the 38/62 figure is the only correct one. Which is actually almost identical to playing finish first go first with a cp reroll on the seize roll anyway. So don’t worry you are in the exact same place as you were before.

      The biggest benefit to the change is the perception of the randomness to list bullding and deployment. Knowing the chances dependent on drop count will change how a lot of people build lists – take a more flexible deployment list to tailor your drop count for the game and make sure you can cope if you fall on the wrong side of the average.

      The other big problem is the lists that can build to not care – IG with conscript bubble protecting their big stuff on the ground adequately and still being able to bring a really good beta strike of deep striking plasma units.
      Doesn’t matter if the alpha goes first or second due to the deep strike undercut possible and then you need to build to be able to deal with that. Missions changing is going to impact that hopefully though along with a couple rule changes for conscripts and commisars – honestly how is one commisar keeping 120 guys with guns who don’t want to be there in the first place by shooting one guy. They should all just take a shot at him and then the unit take double morale. Or conscripts take double morale damage and the commisar can only halve the damage for one unit

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 10, 2017 8:20 am #

        You said it. The go first thing is more about perception and deterring the hard core alpha strike lists and deployment. And yeah, the best lists currently don’t care if they go first or second =)

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2017 8:08 am #

      You do not use command points to go first.

      • Avatar
        Jural August 10, 2017 10:36 am #

        CP usage is only for sieze.

        I think ITC has disallowed this (good in my book), but GW has left it ambiguous.

        I’m less worried about alpha strikes, as even a 1/3 chance of going second deters the tournament player. I’m just liked the punishment aspect of huge armies needing to go second, as they honestly take longer to play and some deterrence would be nice.

  19. Avatar
    LordDrakonus August 9, 2017 6:39 pm #

    IG gets stronger!

  20. Avatar
    rvd1ofakind August 9, 2017 7:41 pm #

    “Word on the street is that Chaos Daemons are not a faction anymore”
    What? No objective secured for us? We just get ditched to AoS?

    • Avatar
      Threllen August 9, 2017 8:42 pm #

      Word on the street is that anyone who says that is completely overthinking it and pulling assumptions out of their arse. If it’s a faction keyword it’s a faction. Doesn’t matter what army it is. As the GW article says – every battle forged army gets ObSec.

      Just because some people with loud voices can’t read well doesn’t mean you have to listen to them.

      • Avatar
        Eaux August 10, 2017 5:24 am #

        Unfortunately, the “word” is from a NOVA head judge…

      • Reecius
        Reecius August 10, 2017 8:15 am #

        I’d advise a little patience on this one. It is a bit confusing as it is presented right now.

    • Avatar
      Bad Higad August 9, 2017 11:36 pm #

      Don’t believe every rumor you hear on the Internet.

      Now for speculation: Think about the warp storm table in previous editions. I wouldn’t be surprised if a pure CD list got something that really captures the flavor of playing an immaterial incursion of the warp, and if that means losing objective secured, you can be 100% certain daemons will get something else to make up for it.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2017 8:11 am #

      I’d advise a little patience on that one, guys.

  21. Avatar
    Kartr_Kana August 9, 2017 8:34 pm #

    That ObSec for all troops is annoying. Suddenly my Tactical Space Marine next to an objective with a couple Imperial Guard conscripts goes from “Dibs!” to “Thumb wrestle you for it.”

    So Defenders of Humanity goes from being really useful and giving Tactical Squads a reason to live to, little more than a way to snake objectives from heavy support or elites camping an objective. good but not Good.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2017 8:13 am #

      It is only fair that not only a few codexes have the rule at a given point in time. It is needed for game balance to allow troops to have that rule to make them all relatively viable within the context of their own book.

      • Avatar
        Kartr_Kana August 10, 2017 9:48 am #

        I get that, but honestly Tacticals really need something to make them worthwhile. The only reason I’m taking a couple squads in my competitive list is for the 3CPs from a Battalion and I don’t have enough Scouts.

        • Reecius
          Reecius August 10, 2017 10:12 am #

          I get it. But it shouldn’t come at the expense of every other army =P

          I use Tacticals n several rolls. Scouts are the bomb but Tacticals have a place, too. I use them with a heavy weapon in the backfield to hold an objective, or with a special weapon/combi-weapon to go up and take objectives.

          • Avatar
            Kartr_Kana August 10, 2017 11:09 am

            I’ve got mine kitted with a Flamer and Combi-flamer in Assault Razorbacks to go burn heretics and xenos off of objectives.

            And yeah it shouldn’t be at the expense of other armies, but come on GeeDubs, these guys are 7 foot genetically engineered super soldiers with centuries of experience, clad armor as tough as tanks and held up as the exmplars of their kind… And pretty much everything else in the Codex is a more competitive/better choice?

          • Reecius
            Reecius August 10, 2017 1:19 pm

            Yeah, Space marines have always suffered from being the benchmark unit. They’re trying to move away from that with Primaris Marines.

  22. Avatar
    rvd1ofakind August 9, 2017 11:42 pm #

    When are the CP ro-rolls on seize and roll-off going be adressed?

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2017 8:16 am #

      It is already addressed in most tournament packs.

  23. Avatar
    Horton August 10, 2017 5:22 am #

    I am very happy to see this. GW just keeps hitting Home Runs.

    • Reecius
      Reecius August 10, 2017 8:21 am #

      Yeah, I agree. They are responding to the meta environment in a positive way.

  24. Avatar
    Tomguycot August 10, 2017 7:02 am #

    I know there is information to which I am not privy but I have a LOT of trouble believing that GW intended to not give some factions access to Obsec. That comes off as extremely arbitrary and frankly wrong-headed.

    I don’t even understand the logic of saying demons don’t get access to it. They all have a keyword for their god so if I built a mono nurgle detachment I don’t understand why the wording of this rule would keep me from getting Obsec. Demons were already noncompetitive outside of brimstone horrors (which have already been nerfed two different ways) so this just seems arbitrary and pure feel bad to me.

  25. Avatar
    MVB August 10, 2017 7:57 am #

    FYI on the faction thing since it’s come up here, for purposes of NOVA, should be considered to apply to any shared faction keyword other than the “umbrella” keywords of Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, and Tyranids.

Leave a Reply