Objective secure

Due to the fact DE has a high output of units and the high mobility, this rule can be a game changer. What it does is that if you move a unit with this special rule to contest an objective, you control it. This lets you turbo boost a vehicle to slide it into objectives in the final turn.

What do you think? How have you seen fit of this rule?

Hellraiser wrote:

What it does is that if you move a unit with this special rule to contest an objective, you control it.

Not quite. You control it as long as the enemy unit does not also have this rule. Given the prevalence of SM Battle Companies at the moment, where almost every unit has this rule, I'd say that it's marginally less useful than it was in the past. That being said, I still wouldn't leave home without it* as the alternative for us is the Realspace Raiders detachment, whose command benefits are frankly laughable.


*Formations from the Covens book are the notable exception to this

It's a massively useful rule. As Count intimated, obsec is 'the thing' that space marine armies do exceedingly well and seems to be what their detachment is aimed at doing. Other detachments are far more aimed in the direction of achieving other aims (like necrons being practically unkillable, or tau being greater than the sum of their parts when they work together etc).

Problem is of course DE don't have a detachment like that, so are stuck competing with no area of speciality in an increasingly specialised game.

Ob sec is huge, if only because having it on fast transports like raiders and venoms means you can neuter that part of the marine army

Good points. Important to keep the rule in mind.

A trick I like to do is buy venoms/raiders from the fast attack selection, buy warriors and add a venom/ raider, then deploy them in the fast attack selection. They vehicle (now empty) they bought is Objective secured, and the vehicle they are riding in is Also objective secured as long as they are in it. Double your OS without breaking a sweat.

I understand the tactic, but I'm not sure it's legal. Can a unit with a dedicated transport start inside another one?

Quote :

I understand the tactic, but I'm not sure it's legal. Can a unit with a dedicated transport start inside another one?

No. You start in the dedicated transport and thus you have to deploy them accordingly. The only thing you could do is deploy the empty fast attack Venom next to the dedicated transport Venom and then on your first round you disembark with the Warriors and embark onto the fast attack Venom on turn 2 (I don't think you can disembark and embark again in the same turn).

TL;DR: It is not legal.

Actually you don't have to deploy the warriors in the dedicated transport, the only limitations is that only the unit that selected it as a dedicated transport can deploy in it prior to it being placed on the board and that no other units, but the one who purchased it, may be embarked on it prior to it entering play. Nothing stops you from deploying the dedicated transport empty (or deepstriking it empty), the unit that purchased it outside of the transport, and the non-dedicated transport next to the one who purchased the dedicated transport so that they can embark turn 1.

If I've missed a rule that states otherwise please correct me.

Nope, you're spot on. There's no requirement to deploy inside your dedicated transport, only a rule that prevents any other unit from doing so.

You do not need to deploy in a dedicated transport.
You can deploy in a fast attack transport.
No shuffling needed.

We are at enough of a disadvantage, why make it harder on ourselves?

Pretty sure the new FAQ rules out using objective secured from inside a transport (assuming the transport itself doesn't have this rule). Also many tournament FAQs have ruled on this one way or another so if you are planning on doing that you might want to check before hand to make sure the tactic works.

Personally, I don't find that ObSec does a whole lot for me. I can't think of a game that's been decided by it, or an occasion where it even scored me enough points to make a significant impact on degree of loss/victory for me. It's certainly played into my tactics on occasion (no sense Turboboosting Reavers onto an Objective if my opponent can just snatch it out from under me), but obviously I'm having a very different experience regarding this particular rule.

I find that most of my (competitive) opponents are fielding so many ObSec units that it isn't really worth focusing on. If both our units are ObSec, then it's irrelevant, and if I can get more killy units at the cost of the ObSec benefit, I might as well do that.

Using Maelstrom with the Supremacy cards seems to make ObSec very useful. I don't know how many people use them, but I'll use that deck every time if I get the chance. Having six infantry and six skimmer ObSec units can really maximize objectives and the Supremacy cards are all about taking objectives.

A tournament I won last year ended up coming down to me against the other Dark Eldar player in the final game to decide the final outcome. We were playing a relic based mission, and I could have played it quite poorly and still won because I had 10 objective secured units (including the transports) and he had a Realspace Raiders detachment.

It is viable to not have objective secured if you have an alternative major bonus from your detachment or formation, but as Dark Eldar we really don't have anything big to make up for not having it.

Interesting thoughts. Things that have been brought up that I feel are essential is: 1. DE has potential to field lots of units that profit from ObSec. 2. Lots of armies have potential to use this rule.

I have played games where contesting objectives have been key to victory.

What I am thinking is that having one unit with this rule gets useful in an even game to snatch that objective from enemies in the last round. It gives six points advantage, netto.

I'd argue a key point about number two: most competitive armies can field MORE obsec units, and BETTER obsec units.

In my experience ObSec has been a game winner. Most of our enemies fast units will probably be fast attack so if they try to soon one of them,over to snag an objective then it's gg for them.
On the flip side of the coin, being able to flat oit a venom or raider and swipe the objective from a thunderfire cannon or devastator team can score you a lot of points very quickly

jimsolo wrote:

I'd argue a key point about number two: most competitive armies can field MORE obsec units, and BETTER obsec units.

True. What we have in advantage is turbo boosting mobile and adaptable units 36".

ahrall wrote:

In my experience ObSec has been a game winner. Most of our enemies fast units will probably be fast attack ~

Seems legit.

Quote :

On the flip side of the coin, being able to flat oit a venom or raider and swipe the objective from a thunderfire cannon or devastator team can score you a lot of points very quickly

I actually think those small points matter. Especially in even games.

I actually don't care about objective secured. Objectives only really matter to me late game and by that stage there's usually very little to contend with depending how the game has went. I've deliberately placed objectives in my opponents half because I know he'll split his forces to claim them. Once they're split it makes it easy to kill the unit holding it (depending what he smacks down). Don't know how this tactic works for others but I've had success with it more than a few times.

Archon Vitcus wrote:

I've deliberately placed objectives in my opponents half because I know he'll split his forces to claim them. Once they're split it makes it easy to kill the unit holding it (depending what he smacks down). Don't know how this tactic works for others but I've had success with it more than a few times.

Very slick. I'm going to have to keep that one in mind.

Is this whole conversation based upon the ability of fielding multiple detachments? Because on my tournaments we are restricted to 2 detachments top(including formations), so those 3 extra FA slots from Realspace raiders detachments are, like, mandatory for me, specially if I'm planning on adding some coven formations.

For me it's just not possible to field the combined arms detachment and get the OS rule.

Archon Vitcus wrote:

I actually don't care about objective secured. Objectives only really matter to me late game and by that stage there's usually very little to contend with depending how the game has went. I've deliberately placed objectives in my opponents half because I know he'll split his forces to claim them. Once they're split it makes it easy to kill the unit holding it (depending what he smacks down). Don't know how this tactic works for others but I've had success with it more than a few times.

Well if youre up against a army of marines, the enemy holds 2/3 objectives and you have units in venom at your disposal, how do you think youre going to take that game by "killing them"?

Assuming you have one objective, contesting both enemy objectives will be enough for victory.

Frederick Vael wrote:

Is this whole conversation based upon the ability of fielding multiple detachments?

Pretty much, yeah.

If you can make the list you want within the restrictions you play that is obsec then great, do so.

If you cannot then don't force it. You CAN win without obsec. I usually do.

i usually don´t care about obsec. The prize is too high for us to get it, while other armies are pretty made for it.

If the last option to win is to contest one or two Objectives, i did pretty well against a tough Opponent or awful bad. But One-Point-to-Win Games are pretty rare.

ObSec is the way the games played right now and it's important but I don't think it should be important for the DE. As has been pointed out without a viable alternative you have two choices with the DE (well 3 if you count coven which I don't because coven works as is if you want to specialise in that) you go ObSec with a Combined Arms in which case you take lots of troops (MSU kabalites in a transport of your choice are the best flavour) and you try to deny objectives to the opponent whilst trying to steal them with your superior speed where you can, or you go unbound because frankly the Realspace Raid isn't worth the paper it's written on. If you're not taking ObSec there's no reason not to go unbound with DE and just load up heavy on units that are normally restricted. Unless you want to take 4+ Ravagers though or 3 Ravagers and a Tantalus or drop the troops entirely for Trueborn I don't see why you would go unbound over taking the crappy Realspace (because you can probably fit everything you want to take in there anyway). Or why you'd bother with any of that at all when the Combined Arms is a solid choice.

The DE just need an alternative to the Combined Arms. It makes little sense for them to be ObSec. In terms of both fluff and gameplay they don't (or shouldn't) play like that. DE should be spending their time slicing units up and being a constant problem for their opponent. What is needed is a detachment which brings back the old points scored for units killed formula they had back in 3rd ed. DE should be scoring points for killing things rather than trying to hold onto objectives when they're just too squishy to hold them. Any objective captured should be opportunistic like Reavers zipping across the table to grab an open objective every now and then. They should be a bonus that rewards cunning movement rather than the entire focus of your game.

DE just aren't built for the objective game where attrition warfare is king. Sure they have the speed to capture many objectives but doing that means either sacrificing a unit to grab the objective or having it not do anything useful for a turn or two as it grabs it. When you've got an army that's supposed to be built around killing stuff it's not fun to throw away your units to score points when that's the only way to win the game. DE should be desperately trying to table their opponent before the game ends - that's how they should be wining games. But without a detachment that can reward killing the only viable strategy is to play the objective game. But other factions are just so much better at it.

Give DE kill points within the framework of a new detachment, beef them up so they get their canons back and have their strategy change from leapfrogging objectives to just killing stuff. Let the Marines advance and hold ground, DE should be trying to flay them as quickly as possible to get their points. This should be the counter-play to the advance and hold play of the more resilient factions.