Do Secondary Objectives count for Warlord Trait FnP?

[JMichael]

This came up at our group last month and while I disagree with the ruling, I can see where they get the interpretation.

The Warlord Trait (and perhaps other codex items/abilities) Tenacity states that the Warlord and his unit gain Feel No Pain while within 3" of an objective.

It does not specify Primary or Secondary and the rulebook has a section simply titled 'Objectives' with Primary and Secondary under that (p122).
So would you receive the bonus when you are within 3" of the enemy Warlord (for 'slay the warlord'), or within 3" of the enemy deployment zone for Linebreaker (perhaps only if they were a scoring or denial unit only)?

[Ketharim]

Come on... are they serious?

No, secondary objectives do not count for Warlord Traits. To explain it a bit more primary objectives are fixed points (only exception being The Relic) on the battlefield you are supposed to hold and count in regards to the Warlord Traits. Secondary objectives are missions to be fulfilled, for example Slay the Warlord: Here not the Warlord is the objective, but the death of the Warlord. How would they reason in regards to First Blood? Are all enemy units are objectives until one of them is eradicated? ;) Or in regards to Linebraker: The objective is fulfilled at the end of the game, so in your groups reasoning they would receive FnP for this objective only after the game has already ended.

[OrksOrksOrks]

This post pretty much sums up the stupidity of RAW over RAI

[Wolfshade]

I don't see the issue here.

You can't be within 3" of "Slay the Warlord" as you would need to be within 3" of the enemy warlord, but the warlord is dead so removed from play, so yes you can try and claim it but your model would be off the board to do so, the same reasoning goes for "First Blood" the "objective" is off the board when it becomes one.

Similiarly "line breaker" that only becomes an objective after the game finishes so in terms of how this interacts with Warlord traits it's a moot point and your warlord can have tenacity enabled but it matters not as the game finished.

The Relic I don't have an issue with as that is in a point location on the board and is persistent.

[Sly]

I don't see the issue here.

You can't be within 3" of "Slay the Warlord" as you would need to be within 3" of the enemy warlord, but the warlord is dead so removed from play, so yes you can try and claim it but your model would be off the board to do so, the same reasoning goes for "First Blood" the "objective" is off the board when it becomes one.

Similiarly "line breaker" that only becomes an objective after the game finishes so in terms of how this interacts with Warlord traits it's a moot point and your warlord can have tenacity enabled but it matters not as the game finished.

The Relic I don't have an issue with as that is in a point location on the board and is persistent.

Exactly.
Slay the Warlord is a goal, but not an actual objective on the table. The Warlord is not an objective.
Linebreaker... the enemy deployment zone is not an objective.
First Blood... same as Slay.

[Wolfshade]

Of course you could always "home rule" the slay the warlord to make it become an objective like the relic so it can be carried and moved to represent trying to get your heros body back for a heoric burial, or trying to get the enemy leader and hopefuly intorrogate him before he expires totally.

[Archon Charybdis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

Killing the warlord, being first to wipe out an entire unit, or being in the deployment zone at the end of the game are concepts or actions--not tangible objects you can be within a certain distance of.

[JMichael]

I completely agree that Secondary Objectives shouldn't count.

So for fun and a bit of debating:

However I don't agree with your arguments to that.
For example, the enemy Warlord is a tangible model on the field and I can certainly see that while your warlord is within 3" of the enemy Warlord he would get FnP. Obvioulsy loosing this when the enemy Warlord is removed from the board. But what if the enemy Warlord is a vehicle and merely wrecked, thus still on the board?

The warlord traits state 'while within 3" of an objective'. (note that is doesn't specify Primary Objective, like it probably should).
Since both Primary and Secondaries are both listed under Objectives then this seems like it should apply.

@Sly Goal? just like capturing the Primary Objectives are a goal (Primaries are actually called a 'goal' on p122)

Fixed point isn't really relevant (relic is not fixed) and is really our own RAI anyway and not really spelled out

[Houghten]

If the enemy Warlord is a vehicle then he must be Bjorn the Fell-Handed, whose remains count a capture-as-normal objective anyway. Irrelevant.

[JMichael]

If the enemy Warlord is a vehicle then he must be Bjorn the Fell-Handed, whose remains count a capture-as-normal objective anyway. Irrelevant.

Only irrelevant for Bjorn.

[Houghten]

There are no other vehicle Warlords, so it's irrelevant for one hundred percent of them.

[JMichael]

There are no other vehicle Warlords, so it's irrelevant for one hundred percent of them.

I don't play Marines much, but there is a Forgeworld Chaplain Dreadnought Titus HQ.
But the vehicle thing is really beside the point.

[ElectricPaladin]

Don't forget the Damoclese Rhino. It's a Space Marine vehicle HQ from Forgeworld.

[Nabterayl]

Secondary objectives don't have to be intangible. They just happen to be for the Eternal War missions. Amending the warlord trait to refer to primary objectives only would be overshooting in the other direction.

I don't have my rulebook handy, but is it not true that "objective" refers to, among other things, terrain pieces (cf. "Mysterious Objectives")?

Just going from memory, so long as an objective is an actual thing, Tenacity et al. work with reference to that thing (be it fixed or mobile). Relics, pieces of terrain, and points on the tabletop are all spoken of as "objectives" in this sense, as I recall. That would allow us the common-sense answer that one cannot be within a distance of an action - be that action "destroy an enemy unit before anybody else does" or "control this objective."

[DarkLink]

I think this is another one of GW's "don't think too hard about this" things.

[Wildcard]

Personally i dont think its too hard on mind to consider a warlord getting fnp when fighting enemy characters.. Think of any berserkers for example.. berserker rage when a lost limb aint mean a thing when your mind is fixated on the sole purpose of humiliating that enemys hero.

Same goes with the mastermind warlord who knows when to counter attack (was that one of the mainbook traits? ) since he has been learning the enemy tactics..

EDIT:

I would definately allow such a move, as long as my oppoenent had a good reasoning / backstory why a trait would work in a way it does.. But i do like that cinematic and all..

[Nabterayl]

I don't know that I'd mind it either, but I really think the rules in this case are perfectly unambiguous. "An objective" is a thing, a noun. They are referred to as such on pages 106, 120, 122, 123, 125, and a few other places, like page 49 of the Space Wolves codex (Bjorn's Living Relic rule). You can be within 3" of a noun.

As page 122 also says, an objective can also be an action, a verb - such as "control an objective." You cannot be within 3" of a verb. All the Primary Objectives and Secondary Objectives for the Eternal War missions fall under this category.

So the question is really very straightforward and literal: is the warlord within 3" of the objective? One might answer, "Yes, because I can see that the objective is this pile of fuel barrels here and I can measure 3" from my warlord to the previously agreed upon boundary of the objective item." One cannot answer "Yes, because I can measure 3" from my warlord to the deployment zone," because the deployment zone is not an objective. Capturing the deployment zone is an objective. One can be within 3 turns of capturing the deployment zone; one cannot be within 3".

[Archon Charybdis]

For example, the enemy Warlord is a tangible model on the field and I can certainly see that while your warlord is within 3" of the enemy Warlord he would get FnP. Obvioulsy loosing this when the enemy Warlord is removed from the board.

The Warlord is not a secondary objective. Killing the Warlord is a secondary objective. The Warlord =/= killing the Warlord. You can't be within 3'' of killing the warlord in the same way you can't be within 3'' of taking a drink of water. You're committing the fallacy of reification.

[Nabterayl]

To add on to that, the warlord is neither a secondary objective nor an objective. Most games will have one or more objective markers which are objectives, but neither primary nor secondary objectives - and the primary objective will be "control those objective markers." While you cannot be within 3" of controlling an objective marker (any more than you can be within 3" of taking a drink of water or within 3" of killing the warlord), you can be within 3" of the objective marker itself.

A literal reading works out just fine.