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.

winterman wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:BRB says "chooses a point on the table to be an objective" P91. Then whack 'em with the rulebook.

You do that and I'd hit back twice. The rulebook also says

"As different objectives vary in shape and size, it is important to agree at the beginning of the game exactly where this distance will be measured from." Same page with both standard missions.

That doesn't contradict anything stated earlier. BRB says:
"Choose a point" and suggests "choosing a detail of a terrain feature".
It also says you should agree exactly where you're measuring from. That isn't a license to ignore what was said earlier about choosing a specific spot and instead designate an objective as an area.

Scott-S6 wrote: That isn't a license to ignore what was said earlier about choosing a specific spot and instead designate an objective as an area.

As I said earlier, a point is not necessarily a mathmatical point, regardless.

Especially when you call it a spot.
hehe

kirsanth wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote: That isn't a license to ignore what was said earlier about choosing a specific spot and instead designate an objective as an area.

As I said earlier, a point is not necessarily a mathmatical point, regardless.

Especially when you call it a spot.
hehe

LOL and QFT. Unfortunately GW rulebooks are neither mathmatical texts or technical manuals. Point is not strictly defined the way you want it to be, hence why I suggest discussing this with your opponent before hand, preferably without violence or damaging your rulebook ;-)

ChrisWWII wrote:Now, I know there's no official rules on the size of objective markers, but I would like to know how dakka plays it: what size are your objectives? As far as I can tell, 25 mm (standard infantry) bases are some of the more common types of objective bases, but I was wondering, would you play with 60 mm (IG HWT) bases? Or 40 mm (Termie) bases?

28mm base for me.

Making some new ones is on my list of things to do. The current ones I made are on 60 mm bases and they're pretty big. I like to be able to do a bit with them though, so my new ones are going to be on 40 mm bases. I think they'll work out well.

I'm with Winterman. The text in the rulebook just as clearly supports objectives being the size that they are.

Both interpretations are supported, and it's definitely worth discussing with a new opponent before the game, as it certainly makes a difference.

The most common version I've seen in the seven US states in which I've played GTs, Adepticon, or Ard Boys Semis & Finals rounds is to the marker. But I've seen it played as the a geometrical point a couple of times.

kirsanth wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote: That isn't a license to ignore what was said earlier about choosing a specific spot and instead designate an objective as an area.

As I said earlier, a point is not necessarily a mathmatical point, regardless.

A detail of a terrain feature is pretty close to a point. About as close as it's practical to get.

There is nothing to suggest that objectives should be a large thing which you measure from the edges of.

"As different objectives vary in shape and size, it is important to agree at the beginning of the game exactly where this distance will be measured from."

That doesn't sound at all like we're talking about a geometrical point. That kind of point does not vary in shape or size.

"A detail of a terrain feature" could easily be a large thing, like the missile silo on the side of a building.

Bear in mind also that "point" as used in a military operational context, as makes sense for objectives in wargames, means a location; usually one where multiple people or whole units can gather. Like a rendezvous point. Or a rally point. Or a point of departure.