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.

 Kevin949 wrote:
I guess "under something" isn't the right word, but can objectives and terrain occupy the same space? It would seem, to me, that once a wreck happens it becomes terrain which becomes part of the battlefield, right? So would that not then mean that the terrain and objective are occupying the same place?

But they are not occupying the same space. There is room between the bottom of the vehicle and the battlefield that the objective is upon.

It matters less in this scenario but what if a vehicles explodes and leaves a crater? Is the crater placed on top of the objective or is the objective on top of the crater?

Technically you place the crater and do not move the objective, as you are not given any allowance to move the objective.

However to make it easier for all players to remember there is an objective there I see no issue with placing the objective marker on top of the crater, as long as its position on the battlefield does not otherwise change.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
I guess "under something" isn't the right word, but can objectives and terrain occupy the same space? It would seem, to me, that once a wreck happens it becomes terrain which becomes part of the battlefield, right? So would that not then mean that the terrain and objective are occupying the same place?

But they are not occupying the same space. There is room between the bottom of the vehicle and the battlefield that the objective is upon.

It matters less in this scenario but what if a vehicles explodes and leaves a crater? Is the crater placed on top of the objective or is the objective on top of the crater?

Technically you place the crater and do not move the objective, as you are not given any allowance to move the objective.

However to make it easier for all players to remember there is an objective there I see no issue with placing the objective marker on top of the crater, as long as its position on the battlefield does not otherwise change.

To the first - well that depends on the vehicle and how you personally handle the wreck. To say that there is room there is to also say that there is room under the base of the ruins. Or perhaps you put it under a large piece of terrain that is also classified as impassible. The objective itself is not "in" impassible terrain at that point.

You know, I had this long thing typed out but then I realized...it doesn't really matter that much. There are very very few vehicles that could deny an objective (not the ruling "deny") just by sheer mass and even the largest ones still wouldn't be able from all directions. I say just write it in to the GW FAQ email and see where that goes.

Well Objectives are placed after terrain, and there is no allowance to lift up Ruins (Or any terrain) to place an objective marker under the Ruin.

That really would not be an issue either as the Objective marker is just a marker.

It would make measuring to the marker a bit difficult if it was allowed to be under a ruin.

Yea, there really is not a single vehicle in the game that can sit over a 25 or 40mm base that is used as an objective marker and block models from getting within 3 inches of that marker.

The Football (The Relic mission objective) however is a different story because you need to be touching that one.