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.

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?

I usually use 40 mm for my objectives.

We tend to use whatever people bring, as long as its not annoying.

Most common size I see is on a 40mm base. It allows a bit more modeling freedom than a 25mm base (though I see those fairly often as well).

40mm is also a close match for a poker chip if a tournament is supplying quickie objectives for players who didn't bring their own. The custom sculpted resin ones Adepticon's been supplying with their missions which require objectives for the last few years have also been 40mm in size. I'm up to a full set of five different painted resin markers from Adepticon (they've made more than that; but five's all I need for standard missions).

I have no qualms with any of the listed sizes. The 25mm bases are the most common around where I play.

Awesome then. I've been boredly playing around with my bitz box and spare bases to make up some more objectives...I've currently got around 6, 25 mm, those are just standard 'Imperial Aquila on base' type markers, but I've started making some on the HWT base that are a bit more thematic. Glad to know they won't be considered over the top.

I usually use 40mm based objectives, but some of my older ones are done on 25mm bases. We've used colored stones and other such things when we forgot objectives.

I use 25mm bases just because I have about a trillion of them in my bitz box. I mostly use them (25mm bases) with something fancy painted on it, Dark Eldar slaves, and those weird tentacly things that came with The Battle for Macragge for objectives, which are about the size of a 25mm base I think.

Mine are on 50mm round bases, I have plenty left over from playing Vor: The Maelstrom.

40mm are the most common here. But I have 2 60mm objectives and 2 40mm objectives.

Most of my objectives are done on 40m round bases for the modelling opportunity.

ChrisWWII wrote: would you play with 60 mm (IG HWT) bases? Or 40 mm (Termie) bases?

Yes, and frequently.

I have two sets of objective markers. Imperial (which are ammo crates and supplies marked with SM back banners) and Eldar (which are a variety of Eldar widgets and leftovers) all on 40mm bases, with a major objective mounted on a 60mm base (fallen marine defending a large banner and or supplies) and a large Egyptian Horus statue (approx 54mm) representing The Eldar God Faolchu (Falcon - whom the tank is named for).

In our club objective missions, capturing the enemy's major objective counts for two of their smaller ones (and it's not uncommon for the 'capture and control' mission to feature d3+3 objectives PER side.). We end up with fewer 'roll dice and draw' results this way.

25mm for standard games.

40mm for apoc games.

This might be seen as heresy but does the game actually need objectives? When it comes down to it is about giving your opponent's army a good pummelling! I frequently forget about objectives as I get too involved in trying to cause as much carnage to the opposing army, at worst I find objectives a nuisance/irritation. If there is a need for objectives surely each unit should be tasked before the start of the game with trying to achieve it? By that I mean your opponent knows at the start of the game where you are aiming for and will defend it with a lot of firepower. But if the objectives were hidden but also army wide (i.e. each unit has their own specific hidden objective which would not be revealed until the end of the game when adding up victory points)would this not make for a more edgy game? You could have for example 8 real objectives and 8 false ones, at least half the objectives have to be situated in enemy territory. Home based objectives would only be worth half the worth of contested objectives.
Thoughts?

We play with both markers and with nominated terrain pieces (generally marked with one of the little clear green flags) depending on what the player placing the objective chooses to nominate. So no strict limit on size I suppose, but objective size is basically fair to both players in any case so I'm not sure it matters.

Jack

I tend to use the little Tyranid-y terrain bits that come on some of the sprues.

The thing that seems to come up more often though is how to measure to the objective.

About half of my opponents prefer it as a "point" marked by the center of the marker, and the other half measure to any part of the marker.

If you measure to a (center) "point" there is very little difference in the marker used.

So long as all the objective markers are the same size, it does not really matter. I usually use marbles( http://desktop.qkype.com/wallpapers/abstract_336/blue_marbles_desktop_wallpaper_26446.jpg ) as the local GW has a couple of tubs of them for use.

I made a downed Sentinel Pilot on a 60mm base that i really like...but I dont think I'll make anything that big again since 60mm bases are more valuable/rare. I may stick with 40mm from now on...

No one else in my gaming group has heir own objectives sadly. Usually they just find a smalligh bit of terrain from the FLGS like a Necromunda Comm Relay and call it good. Last Sunday we used pieces from a crashed Imperial Ship for markers.

I use 40mm bases.

The objective is a point, not an area so you always measure to the centre of any marker you use.

As such, any size is fine as long as the stuff on it doesn't stop models getting easily to the middle. (No, Eldar guy - you can't have a 7" wide volcano for each of your objective markers)

Scott-S6 wrote:The objective is a point, not an area so you always measure to the centre of any marker you use.

Agreed. That is how I suggest it every time, but I have met many others that do not play that way.

kirsanth wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:The objective is a point, not an area so you always measure to the centre of any marker you use.

Agreed. That is how I suggest it every time, but I have met many others that do not play that way.

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

I have never noticed that rule...ok then! Awesome.

ChrisWWII wrote:I have never noticed that rule...ok then! Awesome.

Really? That's the text from the objective missions - "chooses a point".

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

Despite my penchant for moot discussions online, I am rarely such a stickler at the game table.

For example some have said that 'point' does not need to be mathmatical.
I see no real reason to debate that with someone who is willing to assert it, because it COULD be read that way (i.e. a distinguishing mark, a single or separate article or item, etc.) despite the fact that I disagree.

Scott-S6 wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:I have never noticed that rule...ok then! Awesome.

Really? That's the text from the objective missions - "chooses a point".

I probably noticed it, but it didn't stick in my head that it said that point meant a literal point. I don't know why I interpreted it that way, but I'm known for missing obvious things in rulebooks...like I remember missing out on what exactly a Commissar's wargear is, even though it's right there in the codex.

Jackmojo wrote:We play with both markers and with nominated terrain pieces (generally marked with one of the little clear green flags) depending on what the player placing the objective chooses to nominate. So no strict limit on size I suppose, but objective size is basically fair to both players in any case so I'm not sure it matters.

+1

Actually, I would say that it makes a big difference.

A point objective can be covered by a six-man squad such that no enemy can contest without assaulting or tank-shocking.

If you're measuring from the edges of a 40mm objective then it requires a nine-man squad otherwise anything can contest just by strolling over.

In practice, you can never have a perfectly small objective point marker but the guidance we have is that the point you're measuring from should be pretty small. The objective markers on the counter sheet are tiny. Also, the rulebook suggests "choosing a detail of a terrain feature" so it's pretty clear that we're not supposed to be measuring from the edges of a large base.

Folks should be aware that the larger they make their objectives then the easier they are to contest which provides advantage for armies with fast movers (especially skimmers as they can move over the defenders). Objectives definitely need to be the same size for both players if you're measuring from the edges of the marker.

Slipstream wrote:This might be seen as heresy but does the game actually need objectives? When it comes down to it is about giving your opponent's army a good pummelling! I frequently forget about objectives as I get too involved in trying to cause as much carnage to the opposing army, at worst I find objectives a nuisance/irritation. If there is a need for objectives surely each unit should be tasked before the start of the game with trying to achieve it? By that I mean your opponent knows at the start of the game where you are aiming for and will defend it with a lot of firepower. But if the objectives were hidden but also army wide (i.e. each unit has their own specific hidden objective which would not be revealed until the end of the game when adding up victory points)would this not make for a more edgy game? You could have for example 8 real objectives and 8 false ones, at least half the objectives have to be situated in enemy territory. Home based objectives would only be worth half the worth of contested objectives.
Thoughts?

Yes, that sounds like a fun idea for a variant on the normal rules.

Regarding the pummelling, I think there is normally plenty of it because

A) It is a wargame.
B) It is easier to get to objectives if the enemy are not in a condition to stop you.
C) A good proportion of missions are KP based.
D) You always win by annihilation, regardless of other conditions of the setup.

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.

So this goes in my list of pre-game questions, along with terrain questions like how to play going through ruin walls and any codex specific ambiguities.

As far as the OP, I agree with most folks, seen it vary from coins, bases, the green flag things from the marker set to actual terrain. For measuring I prefer to measure from a base edge sicne it makes accurate measuring a bit easier at times, but if the size of the objectives varies then I prefer to measure from a point. It doesn't have to be the center either, much prefer an easily identifiable point rather then kibitz on what the center of something is at games end.