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.

Lets say you are playing a seize ground mission and you or your opponent destroy an objective. Is the objective no longer valid? Can it still be held/contested? I did not read any rules for this in the main rule book. In the FAQ it says you may not shoot, or assault an empty building. However, from a mission stand point if an enemy was going to capture a building, which is also a capture point, would it not seem feasible to destroy it if you could not capture it?

My opponent destroyed a building, which I was not in, but next to last game. It was a capture point in our mission. We did not know the rules and the rule book had no rules against it, but we did not know if it still counts as a capture point. I guess, since now I have read the FAQ, and it says you cannot assault or shoot unoccupied buildings that never should have happened. However, lets say it was occupied and destroyed, does that rubble still count as a capture point?

I don't believe you can destroy an objective, unless being able to do so was mutually agreed before the game.
That's why it is best to use some kind of marker to designate the objective.

1) there are no rules for destroying objectives in the rulebook.

2) If you allow objectives to be detroyed, make your own rules up as to what happens

3) You cannot target "empty" buildnigs, as the shooting / assault rules only allow you to target enemy units

well to be honest it has never came up before. The objective points themselves were two buildings and a wrecked tau speeder on the board. So there are no rules to destroy terrain? Like if I wanted to destroy a bridge, or burn down a small forest?

You're missing the point - the rules for objectives (in normal games) tell you they are just "markers"

Markers arent part of the normal game, so you cannot target, assault, or destroy them - theyre just there. They are only there to mark a point.

IF you decide to create houserules by designating intact Buildings as objectives, then you need to decide *for youselves* how to handle them if they get destroyed.

The only terrain that can be destroyed, in the rulebook, are Intact buildings that have an enemy unit embarked in them. Thats it, nothing else is covered.

In Apocalypse you can get weapons that entirely remove buildings / terrain (vortex missiles / grenades, for example) or that kill the planets plant life (which removes forests, etc) - but that is apocalypse.

Crom wrote:So there are no rules to destroy terrain? Like if I wanted to destroy a bridge, or burn down a small forest?

Generally speaking, terrain can't be destroyed.
Even buildings are a special case because only when occupied can they be attacked like a transport vehicle, and if destroyed (either result) they can be replaced by either a ruin or a crater.
However, if you and your opponent agree to be able to destroy terrain, that's fine. You could set up a "blow the bridge" scenario where a piece of terrain can be destroyed.
My freind and I played a game where we used some sections of fence with razor wire. We decided pre-game that it would be difficult terrain for infantry and bikes, but vehicles would destroy the fence if they moved over them.
It's all in how you want to play.

Hmm, well the rules are rather suggestive as I interpreted it rather than black and white about objectives. It just says place a counter on a piece of terrain or any other method to make it clear it is an objective. We just picked specific pieces of terrain for hte battle. So, according to the rules it doesn't have to be a marker and a marker is just there to clarify it.

So, that still doesn't answer my question, but maybe it is up for the house to decide. In any scenario where an objective is or can be destroyed it is up for the persons playing to decide I suppose. I personally don't like the idea of it becoming invalid if destroyed since it changes the mission of the game from objective based to just straight victory point (annihilation) based. However, I think not being able to target terrain is also a bit silly. Destroying roads, bridges, cover, and so forth is a part of war. Also, things like tanks could easily bust right through lots of cover destroying it in it's path. Like light covered fences, razor wire, small buildings that are not reinforced steel, a tank would just plow right through. Just like in Dawn of War the video game Land Raiders just roll right through terrain and destroy it in it's path.

I think maybe GW left that stuff out for simplicity sake and perhaps game balance. Maybe they see it as something certain armies could exploit better than others?

Crom wrote:I think maybe GW left that stuff out for simplicity sake and perhaps game balance. Maybe they see it as something certain armies could exploit better than others?

It is probably for both those reasons.
But again, TMIR allows you and your opponent to decide how you want to play.
But in a pick up game, you probably would not be able to do it.
Bottom line, do you want to play against an opponent, secure objectives and destroy the enemy? Or do you just want to blow up bridges and defoliate the board?

time wizard wrote:

Crom wrote:I think maybe GW left that stuff out for simplicity sake and perhaps game balance. Maybe they see it as something certain armies could exploit better than others?

It is probably for both those reasons.
But again, TMIR allows you and your opponent to decide how you want to play.
But in a pick up game, you probably would not be able to do it.
Bottom line, do you want to play against an opponent, secure objectives and destroy the enemy? Or do you just want to blow up bridges and defoliate the board?

I don't necessarily want to destroy bridges and roads, but would like the option. If there is a section of dangerous terrain with bridges and I can force my enemy to come through one of the bridges by destroying another to create a bottle neck, that would be a valid tactic in my opinion. I mean it is all subjective. What mission you are playing, what opponent you are fighting and so forth should be dynamic. So, no, I won't want to just blow up buildings and terrain, but would like the idea to do so in some special cases.

The Eldar have flip belts and fleet of foot, so why not destroy their cover so they cannot take advantage of it? I guess, it really comes down to an imbalance thing. Marines are already tough, are good at close combat, shooting, heavy support, and have some of the best armor in the game. If you give the armies abilities to destroy terrain I can see them being very powerful. I just so happen to decide to destroy the building your hidden troops are in, just because I can sort of takes some spirit out of the game. So, I guess in the end I agree with the rules as is since allowing otherwise would really change a lot for the game, and possibly throw in some really bad imbalances. Like, if a scout squad hidden from sight was in a forest and I just decide to blow it up, but I did not know the scouts were in there. So, it would be very gray and exploitative I would guess.

Crom wrote: If there is a section of dangerous terrain with bridges and I can force my enemy to come through one of the bridges by destroying another to create a bottle neck, that would be a valid tactic in my opinion.

True, but you can also create a bottleneck with blocking units, good field of fire, vehicles, etc. All comes down to tactics.

Crom wrote:I just so happen to decide to destroy the building your hidden troops are in, just because I can sort of takes some spirit out of the game.

Well, you actually can destroy the building enemy troops are in, that's covered in the rulebook.

Terrain adds many elements to the game. Using terrain to your advantage is an aspect of tactics that is crucial to gameplay.
As an experiment, try playing a game with just 1 piece of terrain on it. Think of it as simulating what would happen if you and your opponent have destroyed most of the gameboard's terrain. I doubt you'll enjoy playing that way very much at all.

But as I said, there is nothing preventing you or your opponent from deciding that you can target terrain, but you'll have to decide on rules for it. For example, does it have armor values? What effect does the damage table have on the piece of terrain? What is required to destroy it? Can it just be damaged to the point of becomming difficult and/or dangerous terrain?
Those are the things you would have to work out. But there is nothing in the rules to support destroying terrain.

Crom - what you miss is the marker IS the objective; NOT what you place it on.

That isn't true. The point the marker designates is the objective, not the marker itself.

Aside from that I am totally with Nos on this one.

Except you measure "to" the marker - meaning the size of the marker is important. You dont measure to the centre of the marker *unless* you agree to beforehand.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Crom - what you miss is the marker IS the objective; NOT what you place it on.

If you read the rules it says use a marker or a piece of terrain, it doesn't say you have to use a marker. So, we determined 3 pieces of terrain as objective points. 1 building, 1 tower and 1 wrecked tau vehicle. So, really there is no rule stating you must use markers. I get your point though, if you use markers it isn't the building per se, but the marker instead.

The only time you can destroy an objective, as far as I know, is by having a squad of Plaguebearers in the followers of Mamoon Apoc. unit stand by one and do nothing for a turn "defiling" it.

In planetstrike is is not only possible, but also likely that you will destroy at least 1 of the objectives(as every Bastion is automatically an objective, and occupied or not, they are targetable during the firestorm attack).

Luckily they have rules for it as well; the new ruin/Difficult ground is still the same objective.

I've ran into this last time and this is what I have come up with.

1. The objective based maps rely heavily on your concept of role-play, which believe it or not, is a factor in such things, and I am sure GW meant for it to be that way.

2. There are no rules for destroying objectives except for the above stated expansion rules. I would therefore say it is, in standard rules, impossible to destroy an objective.

3. A piece of Terrain being an objective does not mean you measure from the marker placed on terrain. In this case, you wouldn't even need the marker. You just measure to 3" from the boundary of the terrain. And as the big book repeatedly states, players must agree on these things before the game starts.

4. What we had agreed on, and what seems to make the most sense, is to make a garrison-able building the objective, and if it is destroyed, to treat it as vehicle destroyed and replace the objective with another piece of terrain most suitable. The new terrain is now the objective.

diesel7270 wrote:I've ran into this last time and this is what I have come up with.

1. The objective based maps rely heavily on your concept of role-play, which believe it or not, is a factor in such things, and I am sure GW meant for it to be that way.

2. There are no rules for destroying objectives except for the above stated expansion rules. I would therefore say it is, in standard rules, impossible to destroy an objective.

3. A piece of Terrain being an objective does not mean you measure from the marker placed on terrain. In this case, you wouldn't even need the marker. You just measure to 3" from the boundary of the terrain. And as the big book repeatedly states, players must agree on these things before the game starts.

4. What we had agreed on, and what seems to make the most sense, is to make a garrison-able building the objective, and if it is destroyed, to treat it as vehicle destroyed and replace the objective with another piece of terrain most suitable. The new terrain is now the objective.

Ah I like that idea. Replace the building with dangerous terrain piece and it is still the objective point.

If it is wrecked, I would leave it as-is but make it no longer garrison-able and make the unit inside dismount as if a vehicle was wrecked. If it explodes then make everyone take the explosion hits and make it dangerous or difficult (or both) terrain, as applied from the fluff or agreements on the objective. Replace afterwards with appropriate terrain. Considering GW leaves it open to fluff, it's something you should decide with your opponent beforehand. So, if it's fine an occupying unit has the objective and those within 3" of the terrain boundary also have it or contest it, but once it is wrecked, not exploded, then treat it the same but you can't garrison inside of it.

Be CAREFUL with this, and I ran into it last time. If someone parks a vehicle or squad outside the entry point(s), you can't dismount the squad to fight someone not in line of firing ports, and they can contest it until another one of our units drops them. So be careful of jetbikes and skimmers.

EDIT (AGAIN):I would also make sure you agree with your opponent on armor values of buildings before you start. AV14 buildings are a tough nut to crack when Effects 1-4 do nothing. Or do they? As buildings have no movement and most have no weapons... would an immobilized or weapon destroyed wreck one? Hm...

EDIT (HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME): Rulebook says it treats anything up to immobilized as shaken, or weapon destroyed of the building as a mounted weapon.

Quick correction on using terrain features as objectives.

Page 91 tells us to choose "a point on the table to be an objective (by placing a counter on it, choosing a detail of a terrain feature, or any other method that is equally clear)."

An entire large terrain feature, like a building, is not intended to be an allowable objective in normal missions. It's supposed to be a fairly small point; like a counter or a "detail of a terrain feature", like maybe the door of a building, or the little transmitter dish on the side of a bunker, or something.

Of course you can always agree to do something different in narrative missions, etc.