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.

Obviously we can only talk in generalisms here due to the nature of everyones terrain setups and board setups but do you have general tractics you use when placing objective markers?
I've read of diamond formations, strung out in a line, refused flanks with objectives, always in/behind cover etc etc.

Given a moderately balanced game setup what tactics do you use for objectives? Any good/sneaky ones?

For very aggressive lists, sometimes you don’t want to have them safe in your backfield, but up the table. You can use them to try to lure your opponent out, if you place one in the open near him.

I’ll be honest, I usually place objective where I think they look cool.

Depends a lot on the two lists, more so than terrain. If I am faster and/or have an advantage in number of units I'll try to spread out a lot and force them to split up. If I'm slower or have fewer units, I'll clump objectives to draw them into punching range of my nasty units.

Need to make judgement based on your list and style, their list and what you think they will try to play like and the terrain set up. Thinking if an objective would be easy for you to hold, but also would it be hard for you to take if the opponent got it first.

I like to have a couple of defensive units that sit back so I like to give them objectives to hang out on that I specifically want to be hard to capture. Then if it's going in the middle of the table I want it to balance it's position more so I can get or take it, but also hold it. Sometimes you can take a risk by putting them in positions that aren't so great as a trap.

I always place one of my backfield objectives with my Mortar team. They sit back anyway and by sitting on an objective they can actually do something.
(They've won a game for me by doing this)

Regarding the others, I'd place them either with some other infantry of mine or in easily defensible locations.

When I play space wolves I try and put as many objectives on his side so that when I run my wolves up the field they art leaving behind objectives. In EW missions there isn't really a downside but in maelstrom it does make it easier for my opponent to get some early pints from the hold multiple objectives cards

As close to my opponent's objectives as possible. I play hyper aggressive lists, so I t no to be up in his face pretty quick.

I play a lot of swarmy nids and mobile gunline Tau in malestrom, so I like to keep objectives mostly midfeild as I am going to be pushing towards the opponents side of the board anyway and don't want to have to suddenly run back to my deployment zone.

EW games are a bit different. I keep one back and secured, then setup in places I can get to and defend or drive the opponent off off.

I put mine in my opponent's deployment zone. Then I deepstrike there.

 greyknight12 wrote:
I put mine in my opponent's deployment zone. Then I deepstrike there.

Don't most book missions have you placing the Objectives before rolling for table halves?

I thought that too.

Where you place objectives is directly dependent on how aggressive and mobile your army is.

Less agressive or highly mobile armies should aim to put objectives in the backfield, especially in table corners. When playing my Eldar, I like to set up large terrain pieces in each corner and put an objective in as many as possible depending on the mission. This lets me hedge my bets when rolling for table sides, and is also very effective in Maelstrom missions.

More aggressive armies should aim to put objectives more toward the center, if not directly in the center. Your army will probably advance straight down the table anyway, and it forces your opponent to come to you if they want to claim objectives (which is exactly what you want).

In my opinion, objectives should always be placed in cover. You never know what objectives you will have access to, and it does wonders for the survivability of objective holders/campers.

Putting objectives out in the open can be useful if you opponent has a army with poor armour saves. This forces them to be out in the open if they want the objective, which can be useful.

D

 Jimsolo wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
I put mine in my opponent's deployment zone. Then I deepstrike there.

Don't most book missions have you placing the Objectives before rolling for table halves?

Yeah but if you set up this way either you win the roll off and the objectives are in their half or your opponent wins and they have to decide if they want the tactical advantage of having the objectives but having that be part of your plan or trying to disrupt your plans by having less objectives and allowing you to sit on objectives and block their path to them. Of course if both players want objectives in the opponents deployment it's just the matter of the roll off.

I try to do two things

Firstly place some in the open, being Guard and having lots of vehicles, even if they get blown up they can provide cover for my troops. I'll also try and place them in place I can cover the objective but also capture it quickly.

I then will place another one of my objective near to the enemy, especially if they do the normal thing of placing them in their own deployment area. The main reason being is I can either capture, or knock out units in those places without spreading my force.

Basically the further back they place theirs, the further forward I place mine. I never intend to get all the objectives and set realistic goals. It means fairly often my opponent will have 1-2 units or characters on objectives doing very little. The main person I plays likes to hide chaos demon sorcerers out of view with his objectives.

Bring in deep striking storm troopers, with Wyverns, mixed with an armoured push I usually always break through while holding most if not all my own objective on the way.

Generally I take line of sight into account. Same with "misplaced" deep strike mishap. I try to put the objective out of line of sight of my opponent, but in line of sight of me. Generally if they cannot constantly see it, they might forget about it.

It's a dirty trick, but it works. If I play assault heavy, I usually put them mid field, or in my opponents table half. Otherwise I keep one near some cover for say, nurglings to chill out on. 100% in cover isn't always best, if you can get it out of cover, but you are in cover and holding it, you are golden. Then your opponent has a decent chance of being out in the open when contesting it.

I always try to place one in the middle that is out in the open. Just something to fight for

Let be honest most players don't like to switch sides of the table when picking deployments. You can exploit this by putting an objective or two in their on their half of the table. If I can place the first objective I usually put one in their side, then one in the middle, and one to either side of that. Making an objective rich environment on a section of the table. Always 12" away from each other. This then force my opponent to decide they want to keep that side of the table and not move their stuff or move and change paces with me. Keep in mind my objectives are already where I want them. Your opponent most likely placed objectives on the other side in response to where you placed yours. Winning the roll for placing objective first can be key to winning either maelstrom or Eternal war style of games.

Most of the guys in my group like to place each objective marker in the center of each 2x2 part of the board, then we roll scatter for them. Every time I've played a game where I try to place objective markers to my advantage, it just screws me over.

I put as many objectives as I can 17" in from each edge. I don't like it when they're hiding away in the back and I can't get to them readily from wherever I happen to get as a deployment zone.

It is list dependent, but I find I often put my objectives mid-field if I figure my list can just push into and past them. Otherwise, I place the objectives as far away from each other as possible to help spread my opponent out. I prefer to play my Harlequins & Eldar together, so their speed works really well with distant objective placements.

As an Ork player, in the middle where the metal meets the meat

My campaign-group always has a third part who builds the board with its terrain, and puts the objectives in cool places (still keeping it balanced).

I usually just out them in the opposit side of the board from. Where my opponent deployed his previous objective.

If I go first I usually deploy it in the middle, unless I know he has something like an aegis line, then I put it four inches away from where his deployment line is/ the deployment lines, if we do objectives first.