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.

I agree - I think objectives need to have the stipulation that they're 18" from the long edges and 12" from the short edges (until there's no room for any more, then you reduce it to 12" and 6")

tetrisphreak wrote:I agree - I think objectives need to have the stipulation that they're 18" from the long edges and 12" from the short edges (until there's no room for any more, then you reduce it to 12" and 6")

That would favor assault armies a lot. I think any of the following might work:
1: Objectives scatter 2-3d6
2: Your roll between 3 different objective setups presented in the book

I think it's fine as is, and have certainly had varied placement in the couple of games I've played. You are going to place objectives based on your army and your opponent's army. An army based on short range or assault is going to want to push those objects as close together as possible to maximize the use of their units.

Illumini wrote:One of my main issues with these rules is objective placement. I would think that objectives will be placed almost identically in 99% of all games - 3 12" from one player's long egde, and 2 12" from the other player's long egde. There are few insentives to do anything else.

I know what you are getting at but it depends on army and matchup and terrain. Some armies will prefer objectives in the middle or short board edges and that can dictate where you put objectives. Say for instance facing a ton of potential outflankers, putting objectives anywhere near board edges could be a mistake, so just lining your long table edge is not ideal. You may try instead for placing objectives near the center table and let your army control the game from there. There's also agressive armies that don't want objectives anywhere near there own table edge. It really just depends.

I think the objective placement is OK. It is tough to manage properly on a table that has only so much space. For a flexible system meant to scale with points, and considering SPs, I think it works.

Yeah, agressive armies love middle of the board objectives. Turn 1 doesnt count, so run up the board 12 or more inches. Start of turn 2 you are scoring the middle objectives. then you run forward turn 2 to score the enemies objectives turn 3, or leave a congo line back to the midfield objectives if you cant reach the enemies objectives.