Defenses vs Objectives vs Objective Terrain

Defenses state that they “cannot be placed within 3 inches of an objective, obstruction, obstacle, or another defense terrain feature.”

The SR2024 scenarios create a differentiation between scoring “Objectives” and “Objective Terrain”

Can you place your defenses within 3" of “Objective Terrain” since it is a different table feature than an “Objective” or not?

1 Like

Objective terrain is still an objective. :slight_smile:


Oh, perfect. My brain totally viewed that as a throwaway sentence turns out.

1 Like

It does not look so obvious to me, as both placing defenses and choosing the objective terrain happen at the same step (“before deployment”).

So, can the player choose what to do first?
If defenses are placed first, they could be placed not being limitted by terrain objectives

Defenses card specifies defenses should be placed after objectives are placed. Shall we understand that asigning the flag to a terrain piece is part of the “placing objectives” step? Or this just refers to placing the flag, objectives and cache in the right position?

1 Like

Placing defenses occurs after choosing terrain objective

Oh, thanks. I missed that
Where is this specified?

In the giant SR thread

1 Like

I was reading all the rules and SR and could not find anything there

So i guess its something to be clarified on the future

Great that Loren is answering all those questios here for the moment!

1 Like

Just bear in mind that Objective terrain is not Objective in Payload scenario.

It’s definitely still an objective; it’s just not an objective that players can score. :slight_smile:

The objective terrain in that scenario is the landing zone for the mobile objective and that sweet sweet 5 VP!

1 Like

That’s your opinion but the rules do not say so. Nothing says that it would be an Objective as you can’t even score it.

EDIT: The rules of this Payload scenario say exactly that you get 1 VP for Securing an Objective. Because you do not get points from securing a Terrain Objective it cannot be an Objective.

1 Like

Not trying to derail the thread any further, but I have three points to make:

  1. The word “objective” is literally in its name. :stuck_out_tongue:

  2. Nowhere do the rules say that objectives are only objectives if they can be scored, nor do they say they cease being objectives if they cannot be scored. None of the base scenario element rules say anything about VPs. More generally, the rules do not say that “scenario elements are only scenario elements if they can be scored.”

  3. Other scenarios explicitly spell out VPs for the different kinds of scenario elements: caches, objectives (understood as “those 30 mm, 40 mm, and 50 mm things”), and objective terrain. That usage is a bit inconsistent among scenarios — some call out the different sizes and some just say “objective” —, but we’ve already been told to expect document updates.

Let’s apply your logic to this example: suppose a scenario has a cache, a 30mm objective, and a 50mm objective. This scenario’s rules do not list any VPs gained for securing a cache or 50mm objective. Players only earn VPs for securing 30mm objectives.

Can a player still secure the cache? (Yes, by definition.)

What about the 50mm objective; can players still secure it? (It also still has objective rules by definition, so yes.)

Is the cache still a cache? (Yes. It is defined as a cache. Any further explanation delves into tautological territory.) Is the 50mm objective still an objective? (Yes; see previous.)

By your logic, because the scenario does not grant VP for securing the cache or 50mm objective, such a cache would not be a cache and the 50mm objective is not an objective.

Objective terrain is still objective terrain (and still an objective!) regardless of whether it can be scored. :slightly_smiling_face:

Your third point is the most relevant in here. This should be updated so that rules are consistent.

Otherwise if there would be a scenario with non-scorable caches or non-scorable 50mm objectives your arguments to apply my logic would be valid. There isn’t.

1 Like

I’m not exactly certain what your last point is, but it seems like you’re still asserting that the objective terrain in the Payload scenario is not an objective. Which, relevant to the original topic, means players could place Defenses within 3" of objective terrain, or even within objective terrain.

I am crafting the following reply to the assumed assertion above. If it is the case that you still disagree, this will be my absolute last word on this topic. :slight_smile: If that is not the case; my apologies! I’m not trying to be argumentative; I’m just trying to explain in the clearest possible terms why it works the way it works.

Here’s what the January 10 Steamroller packet says about Scenario Elements:


Objective terrain is a scenario element. Yes?
(Yes, by definition)

Here’s what the Objective Terrain scenario element does. The highlighted sentence is especially important.

Is Objective Terrain still a scenario element?
Yes. It is a scenario element, by definition.

Is Objective Terrain, according to the definition given above, an objective?
Yes. It is an objective, by definition.

Can players secure objective terrain?
Yes. Players can secure objective terrain, by definition.

Do any of the rules provided so far mention victory points at all?
No. Victory Points are not mentioned at all in the definitions for Objectives, Objective Terrain, or Caches. Nothing has changed regarding objective terrain’s status as an objective.

The only time VPs are mentioned at all in the Scenario Elements section at all is the part about how VPs stand as scored even if there was a positioning error, which is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

So, because the rules so far have not given any further, contradictory definitions for objective terrain, the definitions above stand.

I’m not going to quote anything from Payload itself, because it’s irrelevant. Absolutely nothing in Payload says anything that changes the definition of objective terrain. Payload would need to provide a definition for objective terrain that supersedes the base objective terrain rules, and it does not.

Objective terrain is an objective, by definition, and thus players cannot place Defenses within 3" of it. I hesitate to say “Q.E.D.” here, but it is very appropriate. :sweat_smile:

And if you want the absolute, tippy-top, very last word on the topic, please see Septic’s direct quote of Loren who specifically says that you can’t place defenses within 3" of objective terrain. And if you want to argue that with the person who wrote the rule, best of luck to you! :smiley: