A couple of scenarios indicate you “must move” one or more objectives towards a concrete board edge or terrain objective a concrete distance.
If some objectives have its movement path totally or partially blocked due to the presence of models or obstructions:
Can this objective be selected to be moved a lower distance than the indicated in the SR until it gets bloked?
Can this distance be 0 if already in b2b?
For a moving objective, if there is a path that gets bloked lets say after 2" and another direction that can be moved the full 3", are we forced to take the direction of the full movement or can the objective be moved until it gets bloked (as movement is not required to be “direclty towards” different paths exist)?
if no objective can be moved due to table placement, do we simply ignore this scenario rule?
As in some scenarios “blocking the objective movement” can be a valid strategy to get some scenario points those corner cases may become relevant. Thanks for the clarification!
We’re supposed to get a minor SR2024 update and FAQ Insider sometime soon, probably this week or early next week, if I had to guess.
That being said, I can answer some of your questions with the document released on January 10.
All the objective movement rules used the word “toward” when describing how far they have to move. “Toward” has a specific rules definition:
(And, nobody get any goofy ideas and try to claim this doesn’t apply because the rule says “model” and we’re talking about board edges. We can all easily figure out the intent. Anybody who tries that gets turned into a chicken. )
So, if a scenario requires the objective to move 3", then – assuming there’s not a solid wall of models and movement-blocking terrain in the way – the objective is going to move 3", and it’s going to be at least some fraction of an inch closer to the opponent’s table edge than when it began.
If there’s something in the way (such as a model or piece of “I can’t put the objective on top of it” terrain like an obstacle or obstruction), the objective goes as far as it possibly can and stops, but if it moved at all it has to be some fraction of a measurement closer to the opponent’s table edge.
If you somehow utterly surround the objective with models and terrain and it absolutely, positively can’t move anywhere at all, and the above answer is not satisfactory, and you want to know what to do, then ask your TO so they can promptly turn you into a chicken.
Indeed my question was directed to the cases where the movement is blocked, and refering to how shall we understand the obligation behind the “must”.
Im clear on the “towards” vs “directly towards”, as well on the movement itself (wich practically is similar to a place completelly within 3, clokatrice style, and we all know that can be blocked at least partially)
The part about “otherwise, it must stop short” addresses that. (I was just having a bit of fun with the obvious silly bits.)
Essentially, you move if it is possible to move; otherwise, you try to move and stop short.
(But in practice, you’d have to really try to completely block all movement. Like, “I’m definitely giving up points and attacks everywhere else to keep my objective from moving, I’m a total sitting duck for my opponent” type of “really try”.)
Just want to add that you dont have to be a fraction closer. The towards rules allow you to be the same distance and since we are dealing with a board edge, you can just move completely laterally without an issue. No difference in practice, but dont stress about declaring a micron when you dont have to
Thank you. Even though I highlighted and read the sentence I quoted about “Toward”, old edition rules sometimes masquerade as current rules.
I feel like I have answered an inordinate number of rules questions lately and it’s sort of all blurring together.
The Objective rules also don’t say that you need to choose and have unblocked path. So, you could have one small based model that you run the Objective into and can’t get passed.
Also it is not said that the move must be in a straight line. So that would mean you could move 1.5" to one direction and 1.5" back.
I would really hope that these scenario objective movements would be crystal clear in the Steamroller package. Now there’s quite a lot of confusion.
Do you guys want “directly toward” objectives that slam everything in their path regardless of base size? Because this is how you get objectives that move directly toward and slam everything in their path regardless of base size.
I just want clear rules so that I don’t need to guess what the intent is. And especially that I don’t need to argue with a fellow player who interprets the rule differently than I do. The times of rolling D6 who is correct are in the past of my tabletop career.
Suppose you go to an event and you just wiggle an Objective while your opponent thinks it must move in a straight line towards the other side.
Ideally both players should have clear, direct understandings of what the game rules are like and how it will go.