Steamroller objectives and movement

Main question: When a scenario calls for an objective to move, must this movement be in a straight line and continuously in the same direction?

Further clarification:
To me, it seems clear that the answer to the above question is intended to be “yes”, but that’s not entirely clear from the wording.

From the wording of “towards” in the rulebook, it could be assumed that an objective could move parallel to a table edge when scenarios call for it to move towards one; then a person could argue that it doesn’t call for a continuous movement in the same direction, so the objective could move 1.5 in one direction, as long as it’s never further away from where it’s supposed to go; and then simply move back 1.5 to essentially end up in the same space. To me, this doesn’t seem intended, because if it were, the rule would simply state “up to X distance”.

If it doesn’t have to be a straight line, it also doesn’t seem intentional that this would basically mean that Battle Lines could remain static, by simply moving any objective back and forth.

Another reason why it doesn’t seem logical to allow for directional changes during this movement is because an objective can move through models and terrain, and the rules specifically call out what happens if it can’t move the full distance. This would be unnecessary if you could make turns.

Could this be clarified, or am I maybe missing something that should make it absolutely clear?

TL;DR: the intent seems to be that models must move continuously in a straight line. Am I correct in my assumption? And if yes, could the SR pack be changed to spell this out specifically?
Or, if I’m wrong, maybe it could simply be changed to “up to”, but then I question the point of having these rules in the first place.

PS: I was going to suggest using “pushed” instead of “move” wording, but I noticed in the rule book that Push also doesn’t specify a continuous line (but we all assume so, because we know English). So perhaps that should also be clarified, if deemed unclear?


Do you have a specific instance that you are thinking of in specific?

This is likely related.

Note that “toward” has a specific definition in the rules.

The most simple answer would be to change the wording in SR2024 that you can move the object “up to” the distance specified. Then we wouldn’t have these discussions.

But my understanding is that at least in Northern Europe we allow moving objective 1.5" right and then 1.5" left if you want the objective to stay in place. This is because it hasn’t been clarified so far and there’s nothing that disallows it.

This is actually answered in both the linked post and the core rules:

“Toward” allows the distance between models to remain the same. Therefore, the objective does not have to move.

(“Directly toward” does not have the “or remaining the same”, so models have to move some distance as a result of “directly toward”.)

I agree that it’s possible from the wording, but that makes the entirety of mandatory movement utterly useless. I firmly believe this loophole is unintended.

The post you linked was also never officially answered, and ended in uncertainty.

In Battle Lines, you must move an objective towards your opponent’s table edge. If you move it 1.5" left, then 1.5" right, you have effectively moved 0, but still satisfied the condition according to the movement rules.

I don’t believe that is intended. Something similar is possible on any scenario with moving objectives. If player’s are allowed to move however they wish, they could for instance, allow themselves to stay close enough to their scoring models on their opponent’s turn.

Again, I don’t believe this is intended, but like some others mentioned, there are places where this loophole is accepted, which is why I would like some clarification.

1 Like

Well this isn’t the only thing in SR2024 which isn’t totally clear. But for one reason or another the document is not updated and thus we have to live with what we have.

1 Like

I don’t think there’s an unintended loophole.

Our only movement choices (unless you want to write new movement rules specifically for these scenarios, and I wouldn’t) are “Toward” and “Directly toward”.

“Directly toward” in a tournament scenario has a lot of problems. I can see this happening roughly immediately:

…and so forth.

It’s all-around better to give the player agency with “Toward”.

I agree that it should use the “Toward” wording, but they could simply add “in a straight uninterupted line”.

I do, strongly, feel it’s a loophole, for the points I already mentioned; namely that it’s pointless to make the move mandatory if you can easily circumvent that within the rules.
I don’t believe PP intended this to be a non-rule.

There are also questions like could you prevent the movement by if you pick a line where the whole distance is blocked by models. So should you be able to game it like that.

Like I already said, the simple change would be to just add words “up to” to the movement distance. Then all these questions would be answered and the added bonus is that this is the way it is already played and it works totally fine.

1 Like

What stops someone from moving 0 inches “in a straight uninterrupted line”? :slight_smile:

But, pulling back just a little bit, think about it: either you hyper-specify the movement requirements to the point where it inconveniences players and TOs, or you give people the choice to not move the objective at all.

One way is consistent with the way movement has been in Warmachine forever; the other way is immensely “gameable” in a lot of ways, all of them negative.

For example: “You must move the objective 5 inches in a straight line directly toward the opponent’s deployment zone.” Aside from the fact that that is off-the-cuff still ambiguous and open to interpretation, let’s ask ourselves: what stops either player from putting a model in the required landing spot? It’s trivially easy to compute where that will be. What happens if they park a colossal there? What if terrain is blocking that spot, while the other objective on the other side of the table can keep moving, moving, moving?

Exactly how cruel and unbalanced do you think that clever, out-to-win players can make it? :slight_smile:

To your first question: the fact that it doesn’t say “up to”. The fact of the matter is that the way the rules are written is contradictory in several ways. Maybe my interpretation is indeed wrong, but I’d just like it to be clarified then, so there is no ambiguity in the future.

Placing models in a certain position is already how players traditionally interact with the scenario. I don’t really see how this is different, and I disagree about it being more or less “gameable” than other solutions.

Your last sentence is unnessecary; the issue here is the ambiguity of the way the rules are written, not any kind of person you may disagree with.

So just going to chime in and see what the core question is here if someone can help with that


Thanks for chiming in. My original question is basically if the intent is that Steamroller objectives move in a straight line until either they’ve went their full distance, or hit something they can’t move past?
Another interpretation is that they follow normal movement rules and are allowed to make directional changes, which means they could move “towards” something while continuously keeping the distance the same (allowed by wording of “towards”) and thus just move X" and then X" back while keeping distance the same. This second interpretation would mean that they are allowed to move 0", just with extra steps.

The rules in the steamroller document are a bit ambiguous on it.

For currently it is on the idea it follows the same game term as “towards” as established here and via link to core rules.

As for intent and the likes it was discussed during playtest about the issues that arise with this in regards to the intent of the objective actually moving vs always having an issue with uts ability to.

I know we are looking at it, whether it sees a minor update anytime soon is really rough to say. As for future steamroller i could say it could definitely be addressed then.

However anything you, or anyone finds, that continues to cause issues please submit feedback through the app as i promise it does get viewed and brought up in our discussions


Thank you for your comment; I don’t really agree, but at least now it’s clear, and we know it is being looked at, if needed.
Just to make sure, because you only mentioned “towards”, you also mean to say it follows normal movement rules, so objectives can change direction, or is that part actually intended to be a straight line?

Do you have any more insight into why the Steamroller rules are written in such a way to imply that an objective must move the full distance, if able, when it can be quite easily circumvented in this way?

I think there are many arguments for both sides laid out in this thread, so perhaps it would be good to pass this on to the team as feedback?
If that’s not possible, it’s a bit long to submit through the app. Is still valid, or is there a replacement under SFG?

So some insight, because during play test it was being discussed that it would have to move the full distance. But nothing practical could be reached by dealine. So towards being must always be moving closer. With real life math and human error always at odds, lol, this will need to be addressed in further editions of steamroller

There is a feedback button in the app which is the eay to submit thats the best


Thank you very much for that input; it’s good to know I’m at least not crazy. When I go into the app, the only feedback I can submit for the Steamroller document, is to send an email to

I have done so, because I do believe there is a satisfactory wording to be found, but I’m not entirely sure if that’s the correct channel, as the email address seems like general app support.

1 Like