Interesting issue that came up recently regarding the scenario Two Fronts.
If you look at the 50mm objective side, and do the math it’s impossible for a large based model to score both objectives at once.
Each objective is 18 inches up the board, the objective itself is 1.969 inches wide making for 19.969 inches up on each side. So there’s 8.062 inches between the two of them, subtracting 6 inches from that for the control range of each objective gives us 2.062 inches between the two of them subtracting 1.969 gives us 0.093 inches which means there is 0.0465 inches on either side of your 50mm base trying to score both objectives. This is a incredibly small distance that will definitely be fudged on the table due to either player error or just the playmat being cut ever so slightly the wrong size.
Normally it wouldn’t be a huge deal, however in the two fronts scenario each player is actively attempting to score both objectives on either side because they’re specifically incentivised to do so.
So I have two questions.
Is a heavy cohort intended to be able to double score both 50mm objectives.
If not, is there a good way that we can ensure the vanishingly small distance that makes it impossible actually occurs on a real table?
One suggestion I heard is after setup to place a 50mm base dead center and move the objectives such that it can’t score both after initial setup for example.
I realize this much math sets off pedantry alarms but for this specific scenario that tiny little difference will make a huge impact in play from table to table based entirely on how close to exactly 48 inches the length of the table is.
There was a previous ruling for MK3 Steamrollers that a model could contest multiple scenario elements, but could control only 1. This was particularly applicable to battle engines and Colossal models which could be in range of multiple scenario elements.
I believe that rule element still stands, so that only 1 scenario element can be controlled by a single model at any one time. So the controlling player would need to declare which element they are controlling and which they are contesting. and would need 2 models to control both, regardless of base size and inadvertent knocking of scenario element markers.
A 50mm base is basically 2 inches so the math works
50mm = 1.9685 inches technically. 50mm has been seen as 2’’ normally
from a 4ft (48") board, its 18" to both 50mm, they are 2" each, leaving 8" between them allowing for a 50mm to stand betwix them and be within 3" of each.
48-18-18-2-2=8 -2 for the base and it 6
50mm has absolutely not been seen as 2" in the rules at any point in this games history.
Maybe they meant for one of the 50mm objectives to be 19" up and therefore let cohorts of any size score both, but the default assumption is that the rules do what they say. There isnt any ambiguity in language here, it is math.
Is this a question in regards to math, rules, or intent?
If both objectives are placed and a 50mm cohort model is found to be within scoring distance of eaxh objective then it would score both.
Im stating it this way more so to help with any other future potiental questions like this. So i apologize if it comes across as anything other than trying to be respectful
The intent of the packet is most important I think. Because if followed perfectly the scenario measurements make a situation where a 50 scores both objectives impossible. So a situation where that changes based on how precisely your playmat is cut feels bad.
Your suggestion seems to be play it as it lies, which changes the rules of the scenario from what is shown in the packet.
I stated that if it is found to be in scoring of both then it would score, this is not just in regards to tjis scenario but in general
My math is showing that a 50mm should not be able to score both in this scenario, if someone if able to show otherwise please help out with this.
There was a comment earlier in this thread about how you use to not be able to score 2 elements in previous editions. To my knowledge this is incorrect but the confusion comes from when, usually current terminology, leaders could not both score the same element so it would differ to the active player would score it.
Even at my store some of the mats are either miscut, or just old and the material itself just starts shrinking. So we make sure to use the tables as they are proper 48".
So to make sure everyone has a fun and clean game make sure to check game state and make corrections if need and can
You end up playing against a new opponent in a tournament. On his turn he kills some of your stuff from flank and finally proceeds to run a 50mm warjack in the middle of two objectives. At this point you mention that mathematically it is impossible to score both but your opponent measures the distances and ends up being in. How do you resolve a situation like this without at least one player feeling really bad?
I strongly encourage that the SR2024 document would be updated like for example a tactical tip saying “Remember that there is slightly over 8” between the two 50mm objectives and therefore one 50mm model cannot score both." Then it would be clear to both players. Making clean rules wouldn’t hurt anyone and it really isn’t that big effort to fix this among the few other uncertainties in the SR2024 package.
When measuring distances, you use actual measurements. Absolutely nothing in the rules says otherwise.