What exactly counts as an objective?

[ShadowCore67]

For the purposes of rules like Heart of the Legion, the unit gains bonuses while near an "Objective". It doesn't specify "Objective Marker". Does that mean in missions like Shatter Strike and Tide of Carnage, Heart of the Legion units would get the bonus if they're near the specified zones? The rulebook even talks about some objectives being zones instead of markers on page 307. 

[Gorgoff]

18 minutes ago, ShadowCore67 said:

For the purposes of rules like Heart of the Legion, the unit gains bonuses while near an "Objective". It doesn't specify "Objective Marker". Does that mean in missions like Shatter Strike and Tide of Carnage, Heart of the Legion units would get the bonus if they're near the specified zones? The rulebook even talks about some objectives being zones instead of markers on page 307. 

We played it the way that only objective markers are objectives. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

There are Primary Objectives, Secondary Objectives, and Objective markers in the rules. Of the three, only Objective markers are ever shorthanded as "Objective(s)" in the various missions.

To me, that means the objective markers are the objectives that activate heart of the legion.

[Claws and Effect]

I concur with the objective markers interpretation. 

But I do want to try house ruling the "get in this zone" objectives as counting too, see how it goes. 

[Chronotonic]

On 7/16/2022 at 1:45 AM, Claws and Effect said:

I concur with the objective markers interpretation. 

But I do want to try house ruling the "get in this zone" objectives as counting too, see how it goes. 

So if we are going to slay the warlord and we are in close combat with their warlord...?

[Brofist]

I actually differ on this, with the specific zone callout in the book, I interpret the Shatter Strike and Tide of Carnage scoring 'zones' as areas where your heart of the legion ability would trigger. This is of course notably different from 1.0.

[Orange Knight]

It represents the objective markers, not arbitrary locations on the tabletop.

Thematically, an objective is going to be something of interest that is tangible, hence the Legions are extra motivated to take it.

 

If we try to argue otherwise, you can then start to say that "Heart of the Legion" should trigger near the opposing player's warlord, as slaying the Warlord is a secondary objective. I think the argument starts to fall apart.

[Xenith]

3 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

It represents the objective markers, not arbitrary locations on the tabletop.

Apart from the missions that define the objectives as an [arbitrary] area of the battlefield as opposed to an objective marker, yes. 

[Brofist]

5 hours ago, Xenith said:

Apart from the missions that define the objectives as an [arbitrary] area of the battlefield as opposed to an objective marker, yes. 

and the objective section in core rules that says some missions will define objectives as areas of the battlefield...

[SmorcInc]

On 7/20/2022 at 3:09 PM, Brofist said:

and the objective section in core rules that says some missions will define objectives as areas of the battlefield...

Yeah because otherwise the mission where you can exchange objective markers for terrain features basically turns off heart of the legion if you decide to do that.

[SkimaskMohawk]

What this thread has really made me appreciate is how particularly bad the missions are.

Mission 1 is kill points. Mission 2 is pretty much kill points, but limited to turn 1. Mission 3 is line breaker, but doesn't need scoring. Mission 4 is 5 objectives with progressive scoring. Mission 5 is table thirds scoring, with line units being mandatory. Mission 6 is kill points with objectives, but none of the objectives could end up mattering. 

It's a safe enough gamble not to build your list around scoring objectives, and to focus on contesting and playing kill points. There's literally more kill point missions than objective focussed ones. 30k always had a unique take on what scored and contested; it was easier than 6ths "only troops score and contest" and stricter than 7ths "everything can, and we'll add super scoring". And the game was designed around objective missions that needed to be scored, missions that stayed the same through both 6th and 7th; 5 objective marker missions and 1 kill points. 

But the missions from tempest basically tossed out the concept of objective play, and even after making it harder to score, they still kept those missions! The removal of fearless sources, lowering leadership, adding stronger debuffs and axing the iron warriors trait makes it easier than ever to "contest" objectives as well. 

I was confused why they removed denial from vehicles and speeders. I think it's because people realized that you could just spam cheap, fast, slot efficient choices to deny any objectives. You still kind of can; outriders and scimitars are pretty cheap for that role.

Sorry for the thread derail, and the exhausted ramble. The rule book missions suck and work against the scoring system. Play crusade from 5th-7th. 

 

[ShadowCore67]

Definitely agree with the analysis. I just find it odd they'd give so many units a good rule that's useless in half the missions. Even more concerning as a DA player where the viability of one of my rites is heavily based on which mission is being played.