Contesting no LOS objectives

[Fabrizio Anastasio]

Hi,

In a recent game, my adversary controlled an objective, with one squad at the very limit of the 3 inches needed to contest my attempt to control it.

In order to to stop me from kill his squad, he moved a tank in front of the squad and due to the presence of a building, it was impossible for me to shoot or assault such squad as the vehicle blocks LoS.

Now, if his squad could still contest the objective without having LoS to it, this would mean that I could contest an objective also behind any kind of obstacle that prevent LoS, such as a tall wall.

The rulebook doesn’t specify any requisite to control an objective beside being at 3 inches from it.

May I ask your opinion on the situation?

• This topic was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by Fabrizio Anastasio.

[Nat]

Yes, if LoS is not mentioned in the relavent rules for taking, holding or contesting objectives then there is no LoS requirements.

Although its worth noting that in some senarios vehicles can contest by not take or hold objectives.

[Fabrizio Anastasio]

It just feels like an unsporting attitude, and a bit unrealistic: if they are behind a wall (or a tank in this case) how they could effectively contest or occupy an objective they cannot see?

Anyway, thanks for the confirmation about the rules.

[Inquisitor]

Totally Unsporting and “gamey”… but about the unrealistic part… an objective is not secured if you know there are enemies on the other side of a wall (and an enemy tank in your nose) even if you can´t see them…

[Mike]

Generally speaking, I find that control of objectives brings out the worse with respect to “gamey” behaviors.  Often a game will be going along just fine and then on the last move crazy *!@#! starts to occur.  Perhaps a rule that the player with the most points within 3″ of an objective at the end of the game “owns” the objective.  It would prevent the last second dash of a 2-man unit to contest an objective with 15 model “veteran” and armed to the teeth unit already holding it.  Alternatively, all units contesting an objective at the end of a game conduct repeated assaults until only one side is left.  Armor units which fail to destroy the opponent will back away 6″.

[Nat]

Contesting is another way of saying that your forces havent secured the objective completely.

The problem is actually WHAT is the objective other than just a marker /made up game point – a VIP… well someone /something that can bump them off would be a problem to the securing unit
A cross roads – a single person with a grenade can block it by blowing up a truck delaying its use for a couple of hours (see hells highway!)… so a problem to the securing unit
etc etc

 

Personally I’ll move the objectives from where the scenario says to fit that board – ie that bridge is closer to one side than the other, but is more thematic than a random spot in the middle of the table.

• This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by Nat.

[Nat]

You have 3 states of objective in Bolt Action
Unclaimed
Secured (completely controlled by one side or other)
Contested (aka un-secured but predominently controlled by one side or other)

[Donald Linn]

Our reading of the rules suggests that there is no “contested “state. The objective is controlled by the side that captured it (legally) until the opponents clear all enemies from within 3″ and end their activation within 3”. Merely moving to 3″ does not change the status. We have found this to be helpful in resolving this issue! Hope that helps

[Mike]

There are two kinds of games… competitive gaming and uncompetitive gaming.  My experience is that competitive gaming while it may offer some enjoyment produces all sorts of “gamey” actions.  Uncompetitive gaming tries to be philosophical about the situation.  Ideally, the idea of “controlling” objectives infers some sort of strategic value represented by the objective.  For competitive gaming, the rules are the rules.  Strict interpretation of them is the only way to play.  I prefer uncompetitive gaming.  You don’t need a defined winner or loser, but simply an “outcome”.  Ideally, when a game ends, you assess how each side did relative to the “context” of the engagement, less so, on the absolute technical points.  So, while points can help influence the decision of the outcome, more importantly is the situation on the board relative to the “back story”.

[Author]

Posts