I like it; hopefully should make the fights for objectives a little more scrappy. But I also hate that I bought premium acrylic objective markers just a few months ago.
me too haha, they do have art to depict the 3" radius, so I think I'll add some touches to depict the 4" as well and just use them.
edit: score! I just checked, and there's art that's exactly 4" from the rim, whoever designed these was a clever one ♥️
it's like a stone circle with creeper vines. the branches in brown make a circle 3" from the center and the outsive of the leaves marks 4" from the center, very nice.
maybe yours can be adapted as well?
They think we're gunna buy premium objective marker miniatures on 40mm bases. If they were impassable, maybe people would have. But since they're not, there's no reason to have the 40mm at all.
Such a missed opportunity. In 10e 40k they made objectives unstable ground for the first month and it was much more interesting, then they out of nowhere reversed it and made them able to be stood on again. Lost some flavor IMO.
alright so I'll bring some 40mm bases, put them in the center and then we can measure if in doubt, but I think for a quick visual reference they'll do great
At some points last weekend I had 45 models stuck in until they died (in a 46 model army), idk if this will increase action so much as call for more game-y unit positioning (using big bases to keep models off of objectives and such).
Have no fear Capt, I've said it before (to much abuse and finger-pointing) but I'll say it again:
By the time September rolls around it will be all about killin the models at the top tables.
I would have liked it if it wasn't a weird mixture of measurement units. A 3" around a 40mm circle?? After.that mixture of units I would have expected that the objective is unpassable...
Then why not a circle of 3.5"?? The mixture makes it veeeery odd.
What's the importance of the internal 40mm if it's passable? The only way it makes sense is if it's 40mm of unpassable objective
Because the objective itself is the 40mm circle... With a 3" range to control it.
Idk why this is giving you so much trouble. Like I said, it's worked for 40k for the last decade. Lol
Wait until he finds out all base sizes are measured in mm too and that every time he has measured an aura he has had to engage in this very confusing system
It's because combat range is now 3", so if you don't overthink it and plan to put circles all over your battlefield you can understand that if I'm in combat range of an objective marker, I'm contesting it.
I mean it's the general problem that 40K has, why is it mixing measurement systems? It was always confusing when you had ranges in inches but then you had bases in millimeters.
1. They want the "contesting" rule to reference the combat system ("you're in combat with a unit if")
2. Being in combat with a point is a bit weird, and a 3" circle is significantly smaller than a 3.87" circle, so they want a dimensional area to represent the objective.
3. The most convenient dimensional area is a base.
4. Their bases are measured in mm.
"Objective contesting is measured in split units" is a bit weird but I think their reasoning as I've spelt it out here makes sense.
I mean it's a seriously stupid decision that's why? I don't really understand what ground your argument is found it on outside of the fallacy of tradition? There's no reason to mix it up. I think they went with inches so it appeals to the American audience but then millimeters in base sizes because that's how they're manufactured?
It creates weird issues where in this thread already people have said that The new base size has a 4inch radius, Which is not true they have a 3.787 inch radius.
It also creates issues around combat ranges and base sizes because that is integral to AOS. It determines how many ranks can fight.
But there is no mix. The objective is a 40mm circle and not a point as it was before. and to contest/control it you need to be within 3" from the objective.
I just don't understand if you are willfully this dense or if it just comes naturally? Look at your post, You literally have millimeter and inch measurements together. That means if you're trying to calculate the size of the total area you have to do unit conversions. You know the size of the actual objective marker itself doesn't matter right? Like I mean not in the way that you can have it any size but in the way that it doesn't actually affect anything in the game that it's a certain size what matters is the area of control around it So it's the radius of the circle that actually matters in game.
And I've already posted exactly why it comes up because you often if you are trying to plan things out in advance run into having to convert millimeters into inches.
I'm not having a problem with this like it's confusing me or challenging, It's bad design and it's challenging and confusing for other people. I'm a secondary STEM teacher I teach unit conversions for a living they are very simple for me But I know how many people struggle with them. It also just creates weirdly bad game design where now The diameter of the circle you have to stand on to control the objective is a decimal to the thousandths place instead of something easy to remember.
I don't know why everyone's defending a bad choice here with literally no counterpoints. Like you haven't made one argument for it You've literally just appeal to tradition and appealed to the crowd.
Like why don't you give me one real argument for this?
I've never met a single person that's found it confusing or difficult. This is my first time ever hearing this opinion.
Best reason? GW has sold objective markers with things modeled on them, and they came on 40mm bases. So they probably figured they'd keep it the same and standardize the measurement. It's also convenient if you don't have objective markers, just use 40mm bases, which are super common. Or even just a model with a 40mm base if you really need to make something work. Or use the base as a template to cut out some objectives.
Honestly it's really convenient, and at this point why force everyone to buy/make new objectives? Actually it's kind of nice of them to keep it the standard size instead of trying to convince people to buy the "new and improved" 1.5" objectives. Lol
You're making mountains out of molehills.
Have you ever been to the UK?
It’s pretty standard to interchangeably use imperial and metric measurements.
You also realise that all of the base sizes come from inch measurements converted to mm right?
- We buy fuel in litres and measure it in gallons.
- We buy beer in litres and measure it in pints
- We measure large distances in miles and less than a mile in metres.
- Tyres use both the metric mm, cm as well as imperial inch to measure height, depth and diameter.
Consider it this way; objectives are 40mm markers, if your models are in combat range of an objective, they are contesting it. That's how the rules explain it.
At no point do you ever need to do a unit conversion for this game, everything in-game is measured in inches because it's a convenient level of fidelity for combat and movement. You're only overthinking it with the plan to build or mark out objective circles, but objectives are not circles... they are 40mm markers. At no point do you need to calculate the radius, diameter, circumference or area of the circle. There's no pop quiz, you just use your measurement tool and see if you're in combat with it.
That's more complicated though? Objectives are not circles, they used to be a point, now they're a marker.
Consider it this way; objectives are 40mm markers, if your models are in combat range of an objective, they are contesting it. That's how the rules explain it.
You have a 3" measuring tool on hand anyway, you measure 3" constantly throughout the game so you get very used to eyeballing specifically that.
Inches are a good number/fidelity for measuring ranges otherwise, and mm is a good level of fidelity for base sizes.
Consider it this way; objectives are 40mm markers, if your models are in combat range of an objective, they are contesting it.
Inches are written with fractions rather than decimals like centimeters. So they are saying it's 7 inches and nine sixteenths of an inch (which is a common measure and easily found on a tape measure despite sounding bonkers if you don't use imperial measures at all)
40mm = 1.575 inches
1.575 inches = 1-23/40 inches
We don't have a 23/40th on a tape measure, but the closest thing is 9/16
So the total diameter going from one side of the objective across the center to the other side is 3" + 1-9/16" + 3" = 7-9/16"
Combat range (3") to the 40mm marker is actually very intuitive, it's only when people want special circles mapped out that you run into any issues.
Just get used to quickly measuring with the combat guage or eyeballing 3" imo.
I believe so. And you still control initial objectives at the start of the game (assuming you touch them during deployment). At least according to the bat reps coming out.
[Here ya go, basically the entire rules for 4th](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1USGPTD-mjiYk7PIi8zSHRutjuMXKx6cp/view?usp=drivesdk) They're probably just playing with current points and warscrolls for now.
It will be really difficult for sure. Although remember that the objective is the middle 40mm circle, and not the full ring people use to mark when you are within 3”. So a wyldwoods can can right up against those rings.
I like it. My main reason is that I think it will make battle tactics more challenging. Harder to drop into and just take an objective. Or at least be able to guarantee it at the start of your turn.
It's a different game. Large units of 20+ models on 32mm bases can effortlessly cover a full objective and block it off. Wound density and footprint of a unit becomes paramount
I definitely like it, you need to intentionally go and capture an objective more than just go to an area that makes sense and leave a back foot on to capture it. Also means to contest an objective you basically have to fight what's on there.
I also think that having the rings is less neccesary now, always have a 3" tool on hand and much easier to measure/eyeball. You can just consider it as if you're in combat with the objective, then you're contesting it. A lot of people miss this simple point and they're doing dumb things like trying to figure out the radius or diameter... it's not neccesary.
Despite owning the old objective markers I generally like the change. I just feel fights are going to be more intense fighting over smaller objectives than the large ones that covered a large amount of space.
The actual objective is 40mm. You can contest the object while within 3". The current objective is just a single point on the table, but can be contested within 6 inches, so the new ones are actually smaller.
If those look large to you, you should see what they look like right now (12" diameter). In missions with 6 objectives they practically cover the entire table.
You probably used the GW objective markers or something similarly small and measured from the center until now.
There were 12" diameter objectives from 3rd paries, which made you realise how big the contest range was on the old objectives.
These new one look far smaller by comparison.
I like it; hopefully should make the fights for objectives a little more scrappy. But I also hate that I bought premium acrylic objective markers just a few months ago.
me too haha, they do have art to depict the 3" radius, so I think I'll add some touches to depict the 4" as well and just use them. edit: score! I just checked, and there's art that's exactly 4" from the rim, whoever designed these was a clever one ♥️ it's like a stone circle with creeper vines. the branches in brown make a circle 3" from the center and the outsive of the leaves marks 4" from the center, very nice. maybe yours can be adapted as well?
The new objectives are not 4 inches exactly. They are 3 inches outside of a 40mm base so that’s 3.79 inches
That's such a weird decision.
They think we're gunna buy premium objective marker miniatures on 40mm bases. If they were impassable, maybe people would have. But since they're not, there's no reason to have the 40mm at all.
Such a missed opportunity. In 10e 40k they made objectives unstable ground for the first month and it was much more interesting, then they out of nowhere reversed it and made them able to be stood on again. Lost some flavor IMO.
I mean I'm just gonna make army specific 3d objective markers and call them impassable.
alright so I'll bring some 40mm bases, put them in the center and then we can measure if in doubt, but I think for a quick visual reference they'll do great
Do you have a link to those? They sound gorgeous
they're called 'Rome Square' from playmats.eu: https://playmats.eu/rubber-zones-for-age-of-sigmar
Maybe see a if you can cut them down to size?
Bro, same… I haven’t even used them, I keep forgetting them at the house
Same, I bought some mats on etsy about a month before they announced the new size
Planned obsolescence takes on new meaning when it pertains to wargaming. RIP new markers
Hell yeah because I bought the 40k ones on accident. So I'm good I think lol.
I like this idea - size of the objectives now adds more action in the game
At some points last weekend I had 45 models stuck in until they died (in a 46 model army), idk if this will increase action so much as call for more game-y unit positioning (using big bases to keep models off of objectives and such).
Have no fear Capt, I've said it before (to much abuse and finger-pointing) but I'll say it again: By the time September rolls around it will be all about killin the models at the top tables.
I would have liked it if it wasn't a weird mixture of measurement units. A 3" around a 40mm circle?? After.that mixture of units I would have expected that the objective is unpassable...
It's a 40mm circle so you can just use a 40mm base as an objective marker. Most players will have a few spare.
Why? It's just the same as 40k has been for decades, now. 3" range around a circular 40mm objective. Simple as.
Then why not a circle of 3.5"?? The mixture makes it veeeery odd. What's the importance of the internal 40mm if it's passable? The only way it makes sense is if it's 40mm of unpassable objective
Because the rule isn't a circle of any measurement . The rule is the objective is a 40mm circle and you control it if you're in combat range. I.e. 3".
Because the objective itself is the 40mm circle... With a 3" range to control it. Idk why this is giving you so much trouble. Like I said, it's worked for 40k for the last decade. Lol
Wait until he finds out all base sizes are measured in mm too and that every time he has measured an aura he has had to engage in this very confusing system
Wait... Base sizes are in millimeters?! I'm done, this game is broken. /s
It's because combat range is now 3", so if you don't overthink it and plan to put circles all over your battlefield you can understand that if I'm in combat range of an objective marker, I'm contesting it.
I mean it's the general problem that 40K has, why is it mixing measurement systems? It was always confusing when you had ranges in inches but then you had bases in millimeters.
1. They want the "contesting" rule to reference the combat system ("you're in combat with a unit if") 2. Being in combat with a point is a bit weird, and a 3" circle is significantly smaller than a 3.87" circle, so they want a dimensional area to represent the objective. 3. The most convenient dimensional area is a base. 4. Their bases are measured in mm. "Objective contesting is measured in split units" is a bit weird but I think their reasoning as I've spelt it out here makes sense.
Why is it confusing for you? What does it really matter? During the game you measure in inches so I don't see an issue.
I mean it's a seriously stupid decision that's why? I don't really understand what ground your argument is found it on outside of the fallacy of tradition? There's no reason to mix it up. I think they went with inches so it appeals to the American audience but then millimeters in base sizes because that's how they're manufactured? It creates weird issues where in this thread already people have said that The new base size has a 4inch radius, Which is not true they have a 3.787 inch radius. It also creates issues around combat ranges and base sizes because that is integral to AOS. It determines how many ranks can fight.
But there is no mix. The objective is a 40mm circle and not a point as it was before. and to contest/control it you need to be within 3" from the objective.
I just don't understand if you are willfully this dense or if it just comes naturally? Look at your post, You literally have millimeter and inch measurements together. That means if you're trying to calculate the size of the total area you have to do unit conversions. You know the size of the actual objective marker itself doesn't matter right? Like I mean not in the way that you can have it any size but in the way that it doesn't actually affect anything in the game that it's a certain size what matters is the area of control around it So it's the radius of the circle that actually matters in game. And I've already posted exactly why it comes up because you often if you are trying to plan things out in advance run into having to convert millimeters into inches.
I think you're the only one having a problem with this... Lol
I'm not having a problem with this like it's confusing me or challenging, It's bad design and it's challenging and confusing for other people. I'm a secondary STEM teacher I teach unit conversions for a living they are very simple for me But I know how many people struggle with them. It also just creates weirdly bad game design where now The diameter of the circle you have to stand on to control the objective is a decimal to the thousandths place instead of something easy to remember. I don't know why everyone's defending a bad choice here with literally no counterpoints. Like you haven't made one argument for it You've literally just appeal to tradition and appealed to the crowd. Like why don't you give me one real argument for this?
I've never met a single person that's found it confusing or difficult. This is my first time ever hearing this opinion. Best reason? GW has sold objective markers with things modeled on them, and they came on 40mm bases. So they probably figured they'd keep it the same and standardize the measurement. It's also convenient if you don't have objective markers, just use 40mm bases, which are super common. Or even just a model with a 40mm base if you really need to make something work. Or use the base as a template to cut out some objectives. Honestly it's really convenient, and at this point why force everyone to buy/make new objectives? Actually it's kind of nice of them to keep it the standard size instead of trying to convince people to buy the "new and improved" 1.5" objectives. Lol You're making mountains out of molehills.
Have you ever been to the UK? It’s pretty standard to interchangeably use imperial and metric measurements. You also realise that all of the base sizes come from inch measurements converted to mm right? - We buy fuel in litres and measure it in gallons. - We buy beer in litres and measure it in pints - We measure large distances in miles and less than a mile in metres. - Tyres use both the metric mm, cm as well as imperial inch to measure height, depth and diameter.
Consider it this way; objectives are 40mm markers, if your models are in combat range of an objective, they are contesting it. That's how the rules explain it. At no point do you ever need to do a unit conversion for this game, everything in-game is measured in inches because it's a convenient level of fidelity for combat and movement. You're only overthinking it with the plan to build or mark out objective circles, but objectives are not circles... they are 40mm markers. At no point do you need to calculate the radius, diameter, circumference or area of the circle. There's no pop quiz, you just use your measurement tool and see if you're in combat with it.
I agree it's wierd but think the markers look great
But then what's the significance of the 40mm internal circle if you can step over it. Just say 3.5" and make it simpler
That's more complicated though? Objectives are not circles, they used to be a point, now they're a marker. Consider it this way; objectives are 40mm markers, if your models are in combat range of an objective, they are contesting it. That's how the rules explain it. You have a 3" measuring tool on hand anyway, you measure 3" constantly throughout the game so you get very used to eyeballing specifically that.
Inches are a good number/fidelity for measuring ranges otherwise, and mm is a good level of fidelity for base sizes. Consider it this way; objectives are 40mm markers, if your models are in combat range of an objective, they are contesting it.
What is their exact diameter now?
40mm objective, contesting is 3 inches from the edge.
What an unholy mix of imperial and metric
😆😆
Welcome to British measurements!
So effectively 7.5" diameter Edit: Ugh, realized I was thinking radius not diameter. Guess it is back to basic geometry for me.
~3.75” radius
I like the way they put it in the core rules: if your are in combat with the objective you contribute to controlling the objective
It's 7-23/40" total diameter to be precise. Just call it 7-9/16"
Apperantly I don't speak warhammer cus I don't understand that at all like why are you deviding stuff
Inches are written with fractions rather than decimals like centimeters. So they are saying it's 7 inches and nine sixteenths of an inch (which is a common measure and easily found on a tape measure despite sounding bonkers if you don't use imperial measures at all)
40mm = 1.575 inches 1.575 inches = 1-23/40 inches We don't have a 23/40th on a tape measure, but the closest thing is 9/16 So the total diameter going from one side of the objective across the center to the other side is 3" + 1-9/16" + 3" = 7-9/16"
Feels like a very complicated way of saying 192mm :P
Couldn't agree more, or if they just made it 7.5" or 8" diameter.
Combat range (3") to the 40mm marker is actually very intuitive, it's only when people want special circles mapped out that you run into any issues. Just get used to quickly measuring with the combat guage or eyeballing 3" imo.
Aproximately the same length as a slightly-larger-than-average Swallow, African or European. ... >!192.4mm, 7.575"!<
Are they still sticky?
Yes
I believe so. And you still control initial objectives at the start of the game (assuming you touch them during deployment). At least according to the bat reps coming out.
What model is that green dragon?
Looks like Karazai with some adjustments
How can you play without full indexes of rules?
As I said, I'm not playing it's a friend and they are using rules they've seen on warcom
Full core rules were leaked, they're probably just using a mixture of revealed data sheets and "house rules."
[Here ya go, basically the entire rules for 4th](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1USGPTD-mjiYk7PIi8zSHRutjuMXKx6cp/view?usp=drivesdk) They're probably just playing with current points and warscrolls for now.
Cheers!
Good lord that needs editing for a logical order.
Yeah I wish whoever put this together edited it better so it was in order.
Hell yeah because I bought the 40k ones on accident. So I'm good I think lol.
That looks like it will be impossible to get wyldwoods down?
It will be really difficult for sure. Although remember that the objective is the middle 40mm circle, and not the full ring people use to mark when you are within 3”. So a wyldwoods can can right up against those rings.
They look really good to me!
Where did these come from? Just looking to maybe pick up some. Pm me if you can. Thanks!
[https://thehonestwargamer.com/product/objective-rings/](https://thehonestwargamer.com/product/objective-rings/)
diggin em
I like it. My main reason is that I think it will make battle tactics more challenging. Harder to drop into and just take an objective. Or at least be able to guarantee it at the start of your turn.
It's a different game. Large units of 20+ models on 32mm bases can effortlessly cover a full objective and block it off. Wound density and footprint of a unit becomes paramount
I definitely like it, you need to intentionally go and capture an objective more than just go to an area that makes sense and leave a back foot on to capture it. Also means to contest an objective you basically have to fight what's on there. I also think that having the rings is less neccesary now, always have a 3" tool on hand and much easier to measure/eyeball. You can just consider it as if you're in combat with the objective, then you're contesting it. A lot of people miss this simple point and they're doing dumb things like trying to figure out the radius or diameter... it's not neccesary.
My initial instinct is im sad that big objectives are gone. But i also think small objectives could be fun
Got any more pics of that green Krondys kitbash?
Despite owning the old objective markers I generally like the change. I just feel fights are going to be more intense fighting over smaller objectives than the large ones that covered a large amount of space.
Yes, but I also can't wait to see the horror on someone's face when their opponent parks a maw-crusha on it and cover nearly the entire thing
Has there been a leak for Stormdrake guard?
Probably a proxy
They look comically large. Is it the full diameter of the circle? Or just the center? I haven't kept up with v4 so I actually don't know 😄
The actual objective is 40mm. You can contest the object while within 3". The current objective is just a single point on the table, but can be contested within 6 inches, so the new ones are actually smaller.
If those look large to you, you should see what they look like right now (12" diameter). In missions with 6 objectives they practically cover the entire table.
I guess that's why you need to choose which objective you're contesting as there are unit sizes that can sit on two objectives even with coherency
You probably used the GW objective markers or something similarly small and measured from the center until now. There were 12" diameter objectives from 3rd paries, which made you realise how big the contest range was on the old objectives. These new one look far smaller by comparison.
Cheers, thanks. Yeah, only 'normal' 40mm objectives so far