Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I pine for book missions as those work so well.

I may have to rewrite my list for this as my shooty army isn't really going to like these missions much unless I get lucky with the fog dissipating early in scenario 1 and to not pull a fast assault army scenario 3.

Well, we shall see, I want that army so definitely playing for the win.

Good luck to everyone! I look forward to hearing how everything shakes down.

I think I'm sticking with my stunlocker list. 'Nids aren't known for mobility, with the exception of our frail winged choices (none of which are scoring). Yes, these missions shall certainly be interesting.

I play the same list regardless of tournament, opposition, or scenarios (take all comers), so not having the missions early doesn't effect me needing to change my list up; although not having them to read in advance, think about in terms of mission and what I need to accomplish, and brainstorm worst-case scenarios/matchups is REALLY annoying.

- For Scenario 3, it should clarify that they meant to say Troops "choices" rather than units. That's not an unreasonable condition, but it should be confirmed to stave off inevitable uncertainty.

Based on the quote above it looks like they may have already changed the wording.

For scenario 3, my copy reads "+1 If you killed more troop choices (dedicated transports do not count) than they killed of your own."

I think he was advocating for a change to troop -units- or a clarification that they did mean -choices-, as a troop choice for IG could be upwards of 12(?- how many SWS/HWS can you field?) different units, not taking into account dedicated transports. Do they really mean I need to kill 73 models in 12 different units to count? Maybe... but unlikely.

Scenario 2: A tie will occur if neither player controls more objectives than their opponent and neither player has 4 or more kill points than their opponent.


And if he does score more than 5 KPs? The game explodes? Minor Victory?

Cant really be a minor victory according to the rules.. Whoever can clean up their models the quickest gets +1 bonus point!

I wish I had enough points of daemons. All 3 missions favor a daemon build. Daemonic assault and ignore all the showing up shenanigans. What happens if on turn one you kill off your opponet before the rest of his army shows up. Does that mean its a massacre?

Example: Opponent places 1 unit. I kill that unit outright on turn one. What then? Or does it automatically give him a turn still?

An opponent only counts as tabled if you kill all of his units, or the last turn ends with him having nothing on the table.

So, no, if you kill their one unit, the game doesn't end. Do Daemons automatically lose on turn 1 when they have nothing on the table?

An opponent only counts as tabled if you kill all of his units, or the last turn ends with him having nothing on the table.

So, no, if you kill their one unit, the game doesn't end. Do Daemons automatically lose on turn 1 when they have nothing on the table?

No as you can hold all models in reserve if you so chose to do so. I thought if you killed all of your opponets models that are on the board then the game ends. Correct me if I am wrong because I am unsure on how this is ruled.

You're wrong. If your opponent still has models in reserve, the game doesn't end.

It's less clear on whether the game ends that turn if you do kill all his models, but the missions state that you can use any remaining turns to take objectives, so that's good.

For the scenario for using Dawn of War, DoW specifically states units NOT kept in reserve move on from your table edge on turn 1 thus they can not use the 2nd table edge for deploying.

The troop choice bonus sucks, but it clearly does not state troop units.

Doomgrin wrote:For the scenario for using Dawn of War, DoW specifically states units NOT kept in reserve move on from your table edge on turn 1 thus they can not use the 2nd table edge for deploying.

Actually, no, that's not quite what it says. It says:
"All units that were not deployed, and were not declared to be in reserve during deployment, must enter the game in the Movement phase of their first player turn by moving in from their own table edge, just like units moving in from reserve."

Just like moving in from reserve............... Sounds like they can use the side edge to me.

If don_mondo has the precise wording (No BRB at work for me to glance at) I agree. moving just like reserves would dictate to me that I may use the side edge rolled for at the start of turn 1.

Also note, normal reserves come in during turn 2, if the rule were meant just for them shouldn't that be the turn you roll to see which side your stuff comes in? I think that since we have to figure it out before the first model hits the table the side edge is part of the 'walk in' edge, basically giving you an L-shaped deployment zone. Internesting.

Dashofpepper wrote:I play the same list regardless of tournament, opposition, or scenarios (take all comers), so not having the missions early doesn't effect me needing to change my list up; although not having them to read in advance, think about in terms of mission and what I need to accomplish, and brainstorm worst-case scenarios/matchups is REALLY annoying.

I just like the "Dashofpepper Clause" in missions one and two that says tabling opponents is only a major victory. Its like GW is deliberately trying to force people to play for objectives instead of the simple of joy of killing. But seriously, my army is built the same way. I'm going to do a little wargaming on the scenarios but they won't affect how I've built my list in the slightest.

I would say that the scenarios shouldn't affect the list itself, but rather how you use the list to its max effectiveness.

PanzerLeader wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I play the same list regardless of tournament, opposition, or scenarios (take all comers), so not having the missions early doesn't effect me needing to change my list up; although not having them to read in advance, think about in terms of mission and what I need to accomplish, and brainstorm worst-case scenarios/matchups is REALLY annoying.

I just like the "Dashofpepper Clause" in missions one and two that says tabling opponents is only a major victory. Its like GW is deliberately trying to force people to play for objectives instead of the simple of joy of killing. But seriously, my army is built the same way. I'm going to do a little wargaming on the scenarios but they won't affect how I've built my list in the slightest.

I don't get what you're saying....

Eh... these missions kill tau as usual. I can't wait till they get a good codex again.

on top of that I like the L shaped deployment zones. It makes for an interesting game... I hae a feeling keeping 1-2 assaulty units in reserve will be good for this one...

I plan to do some list tailoring. For example, sentinels wouldn't usually make the cut, but with searchlights they could rock scenario 1. Scenario 3 will make KP protection a bit easier, since you have 10 feet of board edge to work with when a small fragile shooty unit comes on...

Outflankers are going to do very well in this environment. Mobile armies are going to be king.

I was thinking about trying to get more outflankers in, but then I realized alot of what you might want to do with outflank you can do with reserves. For instance, you can capture one objective that way in scenario one, and in scenario 3 you have many of the advantages of outflanking just in the scenario set up (at least for a shooty army).

Only two issues that I can see:

1. The obvious misreference to ties in Game 2;

and

2. Is the 12" area in Game 1 meant to be a diameter or a radius? (My reading tends to lean toward diameter, because they later reference the "12" center" and the "12" circle," suggesting the circle itself is no more than 12" across.) Plus, a 24" diameter circle would tend to negate the inherent challenges of the fog a little too much.

kestral wrote:I was thinking about trying to get more outflankers in, but then I realized alot of what you might want to do with outflank you can do with reserves. For instance, you can capture one objective that way in scenario one, and in scenario 3 you have many of the advantages of outflanking just in the scenario set up (at least for a shooty army).

Having outflankers means that your opponent has to worry about a 50/50 chance of you coming in from behind him if he chooses to deploy on a short edge. It would prevent a guard player from hiding in the corner. If anything, it's going to make outflankers more common and abilities to reroll reserves that much more important.

Hmm, these look interesting for sure, and I see those guard armies with lots of scoring units doing very well in the first 2 missions.

I tidied up some wording on the scenarios. Thanks to you all for your input.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1210252a_2010ArdBoyzSemiScenarios40Kv2.pdf

Here's the rundown.

Scenario 1
Clarified the conditions for using fog and the Night fight rules
Clarified that in the case of a tie when determining highest points units, you must choose one.

Scenario 2
Added impassable terrain rules for deepstriking objectives.
Changed the first battle point modifier to be more obtainable and not require a massacre.
Clarified that in the case of a tie in objectives, having 5 or more Kill Points than your opponent counts as a Minor Victory.

Scenario 3
Clarified that all reserves come in via either the short or long table edges and is an exception to the Dawn of War deployment.
Clarified that in the case of a tie when determining highest points units, you must choose one.

Also, to clarify, the 12" circle in the center of the board in Scenario 1 is intended to mirror the Spearhead deployment circle, therefore it has a 12" radius.

I hope that clears up any questions. Have a great time this weekend!

John

Wow, John - you rock.

Hi

John, I just want to thank you and your colleagues for putting these scenarios together, and for making adjustments and clarifications where necessary. As someone who has written more than a few scenarios myself, I know it isn't always easy to recognize what is clear in your mind isn't clear to others.

I am looking forward to this weekend.

Cheers,
Nate

Thanks a bunch John, amazing turn around time on that

That was some quick work clearing things up. Nice job! I do like the whole 'ardboyz thing.

Yay John!!

Wish I hadn't had to give up my spot for family stuff, I think my shooty IG wold actually do fairly well.

It looks to me that for scenario 2, the wording for the Minor and Tie do not match up. The Minor says 5KP, yet the tie states 4KP. Am I reading this incorrectly somehow.

Also, are all objectives "on the ground"? In other words, can someone place it on top of a 3 story ruin if it scatters there? If they place it up there and it scatters onto a 2 story ruin would it be on the 2nd story, or on the ground level?

Who declares which unit is the "highest point"? Is it the owning player or the opponent?

Thanks for the fast response time, and I think the scenarios sound very interesting and lots of fun!