Does GW usually post these scenarios before the semi finals?

Or do people usually go not knowing them?

They are usually posted a few days prior, about the same time they send them to the stores. Prevents any shenanagins with store favorites knowing the scenarios in advance.

Info can be found on the Games Workshop website.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/articleCategory.jsp?communityArticleCatId=400002a&articleCatId=400002a&catId=§ion=community

You should expect rules updates online about a month before a scheduled event, and scenarios for each event up about 2-3 weeks before each round.

The rules this year (and I believe last year) state that scenarios will be posted approximately a week before.

Originally the scenarios were all supposed to be surprises on the day, but logistically they had to send them to the stores/organizers in advance, and a couple of years ago there was a problem where it came out that some of the organizers were sharing them with friends, who were then participating with armies customized to the mission, thus gaining an unfair advantage on those who did not know the missions in advance. That’s why they switched to a public release.

Will the scenarios be different at the semi's than the prelims?

So far, yes. And I'd expect they will be different this year as well. I hope to hell #3 is different, at least.)

Jeez, any word on when these are hitting the streets? It's a week away dammit. Come on GW, get the lead out.

CaptKaruthors wrote:Jeez, any word on when these are hitting the streets? It's a week away dammit. Come on GW, get the lead out.

LOL, yep, I've been hovering around the Ard Boyz page for a week now to get a look at the missions...

I just want them to post the scenarios so i can make my list..

Not planning on changing my list. I did not change it for the dreaded 3rd mission, and I got max points on it. So unless all 3 missions hose my list over, I will be running the same list with a small tweek.

I want to see the missions so I can plan around any problem areas.

jbunny wrote:Not planning on changing my list. I did not change it for the dreaded 3rd mission, and I got max points on it. So unless all 3 missions hose my list over, I will be running the same list with a small tweek.

I want to see the missions so I can plan around any problem areas.

If the 3rd mission happens again at the semi-finals I wont be bringing the same list.. I heavily favors certain builds.

dereksatkinson wrote:I just want them to post the scenarios so i can make my list..

I'm a fan of running the same list regardless of mission or opponents.

The missions will not effect my list in anyway, I am tweaking it to make better use of my points. I just like studying the scenarios ahead of time so I waste less time when i'm at the tournament. After all running 100 foot slogging marines I will need all that spare time

The missions do not necessarily effect my lists; however, it will help me determine which army I will take, either foot Eldar or mech Chaos.

List tailoring is something I don't do. Just build the best list you can and try to win based on your skill!

Meh- it's one thing to "list tailor" for a particular opponent/army, but building a list to play to a particular scenario... what's wrong with that?

Intentionally ignoring available information is handicapping yourself irrationally.

With 'list tailoring' for opponents, you can get screwed by a) not drawing that opponent b) them playing a different list. [as an aside, we were doing a campaign where a players race was known, but not their list, which could change game by game. I was Orks, usually run a foot horde, but showed up for a game with Kans, Dreads, and BWs; that was a short game]

With pre-determined scenarios, OF COURSE you alter your list to match. Playing standard games of 40k, do the missions influence your list? Obviously, they do- people make sure to have multiple, mobile scoring units for the 2/3 of missions where those are important.

I understand people don't like to 'list tailor' but the pejorative association there should only be directed at people tailoring to particular opponents.

TL;DR: Playing to the scenarios is acceptable and encouraged.

That's a good point, kartofelkopf. Still, I don't think the missions last time were extreme enough to cause massive revisions to one's list. The object is to crush and massacre your opponent, first and foremost.

Oh, agreed- I ran a very similar list to the one I took last year, but, if there was some sort of exceptionally wonky scenario, or 2 that had very similar benefits (or drawbacks!) for a particular unit type, I might rework some of my list to account for it. If, for example, Scenario 3 AND Scenario 2 hosed transports, I'd understand people flipping out.

Monster Rain wrote:List tailoring is something I don't do. Just build the best list you can and try to win based on your skill!

You mean you didn't build your army with the standard missions of 40k in mind?

cerealkiller195 wrote:The missions will not effect my list in anyway, I am tweaking it to make better use of my points. I just like studying the scenarios ahead of time so I waste less time when i'm at the tournament. After all running 100 foot slogging marines I will need all that spare time

In the 3rd scenario in the prelims certain armies couldn't do well in that scenario unless they managed to get the right draw. When killing 3 terminators squads has the same number of KP as a single 50 point ravenwing attack bike you better take that into consideration for that third round. Not adjusting is simply foolish

And knowing is half the battle!

I run necrons, so can someone explain what list tailoring is? HAHA jk... yea I tailor as much as my codex allows! so yea I must be an excellent tailor... or somethign of that sort. Anyway I am among you fellas that are overly anxious to see the funktified scenarios GW is gonna have for us at semi's. too expensive for me to make it to ILL from CA, but it s worth the playtime to pick up a new start to an army besides necrons... Im pretty maxed out till I get a new codex in 2112 (no typo there im just not dellusional about the release) Well, here s to having an f5 complex on the GW ard boys page!

Umm... is that the Pillsbury Dough Boy raping the Blue Bonnet butter girl on a hostess cake?

...

...

Very nice, high five

maybe... ever wonder how they get the cream filling in those little debbie snak cakes? sorry for the serious off topic....

I think it is little debbie......

i walked in to round 1 with out looking at the scenarios. to bad i run mech IG, scenario 3 was a shock. just with that said i still took first in the terny with 69pts. but the crazy one was 2ed place was dark eldar, running mech with far more kill points then me. it just gos to show that even with the deficit the scenario realy wasnt that bid of a killer. i would guess alot of the people on the thread was running mech.

still with that said i would hate to see it in round 2 lol

Danny Internets wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:List tailoring is something I don't do. Just build the best list you can and try to win based on your skill!

You mean you didn't build your army with the standard missions of 40k in mind?

Not really. I build the list I want, and rely on skill to win. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't. When I lose, I remind myself that this is a hobby I participate in for fun and don't get all that bent out of shape about it.

Monster Rain wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:List tailoring is something I don't do. Just build the best list you can and try to win based on your skill!

You mean you didn't build your army with the standard missions of 40k in mind?

Not really. I build the list I want, and rely on skill to win. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't. When I lose, I remind myself that this is a hobby I participate in for fun and don't get all that bent out of shape about it.

hmm, and here i thought you relied upon Vulkhan and his rerolls to win?

Hacksaaw wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:List tailoring is something I don't do. Just build the best list you can and try to win based on your skill!

You mean you didn't build your army with the standard missions of 40k in mind?

Not really. I build the list I want, and rely on skill to win. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't. When I lose, I remind myself that this is a hobby I participate in for fun and don't get all that bent out of shape about it.

hmm, and here i thought you relied upon Vulkhan and his rerolls to win?

I rely on Vulkan to make my luck on my to-hit rolls with Melta Guns improve from "Abominable" to "Slightly Below Average."

wow gw doesnt have the missions for the public yet. I bet that sucks. lol they arent that bad.

I'm guessing the missions will be up tomorrow, after the trade sales guys get into the office. I'm looking forward to what army I should bring as well. I like the idea of guard or orks, but I also have marine and eldar builds that might fit the scenarios better.

It would be nice to get these out ASAP. So we can get things clarified when they overlook something.

I took 4th at prelimsand was sure that i wasn't going, but i was just told that number 3 has to back out. So i get to go but no time to rebuild my army. So i will take the same army that got me to the first placefor losers two years running. LOL

Anyone else been checking the gw site? They still haven't posted the senarios............BIG FROWN!!!

as of now still not up

This is likely caused by the backlash last month when the scenarios were released. Maybe GW is actually taking time to work out some of the kinks this time around...


HAHAHAHA omg, sorry, i thought I could restrain myself. Like GW would ever thoroughly think something through, what was i thinking?


edit - the 'what's new today' feature hasn't been updated for monday june 7, either, so maybe the web team really did just drop the ball this morning. it's about 2:30 PM London time now, right?

kartofelkopf wrote:Meh- it's one thing to "list tailor" for a particular opponent/army, but building a list to play to a particular scenario... what's wrong with that?

Intentionally ignoring available information is handicapping yourself irrationally.

With 'list tailoring' for opponents, you can get screwed by a) not drawing that opponent b) them playing a different list. [as an aside, we were doing a campaign where a players race was known, but not their list, which could change game by game. I was Orks, usually run a foot horde, but showed up for a game with Kans, Dreads, and BWs; that was a short game]

With pre-determined scenarios, OF COURSE you alter your list to match. Playing standard games of 40k, do the missions influence your list? Obviously, they do- people make sure to have multiple, mobile scoring units for the 2/3 of missions where those are important.

I understand people don't like to 'list tailor' but the pejorative association there should only be directed at people tailoring to particular opponents.

TL;DR: Playing to the scenarios is acceptable and encouraged.

The only problem with changing your list for one mission is it can completely change your playstyle. I run fast moving Blood Angels. If I changed up to all footslogging tact squads it would be a complete departure from my normal playstle, and could cost me greatly.

I took a list that gave up 35KP's in total, but I only lost 5 in my game will being one model short of tabling the guy. I still have a 7+ margin and got all bonus points for the mission.

tetrisphreak wrote:This is likely caused by the backlash last month when the scenarios were released. Maybe GW is actually taking time to work out some of the kinks this time around...

Nahhhh, they just figure that if they wait until the last minute to post them, then the local TOs wil be the ones having to deal with their lack of competence.

Anyone called them and asked them what's going on?

barontuman wrote:Anyone called them and asked them what's going on?

Call who? GW sales can't help.. Ard Boyz is done by the trade reps.

Yet it is called "customer service" :lol:

barontuman wrote:Yet it is called "customer service" :lol:

I emailed a rep.

This sucks! It is the anticipation that kills you. Im excited as this is my first year of ard boyz. Which would also make it my first year of making it to the regional event.

Is it certain that the scenarios for the semis will be different than the ones for the prelims? I didn't play last year but I don't recall the scenarios changing at all in 2008...

Actually, I am almost certain the scenarios will be the same as the prelims. SWEET!

Nothing is certain, but they have indeed changed the scenarios in previous years.

Every year the scenarios have been different.. However some years they procrastinate more than others

Its very time consuming to write 3 missions in 1 month. They could do them all at once, but unfortunately that might break the 3 month window!

I really wish GW would move forward with this. I think they're afraid that we'll tear them to pieces over whatever scenarios they publish. Which, to be honest, will happen.

It's like pulling off a band-aid, GW. The longer you wait, the more the internet subhumans will wail and gnash their teeth. That being said, out of that general internet noise, there can be useful things that come out of it, like the clarifications for scenario three.

I called customer service yesterday, Swan who is really nice BTW transferred me to someone who was a trade rep(didn't write a name down) and he said that they would be up sometime yesterday....guess he was wrong! WTF is the deal?

WTH GW? Get these things posted already. Some people have some traveling to do and would like the the army portion to be planned by now.

The scenario's will be posted on Thursday. I just got off the phone with a rep from GW and that is the what they are being told to tell people that call in. They could give me no further information even though I hinted at a bribe (empty promise) for the down low.

Good luck at the semi's dudes, my nids can't wait to eat ya

Valhallan42nd wrote:I really wish GW would move forward with this. I think they're afraid that we'll tear them to pieces over whatever scenarios they publish. Which, to be honest, will happen.

How's that saying go? "Never ascribe malice to what can easily be explained by incompetence?"

I like "Non-Illigitmus carberundum" ; Don't let the bastards wear you down. It's kind of my credo.

Thursday. cool. would be nice if they could trust store owners not to leak the scenarios to favorite locals, so they could spring them on the tourney goers saturday morning.

then people would be forced to bring the best list they could make for any eventuality.

That assumes GW had them ready to go.. Virtually every year they make a mistake or a typo and have to rerelease all the missions the night before

Makes no sense to give them to store owners if they're not even correct the first time

Kirasu wrote: That assumes GW had them ready to go.. Virtually every year they make a mistake or a typo and have to rerelease all the missions the night before

Makes no sense to give them to store owners if they're not even correct the first time

This, a thousand times a thousand times.

Bah. Thursday? Seriously. The window of time to catch errors, etc. is small. Hopefully, the delay is because they are scrutinizing the missions more. Either way, it's a planning nightmare.

don_mondo wrote:
Nahhhh, they just figure that if they wait until the last minute to post them, then the local TOs wil be the ones having to deal with their lack of competence.

As I said earlier.........................

CaptKaruthors wrote:Bah. Thursday? Seriously. The window of time to catch errors, etc. is small. Hopefully, the delay is because they are scrutinizing the missions more. Either way, it's a planning nightmare.

I hope you are correct, but I believe that there will be errors and confusions created by groupthink. They will all know what they mean when they write out a special rule, as they all play to a certain internal convention. But we don't all play to those some conventions as they.

I hope they are explicit in their terms. I don't want to promote legalese in a tournament, but this is for some significant swag. It's better to have legalese than misunderstanding.

Ok, so we start with the main 'Ard Boyz page quote from Tironum ( note you were half right )

You should expect rules online about a month before a scheduled event, and scenarios for each event about 2-3 weeks before each round.

Then, when the 40K rules are put up (filled with cut and paste errors copying from last year) they change it to...

Scenarios will be posted one week prior to the event.

Mannahnin nailed that one.

It just shows a total lack of effort and I am disgusted.

And to comment on Hacksaw's post...

Thursday. cool. would be nice if they could trust store owners not to leak the scenarios to favorite locals, so they could spring them on the tourney goers saturday morning.

That has happened before and supposedly was fixed by going online with their missions. Unscrupulous venues have been removed from the list of semi locations as well.

I am still disgusted.

Thursday? UGGG!

I don't plan to change my list but there have been scenarios in the past that give big KP bonuses. Like the ones that give big bonuses for HQ's, Elites, or stuff that moves more than 6". Big enough to consider tweaking the list, but I probably will stick with what I have.

This year I built an army specifically for ardboyz and it was such a pleasure to do. I did not put anywhere near the normal effort of my usual armies - magnets/drilled gun barrels/banners, always lots of banners or most of all PAINTING. That's right! I have joined the ranks of just going to play some games and not caring what my army looks like, aside from WYSIWYG. It was a HUGE part of my enjoyment of this year's ardboyz. Once I am done with the competition I will pas it on and get back to my 3 year long Imperial Guard project.

I am looking forward to playing 3 games against 3 opponents I do not usually play or have ever met before but I may be a bit rusty. I haven't done much since my second computer death of the season and hockey playoffs.

The missions should be a minor thing and the event should be about gameplay. I hope that is how it plays out.

Oh and one last thing - 2500 point Blood Angels army for sale starting Sunday!

I had read on another forum that the last scinerio's were made by a redshirt in VA (not even a developer) who made them the night before they were posted and had no over sight. He also tailored it to his ork horde list. He took first in his tourney This seemed to me to be speculation but on the other hand given the parameters of the missions it does make sense. I just hope that the semi-finals will not be a repeat of the same. Though as a Nid horde player it would not bother me too much.

Seems like my theory was correct.. The guy last year did an amazing job with the missions and the tournament in general..

So GW had to take the responsibility away from him or lay him off.. lol

Omeryar wrote:I had read on another forum that the last scinerio's were made by a redshirt in VA (not even a developer) who made them the night before they were posted and had no over sight. He also tailored it to his ork horde list. He took first in his tourney This seemed to me to be speculation but on the other hand given the parameters of the missions it does make sense. I just hope that the semi-finals will not be a repeat of the same. Though as a Nid horde player it would not bother me too much.

1. Not a redshirt, two guys who work in Trade sales. One of them, Joe Neet, posted something about the missions on a board, and the witch hunt and exaggerations started.

2. I think Joe played Ork Biker Nobz, not horde. He also didn't make up the 3rd scenario, the other person on the team did.

3. Joe did not place 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. I don't believe the other guy played, but I'm not sure. Absolutely sure he didn't place.

4. Yes, it's speculation. No, it doesn't make sense. You're saying someone would deliberately cheat, and yet you know nothing about them. I know Joe, personally and professionally, for many years, and he simply wouldn't do that.

GW is moving to Memphis, half the team was down there, or traveling. Missions for 'ardboyz fell through the cracks. Joe got the hot potato tossed to him and had a day to write them up.

I wouldn't fall into extremist hyperbole over the scenarios being a little tardy...this is a free tournament after all.

I'm not sure what the delay is from, and I too would prefer to see them sooner rather than later; but as long as they give me at least 24 hours I can adjust.

Yeah I usually just make an army the night before anyhow.. 'ard boyz isnt worth making sure every model has GT quality paintjobs considering it has no painting score

mikhaila wrote:

Omeryar wrote:I had read on another forum that the last scinerio's were made by a redshirt in VA (not even a developer) who made them the night before they were posted and had no over sight. He also tailored it to his ork horde list. He took first in his tourney This seemed to me to be speculation but on the other hand given the parameters of the missions it does make sense. I just hope that the semi-finals will not be a repeat of the same. Though as a Nid horde player it would not bother me too much.

1. Not a redshirt, two guys who work in Trade sales. One of them, Joe Neet, posted something about the missions on a board, and the witch hunt and exaggerations started.

2. I think Joe played Ork Biker Nobz, not horde. He also didn't make up the 3rd scenario, the other person on the team did.

3. Joe did not place 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. I don't believe the other guy played, but I'm not sure. Absolutely sure he didn't place.

4. Yes, it's speculation. No, it doesn't make sense. You're saying someone would deliberately cheat, and yet you know nothing about them. I know Joe, personally and professionally, for many years, and he simply wouldn't do that.

GW is moving to Memphis, half the team was down there, or traveling. Missions for 'ardboyz fell through the cracks. Joe got the hot potato tossed to him and had a day to write them up.

The thing I don't understand, and I don't mean to be a complaining fanboy, but how long did they know about the Ard Boyz?

If anything they should have had at least a rough drat of the primer missions when they announced the event, and and have had the semi-finals missions worked out and posted the day after the preliminaries.

Everything that has gone down this year just smacks of poor planing. I can understand that everything is crazy with them and the move, but the first work day after the Preliminaries, this should have been a priority.

You have a tournament, that is being held nationally, where the prize at the semi-finals is a full army, and you are doing this while the country is coming out of a bad recession.

I honestly think that full armies at the semi-finals where a bad idea, you put that big of a prize out there, and you are sure to cause drama. Doing everything at the last minute sure doesn't help.

Scenarios are up:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1210230a_2010ArdBoyzSemiScenarios40K.pdf

The semis scenarios are posted. Sorry for the delay guys, and please don't shoot the messenger.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=400002a§ion=community&aId=9800048a

John

Jesus, why not just call it the assault army round? These missions suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An entire army can outflank in scenario 3, and scenario 1 is just asking for arguments with that fog of war, BS. Scenario 2 with the deep striking objectives? That is a little too much randomness for me.

These all hurt shooting armies a lot, I am not a fan of these missions at all.

People might as well start making 24" diameter cardboard circles for scenario #1. It'll save a lot of time when the shooting phase comes around.

Wow some strange stuff in there... I kinda like it lol.

#1. The fog won't make a huge difference. 24" hole in the center of the board, start 12" from the center, and the fog has a 50% to dissipate turn 2.

#2. By the bottom of turn two you know where all the points will be, if that isn't enough time to get to where you need to be then you need to rethink your mobility.

#3. Stay away from your opponent's flank side

Pretty tame by 'Ard Boyz standard. No modified killpoints, etc. Of course, I could be biased with my DE...

Reecius wrote:Jesus, why not just call it the assault army round? These missions suck.

An entire army can outflank in scenario 3, and scenario 1 is just asking for arguments with that fog of war, BS. Scenario 2 with the deep striking objectives? That is a little too much randomness for me.

These all hurt shooting armies a lot, I am not a fan of these missions at all.

As to scenario 3: as it's a KP mission, AND it's DoW, it's not too hard to avoid outflankers from the fixed side - you'll know which edge is your opponents before you walk on the board, as well as which units are actually in Reserve, and can plan accordingly. And, as a bonus, no Night Fight on turn 1 - move-and-fire guns will be in good shape. A little clarification might be nice, just to make it crystal clear that units not held in Reserve come in on your own table edge, as normal for DoW, but the current wording is reasonably understandable.

I like the idea behind the Fog. In practice, it would have been simpler to leave it at "Units completely in the Fog require Night Fight rolls to shoot at," rather than dealing with the LoS-drawing-issue.

My only real complaint is that one of the bonus points in Mission 2 is automatic for achieving a Massacre, and impossible any other way - +1 for holding all the objectives means you also got all 5 objectives, no?

BlueDagger wrote:Wow some strange stuff in there... I kinda like it lol.

#1. The fog won't make a huge difference. 24" hole in the center of the board, start 12" from the center, and the fog has a 50% to dissipate turn 2.

#2. By the bottom of turn two you know where all the points will be, if that isn't enough time to get to where you need to be then you need to rethink your mobility.

#3. Stay away from your opponent's flank side

Big agreement from me. I feel like these are some of the most well written (I don't see any glaring rules issues or holes at first glance like last time) scenarios we've seen at ard boyz for a while. I also think that these are pretty tame for ard boyz, yet have enough oddness to make it, well, ard boyz.

Thumbs up from me. And I play mechanized guard so a couple are pretty poopy.

Well, I like the missions. What makes me sad is that they could have been more elaborate or quirky, but of course trying to make the game fun for the angry-typing fanboys is a fool's errand...

Looking forward to the game!

Hey! I reserve my right to be an angry typing fan boy!!

We'll see how it pans out, but I can just envision horde Orks coming on the board with outflanking, that would be joyous.

Well, just have to make the best of it.

I dont see any big problems with the missions.. I will be making a big 24" circle tho for mission 1 to speed up the game.

I wonder who these missions will benefit the most? Wolves seem pretty solid with acute senses for mission 1 and loganbased shooting armies can move and fire with a lot of weapons. Plus they get a ton of scoring units

Mission 3 is going to really show who the noobs are heh.. If they get first 1 and decide to move on from board edges.. then get face rolled by the other guys reserves being A LOT closer (such as a unit in a land raider). Its interesting to be sure

Seems like a lot of these missions really support armies that go second

My only major question whether did they really meant "troop choices" for the scenario #3 bonus point, or did they mean "units from troop choices".

solkan wrote:My only major question whether did they really meant "troop choices" for the scenario #3 bonus point, or did they mean "units from troop choices".

I'd believe units, otherwise that gives infantry platoons a pretty large advantage

Janthkin wrote:I like the idea behind the Fog. In practice, it would have been simpler to leave it at "Units completely in the Fog require Night Fight rolls to shoot at," rather than dealing with the LoS-drawing-issue.

I like this better, good call on making it clearer and easier, but still has the same effect.

Reecius wrote:Hey! I reserve my right to be an angry typing fan boy!!

We'll see how it pans out, but I can just envision horde Orks coming on the board with outflanking, that would be joyous.

You have to remember that what makes Outflanking dangerous is that units might be showing up on either side of the board - if you want to be safe, you're compressed into the middle (where the rest of the enemy army is probably coming for you). Here, if the Horde Orks go into Reserves, you just use 2/3 or so of your deployment zone - when they eventually show up, they're either walking on from their long board edge as usual (24+" from your units), or they're walking on from their short edge (24"+ from your units). And it's a KP mission - it's not like coming for your objective will get them the win.

Now Broadsides - THOSE would be effective walking on via their short edge.

Yeah some clarification on the reserves in mission 3 would be good.. I predict some confusion considering dawn of war says "move them on from your board edge exactly like reserves".. since the reserve rule is being ALTERED for mission 3 then it could be reasoned moving on "as reserves" means you can also move on from the edges

I see it both ways, so I hope John clarifies it a bit.

Kirasu wrote:I dont see any big problems with the missions.. I will be making a big 24" circle tho for mission 1 to speed up the game.

I wonder who these missions will benefit the most? Wolves seem pretty solid with acute senses for mission 1 and loganbased shooting armies can move and fire with a lot of weapons. Plus they get a ton of scoring units

Mission 3 is going to really show who the noobs are heh.. If they get first 1 and decide to move on from board edges.. then get face rolled by the other guys reserves being A LOT closer (such as a unit in a land raider). Its interesting to be sure

Seems like a lot of these missions really support armies that go second

Started pondering the strategy behind Mission 2 & objective "placement." It doesn't have the "objectives have to be x inches away" requirement - do you deep strike your objectives on top of your opponents, and fight over that little piece of board, or do you spread them around? Do you try for the "middle of the board" placement on one of them? Yeah, I like these.

Janthkin wrote:]Started pondering the strategy behind Mission 2 & objective "placement." It doesn't have the "objectives have to be x inches away" requirement - do you deep strike your objectives on top of your opponents, and fight over that little piece of board, or do you spread them around? Do you try for the "middle of the board" placement on one of them? Yeah, I like these.

'
Depends on your army, as eldar I'll spread but as a CC or horde army definately stack

BlueDagger wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Started pondering the strategy behind Mission 2 & objective "placement." It doesn't have the "objectives have to be x inches away" requirement - do you deep strike your objectives on top of your opponents, and fight over that little piece of board, or do you spread them around? Do you try for the "middle of the board" placement on one of them? Yeah, I like these.

Depends on your army, as eldar I'll spread but as a CC or horde army definately stack

And your opponent's army, and the terrain, and initial deployment of both armies, and whether you're going first or second - it's just neat how they've taken a fairly well-understood mechanic (objective placement) and made it more interesting again.

That's why I like the idea of going second in all 3 missions.. First mission lets you take advantage of night fight AND have the final say on objectives. However, assault armies may want first turn so you are 100% guaranteed one turn of night fight as you move your transports into the fog. Properly built BA lists could crush people if they swarm with scouting baals and 60 assault marines in transports (Or terminators) that move through the fog

Mission 2 well you can see where all the objectives are before you decide where to move. Again you also get the final say. Could even do reserve riposte fairly well by placing them all exactly 12" from your board edge.. If your army has some troops that can sit and shoot and other units to move up and assault you're golden. Vs a shooting army I would place all the objectives in their grill so they cant flee to the corners (If Im playing assault)

Then for mission 3 you get to see where your opponent has to deploy first, and because of no night fight the person who goes SECOND actually gets 1 more shooting phase than the opponent in essence (Normally not the case due to night fight). This mission also can be huge for the 2nd player if there is a ruling on how "reserves" will work when moving on from dawn of war. If they say you move on from the sides then the second player can seriously dominate depending on how poorly the 1st player deploys

Im torn between a loganwing (not all terminators just cylcones) army with 11 Kps and a blood angel in your face assault list. Alpha strike guard could be crippled badly if the fog continues (already pretty bad with 1 turn of fog against a smart opponent.. Who cares abou the middle.. Deploy some of your guys near the edges of your zone and get night fight. Corner deployment forces guard to deploy further and further back with each successive unit, thus multiplying the night fight issues.

This is looking like a big win for assault armies or shooting armies that can move around

Much better then the preliminaries, I like them.

I only wish they where the preliminary missions.

Kirasu wrote:That's why I like the idea of going second in all 3 missions.. First mission lets you take advantage of night fight AND have the final say on objectives. However, assault armies may want first turn so you are 100% guaranteed one turn of night fight as you move your transports into the fog. Properly built BA lists could crush people if they swarm with scouting baals and 60 assault marines in transports (Or terminators) that move through the fog

How do you see going 1st or second changing whether you take advantage of night fight? You start rolling to dissipate at the start of each full turn, starting with the second turn. Both players will undergo night fight in turn 1, and have the chance to play without night fight starting on turn 2. In fact as a shooting player I'd imagine you'd want first to capitilize on being the first player with a turn that doesn't have night fight (if it dissipates in the beginning of T2 for instance), and as an assault player, you'd likely want first as well, you get two moves essentially before your opponent gets a shooting phase that (might) be without night fight.

Kirasu wrote:Mission 2 well you can see where all the objectives are before you decide where to move. Again you also get the final say. Could even do reserve riposte fairly well by placing them all exactly 12" from your board edge.. If your army has some troops that can sit and shoot and other units to move up and assault you're golden. Vs a shooting army I would place all the objectives in their grill so they cant flee to the corners (If Im playing assault)

I agree here, going 2nd will allow you to have the end of game objective grabbing move, as well as knowing where the last 2 will be placed (since you'll place them at the start of your first turn).

Kirasu wrote:Then for mission 3 you get to see where your opponent has to deploy first, and because of no night fight the person who goes SECOND actually gets 1 more shooting phase than the opponent in essence (Normally not the case due to night fight). This mission also can be huge for the 2nd player if there is a ruling on how "reserves" will work when moving on from dawn of war. If they say you move on from the sides then the second player can seriously dominate depending on how poorly the 1st player deploys

I agree with your assessment of going 2nd here as well. As a shooty guard player, I'll be aiming for second so I can see my opponents deployment and then fire into it, rather than firing at the little/nothing he has deployed if i roll on first and allowing him to be better informed when choosing to bring in from side/long edges.

What is confusing about the reserves? It says:

"At the beginning of turn 1, the first player rolls to see where their reserves arrive from. On a 1-3 it’s the right board edge, 4-6 the left board edge, their opponent gets the opposite table edge. Units may still arrive from your normal edge as well."

-It says at the beginning of turn 1 you roll to see where you reserves arrive from, on a 1-3 its the right board edge, etc, and units can arrive from your normal edge as well. Seems pretty clear to me (maybe I'm missing something) that your reserves move on from your long AND short on T1.

How do you see going 1st or second changing whether you take advantage of night fight? You start rolling to dissipate at the start of each full turn, starting with the second turn. Both players will undergo night fight in turn 1, and have the chance to play without night fight starting on turn 2. In fact as a shooting player I'd imagine you'd want first to capitilize on being the first player with a turn that doesn't have night fight (if it dissipates in the beginning of T2 for instance), and as an assault player, you'd likely want first as well, you get two moves essentially before your opponent gets a shooting phase that (might) be without night fight.

Well that is sorta what I said heh.. Assault armies want to go first to take advantage of night fight. Going second does play a big role, Ill explain. First turn you benefit from night fight and then you move your assault elements into position, this is the MOST crucial turn for any assault army really.. If you go first then you know your opponent has to deal with night fight while you're on the cusp of launching your attack AND probably smoke. If you go second you have a 50% chance that the fog goes away during that critical turn

As for the reserves part.. Dawn of war says they move on exactly as reserves.. It is true they are not reserves, but they move on AS reserves. If the rule for reserves is CHANGED then they must follow the *new* version of reserves. This is the case when rules change yet older books still referrence something (Like DH inducting guard.. They may include X unit but that unit is now different they cant use the old version)

Normal reserves allows you only to move on from your board edge. Out flank is a subsection of reserves that allows units to deploy differently. This mission seems to alter the reserve rule itself so units that move on "exactly as per reserves" would have to follow the new version of the rule

Although, I also see the point that its not actually reserves and therefore bypasses the rule even if it says they move as reserves..

All in all, these look pretty reasonable and better written than many GW products. There are just a couple things that should be clarified or written better though, e.g.:

- As mentioned above, in the first scenario it should really say something like "Night fighting applies when shooting into, out of, or through a table quarter with fog." As is, some jerk could lawyer up on the text and argue that it only affects shooting across the quarter.

- The Tie condition for the second scenario says you don't tie if you have equal objectives but more than 4 KP difference, but as far as I see, nowhere does it actually say what did happen in that case! That's actually a pretty big oversight that should be fixed.

- Scenario 2 should clarify what happens if an objective Deep Strikes into impassable terrain. If one does happen to land there, that's a definite bonus to scoring jump infantry and such that will still be able to reach it. Personally I think it'd be simplest to just state the same text as Inertial Guidance on Drop Pods, reducing the distance so they don't scatter onto models or terrain, though I don't have a problem w/ how objectives scattering onto units is currently managed in the scenario.

- Several bonus points are based around killing the opponent's highest point unit, or preserving your own. It never says what happens if you have multiple units that are the same highest price.

- 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.


Personally I prefer the standard endgame scheme, rolling after Turn 5, but the fixed 6 turns is not unreasonable.

Scenario 2 looks pretty hard to Massacre in based purely on taking objectives. Four objectives (five with the bonus) is a fair amount to take and hold. I think that comment was made by several people about the prelim scenario that had four objectives as well. It's a little weird that one bonus point there duplicates the Massacre result. I'm assuming they did that on purpose because it'll be so difficult to take all four physical objectives.


The three as a whole definitely comes across as fairly assault oriented, and certainly requiring of a fair bit of mobility. I think they seem pretty reasonable though, and more or less balanced. Off the cuff after a first read through, I don't think the advantages and disadvantages in these are particularly stronger than in the standard 5e game. I.e., sure, mech is probably pretty strong here to move and take objectives, and assault will probably be the focus, but both of those are basically always the case under current rules and books.

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!

5KP or more vs more than 4KP mneans the same thing...

Deepstriking units ALWAYS end up on the ground floor of ruins, they cannot go any higher.

You decide between you. Just declare which one of the equal highest point units you will target.

nosferatu1001 wrote:5KP or more vs more than 4KP mneans the same thing...

Deepstriking units ALWAYS end up on the ground floor of ruins, they cannot go any higher.

You decide between you. Just declare which one of the equal highest point units you will target.

Minor Victory
Holding 1 to 2 more objectives than your opponent, OR
if no one controls the most objectives, you have 5 or
more Kill Points than your opponent.

Tie
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.

Not the same thing.

Yes it is.

minor = 5+
Draw = 4-

Not sure where your confusion is coming from.

Actually CptZ has a point. I had to read the damned thing 4 times before I saw it. Minor win says "5 or more Killpoints". Draw says "4 or more Killpoints", not "4 or less".

Intent was clear, verbage wasn't.

Yup I stand corrected.

So if you have 4 kill points more than you opponent .... you replay the mission?

jbunny wrote:Yup I stand corrected.

So if you have 4 kill points more than you opponent .... you replay the mission?

AFTER swapping armies!

Wow, thanks for that, John. You got on those corrections on the huss! Well, as much as I don't personally like wacky missions, even for ard boyz, I really do appreciate the quick response to issues, as I am sure other member of the community do as well, so thanks for that.

I remember reading dedicated transport not counting for kp. was that removed today?

Massacres are going to be hard as hell to get... tabling is only a major victory?

Make sure your lists have a LOT of troop choices folks... You need to hold 5 objectives.

Massacres are going to be hard as hell to get... tabling is only a major victory?

Make sure your lists have a LOT of troop choices folks... You need to hold 5 objectives.

sexiest_hero wrote:I remember reading dedicated transport not counting for kp. was that removed today?

I don't recall that (and it's not in the first version I downloaded). The first version of Scenario 3 had a bonus point for killing more Troops choices than your opponent (dedicated transports don't count) - is that what you're remembering?

Pvt. Jet wrote:Make sure your lists have a LOT of troop choices folks... You need to hold 5 objectives.

You only need to hold four--one of the objectives in the second mission counts for double. If you're running only a few Troop units then it's probably a good idea to keep them close so you can potentially capture multiple objectives with a single scoring unit.

Danny Internets wrote:

Pvt. Jet wrote:Make sure your lists have a LOT of troop choices folks... You need to hold 5 objectives.

You only need to hold four--one of the objectives in the second mission counts for double. If you're running only a few Troop units then it's probably a good idea to keep them close so you can potentially capture multiple objectives with a single scoring unit.

Personally, I think it's easier than round 1 of the prelims - 5 objectives, must hold 4 more than your opponent, meant having to hold at least 4 & contest a 5th.

John Shaffer wrote: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

John, that's totally awesome on the quick clarifications. You the man!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:I remember reading dedicated transport not counting for kp. was that removed today?

I don't recall that (and it's not in the first version I downloaded). The first version of Scenario 3 had a bonus point for killing more Troops choices than your opponent (dedicated transports don't count) - is that what you're remembering?

That wording was removed, but the much more clear & certain wording John put in place subsumes that---it specifically says "scoring units" now, not Troops units or anything like that for that Bonus Point in Scenario 3. Dedicated transports don't score, so they still don't count toward that Bonus Point, though they will count toward the primary victory conditions (they're still a KP and were even before the modifications).


As another point a friend brought up, since none of the scenarios mention Seize Initiative (unless I'm very mistaken), I would say that it doesn't apply. The rulebook only applies it automatically to Standard Missions, which these are clearly not.

Again, totally blown away in a positive manner by the quick clarifications. Good stuff.

There is no mention of seize the initiative in these scenarios. Am I missing something or will that not be used?

But then no mention is made of Deamon armies being able to use Deamonic assault either.

Daemon armies dont need that permission, as tehy ALWAYS use it.

Squid771 wrote:There is no mention of seize the initiative in these scenarios. Am I missing something or will that not be used?

But then no mention is made of Deamon armies being able to use Deamonic assault either.

I would assume that they are allowed.

Hello again. Just a few more points to clear things up.

Scenario 2
The tie condition should read 5 or more Kill Points, not 4 or more. Doh! I'll update it soon, but I'd rather wait a day or so to see if there need to be more clarifications.

Overall
Controlling players should declare what unit counts as their most expensive in the case of a tie.

Tjkopena is correct. There will be no Seizing of Initiative in these games. As 'Ard Boyz scenarios are not standard missions, we try to state if the StI rule is in effect or not in the scenario rules.

Chaos Demons ALWAYS use their special deployment rules. We just had to clarify it because of weirdness that one year. Going forward, that should always be assumed unless stated otherwise in the scenario rules.

Thanks again for the input. Have fun!

John

I think that scenario 3 is going to be very interesting. People who don't read it carefully and deploy normally out of DoW are potentially in for quite a surprise!

John Shaffer wrote:
Tjkopena is correct. There will be no Seizing of Initiative in these games. As 'Ard Boyz scenarios are not standard missions, we try to state if the StI rule is in effect or not in the scenario rules.

John

That needs to be stated in bold somewhere in the rules, as it's unusual for games of 5th ed 40k.

I agree. Make it GLARINGLY obvious, that way there is no chance of some twit to waste half an hour of his opponent's life arguing that he just seized initiative in round two, or whatever.

Nice, glad you survived the massive purge John. Wish I was back working with you guys!

Yeah you rock John! Does the 'Ard boy winner get to play you?

Any reason why seize wouldn't be used?

On a related note : I sure am glad I'm taking Sicarius!

Makes me want to take corbulo + emperor's tarot even more now since no one can seize

No seize?

Nice! I didn't notice that, that is good for my list build.

viva la alpha strike.. Question is IG alpha, SW alpha or BA alpha

Well slap my ass and call me Charlie! No StI? Heresy!

Very, very interesting...

What about...tyranid alpha strike? LOL

SHUSH! IF YOU DONT TELL THEM THE TYRANIDS ARE PLANNING AN ALPHA STRIKE THEY WONT KNOW ITS COMING!

Ah yes the tyranid Aloha strike, hope to sun lock

I dunno-- in a fixed turn, objective mission, I'd probably prefer second turn.

Then again, Orks aren't really renowned for their alpha strike capabilities-- even with koptas and lootas galore.

Right next to the Chaos Daemons "Hey, he has all of his guys out in the open. Deep strike flamers and Knu'gath right away!" Alpha Strike.

solkan wrote:Right next to the Chaos Daemons "Hey, he has all of his guys out in the open. Deep strike flamers and Knu'gath right away!" Alpha Strike.

Either that's an odd coincidence, or you've seen my Daemons in action...

Why cant we just dice off to see who wins each round? Would save 2 and half hours of arguing and rolling and rule clarifications.

I have proposed that same idea, haha. It never goes over.

CaptainChaos wrote: Why cant we just dice off to see who wins each round? Would save 2 and half hours of arguing and rolling and rule clarifications.

Sure, as long as its one of my dice, this one dice I keep in its own case to be specific....

Version #2 is up.

One thing is still not clear to me.

On mission #1 if a unit is partially in the fog and partially out of the fog are night fight rules used?

I ain't the scenario maker, but I figure you check line of sight from the firing model's head or gun mount to any part of the target model, if you don't draw a line through the fog you can see it fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With a 24" diameter circle in the middle it's gonna be tough to hide anything...

Krak_kirby wrote:I ain't the scenario maker, but I figure you check line of sight from the firing model's head or gun mount to any part of the target model, if you don't draw a line through the fog you can see it fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With a 24" diameter circle in the middle it's gonna be tough to hide anything...

I'm talking units, not individual models.

Say 30 ork boys/guardsmen/nids. Which model is the target model? This seems like an all or nothing to me. Either 1 model is out of the fog and there is clear los to the unit, or 1 model is in the fog and thus any shooting going into the unit is going into the fog.

schadenfreude wrote:I'm talking units, not individual models.

Say 30 ork boys/guardsmen/nids. Which model is the target model? This seems like an all or nothing to me. Either 1 model is out of the fog and there is clear los to the unit, or 1 model is in the fog and thus any shooting going into the unit is going into the fog.

I figure it's like normal night fight - if you can see one model, you can see the unit.

Seems to me it would either me be the closest two firing models or the majority rule a la cover save rules.

John could we get a clarification on that one next document too?

Hey again.

I'll add the following to Scenario 1:

Units must have the majority of their models in or hidden by the fog to benefit from the Night Fight rules. Vehicles partially in or hidden by the fog count as Obscured.

I think that tidies it up.

I'll also add the "no seize the initative" line and the other aforementioned edits.

Any other clarifications needed before I post the final versions?

John

John Shaffer wrote:Hey again.

I'll add the following to Scenario 1:

Units must have the majority of their models in or hidden by the fog to benefit from the Night Fight rules. Vehicles partially in or hidden by the fog count as Obscured.

I think that tidies it up.

I'll also add the "no seize the initative" line and the other aforementioned edits.

Any other clarifications needed before I post the final versions?

Wait, Obscured vehicles? Instead of using the Night Fight rules, or in addition to?

Yikes you may want to reword that one. Basically means that if you have a tip of a rhino in one of those fog zone it is getting a 4+ cover save at that point. That'd be a huge shift from the current scenario.... not opposed to it at all of course

Yeah, night fight *and* free cover saves for vehicles would be pretty gnarly.

My fast vindi's would looooooooooooooove that.

CatPeeler wrote:Yeah, night fight *and* free cover saves for vehicles would be pretty gnarly.

My fast vindi's would looooooooooooooove that.

sadly our fast vindicators don't yous the large blast templates :(

kartofelkopf wrote:Then again, Orks aren't really renowned for their alpha strike capabilities-- even with koptas and lootas galore.

We're not know for a SHOOTING alpha strike, but first turn charges or charging 26-27" out of reserves are not unheard of, lol.

frgsinwntr wrote:

CatPeeler wrote:Yeah, night fight *and* free cover saves for vehicles would be pretty gnarly.

My fast vindi's would looooooooooooooove that.

sadly our fast vindicators don't yous the large blast templates :(

They do use the large blast. Same with the BA whirlwinds.

Page 58 of the 40k rulebook...

"Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker."

I havent met someone who *actually* would argue that they arent blast weapons.. Thats pretty absurd to think that demolisher cannons and whirlwinds arent blast despite any obvious TYPOS

Kirasu wrote:I havent met someone who *actually* would argue that they arent blast weapons.. Thats pretty absurd to think that demolisher cannons and whirlwinds arent blast despite any obvious TYPOS

I agree, but didn't you also argue that in the PDF, a Blood Angel Apothecary could ignore a failed vehicle cover save? I know it's not a typo, rather an oversight, but it's still a case of making sense vs. strict RAW.

Polonius wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I havent met someone who *actually* would argue that they arent blast weapons.. Thats pretty absurd to think that demolisher cannons and whirlwinds arent blast despite any obvious TYPOS

I agree, but didn't you also argue that in the PDF, a Blood Angel Apothecary could ignore a failed vehicle cover save? I know it's not a typo, rather an oversight, but it's still a case of making sense vs. strict RAW.

It could make sense - the BAs just load Sabot rounds, rather than HE.

But yeah - haven't encountered anyone quite that angry yet. Maybe on Saturday.

dereksatkinson wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

CatPeeler wrote:Yeah, night fight *and* free cover saves for vehicles would be pretty gnarly.

My fast vindi's would looooooooooooooove that.

sadly our fast vindicators don't yous the large blast templates :(

They do use the large blast. Same with the BA whirlwinds.

Page 58 of the 40k rulebook...

"Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker."

It's not an ordinance blast, it's just an Ordinance

Friendly games it may be ok, but in something like 'ard boyz I'd totally shoot that down without FAQ.

Polonius wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I havent met someone who *actually* would argue that they arent blast weapons.. Thats pretty absurd to think that demolisher cannons and whirlwinds arent blast despite any obvious TYPOS

I agree, but didn't you also argue that in the PDF, a Blood Angel Apothecary could ignore a failed vehicle cover save? I know it's not a typo, rather an oversight, but it's still a case of making sense vs. strict RAW.

You have a weird memory .. Yes I did argue that, but that also didnt have like 15 years of precedence behind it like a demolisher and whirlwind does heh. Id Imagine arguing that would get shot down by most judges.. GW has made huge inroads shutting down overly strict RAW arguments lately and the adepticon faq is pretty good about it too

Now now, we've played against each other BlueDagger, and you don't seem to be "that guy" by arguing things that are that obvious. It seems very much lower than your "in person" character would show.

Besides, you of all people should know that a single shot weapon is much more reliable at anti-tank than a blast weapon. How many shots from your Fire Prisms actually land where you want them to?

hehe my prism shots were actaully pretty good that day sadly. Usually it's a constant "11 scatter, TL... 12 inch...".

Typically I'm not very RAWistic, in fact if a player was smart they would just tell me it's a blast and I'd never even think to look lol. Whirlwind with the barrage rule makes a more convincing argument, but the Vindi it could be argued if they meant it to be a single shot ordinance or a large blast since that would make a huge difference.

But of course that is for YMTC to fight about


Definitely need to get that "obscured if partially in the fog" cleared up above though. I could see some people (like me) having a field day with that one.

Kirasu wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Kirasu wrote:I havent met someone who *actually* would argue that they arent blast weapons.. Thats pretty absurd to think that demolisher cannons and whirlwinds arent blast despite any obvious TYPOS

I agree, but didn't you also argue that in the PDF, a Blood Angel Apothecary could ignore a failed vehicle cover save? I know it's not a typo, rather an oversight, but it's still a case of making sense vs. strict RAW.

You have a weird memory .. Yes I did argue that, but that also didnt have like 15 years of precedence behind it like a demolisher and whirlwind does heh. Id Imagine arguing that would get shot down by most judges.. GW has made huge inroads shutting down overly strict RAW arguments lately and the adepticon faq is pretty good about it too

How do I have a weird memory?

Where in the last 15 years could apothecaries do anything about a vehicle? There was a lot of history behind what apothecaries could do too. It was a pure RAW exploit then, just like arguing that vindies aren't blast is now.

I guess my point is, you liked strict RAW when it helped you, now you seem taken with the spirit of the game. That's fine, arguing for your best interests is smart. Let's not pretend you're above the game.

I'd really suggest as others have said, if you haven't already, explicitly stating that Seize the Initiative won't be used in each mission.

I know its a bit redundant and one would assume "just check the special rules" but I guarantee this will come up at every store running it just because of how used to people are of having it present. It doesn't feel to most people like a special rule, but more as a part of the game beginning sequence "ok, we roll off, i set up, you set up, you roll to seize, we start"

BlueDagger wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

CatPeeler wrote:Yeah, night fight *and* free cover saves for vehicles would be pretty gnarly.

My fast vindi's would looooooooooooooove that.

sadly our fast vindicators don't yous the large blast templates :(

They do use the large blast. Same with the BA whirlwinds.

Page 58 of the 40k rulebook...

"Unless their profile specifies otherwise, all ordnance blast weapons use the large blast marker."

It's not an ordinance blast, it's just an Ordinance

Friendly games it may be ok, but in something like 'ard boyz I'd totally shoot that down without FAQ.

And I'm sure the TO would shoot you down, as I've seen happen to every TFG that tries this nonsense.

Ah, Ard Boyz. Reminding me of everything that I hate about this hobby. Luckily I like more than I dislike or this sort of thing would drive me screaming from the gaming community entirely.

Reecius wrote:Jesus, why not just call it the assault army round? These missions suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An entire army can outflank in scenario 3, and scenario 1 is just asking for arguments with that fog of war, BS. Scenario 2 with the deep striking objectives? That is a little too much randomness for me.

These all hurt shooting armies a lot, I am not a fan of these missions at all.

Yes, isn't it ironic? The HARDBOI, only the best players and 'Ardest armies NO COMP! (Well... except for our missions that clearly handicap mech armies).

What a joke.

Final amendments are up. Thanks again to all of you for helping with the clarity.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1210322a_2010ArdBoyzSemiScenarios40Kv3.pdf

I hope everyone has a good time and enjoys the missions.

John

Beautiful wording on the fog that time John. Clean cut as hill

Meh, wish I got this in before the final cut:

Mission 2 can be impossible to get full points on depending on how you and your opponent place objectives -- if an objective is more than 3" in your deployment zone, you can't get full points.

The first two missions allow you to take turns after tabling an opponent; does this apply to the third mission as well?

John Shaffer wrote:Final amendments are up. Thanks again to all of you for helping with the clarity.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1210322a_2010ArdBoyzSemiScenarios40Kv3.pdf

I hope everyone has a good time and enjoys the missions.

John

Every time I print out the scenarios, new ones are out within the hour. I'm almost afraid to print a new set!

Lowinor wrote:Meh, wish I got this in before the final cut:

Mission 2 can be impossible to get full points on depending on how you and your opponent place objectives -- if an objective is more than 3" in your deployment zone, you can't get full points.

The first two missions allow you to take turns after tabling an opponent; does this apply to the third mission as well?

It doesn't say you can in mission #3, and I'm not sure if they will add it. Missions #1 and #2 are objective based so without that rule if a player knows they have lost the game they could deliberately attempt to get themselves tabled in an effort to turn a massacre into a major loss. Unlike missions #1 and #2 the objectives in #3 are not that important as they are only 2 points combined. I don't know about you but I would be ok earning 18 points a round for 3 rounds, because it's usually good enough to take 1st place.

Lowinor wrote:Meh, wish I got this in before the final cut:

Mission 2 can be impossible to get full points on depending on how you and your opponent place objectives -- if an objective is more than 3" in your deployment zone, you can't get full points.

That's a strategic consideration, not a problem with the mission rules. If you want that point, you'll have to place your objectives well outside your deployment zone.

Janthkin wrote:

Lowinor wrote:Meh, wish I got this in before the final cut:

Mission 2 can be impossible to get full points on depending on how you and your opponent place objectives -- if an objective is more than 3" in your deployment zone, you can't get full points.

That's a strategic consideration, not a problem with the mission rules. If you want that point, you'll have to place your objectives well outside your deployment zone.

I assumed that was intentional---it'll force people to put their objective outside of a comfortable deployment zone firebase, and tend to push the two objectives closer together. I think it's a good idea and nice scenario effect, though I'd be way more stoked about it if I ran an assault oriented army...

Hey all, I have a favor to ask. I am on a work computer that does not let me on the GW website. Can any1 copy paste either here or a pm the scenarios for me? I would love you forever I have an eight hour shift of anticipation and can't stand the wait! (oh rules too if you're zealous and desire my online love and affection) Thanks in advance!

sent

so on scenario three using dawn of war and having an extra table edge to deploy from, does this also apply to your units that drive on the table edge turn 1 or only to reserves that arrive from turn 2 onward?

IGVamp wrote:so on scenario three using dawn of war and having an extra table edge to deploy from, does this also apply to your units that drive on the table edge turn 1 or only to reserves that arrive from turn 2 onward?

This was addressed above. Whether driving on turn 1, or coming in from reserves you may come in from either table edge!

sorry, read every post and didn't think i saw it mentioned... guess i missed it when my eyes went blurry after 7 pages. Thanks for the heads up

lol dont worry about it. I have a question guys.

Objective 1 only the 2 neutral areas have fog. If I move up in the center with my transports keeping 50 percent in the fog the whole way will I benifit from night fight rules? Even if you can see more then 50% of my model with the right angel the mission staes units must have the majority of their models in or obscured by the fog to benefit form the night fight rules. I will have over 50% in the fog. So does that mean they have to roll night fight?

Well there is only one vehicle in that unit so you would have to be obscured by the imaginary fog from your opponent's point of view.

Honestly, the fog won't make much difference. Did a test match and fog was gone round 2 lol.

I know I am an assault army and fog for a turn is nice. The reason I say the above situation because. FOG is not cover. If you are more then 50% into the fog then you get Night fight special rules. Atleast thats how it reads atm. They can see your entire front end of your vehicle, but if you are more then 50% in the fog you get the added NFR.

By stating you must be "Obscured" by fog it means at least 50% of the model's facign to the enemy must be blocked by the fog. The only time this wouldn't happen is if you were being fired upon from you own deployment zone.
.|
[|]
.|

If you tank is the [] the line is the fog edge and the dots is the side where the fog is the if firing from the north or south would grant the night fire because you're 50% obscured. If they fired from the East they would have full view of that facing of your tank and thus not obscured.

This would probably never happen though with how fast the fog will go away/most people camping in the fog completely.

BlueDagger wrote:By stating you must be "Obscured" by fog it means at least 50% of the model's facign to the enemy must be blocked by the fog. The only time this wouldn't happen is if you were being fired upon from you own deployment zone.
.|
[|]
.|

If you tank is the [] the line is the fog edge and the dots is the side where the fog is the if firing from the north or south would grant the night fire because you're 50% obscured. If they fired from the East they would have full view of that facing of your tank and thus not obscured.

This would probably never happen though with how fast the fog will go away/most people camping in the fog completely.

Rule says into, out of, or through. So, if they are claiming a vehicle to be in fog, they also have to roll night-fighting to fire out of it.

Yeah fog was a null issue in our test games, too. Dissipated before anything really happened.

Good missions.. the strats I posted worked brilliantly for me anyway