Damn, so if I don't use any Fast Attack, my opponent automatically gains a BP in the last scenario? I've never done a 'Ard Boyz before, what exactly are BP's?

more battle points =winner

So then what's the difference between Victory/Kill/Objective Points and Battle Points? Sorry, I just want to be prepared...

Each Objective nets you X number of points for completing. BPs are "bonus" points added to your score.

Overall winner is determined by total number of points- actual win/loss each round is irrelevant (although getting Massacres + max BPs is, obviously, a good thing)

Victory points are (I'm assuming, can't view missions yet ::hint, hint, friendly dakkaites:) one of the objectives for one of the missions- they're outlined in the BRB.

If you can't take at least one of every force org slot in the sloppy mess called a 2500 point game... then I have no pity for you, especially when the mission is disclosed.

All the 'traitor' mission basically is, is a mobile objective which you 'claim' by killing it. This is a pretty common GW mission.

'ard boyz always have absurd missions that people cry over... actually most GW tourneys have had absurd missions. They don't really care about balance or fairness and have always made missions to snap specific builds in bear traps... Everyone remembers the punishment to "all units that can move over 6" in the movement phase" from before.

kartofelkopf wrote:

Victory points are (I'm assuming, can't view missions yet ::hint, hint, friendly dakkaites:)

See the first page.

When you end a mission you tally up the mission objectives....there are several win stages that determine how many battle points you get...Massacre is 20 battle points, Major Victory is 17, Minor Victory is 13, Draw Game is 10, and a loss is 0. So if you have a Major Victory you get 17 Battle Points for the win. In addition to that you get bonus points for the secondary objectives...like +1 for killing the traitor...so you would get 18 Battle Points for the game. At the end of Round 1, the battle points decide who fights who...i.e. 2 guys have 20 points, 1 guy has 19, one guy has 15....so the two 20 point players will face each other and the 19 point guy fights the 15 point one. At the end you tally up again and add round 1 and round 2 battle points together. This determines who fights who in the third round like before, the highest points face off. At the end of 3 rounds you total up all the battle points to decide the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners.

nkelsch wrote:If you can't take at least one of every force org slot in the sloppy mess called a 2500 point game... then I have no pity for you, especially when the mission is disclosed.

No need to be so harsh, I was just asking for clarification. Yes, I have the ability to fit a Fast Attack unit into my force, but there's a difference between having the ability to do something and then having an actual use for it. I don't have a Beast Master unit, Scourges aren't exactly the most competitive choice, neither are Reavers, and Hellions without a Baron seems like a big chunk of points just waiting to take a pie plate to the face.

When you end a mission you tally up the mission objectives....there are several win stages that determine how many battle points you get...Massacre is 20 battle points, Major Victory is 17, Minor Victory is 13, Draw Game is 10, and a loss is 0. So if you have a Major Victory you get 17 Battle Points for the win. In addition to that you get bonus points for the secondary objectives...like +1 for killing the traitor...so you would get 18 Battle Points for the game.

Thank you, that clears things up for me. I wasn't sure where the BP's factored into that, but now it makes sense.

Kamsm8 wrote:

No need to be so harsh, I was just asking for clarification. Yes, I have the ability to fit a Fast Attack unit into my force, but there's a difference between having the ability to do something and then having an actual use for it.

Thank you, that clears things up for me. I wasn't sure where the BP's factored into that, but now it makes sense.

If you've no use for the FA unit, don't take it. The BPs are minor issues that don't negatively impact you but have the potential to act as a minor boost for an opponent.

In 'ard Boyz, you're either winning the games and making your BPs or nothing. Giving up an extra point to an opponent is not going to affect your standing in almost every case.

Make an effective list to maximise YOUR points- don't worry about giving up the odd extra point to an opponent.

What about Al'Rahem, who must deploy by outflanking? I'd assume that overrides the second scenario rules.

Standard missions always have all the rules(outflank, deepstrike and so on), these are not standard missions so I wouldn't see why he gets to outflank UNLESS his rule says he gets to outflank even when not normally allowed. If no outflank he just deploys normally.

Well I just sent off an FAQ request to GW, since the person that normally judges our Ard Boyz normally asks me to assist tournaments. Hopefully will hear something soon.

It says he MUST outflank.

I understand it says he MUST outflank, but if the option to outflank is not there, then he would need to deploy normally unless it specifically says he can regardless if it is allowed or not. Ultimately just run it by your TO. I am sure he won't mind letting Al'Raheem outflank and if he does, then just dont fret about it =).

If he must outflank, he can.

This was set by the Deamons codex deployment rule in the ard boyz and I would rule he can outflank based on precedence of the deamon ruling.

Like I said, it comes down to the specific wording and how the TO rules it. I personally was tempted to run vibro cannons depending on how the TO ruled them (if they ignored cover or not and so on). But anyway, I don't have the rules in front of me so I can only say what makes sense to me based on what I knew.

1 turn of nighrt fight in every mission.

They look good overall, just hope the semifinal missions are as good.

Does it seem weird that the missions are on just the white background? It really seems like a 1st draft to me.

In years previous, didn't they have the missions on the Ard Boyz letterhead (the green Ard Boyz background)? Things just don't look as polished as before.

I don't see any reason why you wouldnt be able to seize the initiative.

It doesnt tell us to roll for first turn either, it's not like we don't do that.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:IG Commissars will have a field day with "Summary Execution" and the Traitor from Scenario 2.

QFT

Seize the Initiative says specifically that in "standard" missions it is used. Either GW forgot or its on purpose, either way these arent standard much like other special mission rules

If you're planning on going to Pittsburgh you can just send me questions to see how I will be ruling things

Somebody who plays a CC space marine army wrote these missions.

Yeah, I'm not seeing much reason not to rock my Draigo-wing at this. The objective mission could be tough, but I can add some solo pallys and/or dreadknights.

So the missions don't seem bad, they just leave me with a few questions.

First: Can I steal the initiative? As a DE player this has a huge effect on my list.

Second: In the first mission is that supposed to be a 4+/5++ or what.
Third: In the first mission what gun does he have and does it have to be a "troops" choice troop or any infantry model?
Fourth: Do you just have to have your traitor in their deployment zone at any time or at the end of the game?

Fifth: In the second mission how much is the mission in my opponents deployment zone? I am assuming 1 the same as mine but I'm not sure.

Not so much a question but more a comment. I don't like how the general is double VICTORY points in this one. What if someone runs Calgar in his termi-armor vs just a blank haemonculous? Yes the haemy is easier to kill but would only give up 100 vs how much for Calgar?

Sixth: Do you count an individual model, in mission three, or a whole squad as an hq...ie a CCS or just the Commander?

It's disappointing that 2/3 of the missions are essentially Annihilation based, the opposite of normal. I think the game and codexes are much better balanced for objective play, so that's somewhat frustrating.

I think it would be a stretch to attribute any abilities or gear to the Traitor. It should be spelled out more clearly, but I think the intent is definitely that it's a blank, generic model with that statline and nothing else.

Night Fighting is also an unfortunate addition, though probably nearly irrelevant in the second mission, coming on Turn 6. I assume they did this to counter rampant fear of IG gunlines, but in general I think the game for the most part strongly favors assault, so any extra hindrance on shooting is unfortunate.

I assume they'll add Seize Initiative with a revised scenario pack. Hopefully Infiltrate and Outflank as well where they're missing, though those seem clearly intentional omissions. It seems they took them out in the second mission to reduce deployment and early game grabs for objectives, at the cost of eliminating a number of army builds. The missions are pretty standard, so it's unfortunate they felt it necessary to really mess around with some armies.

These are my questions :

* Does the traitor keep the equipment of the model it replaced? If the traitor is a TH/SS termie does he keep the 2+/3++ save?
* Do you get the +3 points if you get the traitor in the enemy deployment zone at the end of the game or any time. The wording is ambiguous.
* There are special rules for 'Outflank' but not seize the initive or scouts. Does that mean that the deffkopta/shrike turn 1 assault is not allowed? Does that weaken Vect considerably?
* If a HQ choice consists of a IC with retinue, do you need to kill the entire squad for the point, or just the IC?
* Do you get the KP for the 3rd mission if the unit is totally destroyed, or do you get half points if its halfway destroyed. P 90 of my BRB does not clarify.

labmouse42 wrote:
* Does the traitor keep the equipment of the model it replaced? If the traitor is a TH/SS termie does he keep the 2+/3++ save?

There's nothing there to support anything like that. It's just a physical model you're giving, not anything else. I would argue it doesn't even have to be from your army necessarily (ex: I play Space Marines, but hand over a Tech Priest I have laying around). The saves are particularly clear, as the traitor has a statline with a 4+/5+.

labmouse42 wrote:
* Do you get the +3 points if you get the traitor in the enemy deployment zone at the end of the game or any time. The wording is ambiguous.

That is a good question that should be clarified, but I think most people would play it as end of game. That's most reasonable, and I think the general assumption of the BPs is that they're being evaluated at the end.

labmouse42 wrote:
* There are special rules for 'Outflank' but not seize the initive or scouts. Does that mean that the deffkopta/shrike turn 1 assault is not allowed? Does that weaken Vect considerably?

Yes and yes.

labmouse42 wrote:
* If a HQ choice consists of a IC with retinue, do you need to kill the entire squad for the point, or just the IC?

I would think you just have to kill the IC as you've then killed a HQ unit from the opponent's army list, even though it's not by itself a unit in the game until the retinue is dead.

labmouse42 wrote:
* Do you get the KP for the 3rd mission if the unit is totally destroyed, or do you get half points if its halfway destroyed. P 90 of my BRB does not clarify.

Victory Points are entirely separate from Kill Points. The rules are on page 108. You get half points if halfway destroyed.

labmouse42 wrote:These are my questions :

* Does the traitor keep the equipment of the model it replaced? If the traitor is a TH/SS termie does he keep the 2+/3++ save?

No. It is there to represent the traitor. He only gets the profile listed in the mition.

* Do you get the +3 points if you get the traitor in the enemy deployment zone at the end of the game or any time. The wording is ambiguous.

Victory conditions are almost always at the end of the mission. Otherwise, if you have 10 more KP than your opponent at any time you would get a massacre.

* There are special rules for 'Outflank' but not seize the initive or scouts. Does that mean that the deffkopta/shrike turn 1 assault is not allowed? Does that weaken Vect considerably?

Seize the Initiative is a mission rule so yes, vect is weaker. Scouts has two pieces, the outflank and the pre-move. The outflank has to be covered by the mission as it is a type of reserves, the pre-move is just a pre-move. I imagine that will be available.

* If a HQ choice consists of a IC with retinue, do you need to kill the entire squad for the point, or just the IC?

P91, it is in the KP rules. 2 KP, one for retinue, one for char.

* Do you get the KP for the 3rd mission if the unit is totally destroyed, or do you get half points if its halfway destroyed. P 90 of my BRB does not clarify.

Mission 3 is Victory Points, it even tells you what page to look on (Page 300).

The rulebook is your friend. Just saying.

These missions certainly beg me to bring back the loganwing..

At first glance the first mission seemed like a serious nut shot for my Razor Wolves and other MSU. It was to be expected since they try something like this every year. However with the 10pt differential for a massacre and the 7 for a major it should at least ease the blow a little due to it being almost a tabling situation for someone in the field to score a massacre there. Even with a win I do not see MSU armies in most cases being able to avoid enough KP loss to even pull off a Major round one. Should be good to go on the last two though so it evens itself out I think.

Kaotik wrote:At first glance the first mission seemed like a serious nut shot for my Razor Wolves and other MSU. It was to be expected since they try something like this every year. However with the 10pt differential for a massacre and the 7 for a major it should at least ease the blow a little due to it being almost a tabling situation for someone in the field to score a massacre there. Even with a win I do not see MSU armies in most cases being able to avoid enough KP loss to even pull off a Major round one. Should be good to go on the last two though so it evens itself out I think.

Remember the traitor is worth 5 KP himself. If your traitor is killed and your enemy's is not, then they are 5 KP up on you, so you can view it as 5 KPs difference for a massacre and 2 for a major.

Morale of the story -- its critically important for your traitor to live. Its better to have your traitor deep in your deployment in a LR next to TH/SS termies than it is to have him with scouts on a hill.

That goes without saying. However it just means I have yet ANOTHER thing I need to try and keep from dying to go along with all the av11/10 and 5 man squads =)

Just ignore the traitor and go for phase-out.

It will be interesting for my TH/SS Deathwing, glad the first scenario doesn't take a troop away.

labmouse42 wrote:

Kaotik wrote:At first glance the first mission seemed like a serious nut shot for my Razor Wolves and other MSU. It was to be expected since they try something like this every year. However with the 10pt differential for a massacre and the 7 for a major it should at least ease the blow a little due to it being almost a tabling situation for someone in the field to score a massacre there. Even with a win I do not see MSU armies in most cases being able to avoid enough KP loss to even pull off a Major round one. Should be good to go on the last two though so it evens itself out I think.

Remember the traitor is worth 5 KP himself. If your traitor is killed and your enemy's is not, then they are 5 KP up on you, so you can view it as 5 KPs difference for a massacre and 2 for a major.

Morale of the story -- its critically important for your traitor to live. Its better to have your traitor deep in your deployment in a LR next to TH/SS termies than it is to have him with scouts on a hill.

The scenarios are good news for MSU armies. Only 1 of the 3 missions is KP, and the single KP mission that they do have adds a unit to both sides that is worth 5KP. That extra 5KP means it is far less likely to an MSU army to nearly table an opponent and still lose the battle. The other 2 are an objective and victory point scenario, neither of which penalizes a MSU army. Overall that's much better news than having 1 of the 3 games a straight KP battle.

If I can give my opponent any troop model to use as a traitor... anyone have a spare tervigon?

Give your opponent a rhino, it just says troop model after all

thehod wrote:If he must outflank, he can.

This was set by the Deamons codex deployment rule in the ard boyz and I would rule he can outflank based on precedence of the deamon ruling.

Speaking of daemons, how are they supposed to deploy with the traitor? does he drop in with the troop squad? If so thats going to make me happy to be taking them.

Black Rage wrote:Speaking of daemons, how are they supposed to deploy with the traitor? does he drop in with the troop squad? If so thats going to make me happy to be taking them.

Doh. I don't think IC's gain any of the special traits of the unit -- such as deep strike -- as the unit they are attached to. If you attach Marius Clagar to a squad of marine scouts, he does not gain the scout and infiltrate ability.

As such, the rules seem to indeicate that you would need to place the IC on the board on turn 1 (or reserve him normally). If I were you, I would reserve him, then drop a unit of demons near the board edge so your IC can run and join the unit after he moves on the board.

It's risky, but then again, anyone who sides with daemons knew the risks when they started.

Daemons deepstrike and the traitor deploys alone and then joins?

That is what I would think as it does't say that he gains any USR.

The wording of the rule seems to indicate that he can deploy with any troop unit, as they normally would.

Why give a model the IC rule, and then say it can join any troop unit, unless they meant that you can deepstrike/outflank/infiltrate/etc. them as part of that unit.

Of course, that raises interesting sub-questions, like "can they deploy with Summoned Lesser Demons?"

Shamelessly a RAI argument, of course. But that's how I'd rule it.

I gotta wonder if they even had 1 other person read these missions..

I contacted GW and asked a bunch of questions so I will list them out here. There is one....traitor model unit type that I am waiting on a reply from the head customer service guy on so I won't list that one out, also trying to get him to e-mail me a yes or no to everything, hopefully he will.

Scenario #1

Q: Is the traitor model just an extra model added to the game, or do you swap a model from your army list?
A: You swap a individual model for each army.

Q: Does the traitor retain his war gear?
A: No..the traitor loses all war gear and special rules. The traitors stats are replaced with the ones given and the special rule Independent Character is added.

Q: Does the traitors model retain his base size?
A: Yes.

The last question is what the unit type the model is and I am waiting to hear back on that. I also asked about count-as troops and walkers. Things like a Tervigon being traded, a Death Company Dread, Deff Dread, things that while not normally allowed to be a troop, but thru army choices has the ability to become a troop choice. I also wanted them to explain does the traitor have the infantry unit type, jump infantry, MC....think that going to rule that the traitor has the same troop type as the unit he joins, but want to be sure.

Scenario #2

Q: Does your opponent's deployment objective have a point value?
A: Yes, both deployment area objective have a point value of 1.

General Questions

Q: If a unit has a special rule such, as infilitrate, but the mission does not allow that special rule, how do you handle this?
A: Any special rules that are not allowed in the mission special rules section are not allowed except for when a model MUST use their special rule to be used in the game.

So basically the IG guy that must outflank is allowed, because it states that he MUST outflank. Same goes for the Ymgarl Genestealers, Lictors, etc. If you are allowed to choose to use a special rule, and the mission doesn't have the special rule listed, you cannot.

Q: Can your opponent Seize the Initiative?
A: Yes, all 3 missions allow Seize the Initiative roll.

Q: Are you allowed to make Scout moves?
A: Yes, units with scout special ability are allowed to make their scout moves before the first turn.

The is what I have so far...will update when I get more.

I appreciate the work you put in on this and I'm not trying to say that you are untrustworthy but...

Until they post these corrections on their site and in the missions they are largely irrelevant.

If you check YMDC stickys they talk about why CS replies are useless.

These rules look terrible and not even close to being balanced. Why is it fixed turn length for the scenario where turn length is the most important? Why no KP for scenario 3? What exactly is the 'independent' rule? How is the traitor supposed to work? Does he actually have any equipment?

Kurce wrote:These rules look terrible and not even close to being balanced.

Oh hi, welcome to your first year of 'Ard Boyz!

Why is it fixed turn length for the scenario where turn length is the most important?

I think you meant the opposite of what you said here. And the answer you'll get is 'Because it's fun!' or 'Because!'

Why no KP for scenario 3?

Because it is a VP scenario. There is already a KP scenario.

What exactly is the 'independent' rule?

Independent Character

How is the traitor supposed to work? Does he actually have any equipment?

Exactly as listed. No.

It is the same ambassador mission that has been around for 15 years.

I appreciate the work you put in on this and I'm not trying to say that you are untrustworthy but...

Until they post these corrections on their site and in the missions they are largely irrelevant.

If you check YMDC stickys they talk about why CS replies are useless.

Ya, I understand that, hence why I am trying to get them to email me the answers. This isn't going to fly for every spot, just how we probably are going to work it out at the location I am playing at. Just a guideline....think each location is going to have to use house rules to sort out this mess.

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:

I appreciate the work you put in on this and I'm not trying to say that you are untrustworthy but...

Until they post these corrections on their site and in the missions they are largely irrelevant.

If you check YMDC stickys they talk about why CS replies are useless.

Ya, I understand that, hence why I am trying to get them to email me the answers. This isn't going to fly for every spot, just how we probably are going to work it out at the location I am playing at. Just a guideline....think each location is going to have to use house rules to sort out this mess.

Not necessarily. Last year, they provided updates at the last minute and they certainly can do that here.

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:I contacted GW and asked a bunch of questions so I will list them out here. There is one....traitor model unit type that I am waiting on a reply from the head customer service guy on so I won't list that one out, also trying to get him to e-mail me a yes or no to everything, hopefully he will.

Q: Can your opponent Seize the Initiative?
A: Yes, all 3 missions allow Seize the Initiative roll.

Yay! Vect is back in!!! Thanks for doing all of this legwork for us btw.

Well like it was said before...just because I post it, doesn't make it law. Just a guideline that we probably going to use at my location. Check with your Git (Judge) beforehand to make sure. GW probably posted these scenarios in a rush since they were probably receiving tons of email and calls about when the scenarios were going to come out. Now they are probably receiving more calls and email because no one sat down and looked at these rules from every army codex viewpoint. I ran a campaign one time that took me about a day to come up with the scenarios, but then took me a week going thru all the rules of each army to tweak the scenario to make sure no one could use shady tactics to gain an advantage, or be at a disadvantage.

Why no KP for scenario 3
Because Scenario 1 already uses KPs. It also balances the event for MSU players.
Example. A guy with 9 drop-pod dreadnoughts (we've seen this army at SoCal events).
I fly a few speeders around and kill a couple of pods every turn. In Scenario 1 I crush him by getting 9 cheap KPs.
In scenario 3 I've spent the entire game racking up 315 VPs. Even if NOTHING else on either side were killed, the game would end in a draw.

As for fixed game length (scenario 2)...it makes you think out your game plan and not leave it to the vagaries of you swooping in on turn 5 to contest objectives for the win and hoping the lucky dice leave your opponent high and dry with no options but to wonder how he sat on 4 of 5 objectives all game long, but still lost in the end.
NOTE: this mission is VERY much subject to some jerk slow-playing you with a horde army.

I am surprised at how textbook these are given the absurdity of past hard boy missions (like KP multipliers) these actually seem...

fair

...outside of a few technical questions about the model exchange which is weird but not over the top like triple KP for tanks.

Might actually play again this year.

Akroma06 wrote:

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:I contacted GW and asked a bunch of questions so I will list them out here. There is one....traitor model unit type that I am waiting on a reply from the head customer service guy on so I won't list that one out, also trying to get him to e-mail me a yes or no to everything, hopefully he will.

Q: Can your opponent Seize the Initiative?
A: Yes, all 3 missions allow Seize the Initiative roll.

Yay! Vect is back in!!! Thanks for doing all of this legwork for us btw.

This was probably the case all along, however the customer service guys for GW hold about as much weight as "a friend of a friend of a friend told me". 3/4ths of the time you can call them up and get a different answer every time. #2 and #3 aren't great but aren't nearly as bad as PoS missiong 3 from prelims last year. #1 could be alright, but they need to do a PILE of clarification. That mission can be abused a hundred times over.

Hey it's not the "Kill the fast uns" from last year so it can't be that bad, I mean a mission that directly targets an army is stupid (yes it was my first 'ard boyz and I still advanced)

Why is there even a question on if you can give your opponent a tervigon or death company dreadnought? Why would you *do* such a thing in the first place?

I wouldnt say these responses are irrelevant. TO's are law, not GW. As they arent the ones taking time out of their days and using up store resources to run a tournament. I suggest TOs just email GW or wait a week when I imagine the pdfs will get updated

As for fixed game length (scenario 2)...it makes you think out your game plan and not leave it to the vagaries of you swooping in on turn 5 to contest objectives for the win and hoping the lucky dice leave your opponent high and dry with no options but to wonder how he sat on 4 of 5 objectives all game long, but still lost in the end.
NOTE: this mission is VERY much subject to some jerk slow-playing you with a horde army.

Yeah, you know that "vagarie" you are talking about? This mission took that out. You know that opponent who sat on 4 of 5 objectives all game and still lost? That happens every single time now instead of a 1/3 chance.

Nice. Logic.

If we have nightfight x3 I'm bringing my Dark Eldar.

That much easier to get Vect, 3 Haemonculi, 8 Incubi, and 18 Bloodbrides into CC....

Why is there even a question on if you can give your opponent a tervigon or death company dreadnought? Why would you *do* such a thing in the first place?

Because it is a easy way to get 5 KP fast and easy. Let say I give you a space marine with boltgun, and you give me a death company dreadnought. Now it is still a walker, but now it has no armor, since it has a Toughness and Wounds value. So now you can ID it, with a str 8 weapon value. If your opponent gives you a MC, Jump Infantry, or Biker...you cannot put it in a transport with the unit. There are a ton of ways to abuse the way it works. IG gives a Chaos daemon a guy...IG goes first. The traitor cannot deep strike in with the unit, since doesn't have the special rule, so you have to deploy the unit on the board. IG goes first. He kills the traitor first turn with a LasCannon, Manticore Missile...etc.

Is it a cheesy tactic...yes, but it is legal.

Deadshane1 wrote:If we have nightfight x3 I'm bringing my Dark Eldar.

That much easier to get Vect, 3 Haemonculi, 8 Incubi, and 18 Bloodbrides into CC....

Yeah, I thought that was interesting. Two missions with first turn NF and 1 with last turn. Pretty interesting.

I am 100% certain that the troop you have to give your opponent for the traitor mission has to be on a small base. I forgot the size of it. 25 mm? The one that a standard Space Marine comes on. Pretty sure it has to be that. I realize the rules don't explain but it seems pretty dumb for it not to be.

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:

Why is there even a question on if you can give your opponent a tervigon or death company dreadnought? Why would you *do* such a thing in the first place?

Because it is a easy way to get 5 KP fast and easy. Let say I give you a space marine with boltgun, and you give me a death company dreadnought. Now it is still a walker, but now it has no armor, since it has a Toughness and Wounds value. So now you can ID it, with a str 8 weapon value. If your opponent gives you a MC, Jump Infantry, or Biker...you cannot put it in a transport with the unit. There are a ton of ways to abuse the way it works. IG gives a Chaos daemon a guy...IG goes first. The traitor cannot deep strike in with the unit, since doesn't have the special rule, so you have to deploy the unit on the board. IG goes first. He kills the traitor first turn with a LasCannon, Manticore Missile...etc.

Is it a cheesy tactic...yes, but it is legal.

Thing is I think it becomes infantry and can join a squad (albeit a rather odd looking infantry model) and therefore you would only be handicapping yourself. I'd be tempted to abuse this as an ork player. He have my 4pt grot while I take you 16 pt space marine.

Outflank is not a special rule it is a part of the reserves rules so if the mission supports reserves then outflank should be o.k. unless the mission says you can't outflank.
Page 94 first paragraph of the page

These missions are less idiotic than in years past but not by a lot.

Spelling and grammar errors, obvious loop holes. Imbalances. Why don't they stand behind their product and just use book missions? In mission one, you can't get a major victory if your opponent doesn't have 10 or more kill points. Two missions are essentially kill points so I guess the name of the game this year is kp / vp denial.

Gw just doesn't get it sometimes.

I am 100% certain that the troop you have to give your opponent for the traitor mission has to be on a small base. I forgot the size of it. 25 mm? The one that a standard Space Marine comes on. Pretty sure it has to be that. I realize the rules don't explain but it seems pretty dumb for it not to be.

I addressed that, they said the models keep there original base size. Say if I using Deathwing. All my troops are on terminator bases. It leaves a lot open.

Outflank is not a special rule it is a part of the reserves rules so if the mission supports reserves then outflank should be o.k. unless the mission says you can't outflank.
Page 94 first paragraph of the page

Special rules and Reserves Rules are interchangeable in this case. Look at the special rules in the mission, one has infiltrate the other doesn't, one has outflank, the other doesn't.

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:]I addressed that, they said the models keep there original base size. Say if I using Deathwing. All my troops are on terminator bases. It leaves a lot open

The question is "Does a counts-as troop choice mean thats the model you give your opponent?" In the book they are not troops, but count as troops when you bring a specific character. Giving a Termigon I can understand, or a BA dread, but a termie might not pass muster.

These are better than last years...

Update---Another Revision of the scenario will be released early next week to refine the rules. Told me that they have taken our examples and questions to the guy that wrote them and that he is rewording the scenarios. Probably Monday or Tuesday....

The question is "Does a counts-as troop choice mean thats the model you give your opponent?" In the book they are not troops, but count as troops when you bring a specific character. Giving a Termigon I can understand, or a BA dread, but a termie might not pass muster.

I asked this the first time, which they said they would get back to me on. Tervigon and BA Dreads also require you to have special items out just like Deathwing. Tervigons require one unit of termagants to be taken as troops, Death Dreads require 5-man Death Company, Deff Dread requires a Big Mek. Took all those examples.

I think we will just have to wait til next week to get the revision and hopefully it will be corrected.

labmouse42 wrote:

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:]I addressed that, they said the models keep there original base size. Say if I using Deathwing. All my troops are on terminator bases. It leaves a lot open

The question is "Does a counts-as troop choice mean thats the model you give your opponent?" In the book they are not troops, but count as troops when you bring a specific character. Giving a Termigon I can understand, or a BA dread, but a termie might not pass muster.

lol this is hilarious, I have to say.

Just bring an extra mini from your army. Pref on a 25mm base. It isn't rocket science.

If I was running 'AB at a store, I'd break open a AOBR set and hand out tactical marines to each player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:Update---Another Revision of the scenario will be released early next week to refine the rules. Told me that they have taken our examples and questions to the guy that wrote them and that he is rewording the scenarios. Probably Monday or Tuesday....

Now that is good to hear.

this is hilarious, I have to say.

Just bring an extra mini from your army. Pref on a 25mm base. It isn't rocket science.

Problem was that they said you have to exchange a model from your lists. The example he gave me was if I am fielding a 10-man Tactical Squad, I could choose one of those models in that unit to be replaced by a model of my opponent's choice from his fielded units. So now I have a 9-man tactical squad and the traitor. Which causes a lot of questions. What if I was given a Hellion...a jump infantry guy.

Should it just be a 25mm base model, yep. Should the unit type be infantry, of course. Does the model retain its wargear/special abilities...no. Lastly, should I have to exchange a model...no.

These are all arguments that need to be settled now, rather then at the table.

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:

I am 100% certain that the troop you have to give your opponent for the traitor mission has to be on a small base. I forgot the size of it. 25 mm? The one that a standard Space Marine comes on. Pretty sure it has to be that. I realize the rules don't explain but it seems pretty dumb for it not to be.

I addressed that, they said the models keep there original base size. Say if I using Deathwing. All my troops are on terminator bases. It leaves a lot open.

Outflank is not a special rule it is a part of the reserves rules so if the mission supports reserves then outflank should be o.k. unless the mission says you can't outflank.
Page 94 first paragraph of the page

Special rules and Reserves Rules are interchangeable in this case. Look at the special rules in the mission, one has infiltrate the other doesn't, one has outflank, the other doesn't.

That might be how they intend it for these missions but that is not how the rules are actually written in the main rule book. It is just like seize the iniative is not a special rule it is a part of the deployment rules.

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:
These are all arguments that need to be settled now, rather then at the table.

Agreed. And they just need to give the common sense answer that most TOs will adopt. It's a plain infantry model with the stats listed. Yeah, that sucks a bit for some folks. Deal with it.

Reecius wrote:Why don't they stand behind their product and just use book missions?

I ALWAYS thought that should have been the very point of the hardboy to begin with.

In the past missions seemed to be a way to sneak in comp through a backdoor, but grammar and ambiguity, well thats just sloppy, maybe this is just a WIP?

You all expect entirely too much competence from this company.

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:Update---Another Revision of the scenario will be released early next week to refine the rules. Told me that they have taken our examples and questions to the guy that wrote them and that he is rewording the scenarios. Probably Monday or Tuesday....

The question is "Does a counts-as troop choice mean thats the model you give your opponent?" In the book they are not troops, but count as troops when you bring a specific character. Giving a Termigon I can understand, or a BA dread, but a termie might not pass muster.

I asked this the first time, which they said they would get back to me on. Tervigon and BA Dreads also require you to have special items out just like Deathwing. Tervigons require one unit of termagants to be taken as troops, Death Dreads require 5-man Death Company, Deff Dread requires a Big Mek. Took all those examples.

I think we will just have to wait til next week to get the revision and hopefully it will be corrected.

Pretty standard that this happens.

I think alot of what everyone is bringing up is just people trying to poke holes in things and give GW a hard time(like always)

Like the confusion on giving your opponent a traitor from you army. Its pretty clear what happens...(except for the demon issue)

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:

I am 100% certain that the troop you have to give your opponent for the traitor mission has to be on a small base. I forgot the size of it. 25 mm? The one that a standard Space Marine comes on. Pretty sure it has to be that. I realize the rules don't explain but it seems pretty dumb for it not to be.

I addressed that, they said the models keep there original base size. Say if I using Deathwing. All my troops are on terminator bases. It leaves a lot open.

Outflank is not a special rule it is a part of the reserves rules so if the mission supports reserves then outflank should be o.k. unless the mission says you can't outflank.
Page 94 first paragraph of the page

Special rules and Reserves Rules are interchangeable in this case. Look at the special rules in the mission, one has infiltrate the other doesn't, one has outflank, the other doesn't.

Infiltrate is no longer a mission special rule either. It is a USR that a unit can use during deployment. No where does it say anything about the mission having to allow infiltrators. People (like whoever wrote the Aard Boyz missions) thinking that the mission needs to allow it are remembering things from old codex's and 3rd and 4th edition.

If they don't want to allow a USR to be used it needs to be stated that it can't be used as the default is that it can.

Outflank is an ability given to any unit that has the Scout or Infiltrate USR if the mission allows reserves.

Scenario 1: Is an old one, but very much a winnable mission for any army. Massacres may be hard to come by (especially for horde armies and MSU armies, these will have so many that tabling may be the only way to massacre). I personally have 19 KP, a little high but still reasonable.

Scenario 2: I love this mission, Seize ground with a mandatory 5 objectives, plus table quarters. This will force armies to be maneuverable or lose in a hilariously awful fashion. I can't wait to see the carnage at the table center.

Scenario 3, Old fashioned assassination game. It's also great to see VP's again. This will favor hordes more than any other army. This also bones armies with extremely expensive HQ's, Swarmlord's are an automatic non take, Draigo will be pretty difficult to justify, Vect will be a pretty large points bomb. This could be a heartbreaker scenario if the HQ is essential to the army's destructive capabilities.

Most of the elements of these missions are from the old RTT missions that GW use to give out to stores.

Objectives worth more points than before?

Doesn't look like I'll be enjoying any of that once I get tabled by turn 2.

Kamsm8 wrote:Damn, so if I don't use any Fast Attack, my opponent automatically gains a BP in the last scenario? I've never done a 'Ard Boyz before, what exactly are BP's?

I don't think so. If you had 0 Fast Attack units to start the game, then I don't think you'd give up a point for this, but if you had them in your list and just chose not to use them, then I'd see how that would work against you. It'd be nice if someone can clarify.

Also, I have a question about Scoring. Say in the chance that you table your opponent. Do you get all the possible points available, including the bonus ones? I know that if you table someone, it counts as a Massacre in your favor, but with the bonus points, I'm not too sure.

Example: In Scenario 2, you're able to table your opponent, but only have 1 Troop choice remaining, and can not claim control all 5 objectives on the table. Would you get the point anyway because your opponent has been completely wiped out, or no?

Stormrider wrote:Scenario 1: Is an old one, but very much a winnable mission for any army. Massacres may be hard to come by (especially for horde armies and MSU armies, these will have so many that tabling may be the only way to massacre). I personally have 19 KP, a little high but still reasonable.

Scenario 2: I love this mission, Seize ground with a mandatory 5 objectives, plus table quarters. This will force armies to be maneuverable or lose in a hilariously awful fashion. I can't wait to see the carnage at the table center.

Scenario 3, Old fashioned assassination game. It's also great to see VP's again. This will favor hordes more than any other army. This also bones armies with extremely expensive HQ's, Swarmlord's are an automatic non take, Draigo will be pretty difficult to justify, Vect will be a pretty large points bomb. This could be a heartbreaker scenario if the HQ is essential to the army's destructive capabilities.

Unless they change it, you can nominate any HQ, so you can choice a cheap HQ to be double points.

Rurouni Benshin wrote:

Kamsm8 wrote:Damn, so if I don't use any Fast Attack, my opponent automatically gains a BP in the last scenario? I've never done a 'Ard Boyz before, what exactly are BP's?

I don't think so. If you had 0 Fast Attack units to start the game, then I don't think you'd give up a point for this, but if you had them in your list and just chose not to use them, then I'd see how that would work against you. It'd be nice if someone can clarify.

Also, I have a question about Scoring. Say in the chance that you table your opponent. Do you get all the possible points available, including the bonus ones? I know that if you table someone, it counts as a Massacre in your favor, but with the bonus points, I'm not too sure.

Example: In Scenario 2, you're able to table your opponent, but only have 1 Troop choice remaining, and can not claim control all 5 objectives on the table. Would you get the point anyway because your opponent has been completely wiped out, or no?

First off I do think that with no fast attack you automatically give up those bonus points.

I don't think you get all battle points unless you actually earn them at the end of the game, which in this case is when you table your opponent. Therefore no you would not get the bonus point for having all objectives at the end of the game. On a lighter note, battle points aren't that important from the bonus objectives if you get the massacer. Sure you want to be able to get as many as possible but don't worry or focus on them to much as the massacre will still give you more points.

+1 if you kill all of your opponents Fast Attack choices. (If your opponent doesn’t have
any fast attack choices you score this point)

This appears pretty specific, that if someone has no FA choices, their opponent gets +1 BP. And this is not necessarilly given up; rather, it is earned, because both players can get it.

Plus, IIRC, this is how it has been handled in the past: no XXX slot choices, then award automatic BP...

In the objective mission last year it specifically said if you table your opponent you only get a major victory. You had to have all objectives to get a massacre. I know bc I tabled my opponent but only had enough troops left to claim 3 objectives. Sucked.

Rbb wrote:In the objective mission last year it specifically said if you table your opponent you only get a major victory. You had to have all objectives to get a massacre. I know bc I tabled my opponent but only had enough troops left to claim 3 objectives. Sucked.

But makes sense. Part of 40k is making sure that you can meet your objective. You potentially could have been less aggressive, not tabling your opponent and gotten more objectives.

looks like ard boiz is gonna suck

Ragnarok2070 wrote:

Answer 2 "Each player will give his opponent 1 troop model to represent the traitor." Sounds to me like the model should be something from your basic troop choice selection and he gains the independent character special rule with the stat line:

WS BS S T I W A LD S
4 4 4 4 5 2 2 10 4+/5+

It does not say that you trade special characters like Draigo or Mephiston or Abaddon, so what ever troop choice you take the model out of to hand to your opponent gets a replacement from your opponents army and no it should not have an effect on whether the squad can use combat tactics.

The traitor is an Independent Character and seems to perform like this the entire game. It will have no bearing whatsoever on any other troop unless they join that unit. They do not seem to have any wargear or special rules associated with them. Without any clarification, these are the rules as written.

This is a mission of protection that essentially supports any army type, while it might give a slight advantage to mobile mech armies (who give up more KPs anyway so it seems to be a wash).

My goal this year? have 2500 points in less than 5 kps.

Black Rage wrote:My goal this year? have 2500 points in less than 5 kps.

Draigo and Paladins. Done.

Keep in mind that KP denial only helps you in the first scenario.

pretre wrote:

Black Rage wrote:My goal this year? have 2500 points in less than 5 kps.

Draigo and Paladins. Done.

Keep in mind that KP denial only helps you in the first scenario.

But scenario 3 is vp, with less than 5 kps, the vps MIGHT be a little harder to come by.

Black Rage wrote:

pretre wrote:

Black Rage wrote:My goal this year? have 2500 points in less than 5 kps.

Draigo and Paladins. Done.

Keep in mind that KP denial only helps you in the first scenario.

But scenario 3 is vp, with less than 5 kps, the vps MIGHT be a little harder to come by.

True, keep in mind that I only have to kill half of your 800 point Paladin squad to get half points though.

Still tough, but not as bad as KP where 1 remaining paladin screws me.

pretre wrote:

Black Rage wrote:

pretre wrote:

Black Rage wrote:My goal this year? have 2500 points in less than 5 kps.

Draigo and Paladins. Done.

Keep in mind that KP denial only helps you in the first scenario.

But scenario 3 is vp, with less than 5 kps, the vps MIGHT be a little harder to come by.

True, keep in mind that I only have to kill half of your 800 point Paladin squad to get half points though.

Still tough, but not as bad as KP where 1 remaining paladin screws me.

anyways thats moot cause i am bringing daemons.

pretre wrote:

Black Rage wrote:

pretre wrote:

Black Rage wrote:My goal this year? have 2500 points in less than 5 kps.

Draigo and Paladins. Done.

Keep in mind that KP denial only helps you in the first scenario.

But scenario 3 is vp, with less than 5 kps, the vps MIGHT be a little harder to come by.

True, keep in mind that I only have to kill half of your 800 point Paladin squad to get half points though.

Still tough, but not as bad as KP where 1 remaining paladin screws me.

Be careful with that low of a number with lascannons everywhere, and oh the Dark Lances as I have a feeling the DE will be out this year.

looks like ard boiz is gonna suck

Honestly guys, really? Pretty sure the model does not come from your army list. Just a regular troop model you havelying around. Remember to K.I.S.S.

To be really simple, just state to pull out a random model from your own collection rather than use your opponent's random model.

It's poorly written, but pretty certain it is a model from your own army that is exchanged with your opponent.

jspyd3rx wrote:Honestly guys, really? Pretty sure the model does not come from your army list. Just a regular troop model you havelying around. Remember to K.I.S.S.

Hi... Welcome to GW.

This is almost a copy of the RTT Mission and in that one you gave your opponent a model from you army list. In effect you lost a model to play with. The only difference is in that mission the traitor could not join units like it can now.

Hi everyone. First time poster and this will be my first tourney. I'm looking for clarification on something. Any help would be appreciated.

I understand that your army list must stay the same from start to finish but could you adjust who goes where in between games? Example: Game 1, Warboss enters with Snikrot and Kommandos and game 2 he starts in a Battlewagon with some boys. Same list, different composition.

Thanks in advance!

fsuvball wrote:Hi everyone. First time poster and this will be my first tourney. I'm looking for clarification on something. Any help would be appreciated.

I understand that your army list must stay the same from start to finish but could you adjust who goes where in between games? Example: Game 1, Warboss enters with Snikrot and Kommandos and game 2 he starts in a Battlewagon with some boys. Same list, different composition.

Thanks in advance!

Yes.

Thanks Pretre! That makes my list a lot more effective.

Where to deploy or attach an Independent Character is a decision made in deployment, not when you make the army list. This works the same between any two games with the same list; tournament or not.

jbunny wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Scenario 1: Is an old one, but very much a winnable mission for any army. Massacres may be hard to come by (especially for horde armies and MSU armies, these will have so many that tabling may be the only way to massacre). I personally have 19 KP, a little high but still reasonable.

Scenario 2: I love this mission, Seize ground with a mandatory 5 objectives, plus table quarters. This will force armies to be maneuverable or lose in a hilariously awful fashion. I can't wait to see the carnage at the table center.

Scenario 3, Old fashioned assassination game. It's also great to see VP's again. This will favor hordes more than any other army. This also bones armies with extremely expensive HQ's, Swarmlord's are an automatic non take, Draigo will be pretty difficult to justify, Vect will be a pretty large points bomb. This could be a heartbreaker scenario if the HQ is essential to the army's destructive capabilities.

Unless they change it, you can nominate any HQ, so you can choice a cheap HQ to be double points.

Of course that's an option, although that could be a pretty tall task for DE player who has shoehorned Vect+Dais into their list and now has to take an Archon/Haemonculus that they don't really need or can afford to cram into their list and hope their opponent ignores the 440 point HQ choice. Even blowing up the Dais is worth 200.

440? Hah! Try running a bloodthirster. And fateweaver then compare....

Clauss wrote:440? Hah! Try running a bloodthirster. And fateweaver then compare....

Alas, one of the three Codexes I don't have. Although, 440 is Vect's base cost. He's worth 880 in the scenario if taken as the "General"

Clauss wrote:440? Hah! Try running a bloodthirster. And fateweaver then compare....

Last weekend at Maul at the Mall, there was a mission where HQ's were worth double VPs. Someone was running Fateweaver and he got sniped. . .666 pts. to the opponent.

I hope that a table counts as a Massacre this year. Even if it is objectives youve obviously eliminated all threats to your side getting whatever was important enough to fight over. A major victory isnt enough

Sorry storm, didnt mean to come off as a "1 up'er"
But yeah, my classic list has 333 pt fateweaver, and a 255 point bloodthirster, and for ard boyz he is 270...Yayyy..gotta make sure they dont die.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I hope that a table counts as a Massacre this year. Even if it is objectives youve obviously eliminated all threats to your side getting whatever was important enough to fight over. A major victory isnt enough

I hope the opposite. If I don't have my army in position to hold enough objectives to qualify for the Massacre, then I didn't earn it.

Clauss wrote:Sorry storm, didnt mean to come off as a "1 up'er"
But yeah, my classic list has 333 pt fateweaver, and a 255 point bloodthirster, and for ard boyz he is 270...Yayyy..gotta make sure they dont die.

It's all good man, that is brutal with Fateweaver and a Thirster. That's so much points on the line regardless which one you pick.

So, I have a question, as I have never been in a tournament before. When they list "special rules" what exactly does that mean?

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:So, I have a question, as I have never been in a tournament before. When they list "special rules" what exactly does that mean?

Those are the Universal Special Rules and Deployment rules from the BRB.

So that means that those are the Special rules being allowed for that mission?


I know what special rules are when it comes to general game play. I am just not sure why they would list some for each mission.

It really depends on the tournament and the mission. Some missions have their own special rules. Some list out which core rulebook "special rules" (in terms of deployment, usually, but anything which impacts both players) are allowed.

I think this is a sloppy area with these missions and they need to clean it up a bit. In 3rd ed and 4th ed each mission clearly specified which were in effect; not all allowed Deep Strike, or Infiltrate, for example. But the default in 5th ed is for all the special rules relating to deployment (scouting, infiltrating, outflanking, deep striking, etc.) to be in effect. Seize the Initiative is also always in effect in the core book missions. The rules for a new mission should clearly state if they're diverging from the standards set by the book missions.

Mannahnin wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I hope that a table counts as a Massacre this year. Even if it is objectives youve obviously eliminated all threats to your side getting whatever was important enough to fight over. A major victory isnt enough

I hope the opposite. If I don't have my army in position to hold enough objectives to qualify for the Massacre, then I didn't earn it.

If an opponent is tabeled the remaining player gets to play the remaining turns alone. Should be plenty of time to take objectives, unless the other side killed too many scoring units. Then the remaining player did not score or deserve a massacre because he lost too many troops in the process.

Exactly, yes. Play out whatever time/turns are left, certainly. If you are too crippled and/or too out of position to grab all the objectives you needed to in order to earn a Massacre, then so be it.

when is ard boys?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/communityAndEventsLanding.jsp?communityArticleCatId=300002

ok this is probably obvious but this will be my first ard boys and I want to make sure...

How does losing the model in scenario one affect my special weapons? My son can give up a scout with no worries, but I only have assault squads or death company so going below the 5 or 10 level would take that weapon away.

Thanks

JS9272 wrote:ok this is probably obvious but this will be my first ard boys and I want to make sure...

How does losing the model in scenario one affect my special weapons? My son can give up a scout with no worries, but I only have assault squads or death company so going below the 5 or 10 level would take that weapon away.

Thanks

Wouldn't affect it at all, your list is your list. When you start the day you create a legal list, 10 models in a unit, take x number special weapons. Giving one up doesn't effect this, it's just a during-game effect.

Wow, way to clarify GW, those are the same as originally posted, I for one am going to lobby with my local TO that it is a 25mm model regardless...

Simply, both players choose a troops infantry model and remove them and are given a stock 25mm model...

Any one who really wants to make a big thing of the rules is really just trying to nab an exploit (using a tervigon or Dread) which is fine by me because I am positive this won't fly where I game...

Interesting...

Mission 1 is Pitched Battle with nightfight. Mission 3 is Dawn of War without Nightfight?

Dashofpepper wrote:Interesting...

Mission 1 is Pitched Battle with nightfight. Mission 3 is Dawn of War without Nightfight?

Mission 1 is Pitched Battle with Night Fight (Turn 1)
Mission 2 is Spearhead with Night Fight (Turn 6)
Mission 3 is Dawn of War which according to P93 of the RB is Night Fight (Turn 1)

Red Corsair wrote:Wow, way to clarify GW, those are the same as originally posted, I for one am going to lobby with my local TO that it is a 25mm model regardless...

Simply, both players choose a troops infantry model and remove them and are given a stock 25mm model...

Any one who really wants to make a big thing of the rules is really just trying to nab an exploit (using a tervigon or Dread) which is fine by me because I am positive this won't fly where I game...

I didn't see that they claim they were updated/clarified, at least not yet.

looks like ard boiz is gonna suck

Wow. That's a lot of characters.

I ran the first mission against Chaos with my razorwolves. Popped his traitor early and managed to get mine in his dz. Tied on kp, but the Traitor put me up +5. So minor victory with max BP.

Played through Mission 1 as well this weekend against Mechdar. Ended up pulling off a minor victory after murdering Eldrad and blasting his Traitor off of the board. I used a Dual Raider list with way too many toys and found that unless you cross the board fast in that mission, it'll be tough to get anywhere near a well played opponent. Oh, and Turn 1 Night Fight is going to be a godsend for Assault Heavy Armies (Here's looking at you Wolfstar).

I know last year at the prelims and finals GW stated missions that didn't have seize or other special rules in the mission didn't have them period. Which turned a few armies on their heads as they thought it was just a typo by GW.

Played Head of da snake this weekend Mech Ba vs Mech Eldar.

Eldar pulled a minor vic as the game lasted 7 turns definally need to work on my list..

Mannahnin wrote:http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/communityAndEventsLanding.jsp?communityArticleCatId=300002

looks like i will miss it this year

Tabled an Iron Warriors themed list with getting my traitor in his DZ by turn 4. He had 5 squads in rhinos with lascannons. 3 Havoc squads, one heavy bolter, one autocannon, one lascannon team. He also took Abadon with 10 termies. I had a DA Dualwing, 6 terminator squads, Belial, 2 LRC, and 2 small Ravenwing squads.

Well, just read the revisions that GW promised and put out. While I wish they would just say that in round 1 you have to swap out a normal 28mm base model, but I guess that I cannot get everything. I did like to see that they added seize the initiative to the special mission rules, and define that traitor loses all war gear and special rules. No more shady tactics of rage, or things like that.

I played in a practice tournament this weekend using the old rules. We just defined the rules at the beginning of each scenario. There was no giving your opponent a Tervigon, a count-as troop model, or anything other then a normal 28m model, with the exception of the Deathwing guy, but I didn't get to see that game. It was a great tournament at Galactic Comics and Games in Statesboro, GA. 10 people was a bit on the small size, but it made for very friendly games, and was great seeing that many 2500 armies going at it. I walked away with 1st place and a good friend got second.

I guess for those of us at independent stores, we will just have to House Rule the questions. I have been talking with the other judge and we are probably just going to make a fast FAQ and post it at the store beforehand.

Mannahnin wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I hope that a table counts as a Massacre this year. Even if it is objectives youve obviously eliminated all threats to your side getting whatever was important enough to fight over. A major victory isnt enough

I hope the opposite. If I don't have my army in position to hold enough objectives to qualify for the Massacre, then I didn't earn it.

In an objective game the entire point of the game is for you to be able to capture the objectives (whatever they may be) at the end of the game. If there isnt anything there to oppose you in taking the objectives why shouldnt it be a complete win (massacre)? I like the idea that if your opponent is tabled then you count as holding as many objectives as you can hold (if there is 5 objectives and you have four troops then you win 4-0). The only problem with that is an ork player can possibly hold 2 or 3 objectives with one squad so if there is 5 objectives and he only has 3 squads he could hold all 5 with only 3 squads. What do you suggest then?

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If I don't have my army in position to hold enough objectives to qualify for the Massacre, then I didn't earn it.

In an objective game the entire point of the game is for you to be able to capture the objectives (whatever they may be) at the end of the game. If there isnt anything there to oppose you in taking the objectives why shouldnt it be a complete win (massacre)?

The entire point of the game is to capture the objectives by the end of the game. Right. Which means in the time/turns available. If I didn't do that by the end of the game, then I didn't do it. Simple as that. If my opponent's forces drew me off the objectives, even if I slaughtered them, then I didn't do a very good job playing the mission. If, for example, I kill all of his models except a single immobilized Rhino, and have 90% of my army left, but am somehow not holding any objectives at the end then that game is a Draw. That's the rules, and it's perfectly fair.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I like the idea that if your opponent is tabled then you count as holding as many objectives as you can hold (if there is 5 objectives and you have four troops then you win 4-0). The only problem with that is an ork player can possibly hold 2 or 3 objectives with one squad so if there is 5 objectives and he only has 3 squads he could hold all 5 with only 3 squads. What do you suggest then?

Exactly as stated before. Play out whatever turns remain. You can hold whatever you physically hold by the game's end. If I did not move my units into positions during the game to hold all the objectives, and someone else did, I did an inferior job at playing the mission, regardless of whether I tabled my opponent.

Mannahnin wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If I don't have my army in position to hold enough objectives to qualify for the Massacre, then I didn't earn it.

In an objective game the entire point of the game is for you to be able to capture the objectives (whatever they may be) at the end of the game. If there isnt anything there to oppose you in taking the objectives why shouldnt it be a complete win (massacre)?

The entire point of the game is to capture the objectives by the end of the game. Right. Which means in the time/turns available. If I didn't do that by the end of the game, then I didn't do it. Simple as that. If my opponent's forces drew me off the objectives, even if I slaughtered them, then I didn't do a very good job playing the mission. If, for example, I kill all of his models except a single immobilized Rhino, and have 90% of my army left, but am somehow not holding any objectives at the end then that game is a Draw. That's the rules, and it's perfectly fair.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I like the idea that if your opponent is tabled then you count as holding as many objectives as you can hold (if there is 5 objectives and you have four troops then you win 4-0). The only problem with that is an ork player can possibly hold 2 or 3 objectives with one squad so if there is 5 objectives and he only has 3 squads he could hold all 5 with only 3 squads. What do you suggest then?

Exactly as stated before. Play out whatever turns remain. You can hold whatever you physically hold by the game's end. If I did not move my units into positions during the game to hold all the objectives, and someone else did, I did an inferior job at playing the mission, regardless of whether I tabled my opponent.

Im gonna stick with the idea that if you table your opponent then you should get a massacre, a major at the very least. If i played target priority well enough to eliminate you as a threat completely then the objectives are obviously mine whether im in position or not. But Im usually holding a few or are in position to take most of them by that time anyway.

The rulebook says if you table your opponent you get a Win. Since the Minor/Major/Massacre division isn't in the book, it's up to the TO or scenario writer to decide what level a wipeout is worth. Neither your opinion or mine is "right". It comes down to personal preference/what the guy making the rule decides.

Speaking as a player, and occasional TO and scenario writer, I think the game is more interesting if people have an incentive to focus more on the mission than on killing. It creates more variety in play, and it means that players feel less need to go for the wipeout. Games that feel like one-sided slaughters usually are less fun for both parties; at least IMO. YMMV.

Mannahnin wrote:The rulebook says if you table your opponent you get a Win. Since the Minor/Major/Massacre division isn't in the book, it's up to the TO or scenario writer to decide what level a wipeout is worth. Neither your opinion or mine is "right". It comes down to personal preference/what the guy making the rule decides.

Speaking as a player, and occasional TO and scenario writer, I think the game is more interesting if people have an incentive to focus more on the mission than on killing. It creates more variety in play, and it means that players feel less need to go for the wipeout. Games that feel like one-sided slaughters usually are less fun for both parties; at least IMO. YMMV.

I can agree with this, and i do like playing the mission presented. I actually like the 3 they have up so far, it's gonna make for interesting games

Okay, so let me propose this to you fellas.

Now, the scenarios say that you give your opponent one of your troop models in Scenario 1 to represent your traitor. My Dark Eldar are based on Batman's Rogue Gallery, so I felt it would be fitting to give them a Batman-themed model while removing one of my Kabalite Warriors, instead of giving them that Warrior. It just seems more awesome to me and creates more of a story in my mind, but I'm not sure how all of you would feel about such a situation. This is purely hypothetical, since I doubt I'll be facing any of you next weekend. I just wanted to get a general feeling for whether or not such a thing would be acceptable and not cause too much of a fuss.

Sure, as long as the models conforms to standard GW rules for models. It is a tournament after all.

Im gonna stick with the idea that if you table your opponent then you should get a massacre, a major at the very least. If i played target priority well enough to eliminate you as a threat completely then the objectives are obviously mine whether im in position or not. But Im usually holding a few or are in position to take most of them by that time anyway.

If you win the game with having 1 model and your opponent having 0 then you arent able to capture multiple objectives to get the massacre. Thats the problem with pyrrhic victories, they dont feel much like victories. I always rule that wipe-outs are a win and you have the rest of the legal limit of turns to capture objectives

As a TO I dont believe in automatic massacres. They are deserved when the opponent is badly beaten as per the objectives of the mission. Pittsburgh qualifiers and semis will not award massacres for wipe outs Ill tell that now

Kirasu wrote:

Im gonna stick with the idea that if you table your opponent then you should get a massacre, a major at the very least. If i played target priority well enough to eliminate you as a threat completely then the objectives are obviously mine whether im in position or not. But Im usually holding a few or are in position to take most of them by that time anyway.

If you win the game with having 1 model and your opponent having 0 then you arent able to capture multiple objectives to get the massacre. Thats the problem with pyrrhic victories, they dont feel much like victories. I always rule that wipe-outs are a win and you have the rest of the legal limit of turns to capture objectives

As a TO I dont believe in automatic massacres. They are deserved when the opponent is badly beaten as per the objectives of the mission. Pittsburgh qualifiers and semis will not award massacres for wipe outs Ill tell that now

So you think most TOs will make it so that if your opponent is tabled then you get the rest of the game to capture objectives? If so Im fine with that. I just hope they dont stop it there and say if you dont hold any objectives then its a tie even though you could hold several. Ive had that happen

Think about it this way.

Your an army pushing into a region to secure it for the rest of your forces. In order to do so, you need to capture 5 key points that will allow you to have strategic dominance of the area. During the capturing process you wipe out the enemy but are left under manned with only 3 people left under your command.

How are you and those 3 people going to hold 5 key points against any enemies that come along until the rest of your forces show up?

Sure you won, but you would be in a lot better position if you had at least a guy for each point to help hold them.

Sure narrative / real life explanations aren't perfect, but this is the idea.

This massacre argument is pointless and indicative of bad tournament formats. In the one (and only one) objective-based mission, you only need to control 5 objective points more than your opponent for a massacre. That means middle and one other objective if you table your opponent. Is that really something that will be hard to manage if you're tabling your opponent already? No? Then it's a pointless discussion... as usual on Dakka.

Skarboy wrote:This massacre argument is pointless and indicative of bad tournament formats. In the one (and only one) objective-based mission, you only need to control 5 objective points more than your opponent for a massacre. That means middle and one other objective if you table your opponent. Is that really something that will be hard to manage if you're tabling your opponent already? No? Then it's a pointless discussion... as usual on Dakka.

While I agree with you, you'll find a lot of people won't listen to even valid points if you conclude them with "it's stupid, just like you guys."

Skarboy wrote:This massacre argument is pointless and indicative of bad tournament formats. In the one (and only one) objective-based mission, you only need to control 5 objective points more than your opponent for a massacre. That means middle and one other objective if you table your opponent. Is that really something that will be hard to manage if you're tabling your opponent already? No? Then it's a pointless discussion... as usual on Dakka.

Anyway, I think these missions will be fun.

There's a lot to read here... my only real question was will the traitor be from my actual army or just an extra model that I happen to bring?

The loss of a model has other ramifcations. Can a 10 man Marine squad still combat squad after losing a traitor?

What about single model troops choices, does giving up the solo model eliminate the unit, or would the oppoinent still get a KP?

I"m thinking hard about taking paladins, and keeping or losing a 55pt model is a big deal.

Yeah, my buddy plays Deathwing so he's got a similar issue!

My current solution is to drop in a single Paladin, so I just give up a one-man unit. that's one less KP for me, and another scoring unit in the other missions.

Skarboy wrote:This massacre argument is pointless and indicative of bad tournament formats. In the one (and only one) objective-based mission, you only need to control 5 objective points more than your opponent for a massacre. That means middle and one other objective if you table your opponent. Is that really something that will be hard to manage if you're tabling your opponent already? No? Then it's a pointless discussion... as usual on Dakka.

Not only did you apparently miss a good part of the discussion, you're also being needlessly insulting; knock it off.

Polonius wrote:My current solution is to drop in a single Paladin, so I just give up a one-man unit. that's one less KP for me, and another scoring unit in the other missions.

Hot damn, that's brilliant!

You should have kept it to yourself, though!

Monster Rain wrote:

Polonius wrote:My current solution is to drop in a single Paladin, so I just give up a one-man unit. that's one less KP for me, and another scoring unit in the other missions.

Hot damn, that's brilliant!

You should have kept it to yourself, though!

I'm just using dragio/coteaz and 1 big 10 man pally unit, and the rest acolytes. I'll keep my paladins, here, have this fellow in a bathrobe.

Monster Rain wrote:

Polonius wrote:My current solution is to drop in a single Paladin, so I just give up a one-man unit. that's one less KP for me, and another scoring unit in the other missions.

Hot damn, that's brilliant!

You should have kept it to yourself, though!

Hmm. You're basically playing 2450 against your opponents 2485 though. Not sure if that counts as brilliant.

In other news, Seize is in for all three. Independent Character for the traitor, not independent. All five objectives have points values now.

Well, the single paladin that you give away isn't a paladin anymore once you hand him over though.

I was referring more to the "single unit of one troop" aspect, not necessarily the type of unit in question. It's still a pretty clever idea.

Monster Rain wrote:Well, the single paladin that you give away isn't a paladin anymore once you hand him over though.

I was referring more to the "single unit of one troop" aspect, not necessarily the type of unit in question. It's still a pretty clever idea.

Right, I know. I'm more talking about the fact that you are losing 50+ points so that you give up one less KP, ouchy.

Clever, but impractical.

Unless having that one less KP wins you the game, of course.

Monster Rain wrote:Unless having that one less KP wins you the game, of course.

There aren't a lot of one model troop units in the game and most of the time they are in low KP armies. Paladin armies don't usually worry about losing KP. If they lose a KP mission, it is because they are tabled. If it is just a paladin in a normal GK army, then maybe, but I just feel like he might be useful in that mission otherwise.

I'm too lazy to think of other 1 model troops units to see if it would work better somewhere else though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I'm just being argumentative now.

I think of it this way: how many ork players would give up their grot units in kill point missions, even if they play down a few points?

I give up the liability of a kill point, and lose hardly any killing power.

An all paladin list would do quite well in the tournament since it pretty much autowins game 1 and 3, and has a fair chance of winning game 2 by center loading on the middle objective and then shooting enemy units off the other objectives

youbedead wrote:An all paladin list would do quite well in the tournament since it pretty much autowins game 1 and 3, and has a fair chance of winning game 2 by center loading on the middle objective and then shooting enemy units off the other objectives

Unless they get tabled, yep. That's what KP denial is all about.

I guess as DE my best option is to give out a Kabalite warrior? I cant really think of anything else that would be worth it. I guess ork players will be handing out Grots for the first round haha

pretre wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Unless having that one less KP wins you the game, of course.

But I'm just being argumentative now.

No you're not.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I guess as DE my best option is to give out a Kabalite warrior? I cant really think of anything else that would be worth it. I guess ork players will be handing out Grots for the first round haha

heh. I'm amazed at how much traction this is gaining... That's the internet for you.

I'm bringing an extra mini and will pull some random schmuck from my list if I have to. Not sure that it is a big deal. Oh well, that's the intertubes for you.

i am bring the boyz so the traitor with go with snikrot. so i can keep him nice and safe. load up one side of the board and bring him on the other.

pretre wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I guess as DE my best option is to give out a Kabalite warrior? I cant really think of anything else that would be worth it. I guess ork players will be handing out Grots for the first round haha

heh. I'm amazed at how much traction this is gaining... That's the internet for you.

I'm bringing an extra mini and will pull some random schmuck from my list if I have to. Not sure that it is a big deal. Oh well, that's the intertubes for you.

What are you referring to? That the model doesnt have to be from your list? Because the way it reads you must give your opponent one troop model from your list. So is this not the case? Because thats how it reads

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

pretre wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I guess as DE my best option is to give out a Kabalite warrior? I cant really think of anything else that would be worth it. I guess ork players will be handing out Grots for the first round haha

heh. I'm amazed at how much traction this is gaining... That's the internet for you.

I'm bringing an extra mini and will pull some random schmuck from my list if I have to. Not sure that it is a big deal. Oh well, that's the intertubes for you.

What are you referring to? That the model doesnt have to be from your list? Because the way it reads you must give your opponent one troop model from your list. So is this not the case? Because thats how it reads

I am referring to the fact that it will be interpreted one of two ways without a clear statement of GW:
1) Give your opponent a mini from your actual list.
2) Give your opponent a random mini that isn't part of your list.

Personally, I think that they intended it to be a mini from your list, but I think a number of TOs will take the easy way out and have you use a non-list mini for it to save all of the 'what if' questions and 'omg my only troops are Nob Bikers/Paladins/Deff Dreads/10,000 point baneblades! this is so unfair'.

I will be prepared for either eventuality.

"Each player will give his
opponent 1 troop model form your army list to represent the traitor." Straight from GW. It seems pretty straightforward to me. You give up a troop from your list not an extra mini that you brought with you.

Akroma06 wrote:"Each player will give his
opponent 1 troop model form your army list to represent the traitor." Straight from GW. It seems pretty straightforward to me. You give up a troop from your list not an extra mini that you brought with you.

Did you read my post? That's what I said. The reason why I think it will be interpreted the other way is because of all the whining and confusion that that one, straightforward line entails.

pretre wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:"Each player will give his
opponent 1 troop model form your army list to represent the traitor." Straight from GW. It seems pretty straightforward to me. You give up a troop from your list not an extra mini that you brought with you.

Did you read my post? That's what I said. The reason why I think it will be interpreted the other way is because of all the whining and confusion that that one, straightforward line entails.

Theres no way for it to be interpreted differently. TOs will have to go against the rules of Ard Boyz if they want to change it for the Cry babies

Chosen Praetorian wrote:Theres no way for it to be interpreted differently. TOs will have to go against the rules of Ard Boyz if they want to change it for the Cry babies

The same argument has been made for a variety of rules issues over the years. Everything is super clear when it is your interpretation. Things break up a bit when you include multiple people.

pretre wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:Theres no way for it to be interpreted differently. TOs will have to go against the rules of Ard Boyz if they want to change it for the Cry babies

The same argument has been made for a variety of rules issues over the years. Everything is super clear when it is your interpretation. Things break up a bit when you include multiple people.

You're extrapolating quite a bit here. Those other rules had very ambiguous wording, this one doesn't. It flat out states "from your list". This isn't a "could be interpreted multiple ways" situation like so many of the others 'throughout the ages' (of which there have been many, thanks GW!).

targetawg wrote:

pretre wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:Theres no way for it to be interpreted differently. TOs will have to go against the rules of Ard Boyz if they want to change it for the Cry babies

The same argument has been made for a variety of rules issues over the years. Everything is super clear when it is your interpretation. Things break up a bit when you include multiple people.

You're extrapolating quite a bit here. Those other rules had very ambiguous wording, this one doesn't. It flat out states "from your list". This isn't a "could be interpreted multiple ways" situation like so many of the others 'throughout the ages' (of which there have been many, thanks GW!).

this isn't amazingly ambiguous, but keep in mind that the term "army list" has traditionally also referred to the section of a codex from which you point out your army. It's not totally out of line that there are groups that use the term "list" to mean something other than ones current roster.

This rule also runs afoul of a pretty standard rule of game design: the more a rule breaks the expectations of players, the more clearcut it should be. Literally handing a model from one's army to one's opponent is pretty unexpected. Making that crystal clear, as opposed to hazy, is just good design.

Thank you, Polonius.

One could say that a number of things are pretty clear cut and this one isn't. Yes, it is obvious that the model comes from your list, but not how that works. That's what I'm talking about. All the what-ifs that make that work are what the problem is, not the act of deducting one model from a unit and handing it across the table.

I'm not totally daft.

Speaking of ambiguous, is the consensus that infiltrate and outflank is actually banned from mission #2 now? That has the potential to cause more drama than giving up a single troop model.

Sorry wolf scouts, normal deployment time for you!

If a special rule is not listed, then it is not in the mission; particularly when the other two missions specifically list them. Of course they could still get added with another clarification.

hyv3mynd wrote:Speaking of ambiguous, is the consensus that infiltrate and outflank is actually banned from mission #2 now? That has the potential to cause more drama than giving up a single troop model.

Sorry wolf scouts, normal deployment time for you!

Yeah, I think that is the consensus.

I'm almost positive that I'm not bringing WS because of it.

I mean, I guess I could just put them on the board and they could scout move 6". Or into someone else's transport. :(

i am bring the boyz so the traitor with go with snikrot. so i can keep him nice and safe. load up one side of the board and bring him on the other.

In otherwords, your going to take an expensive and hard-hitting unit that can cause havoc in your opponents backfield and essentially take that unit out of the game.
Not that once your on the board Telion or a vindicare cant just target the traitor and kill him anyways.

Why not just leave the traitor in reserve and when he comes on walk/run him to the nearest LoS blocking terrain on your side and just hide him in the corner?

dkellyj wrote:

i am bring the boyz so the traitor with go with snikrot. so i can keep him nice and safe. load up one side of the board and bring him on the other.

In otherwords, your going to take an expensive and hard-hitting unit that can cause havoc in your opponents backfield and essentially take that unit out of the game.
Not that once your on the board Telion or a vindicare cant just target the traitor and kill him anyways.

Why not just leave the traitor in reserve and when he comes on walk/run him to the nearest LoS blocking terrain on your side and just hide him in the corner?

Because then you lose out on +3 points at the end of the mission.

.

So only one scenario will be allowing infiltrate. That will likely put a curb to alot of Tyranid armies, whom rely on infiltrating genestealers to put pressure on mechanized/shooty lists that would otherwise run rampant in the backfield. I won't say its a game breaker, but it is a key tactic in maintaining a competive atmosphere for Nids. GW should have put some more thought into that consideration.

Eldanar wrote:If a special rule is not listed, then it is not in the mission; particularly when the other two missions specifically list them. Of course they could still get added with another clarification.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Infiltrate is a USR these days, not a mission rule.

They didn't list Furious Charge, either. Does that mean it's not allowed?

Janthkin wrote:

Eldanar wrote:If a special rule is not listed, then it is not in the mission; particularly when the other two missions specifically list them. Of course they could still get added with another clarification.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Infiltrate is a USR these days, not a mission rule.

They didn't list Furious Charge, either. Does that mean it's not allowed?

I think the intent of the missions is clear for Infiltrate, but not the actual rules support. Present on some missions, not present on others. Combine that with the way that previous editions worked (special deployment rules had to be called out in the mission) and you can see what they were trying to do.

What they really should have done instead is written which special rules could not be used in any given mission. Then it would have been a lot clearer.

pretre wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Eldanar wrote:If a special rule is not listed, then it is not in the mission; particularly when the other two missions specifically list them. Of course they could still get added with another clarification.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Infiltrate is a USR these days, not a mission rule.

They didn't list Furious Charge, either. Does that mean it's not allowed?

I think the intent of the missions is clear for Infiltrate, but not the actual rules support. Present on some missions, not present on others. Combine that with the way that previous editions worked (special deployment rules had to be called out in the mission) and you can see what they were trying to do.

What they really should have done instead is written which special rules could not be used in any given mission. Then it would have been a lot clearer.

Yeah, and I'm still left wondering about Scouts.

I think Scouts is safe, since it was not mentioned one way or the other. The only ones to worry about are the ones mentioned.

Janthkin wrote:

Eldanar wrote:If a special rule is not listed, then it is not in the mission; particularly when the other two missions specifically list them. Of course they could still get added with another clarification.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Infiltrate is a USR these days, not a mission rule.

They didn't list Furious Charge, either. Does that mean it's not allowed?

Since I am not taking any models with furious charge then that would work for me...

I had forgotten it was a USR now instead of a mission rule. Since it is a USR, it would probably be better to be spelled out that it is not allowed in this particular mission, if that is the intent. 'Ard Boyz is all about screwy scenarios and rule's changes. IIRC, didn't they make Daemon Armies deploy on table a few years back in one mission???

Eldanar wrote:IIRC, didn't they make Daemon Armies deploy on table a few years back in one mission???

Oh man, you just had to bring that up...

It is my understanding that that isn't quite how it went down, but we should probably leave it at that.

pretre wrote:

Eldanar wrote:IIRC, didn't they make Daemon Armies deploy on table a few years back in one mission???

Oh man, you just had to bring that up...

It is my understanding that that isn't quite how it went down, but we should probably leave it at that.

I probaly should have added a couple after that statement...

Yay 'ard boyz! Always the best season of the year due to all the rule disputes and histrionics that are going to ensue during the tournaments

Kirasu wrote:Yay 'ard boyz! Always the best season of the year due to all the rule disputes and histrionics that are going to ensue during the tournaments

I know right? I mean, the 40k scene is the only place where people disagree on rules. If you follow stuff like football, hockey, baseball, soccer etc, there are never disagreements. Everything is peachy-keen except in 40k.

Kirasu wrote:Yay 'ard boyz! Always the best season of the year due to all the rule disputes and histrionics that are going to ensue during the tournaments

That is part of what makes them so much fun...

Janthkin wrote:

Eldanar wrote:If a special rule is not listed, then it is not in the mission; particularly when the other two missions specifically list them. Of course they could still get added with another clarification.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Infiltrate is a USR these days, not a mission rule.

They didn't list Furious Charge, either. Does that mean it's not allowed?

GW needs to clarify this a.s.a.p. Outflank is not a mission special rule it is part of reserves so if they don't want you using it needs to be stated same with infiltrate , scout and any other rule that is not "Reserves, Deep Strike , or Night Fight as these are the only mission special rules in the book. Seize the iniative is a part of the deployment rules so it they intend for it not to be used it should be clearly stated also.

vhwolf wrote:
GW needs to clarify this a.s.a.p. Outflank is not a mission special rule it is part of reserves so if they don't want you using it needs to be stated same with infiltrate , scout and any other rule that is not "Reserves, Deep Strike , or Night Fight as these are the only mission special rules in the book. Seize the iniative is a part of the deployment rules so it they intend for it not to be used it should be clearly stated also.

Welcome to your first 'Ard Boyz! You have gotten all of the clarification that you are likely to get. You'll get used to this kind of thing after a while.

The missions that have outflank and infiltrate listed will allow it; the missions that do not have them listed will not. Seize was updated to be listed on all the missions.

pretre wrote:

vhwolf wrote:
GW needs to clarify this a.s.a.p. Outflank is not a mission special rule it is part of reserves so if they don't want you using it needs to be stated same with infiltrate , scout and any other rule that is not "Reserves, Deep Strike , or Night Fight as these are the only mission special rules in the book. Seize the iniative is a part of the deployment rules so it they intend for it not to be used it should be clearly stated also.

Welcome to your first 'Ard Boyz! You have gotten all of the clarification that you are likely to get. You'll get used to this kind of thing after a while.

The missions that have outflank and infiltrate listed will allow it; the missions that do not have them listed will not. Seize was updated to be listed on all the missions.

This.

If some missions have it and some do not, then the intention is clear enough for TO to say that that mission does not allow it.

Seems like deepstrike, reserves, and seize are listed for all three missions.

Night fight, outflank, and infiltrate are listed for some and not others.

Scouts isn't listed for any of them so that either means no one can scout or everyone can scout. I guess this one needs to be left up to the TO. The rest are pretty clear cut.


Also the current wording on the traitor mission seems that they lose all of their equipment and special rules and just gain a stat line, 4+/5++ saves, and the independent character special rule. So I guess they can assault but seeing as they didn't give them a gun they can't shoot.

Dracos wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Yay 'ard boyz! Always the best season of the year due to all the rule disputes and histrionics that are going to ensue during the tournaments

I know right? I mean, the 40k scene is the only place where people disagree on rules. If you follow stuff like football, hockey, baseball, soccer etc, there are never disagreements. Everything is peachy-keen except in 40k.

Sure, and at the beginning of every season the NFL comes up with new rules for the games. Remember last year when there was no passing allowed, the teams had to switch quarterbacks and the endzone was moved into the grandstands?

Droma wrote:Seems like deepstrike, reserves, and seize are listed for all three missions.

Night fight, outflank, and infiltrate are listed for some and not others.

Yes, this.

Scouts isn't listed for any of them so that either means no one can scout or everyone can scout. I guess this one needs to be left up to the TO. The rest are pretty clear cut.

I think this one falls under the 'if not mentioned, you are good to go' category.

Also the current wording on the traitor mission seems that they lose all of their equipment and special rules and just gain a stat line, 4+/5++ saves, and the independent character special rule. So I guess they can assault but seeing as they didn't give them a gun they can't shoot.

Yep. Traitors don't deserve guns. Not to mention, do you ever really trust them?

pretre wrote:

vhwolf wrote:
GW needs to clarify this a.s.a.p. Outflank is not a mission special rule it is part of reserves so if they don't want you using it needs to be stated same with infiltrate , scout and any other rule that is not "Reserves, Deep Strike , or Night Fight as these are the only mission special rules in the book. Seize the iniative is a part of the deployment rules so it they intend for it not to be used it should be clearly stated also.

Welcome to your first 'Ard Boyz! You have gotten all of the clarification that you are likely to get. You'll get used to this kind of thing after a while.

The missions that have outflank and infiltrate listed will allow it; the missions that do not have them listed will not. Seize was updated to be listed on all the missions.

Far from my first Aard Boyz (I have taken first place locally every year) . The Reason I post this is that people from GW glance here for feedback and sometimes even act on what they read. I know what the intention is but for a rules lawyer they are perfectly correct in insisting it be played the way the 5th edition rule book is written. As someone that two of the three local stores in the area will ask about the rules I would prefer GW to fix it than me making a call and getting players pissed off up.

GW did tell me that another round of updated missions will be comeing.

vhwolf wrote:Far from my first Aard Boyz (I have taken first place locally every year) .

It was a joke (albeit a poor one). Glad to know you're pro though.

The Reason I post this is that people from GW glance here for feedback and sometimes even act on what they read.

ha! Oh, you had me going for a minute, then you posted this. You wily devil, you!

GW did tell me that another round of updated missions will be comeing.

Good to know.

Unless I'm greatly mistaken there was some interaction with some GW mission writers on this very forum last year.

Monster Rain wrote:Unless I'm greatly mistaken there was some interaction with some GW mission writers on this very forum last year.

I'm going to have to use [humor] tags now, aren't I?

Why do you ruin all of my fun, MR?!?!?!?!

Damn you text, and your ineffectiveness at conveying inflection and emotion!

Monster Rain wrote:Damn you text, and your ineffectiveness at conveying inflection and emotion!

If it makes you feel better, I'm pretty ineffective in real life too.

What is this "real life" you speak of?

It is a myth.

But seriously, and back on topic, I would like to see this one more revision you speak of. I would also like them to find the PDF template they used last year and paste the darn mission into it.

It isn't rocket surgery to format a document professionally.

pretre wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Damn you text, and your ineffectiveness at conveying inflection and emotion!

If it makes you feel better, I'm pretty ineffective in real life too.

Don't worry so am I.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:It is a myth.

But seriously, and back on topic, I would like to see this one more revision you speak of. I would also like them to find the PDF template they used last year and paste the darn mission into it.

It isn't rocket surgery to format a document professionally.

They probably cant use the old PDF because it might work on my MAC . I had to use a windows machine to read the last set of missions.

Polonius wrote:

targetawg wrote:

pretre wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:Theres no way for it to be interpreted differently. TOs will have to go against the rules of Ard Boyz if they want to change it for the Cry babies

The same argument has been made for a variety of rules issues over the years. Everything is super clear when it is your interpretation. Things break up a bit when you include multiple people.

You're extrapolating quite a bit here. Those other rules had very ambiguous wording, this one doesn't. It flat out states "from your list". This isn't a "could be interpreted multiple ways" situation like so many of the others 'throughout the ages' (of which there have been many, thanks GW!).

this isn't amazingly ambiguous, but keep in mind that the term "army list" has traditionally also referred to the section of a codex from which you point out your army. It's not totally out of line that there are groups that use the term "list" to mean something other than ones current roster.

This rule also runs afoul of a pretty standard rule of game design: the more a rule breaks the expectations of players, the more clearcut it should be. Literally handing a model from one's army to one's opponent is pretty unexpected. Making that crystal clear, as opposed to hazy, is just good design.

Didnt think about it that way. I forgot about the few times they have used "Army List" to refer to a codex. In all honesty I do hope that it's not from your actual list, it will hinder high cost model armies and i dont really want an advantage.

While I don't want it to be I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to hand over a terminator to my opponent and that is going to be pretty terrible.

If they do make a rules clarification I really hope they don't unfairly penalize deathwing/draigo/logan style lists and let us bring an extra model that we give to our opponent. I really don't expect it though.

Droma wrote:While I don't want it to be I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to hand over a terminator to my opponent and that is going to be pretty terrible.

If they do make a rules clarification I really hope they don't unfairly penalize deathwing/draigo/logan style lists and let us bring an extra model that we give to our opponent. I really don't expect it though.

It's a very small penalty considering any of those terminator lists are at a huge advantage in that scenario. Extremely low kp's and hard to kill units to hide the traitor in make those lists pretty much a win unless you get tabled. Sac'ing one terminator to the mission at 2500 points is a small price to pay.

I really hope that's true about the scenarios getting another update.

GW needs to clarify whether the traitor has to be an infantry model/what happens if it isn't an infantry model/what happens if a player has no troops that are infantry models. Losing wargear and special rules doesn't change unit type. This is what dictates how the model may move/charge/embark, etc. Some of us might have wanted to play an all bike list.

Has no one noticed that the rules for the different deployment types make specific mention of scouting/infiltrating?

When you play the standard missions in the rulebook you get to use them because of the type of deployment rules, not because the missions are standard or because they're listed in the mission special rules. They're not, the only special rules (mission or otherwise) granted by the rulebook are reserves and deep strike (top of second column, p92).

If it was necessary for the mission to grant scout or infiltrate (and not sufficient that the deployment type mentions them), then no one who has ever played a mission out of the rulebook should ever have been allowed to use scout/infiltrate. The ard boyz scenarios all use detailed deployment types from the main rulebook. These include scouting/infiltrating. GW needs to say that they specifically aren't allowed if that is the case.[user]

Todd wrote:I really hope that's true about the scenarios getting another update.

GW needs to clarify whether the traitor has to be an infantry model/what happens if it isn't an infantry model/what happens if a player has no troops that are infantry models. Losing wargear and special rules doesn't change unit type. This is what dictates how the model may move/charge/embark, etc. Some of us might have wanted to play an all bike list.

Has no one noticed that the rules for the different deployment types make specific mention of scouting/infiltrating?

When you play the standard missions in the rulebook you get to use them because of the type of deployment rules, not because the missions are standard or because they're listed in the mission special rules. They're not, the only special rules (mission or otherwise) granted by the rulebook are reserves and deep strike (top of second column, p92).

If it was necessary for the mission to grant scout or infiltrate (and not sufficient that the deployment type mentions them), then no one who has ever played a mission out of the rulebook should ever have been allowed to use scout/infiltrate. The ard boyz scenarios all use detailed deployment types from the main rulebook. These include scouting/infiltrating. GW needs to say that they specifically aren't allowed if that is the case.[user]

+1 Agreed
Im getting tired of all the lack of clarification. If they dont want competitive play then dont have competitive tourneys, if they want to have competitive play then right competitive rules. Sigh... Theres no point in complaining though, the Bombs they've dropped there lately proves that.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:, if they want to have competitive play then right competitive rules.

Agreed. And for gods sake, when they right the rules, make sure they do it wright the first time!

Anglacon wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:, if they want to have competitive play then right competitive rules.

Agreed. And for gods sake, when they right the rules, make sure they do it wright the first time!

They will just turn write around and re-right them wrong.

Kaotik wrote:

Anglacon wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:, if they want to have competitive play then right competitive rules.

Agreed. And for gods sake, when they right the rules, make sure they do it wright the first time!

They will just turn write around and re-right them wrong.

lol nicely done.

Seriously guys, this is GW. Why is anyone surprised at this point?

Part of 'Ard Boyz, going back to Gladiator days, is dealing with crazy missions with little direction. That's the experience, like it or not. If you plan on doing a lot of these events over the years, get used to it.

Everyone that has played this before and especially those that have played it for years should no be surprised by any of the missions. I was just hoping for an additional 30 minutes per round, but that does not seem to be happening.

As far as getting any changes made. I remember three years ago when I ran this with the old SW book there was a thread on here about those missions. One of them made HQ worth extra KP and in the old codex you had to take one per 750pts. This meant I was forced into a bunch of excess KP in the mission. I posted as much on here and within a couple days they had adjusted the mission for SW armies. So while lamenting how bad these missions suck is most times futile, in some cases the squeeky wheel does get the greasin. Although I have not seen anyone post in any threads yet saying they had direct input to the organizers for this year.

pretre wrote:

Kaotik wrote:

Anglacon wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:, if they want to have competitive play then right competitive rules.

Agreed. And for gods sake, when they right the rules, make sure they do it wright the first time!

They will just turn write around and re-right them wrong.

lol nicely done.

Seriously guys, this is GW. Why is anyone surprised at this point?

Part of 'Ard Boyz, going back to Gladiator days, is dealing with crazy missions with little direction. That's the experience, like it or not. If you plan on doing a lot of these events over the years, get used to it.

BUUUUT MOOOOOM! Haha i do usually end up liking the missions after Ive played them a few times, that's all this weekend and coming week will consist of for me. I just wish we didnt have to sit around wondering if thats how its gonna be done come game day. Oh well, adapt and survive

Ok, so I have a question here. In the third mission it states "Each player must nominate a single HQ choice to be your army general. This choice is worth double victory points for this mission." Now my question is particular to the IG codex. This line says I must nominate a single HQ choice, in the IG codex under the entry for a Priest/Techpriest it states (Quote IG Codex pg93) "Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ units." (end quote).

When I first read the mission, I thought ok, well it has to be a CCS or a Lord Commissar, arguably the two most utilized options in the codex. But upon further research and the statement from the IG codex of seperate HQ units, I must say, that it leaves the door wide open for me to trade a 45-60 point HQ only worth 90-120 VP in exchange for one worth 3 or 4 times as much.

What do you guys think?

It's definitely an HQ Unit, but the question is whether it counts as an HQ choice for the purposes of the mission. Your best bet is to contact the organizer at your local location ahead of time and ask how he's going to rule.

Dark_Angels_Sav wrote:

Why is there even a question on if you can give your opponent a tervigon or death company dreadnought? Why would you *do* such a thing in the first place?

Because it is a easy way to get 5 KP fast and easy. Let say I give you a space marine with boltgun, and you give me a death company dreadnought. Now it is still a walker, but now it has no armor, since it has a Toughness and Wounds value. So now you can ID it, with a str 8 weapon value. If your opponent gives you a MC, Jump Infantry, or Biker...you cannot put it in a transport with the unit. There are a ton of ways to abuse the way it works. IG gives a Chaos daemon a guy...IG goes first. The traitor cannot deep strike in with the unit, since doesn't have the special rule, so you have to deploy the unit on the board. IG goes first. He kills the traitor first turn with a LasCannon, Manticore Missile...etc.

Is it a cheesy tactic...yes, but it is legal.

Regardless of what model they give you, it only "represents the traitor". He becomes infantry and can ride in a transport. So no matter what model you give me, it's going in a 5 man unit of wracks in a raider, and being placed in reserve.

Alright scenario two where each objective is worth a set amount of " points" are the points refering to extra objective" points" or battle " points " ?

Hey guys, I have been reading through this thread for a bit now, but I just wanted to confirm/ask a question. Regarding the traitor mission, if you are playing daemons. how does the traitor deploy, he does not have the daemon special rule so will he just walk on from reserves/be deployed like a regular unit. Or will he be deep struck with a daemon squad. If this has already been answered, Sorry.

Clauss wrote:Hey guys, I have been reading through this thread for a bit now, but I just wanted to confirm/ask a question. Regarding the traitor mission, if you are playing daemons. how does the traitor deploy, he does not have the daemon special rule so will he just walk on from reserves/be deployed like a regular unit. Or will he be deep struck with a daemon squad. If this has already been answered, Sorry.

Just started reading the thread, and skipped to the end. Not that this is binding anywhere else, but at my two shops we will be having the traitor deploy with a demon unit when the demon unit enters play, and not be sitting by himself in the middle nowhere.

Personally I love the mission with different point cost objectives, and to the guy who asked (to lazy to scroll down) they are not battle points as those are awarded based on criteria for the missions and how well you win (massacre, major...etc).
The mission with the traitor, while it doesn't bug me if it is one of the models in my army (bye 9 point warrior), could be abused if a GK player has to give up a terminator or a BA player an assault marine when they recieve in turn a little snivelling gretchin model. That starts the ork player off better from the start, while granted not alot at this point level.
As to victory points...yay I love them so much more than KP.
Why do people always expect so much from GW? You are only going to be dissapointed. So do what I do and don't expect alot, and you can be pleasently supprised when they surpass your expectations.
As for Daemons and the traitor, while the way it looks he would be by himself to start, or in reserve alone. My FLGS has decided that he should be able to DS with the Daemons as the bring him back to reality with them from the warp.

Here is my 55 point Paladin, thank you for your 5 point Ork. Oh well it will be funny.

Pittsburgh will be using the above addition for demons as well.. I gotta read everything closely and determine what also doesnt make sense

Wow, just took a look at these more out of curiosity than anything else. A very good read

So by RAW if they are stating only specific special rules are being used, and this supersedes the BGB then no other universal special rules would be used in mission one except infiltrators?? Since there are only Reserves (which include outflank), Deep strike, and Night fight listed as mission special rules by including infiltrate they are not including the rest of the USRs. Also in mission 2 outflanking would be allowed as this is included by default in reserve rules on pg 94.

The other terms included would be superfluous as the pages they reference include specific descriptions of what each rule does.

It is useful to know that seize the initiative is being used in each mission and would bear listing as these are not standard scenarios.

This also should give rules lawyers a good rant to start the tourney with in their locations.

Fun times

Does the third mission recieve Night Fight on turn 1 still for being Dawn of War deployment?

Or does the Missions over-rule the BRB in this case since it doesnt state that it occurs like the other two missions?

hi, im getting ready for the upcoming ard boyz and am excited about it. i havnt been playing long but im playing in it to learn things

but i have a few questions on mission one...ive looked in the previous posts and couldnt find an answer. i understand that you have to give your opponent a troop model from your list. but when you give it to your opponent does it then become a friendly unit for my opponent or does it maintain enemy unit status?

as little as there is to the mission im actually confused

shank911 wrote:Does the third mission recieve Night Fight on turn 1 still for being Dawn of War deployment?

Yes.

Or does the Missions over-rule the BRB in this case since it doesnt state that it occurs like the other two missions?

No.

It lists 'Dawn of War' deployment and does not list any changes to that deployment or exceptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shabby wrote:hi, im getting ready for the upcoming ard boyz and am excited about it. i havnt been playing long but im playing in it to learn things

but i have a few questions on mission one...ive looked in the previous posts and couldnt find an answer. i understand that you have to give your opponent a troop model from your list. but when you give it to your opponent does it then become a friendly unit for my opponent or does it maintain enemy unit status?

as little as there is to the mission im actually confused

Yes. That models ceases to be part of your army and becomes an infantry model with the stats listed in the mission. It loses all special rules, wargear, etc. It essentially becomes a proxy for the traitor. You could give him a warlord titan or a grot, it will have the same profile, stats, etc.

shank911 wrote:Or does the Missions over-rule the BRB in this case since it doesnt state that it occurs like the other two missions?

Dawn of war uses nightfight.

ah alrighty i figured it became a friendly unit...makes it alot easier to deal with

No it is not an enemy for him...the model he gives you however is an enemy to him.

Shabby wrote:um thats kinda what i didnt ask

so i understand that you give your opponent a model from your army but does the model i give my opponent count as a enemy unit for my opponent

It becomes part of their army, and therefore is NOT an enemy unit.

There will be a lot of minor victories in round 1 as you need 7 kp or 10 kp to get a major or a massacre.

Just means the person who beats up the newbies will win as usual :p

Well, these seem to have fewer special conditions that past 'Ard Boyz scenarios, I wonder what gives with that? Are they hoping to have a more diverse amount of players make to the secondaries?

Based on the "quality" of the writing and the fact that they didnt even bother to print the rules on the official 'ard boyz background Id gather that they just dont care

Its always been a tournament to sell people 2500 pt armies for the chance of winning their money back. Im not real confident it'll be around next year

If you plan on attending the Pittsburgh prelims please read these rules. I spent the time to clean them up and write them in a manner of someone who got past 4th grade english

Pittsburgh 2011 40k 'ard boyz preliminary missions

These are the rules I will be using

You can't do that, Kirasu. Half the fun of 'Ard Boyz is hour-long rules arguments over poorly written scenarios. Bonus points if a chair gets thrown or a table flipped.

Kirasu wrote:These are the rules I will be using

while I like what you did, for the traitor mission, you have you must give your opponent a infanty model. What if I don't have one, what if I have two Ork big meks and are using two Deff Dreads as my troop choices or am demons and have Nurglings as my troops? I wrote our stores FAQ and just stated the traitor models unit type becomes infantry. While you can get some stupid stuff like a rhino or a tervigon as the model you receive, it still follows the infantry rules.

General_Chaos wrote:

Kirasu wrote:These are the rules I will be using

while I like what you did, for the traitor mission, you have you must give your opponent a infanty model. What if I don't have one, what if I have two Ork big meks and are using two Deff Dreads as my troop choices or am demons and have Nurglings as my troops? I wrote our stores FAQ and just stated the traitor models unit type becomes infantry. While you can get some stupid stuff like a rhino or a tervigon as the model you receive, it still follows the infantry rules.

Guess what the big meks are? Infantry. If you chose to go that route I would say that you give up a Big Mek. 'Ard Boyz is all about tailoring competitive lists to the missions.

Also what happens when you table your opponent? Does the game end, do you keep playing, or like the old 'Ard Boyz missions do you get max battle points?

Akroma06 wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:

Kirasu wrote:These are the rules I will be using

while I like what you did, for the traitor mission, you have you must give your opponent a infanty model. What if I don't have one, what if I have two Ork big meks and are using two Deff Dreads as my troop choices or am demons and have Nurglings as my troops? I wrote our stores FAQ and just stated the traitor models unit type becomes infantry. While you can get some stupid stuff like a rhino or a tervigon as the model you receive, it still follows the infantry rules.

Guess what the big meks are? Infantry. If you chose to go that route I would say that you give up a Big Mek. 'Ard Boyz is all about tailoring competitive lists to the missions.

Try actually reading the change, Akroma.

"Before deployment each player chooses a single infantry model from one of their Troop choices and exchanges their choice with that of their opponents.

Is a Big Mek a Troops choice? No.

By Kirasu's change, General_Chaos receives a traitor but does not give one.

Akroma06 wrote:
Guess what the big meks are? Infantry. If you chose to go that route I would say that you give up a Big Mek. 'Ard Boyz is all about tailoring competitive lists to the missions.

so give up my Hq choice... Interesting, hope your not a TO

Uh if someone shows up with an army with 2 deff dreads as his only troops to an 'ard boyz then I guess I'll deal with that.. I love hypothetical situations that will probably never happen

But yes I did not think about someone showing up with an army that cannot win the tournament because they'll basically automatically lose the 2nd mission.

Im more amazed that anyone would bring 1 deff dread let alone TWO big meks AND two deff dreads. Is this a serious question ? :(

In either case, fixed!

Ok A) didn't notice there was an update...sheeesh my bad and B) if that was the case...well..."Each player will give his opponent 1 troop model form your army list to represent the traitor." So I would say that a deff dread is a model no? So one of them is the traitor and is going over to the other side!

As for wipe outs.. I didnt put that in the rules because thats a TO thing, and *all* GW events where I run things use the same rule

Wipeout = automatic win. Generally I abhor the massacre system so I dont use it, but in situations where its used then its an auto minor win regardless of conditions, however you may increase your degree of victory by accomplishing the mission objectives as normal and you may finish the game out even tho the opponent isnt technically alive anymore (This matters for objectives)

I hope no one is thinking that this applies to any location except Pittsburgh. Personally I just can't stand missions that are full of errors, this is the first year Im not playing in the 40k event but every year Ive had to errata the WFB 'ard boyz rules to be playable

pretre wrote:

shank911 wrote:Does the third mission recieve Night Fight on turn 1 still for being Dawn of War deployment?

Yes.

Or does the Missions over-rule the BRB in this case since it doesnt state that it occurs like the other two missions?

No.

It lists 'Dawn of War' deployment and does not list any changes to that deployment or exceptions.

Why would you use night fight in this case, but not allow infiltrate in the missions where its not listed (or allow scouts which you mentioned being "safe")? That makes no sense at all. Both are mentioned in the deployment special rules, but not in the scenario special rules. Either listed rules means its used/not listed means it isn't or we allow all the rules listed in the deployment type. You can't treat infiltrate one way, and other rules another.

Following the format GW seems to be using, the third scenario would be Dawn of War deployment with no night fight, scouts, or infiltrate.

Todd wrote:

pretre wrote:

shank911 wrote:Does the third mission recieve Night Fight on turn 1 still for being Dawn of War deployment?

Yes.

Or does the Missions over-rule the BRB in this case since it doesnt state that it occurs like the other two missions?

No.

It lists 'Dawn of War' deployment and does not list any changes to that deployment or exceptions.

Why would you use night fight in this case, but not allow infiltrate in the missions where its not listed (or allow scouts which you mentioned being "safe")? That makes no sense at all. Both are mentioned in the deployment special rules, but not in the scenario special rules. Either listed rules means its used/not listed means it isn't or we allow all the rules listed in the deployment type. You can't treat infiltrate one way, and other rules another.

Following the format GW seems to be using, the third scenario would be Dawn of War deployment with no night fight, scouts, or infiltrate.

Flip to dawn of war and read it. It wouldnt be dawn of war without the night fight special rule.

I'm looking at it right now.

Infiltrate. Scouts. Night Fight turn 1. So What?

The scenario special rules don't list any of those. Yeah, they shouldn't have too. As its already been pointed out, GW should have mentioned when rules aren't allowed (since most are built into the 5th edition mision components). Unfortunately, they instead listed those that are allowed (backwards 3rd/4th edition mission writing). We know this because infiltrate is listed in some, but not others (despite being allowed in all three deployment types used).

Did you read the scenario and think that infiltrate is allowed? If not, then by the same logic you should also conclude that Night Fight isn't used.

My point is that despite obvious crap writing, you have to apply the same rules logic to all the scenarios. You shouldn't pick and choose based on what feels right to you, or how you'd like the mission to play. I guess you have the right if you're a TO, but what's the point of using the same fixed scenarios?

Its probably a screw up/oversight, but for all we know the person who wrote the mission thought, "hey Dawn of War without Night Fight might be cool." Then again, maybe they just messed up and listed infiltrate in the first scenario when they didn't need to. We don't really know.

I hope they fix this before Saturday, and make some further clarifications to the traitor rules. If not, we make do. I just see a lot of people trying to make the scenarios into what they want them to be, rather than playing them how they read. Having a scout heavy army, I would personally be a little annoyed to know that while there's someone else at another venue who was allowed to make use of the ability and placed, I wasn't and didn't place.

Scouts isnt even a mission rule neither is outflank (Its part of the reserve rule).. Not sure why this misconception always comes up during 'ard boyz especially at a GW level.. Its as if they dont really play their own games!

Scouts is trickier because it isn't listed in any scenario, to my recollection. Outflank is specifically listed on two of the three scenarios, which leads on to believe it cannot be used in the second mission.

Yeah but those shouldnt *have* to be listed.. Those arent mission rules. Thats like listing "Furious Charge" as a mission rule

Technically the only mission special rules that exist are Reserves, Deep strike and Night Fighting

Outflank is a byproduct of the Reserves rule

Infiltrate and Scouts are USRs which work under any circumstance in which you are using standard deployment. Type of mission isnt relevant to scouts or infiltrate, since these are all using standard DEPLOYMENTS (but non-standard missions) then they should be used..

By disallowing infiltrate you are removing the entire USR, so then only units with scouts would be allowed to outflank . It's all very silly and comes from 4th edition where Infiltrate WAS a mission special rule

That was removed in 5th and the misconception remains even at GW HQ it seems

Kirasu wrote:That was removed in 5th and the misconception remains even at GW HQ it seems

You say that like GW knows its own rules.

Kirasu wrote:Yeah but those shouldnt *have* to be listed.. Those arent mission rules. Thats like listing "Furious Charge" as a mission rule

Technically the only mission special rules that exist are Reserves, Deep strike and Night Fighting

Outflank is a byproduct of the Reserves rule

Infiltrate and Scouts are USRs which work under any circumstance in which you are using standard deployment. Type of mission isnt relevant to scouts or infiltrate, since these are all using standard DEPLOYMENTS (but non-standard missions) then they should be used..

By disallowing infiltrate you are removing the entire USR, so then only units with scouts would be allowed to outflank . It's all very silly and comes from 4th edition where Infiltrate WAS a mission special rule

That was removed in 5th and the misconception remains even at GW HQ it seems

The Aard Boyz scenarios are written by some guy in the trade sales department, who obviously does not play the game competitively and might not even play that often. If GW HQ (UK) actually sanctioned or cared about Aard Boyz then you might see someone who actually understands 5th edition creating the scenarios but that is just not the case.

The big problem with the way these scenarios are written is that even though we might think we know what the author means when you play the 5th edition rules all of the scenarios allow outflank, infiltrate, scout, ect..

Remember the point of Aard Boyz is not to see who is the best player with the best army it is just to get people to buy more models. With the scenarios comeing out so late GW has already met their goal for the tournament so actually composeing good scenarios is not something they need to spend recources on.

No worries.. I know the point of 'ard boyz very well! and I agree with everything above

Kirasu wrote:No worries.. I know the point of 'ard boyz very well! and I agree with everything above

Sorry I meant it to sound like I was agreeing with you, and pointing out for everyone else that has complaints why things get done the way they do.