scenario's are up.

mission 1: Victory points with 500 free points....given that the "neat" thing is nominating a messenger model and getting that model into the enemies deployment zone(not end of game, just get it there)...then you look at deployment...dawn of war.... so just set your dude up at the middle line, walk an inch, 500 points.....

mission 2: 1 objective, dead center, have more scoring units with 6" of it at end of game.

mission 3: were not good at this, so on turn 3 roll a dice and mission objective with will be either Kill points, table quarters, or control terrain features.....

<let's put a link in here --Janthkin>

Mission 3 (the variable victory condition mission) has the usual loophole with missions of this type: "To control a table quarter you must have more scoring units in that quarter than
your opponent." It doesn't specify WHOLLY within, so a single scoring unit in the middle of the board could be holding 4 quarters at once.

At least they've stopped removing USRs via "mission rules." That was annoying.

Soooo..it says no deepstriking,outflanking, blah blah. Except for daemons I assume..Cool, I can just deep strike it in there and get 500 VPs

Well, scenario 1 needs to be fixed. Other than that - get those Scoring units out folks - You can't get a massacre without five of them in scenario 2, and 2/3 of the conditions in scenario 3 depend on them. There is also a typo in the 3rd one - the # of terrain features you have to hold is the same for minor and major victories.

If they don't fix scenario 1 its really going to suck to set up first and get the initiative seized....

Does this mean there are no scout moves in any mission since scouts isn't listed or do scouts always get to move no matter what.

Mission 1 can be a extremely difficult for anyone going second. The player going first can pin the enemy deep in the deployment zone and something is going to have to be deployed because the messenger has to be on the table.

Mission two is going to need lots of scoring units. Just having one more scoring unit in the center will only get you a minor victory. To get a massacre you will need 5 more scoring units in the center. That means you need to have at least 5 in your list to begin with. That's tough.

Mission 3 - just go for the wipe out. By turn 3, if you are wiping out your opponent it won't matter what you roll. that being said I would want to choose the table quarter which has the most terrain features just in case you need to claim terrain. Very interesting for marine armies who have to decide whether to combat squad for the objective/table quarters roll or the keep the squads whole for the kp mission. They will need to decide before they know. I think most of them will split the squads for the 2/3 chance it's an objective based primary mission.

Hmmmm.. round 2 is tough if you go up against certain Guard builds or Tervigon bugs. I think people will think Marines varients could combat squad and rush the center, but those are just marines afterall and deathstars could rip[ through a bunch of them. The Guard and Tervigon builds will have their scoring units be non-important units in their army for dealing damage which means their opponents will need to attack the more dangereous non-scoring units to survive.

Janthkin wrote:Mission 3 (the variable victory condition mission) has the usual loophole with missions of this type: "To control a table quarter you must have more scoring units in that quarter than
your opponent." It doesn't specify WHOLLY within, so a single scoring unit in the middle of the board could be holding 4 quarters at once.

More evidence that the person writing these hasn't actually played much 5th edition; still got 3rd/4th on the brain.

Yeah, #1 is not very well thought out. Hopefully they will fix that.

Two will be a drawfest I think - I'm going to kill the opponent's scoring units at range then rush the middle - while he or she does the same. Given that very few armies have more than six or so, and I'm pretty confident I can kill 3, and confident that at least 3 of mine will survive, its hard to see where a major win is going to come from unless the melee in the center is decisive in the last few turns.

Here we go again....

While not as poorly worded as the first round, there is still a ton of loopholes and questions on things.

Mission 1: Umm...okay so I move an inch forward and get 500 VP.

Mission 2: More Scoring units....advantage to the Marines.

Mission 3: Mission Objectives not known until the 3rd round??? Knowing the mission objectives is one of the main things for a lot of armies.

Oh well....what and see what happens...I think they are really giving too much advantage to Marines and Grey Knights.

Yeah, because Grey Knights needed another advantage... <Grand Strategy>

Yeah not liking these missions. 5 or more scoring units only benefits the newer codexs like grey knights and ig. They need to reduce it down to 4 troop units if anything.

Wow. I'm genuinely not sure it'll be worth a 2.5 hour drive to play these. I can toss a coin and determine if I loss at home for a lot cheaper.

I'm not sure whether to jump for joy at these scenarios, or cry like a baby...I'm playing biker marines so this is just insane for me, but at the same time, it is so awkward...

Polonius wrote:Wow. I'm genuinely not sure it'll be worth a 2.5 hour drive to play these. I can toss a coin and determine if I loss at home for a lot cheaper.

This seems a bit like hyperbole, Polonius.

Mission 1's problem is almost entirely the Dawn of War deployment that goes with it; that's not hard to fix.

Mission 2 is hard for just about anyone to achieve a massacre; worry about winning first, and margins second. (It'll be very rough on Tau, who want nothing to do with the middle of the board, and not great on IG, who aren't that big on advancing towards assault armies.)

Mission 3 is fine; the "unprepared" mission is not new, but I always liked it. I just want them to specify whether or not we need scoring units wholly within table quarters, or not.

Swap deployment types between Missions 1 & 3, and we're pretty much good.

Here's my take on the Ard Boyz Semi-final scenarios:

Scenario #1 - This scenario sounds a little silly. When they say deployment zone in DoW, they're talking about the entire 24" half of the board. How hard is it to cross that line? Any army going first should be able to easily get to the enemy deployment zone on Turn 1.

Other than that, this scenario will favor deathstar troop units as well as fast armies. Paladins and nob bikers may do well here, as will DE and mechdar. Good luck trying to take out those deathstar units or all those fast skimmers.

Be glad that shunting interceptors probably wouldn't count.


Scenario #2 - Gosh, this mission is just going to bone static gunlines like IG and Tau. Good luck trying to stay alive long enough to claim the center objective, especially against the more assaulty armies. This scenario will also IMO favor resilient scoring units such as paladins, scoring vendreads, 180 ork boyz, grey hunter-spam and deathwing. Yeesh, I don't think anyone will be taking necrons because of missions like this.

However, what I do like about this scenario is that it forces the army to be more balanced and troop-centric. You think you can win with just 3 5-man troop choices? Yeah, sure, table your opponents first....and then you still may not win if he takes out all your troops.


Scenario #3 - You really don't know what you'll be playing for here until Turn 3.....I like it! It's brilliant! This will force you to bring a truly balanced, all-comer's list. Want to bring a 30KP MSU list because so far, KP's don't matter? I don't think so. Want to bring a list with only 500pts worth of troops and 2000pts worth of killiness? Think again. How about a static shooty-MSU list that will just sit there and shoot the crap out of your opponent? You may have to move to get to terrain/table quarters.

The variableness of this mission truly favors the more flexible and balanced army. Don't think you can win the Semi's just by overloading 1 phase. Now you need to take into account all 3 phases of the game into your army build.


In short, bring a balanced army to the Semi's and you'll have chance.

Yep, a largely randomized chance. If you make it to one of the top tables in the last round, dumb luck could very well determine the winner, not play skill. Might as well call it "Lucky Boyz".

Krak_kirby wrote:Yep, a largely randomized chance. If you make it to one of the top tables in the last round, dumb luck could very well determine the winner, not play skill. Might as well call it "Lucky Boyz".

L(lucky)A(ahole) Boys.

I like all missions
1- VP vs KP yay no 6kp GKs
2-No terrain in the center of the map would make it real interesting. What cover? Depends how smart t.o.s are.
3-randomess is good.

Krak_kirby wrote:Yep, a largely randomized chance. If you make it to one of the top tables in the last round, dumb luck could very well determine the winner, not play skill. Might as well call it "Lucky Boyz".

Put yourself in a position to win on any of the possible outcomes, and luck ceases to be a factor. If your play skill falls short of achieving that, then randomness wasn't the problem.

Being that Tau player Janthkin and jy2 say won't like Scenario 2, I thought I'd give my opinion. I don't like Scenario 2. But don't worry, I'll have a plan...

Gus Indo wrote:Being that Tau player Janthkin and jy2 say won't like Scenario 2, I thought I'd give my opinion. I don't like Scenario 2. But don't worry, I'll have a plan...

Hopefully, they'll put a huge piece of TLOS-blocking terrain in the center.

Janthkin wrote:

Krak_kirby wrote:Yep, a largely randomized chance. If you make it to one of the top tables in the last round, dumb luck could very well determine the winner, not play skill. Might as well call it "Lucky Boyz".

Put yourself in a position to win on any of the possible outcomes, and luck ceases to be a factor. If your play skill falls short of achieving that, then randomness wasn't the problem.

I believe that was my point. Putting yourself in a position to win is a lot more difficult if you don't even know the objective till turn three. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sit home and sulk, I'll play the missions they give me. This sort of random silliness is just what I called it, dumb luck, and doesn't really contribute to finding the "Ardest" 40k general out there. It shouldn't be in the regionals at all, never mind game three.

And luck is always a factor. Collectible card game players generally have 10-15 individual matches with swiss pairing at any large event to determine a champ. The top five players consistently place at every event they attend. We have three matches, and if the pool is large enough two undefeated players often don't get a chance to play to an undefeated champ. I stopped caring how GW organizes it's competitive play system years ago, now I just look for events, set up my army, and try to put myself in a position to win...

Clauss wrote:Soooo..it says no deepstriking,outflanking, blah blah. Except for daemons I assume..Cool, I can just deep strike it in there and get 500 VPs

Or mishap and get none

Janthkin wrote:

Polonius wrote:Wow. I'm genuinely not sure it'll be worth a 2.5 hour drive to play these. I can toss a coin and determine if I loss at home for a lot cheaper.

This seems a bit like hyperbole, Polonius.

Allow me to amend. For me, if those missions aren't changed, it may not be worth it for me to make the trip. A long Saturday and a tank of gas is a pretty decent investment in something that's suppose to be fun. I've simply become more discerning about what reaches that threshold.

Mission 1's problem is almost entirely the Dawn of War deployment that goes with it; that's not hard to fix.

Agree totally. Until fixed though, it simply rewards going first even more than most VP missions do.

Mission 2 is hard for just about anyone to achieve a massacre; worry about winning first, and margins second. (It'll be very rough on Tau, who want nothing to do with the middle of the board, and not great on IG, who aren't that big on advancing towards assault armies.)

This is actually tough on MSU armies as well, including mech vets, razorback wolves, etc. I don't dislike the mission as a whole, but Semis can (and often do) turn on who got more massacres, not just more wins.

Mission 3 is fine; the "unprepared" mission is not new, but I always liked it. I just want them to specify whether or not we need scoring units wholly within table quarters, or not.

Swap deployment types between Missions 1 & 3, and we're pretty much good.

The random mission isn't terrible, but it's easy to simply chant "if you can't handle [blank], you're not skilled enough." Luck is going to be a factor, not for the best players, but for the middling players. If I draw a really good player in round three, and I take paladins, I've got a one in three chance of having a huge advantage, and part of me might just roll the dice, esp. if it's otherwise a bad matchup.

Interestingly, they're not clear about contesting anything for that mission. Do normal rules for contesting apply? Or can both players "control" a terrain feature and/or quarter by having a scoring unit near it/in it?

This first mission is definitely going to be a die roll to determine who has the massive advantage. In situations where it would be a draw it is literally going to be who goes first that gets the win...after that second look at it, I'm not sure I like it. If you could not deploy the messenger and have him walk on at the beginning of the first turn like everything else but were still disallowed from the other things like deepstrike/reserves then it would be much better cause you could have some strategy if you lose the roll off.

Couple of questions about these, you guys tell me your interpretations.

Mission 1:

A: It says Dawn of War but doesn't mention first turn night fight. Is it in effect? (My prelim store said no last time).
B: Does the messenger have to start on the board with your alloted 1 HQ 2 Troop? He cannot reserve, but can he first turn enter the board as done by Dawn of War?
C: Do you get the bonus VPs at any time? Start messenger in the middle of the board, top of first turn drive him up 12" into enemy deployment zone (half the board with DoW) I'm already up 500 vps? Or is it only at the end of game? (Reading leads me to believe former, for now)
D: Take note that it's not RGL.

Mission 2:

A: Doesn't specify troops, so Grand Strategy, Kantor Sternguard, etc. count? Seems combat squading have some advantage here.
B: Five scoring units? Ouch.

Mission 3:

A: Obvious errata to victory conditions.
B: We assume you only roll once for the objectives? But it doesn't tell you to, is it possible that each player has a seperate one?

culsandar wrote:Couple of questions about these, you guys tell me your interpretations.

Mission 1:

A: It says Dawn of War but doesn't mention first turn night fight. Is it in effect? (My prelim store said no last time).
B: Does the messenger have to start on the board with your alloted 1 HQ 2 Troop? He cannot reserve, but can he first turn enter the board as done by Dawn of War?
C: Do you get the bonus VPs at any time? Start messenger in the middle of the board, top of first turn drive him up 12" into enemy deployment zone (half the board with DoW) I'm already up 500 vps? Or is it only at the end of game? (Reading leads me to believe former, for now)
D: Take note that it's not RGL.

A: It doesn't say to modify the scenario at all so 1st Turn night fight I assume would still be in effect as that is part of the scenario
B: That's the same thing I'm wonder if they will change but as is reads right now it has to be deployed on the board so not deploying anything is no longer an option to anybody
C: As read it's as soon as you get him into the enemy deployment zone.
D: At very least it's not RGL

Mission 2:

A: Doesn't specify troops, so Grand Strategy, Kantor Sternguard, etc. count? Seems combat squading have some advantage here.
B: Five scoring units? Ouch.

A: As stated before the advantage here is marines of all sorts, and grey knights in particular
B: Yeah...that hurts, I have 8 scoring units in objective missions but still...that's a lot of units to have crowding the board center

Mission 3:

A: Obvious errata to victory conditions.
B: We assume you only roll once for the objectives? But it doesn't tell you to, is it possible that each player has a seperate one?

A: Yeah, typos are bad...
B: It says pretty clearly that the roll is to determine what the victory condition for the game is. But yes, roll once and that is the objective for both players for that game.

Mission 3 is nothing more than an updated "Unplanned Assault" which is one of my favorites.

jbunny wrote:Mission 3 is nothing more than an updated "Unplanned Assault" which is one of my favorites.

Indeed, it's a good mission. However the first two missions are going to be all sorts of a luck fest for many armies. While I appreciate scenarios that are written better than the prelims the first two are still horribly unbalanced.

Perhaps, for mission 1, by "opponents deployment zone" they mean where your opponent was able to deploy. For example, if you lined up down the center forcing your opponent in the back 6 inches of his side, THAT is his deployment zone.

Just a thought. I personally read that the way everyone else is, but it seems kinda unfair to whoever plays second.

If you're playing at Legions in pittsburgh check my event thread for erratas to these missions to make them coherent (Assuming GW doesnt)

What I like is that these scenarious encourage balanced lists.. what I dont like is that since there's no KP missions, I think Dark Eldar are going to have a really strong advantage building their usually spammy lists.. and Dark Eldar is the top competitor in my area.

Thunderfrog wrote:What I like is that these scenarious encourage balanced lists.. what I dont like is that since there's no KP missions, I think Dark Eldar are going to have a really strong advantage building their usually spammy lists.. and Dark Eldar is the top competitor in my area.

Technically they do have one KP mission and you still have to plan for it since it's in the random objective match. I agree that spammy lists where you can't take down all the units due simply to turn constraints will have an advantage...but still, over all the spread of things is fine, it's just the deployments and some typos that mess things up

I think I like them all they seem like fun I am going to take a chance, the first one will be good for deamons lol I guess they start with an extra sqauad on the board and then deep strike the half!

Dr_Chin wrote:I think I like them all they seem like fun I am going to take a chance, the first one will be good for deamons lol I guess they start with an extra sqauad on the board and then deep strike the half!

Put an icon in the messenger's unit.

The question that running through my mind is this: how do you distinguish which troop model is the one with the message?

The way I read it, that guy doesn't leave his squad, and he's just a "member of squad" who probably doesn't have anything to distinguish him anyway. I'm sure that the intention is that he becomes just like a heavy weapons trooper, who is eligible for wounds to be assigned.

Good lord, they decided to keep the word document-esque look to the scenarios. Seriously - the fantasy missions were all done up and nice looking, did they fire the one intern who actually cared or something?

Sheesh, put a little effort in your product, GW.

My god, this is embarrassing for GW. This is such garbage. These aren't even edited before they are released, I would be ashamed of myself if I was responsible for writing these. Does the author have no sense of professional pride?

fething hell.

Battlewagon Orks will love these missions.

Has Scenario 1 already been updated?

Yup, the missions have been updated; good catch. I've updated the link in the OP. While the Daemon-specific fix is okay as far as it goes, whoever goes first can still obtain 500 VPs on turn 1 by walking 1 inch.

If you're out there, GW mission-writing-person, just change the deployment from Dawn of War to Pitched Battle or Spearhead, and put Dawn of War on mission 2 or 3 instead.

I dont even think Im gonna read the missions until closer to event time.. I'll give GW time to rewrite them!

I like my IG horde now for mission two haha! I can bring 20+ scoring units. Can you? lol

Janthkin wrote:

Polonius wrote:Wow. I'm genuinely not sure it'll be worth a 2.5 hour drive to play these. I can toss a coin and determine if I loss at home for a lot cheaper.

This seems a bit like hyperbole, Polonius.

Mission 1's problem is almost entirely the Dawn of War deployment that goes with it; that's not hard to fix.

Mission 2 is hard for just about anyone to achieve a massacre; worry about winning first, and margins second. (It'll be very rough on Tau, who want nothing to do with the middle of the board, and not great on IG, who aren't that big on advancing towards assault armies.)

Mission 3 is fine; the "unprepared" mission is not new, but I always liked it. I just want them to specify whether or not we need scoring units wholly within table quarters, or not.

Swap deployment types between Missions 1 & 3, and we're pretty much good.

Excellent points...however, I have a MUCH larger issue with the fact that these scenarios were released than with the individual points required to fix them.

Clearly there is a major failure at GW in creation, editing, review and quality control. This just adds credence to other ramblings about GW not having adequate resources for quality control and intelligent review.

How can they seriously errata one mission pertaining to a SINGLE codex, yet can't fix the OBVIOUS objective typo in the third.

/facepalm

davethepak wrote:Excellent points...however, I have a MUCH larger issue with the fact that these scenarios were released than with the individual points required to fix them.

Clearly there is a major failure at GW in creation, editing, review and quality control. This just adds credence to other ramblings about GW not having adequate resources for quality control and intelligent review.

Let's mellow down the rhetoric, please. Ard Boyz is put on by US Trade Sales, and has absolutely nothing to do with the design team. Trying to leverage Ard Boyz mission writing to prop up some broader argument serves no legitimate purpose here, and can only serve to derail the conversation.

We (the internet in general, and the posters on Dakka in particular) have long demonstrated a willingness to serve as proof-readers/sounding board for Ard Boyz missions. Focus on proving constructive feedback, and there's a decent chance the missions will be revised before the day.

As I said, there's very little that has to be done to improve these; there are no fundamental flaws with the mission design, just some implementation issues that can be pretty easily corrected.

Janthkin wrote:

davethepak wrote:Excellent points...however, I have a MUCH larger issue with the fact that these scenarios were released than with the individual points required to fix them.

Clearly there is a major failure at GW in creation, editing, review and quality control. This just adds credence to other ramblings about GW not having adequate resources for quality control and intelligent review.

Let's mellow down the rhetoric, please. Ard Boyz is put on by US Trade Sales, and has absolutely nothing to do with the design team. Trying to leverage Ard Boyz mission writing to prop up some broader argument serves no legitimate purpose here, and can only serve to derail the conversation.

We (the internet in general, and the posters on Dakka in particular) have long demonstrated a willingness to serve as proof-readers/sounding board for Ard Boyz missions. Focus on proving constructive feedback, and there's a decent chance the missions will be revised before the day.

As I said, there's very little that has to be done to improve these; there are no fundamental flaws with the mission design, just some implementation issues that can be pretty easily corrected.

Quoted for truth! I dont know why people always try to hate on ard boyz. Its a free tournament with prize support. If you dont like it dont go! Sure we can request better missions but these ones seem fun and out of the norm. I actually like them despite how hard it will be for me to win with them.

Reecius wrote:

Battlewagon Orks will love these missions.

'Ard Boyz Semi Finals ere I come

I actually really like all these missions. It's gonna take some constructive thinking to get a good TAC list for all these missions

My DE are loving these.....Death to KPs!! Long live VPs!

I just cant believe that scout is not in the special rules for any of the missions. All 3 missions have the exact same special rules.

bwraith12 wrote:I just cant believe that scout is not in the special rules for any of the missions. All 3 missions have the exact same special rules.

I would like to point out that Scout is a USR not a mission special rule...while they listed infiltrate (same boat) my guess is that the intent was for scouts to be used in the missions, since the restrictions for the first scenario and the messenger list scout as disallowed specifically for him. It really isn't that big of a deal. As for the missions having all the same rules...good...makes the scenarios more what you are playing to, instead of the arbitrary mood of whomever wrote the special rules.

they still have not fixed the terrian features control require ments for the last mission. still 2 for both

culsandar wrote:How can they seriously errata one mission pertaining to a SINGLE codex, yet can't fix the OBVIOUS objective typo in the third.

/facepalm

They did it just on my post lol, JK but I am sure no one wants Daemons to start on the board with a icon to give an unfair advantage to someone say playing grey knights??? lol

So the messanger has to be a troop choice? Or "Troop Model"? whats a troop model? something that walks? I am confused now
Does the messager have to be the same troop choice? Can I have a pink horror or a PB as the messanger in group of bloodletters?

Dr_Chin wrote:

culsandar wrote:How can they seriously errata one mission pertaining to a SINGLE codex, yet can't fix the OBVIOUS objective typo in the third.

/facepalm

They did it just on my post lol, JK but I am sure no one wants Daemons to start on the board with a icon to give an unfair advantage to someone say playing grey knights??? lol

So the messanger has to be a troop choice? Or "Troop Model"? whats a troop model? something that walks? I am confused now
Does the messager have to be the same troop choice? Can I have a pink horror or a PB as the messanger in group of bloodletters?

It says nothing about treating it as an independent character, you just have to make it obvious which model is the messenger, and the unit they are a part of stays the same except that it loses reserve/deepstrike/etc privileges.

Also it says troop model, so you pick one model from a troops unit, and designate that model to be the messenger. If that model doesn't make it to the enemy deployment, then you don't get the bonus victory points.

So again not to be a hater this give GK an advantage if they take the vindicare assassin, all they have to do is shoot the messenger.

Dr_Chin wrote:So again not to be a hater this give GK an advantage if they take the vindicare assassin, all they have to do is shoot the messenger.

You can think of it that way if you wish, however the mission is still dawn of war meaning 1) they can't deploy the vindicare first turn due to restrictions 2) Night fight first turn so they shouldn't be able to just blow you off the table either way, and 3) you can get in first turn to the other deployment zone without really much worry...


By that reasoning I could use Sgt Telion and have the advantage as i can allocate as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly the getting the messenger into the deployment zone is the easy part...99% of people will get that. However killing the messenger for the bonus battle point will be the harder one for some people.

The one problem is that not every army can reach the enemy deployment zone turn one if they go second in dawn of war, and the enemy deploys properly to push them back.

That said, you know the mission is there. Build and plan accordingly.

Polonius wrote:The one problem is that not every army can reach the enemy deployment zone turn one if they go second in dawn of war, and the enemy deploys properly to push them back.

That said, you know the mission is there. Build and plan accordingly.

I agree that some builds will have trouble with this (footsloggers, more defensive lists, etc...). However exactly as you pointed out it's all about playing a list that can do well in the scenarios. They give us the scenarios so we can prepare for it. If you go into the event playing a list that is obviously suboptimal for the scenarios, and you play it by choice, then you can't complain about being at a disadvantage in specific scenarios.

EDIT: In addition, the question is if you go second are you playing right into their hands by deploying on the same side as them with your troops or are you going the aggressive route and deploying opposite side. So many options for deployment. I have a few nasty ideas up my sleeve for the first mission.

ToI wrote:

Polonius wrote:The one problem is that not every army can reach the enemy deployment zone turn one if they go second in dawn of war, and the enemy deploys properly to push them back.

That said, you know the mission is there. Build and plan accordingly.

I agree that some builds will have trouble with this (reserve based lists). However exactly as you pointed out it's all about playing a list that can do well in the scenarios. They give us the scenarios so we can prepare for it. If you go into the event playing a list that is obviously suboptimal for the scenarios, and you play it by choice, then you can't complain about being at a disadvantage in specific scenarios.

It does give some weight to the argument that Hard Boys is mostly luck + list building through.

Polonius wrote:

ToI wrote:

Polonius wrote:The one problem is that not every army can reach the enemy deployment zone turn one if they go second in dawn of war, and the enemy deploys properly to push them back.

That said, you know the mission is there. Build and plan accordingly.

I agree that some builds will have trouble with this (reserve based lists). However exactly as you pointed out it's all about playing a list that can do well in the scenarios. They give us the scenarios so we can prepare for it. If you go into the event playing a list that is obviously suboptimal for the scenarios, and you play it by choice, then you can't complain about being at a disadvantage in specific scenarios.

It does give some weight to the argument that Hard Boys is mostly luck + list building through.

I would say that part of the game is luck and listbuilding. We build our lists to try and mitigate the effect of bad luck or make it so the chances of bad luck are lower (twin linking) and even if you are the best tactical player you can't expect to win against an individual who is far more skilled at list building than you but has the same tactical knowledge and skill. Dice do happen, but typically we build lists to mitigate this issue. Doesn't always work, but I wouldn't say that it is mostly luck, but I would agree that the list building aspect is essential to coming out on top.

Well I think if as a daemon player facing GK I am screwed if I don’t get turn one, with warp quake and if they player makes a conga line of troops with it would give me a 12" width drop zone potentially. Think about a GK player deploying 2 troops 10 men squads 2 inches from each other 11 inches from each squad they have now made a no fly zone which is all but 12” wide the length of the board.

Dr_Chin wrote:Well I think if as a daemon player facing GK I am screwed

You could have stopped right there.

pretre wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:Well I think if as a daemon player facing GK I am screwed

You could have stopped right there.

Very true...

lol I have faced many GK's players and I have only lost 1 game I have won about 7 and drawn none so I am doing good, but this is kind of crazy.

pretre wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:Well I think if as a daemon player facing GK I am screwed

You could have stopped right there.

It is all going to depend entirely on how they choose to run GK. SS yeah they may give you some trouble. However if they are running any other variant that isn't running SS, then you can worry less. But as pretre said...you could have stopped with that first statement. Daemons vs. GK is not a balanced match up.

Dr_Chin wrote:lol I have faced many GK's players and I have only lost 1 game I have won about 7 and drawn none so I am doing good, but this is kind of crazy.

So... Let me get this straight.

Your army has a hard time against one variant of GK, that hardly anyone plays, in one mission deployment type?

Yeah, that mission is super broken.

I did not say anything about super broken now did I sir! lol I just said I would have a hard time with it.

Dr_Chin wrote:I did not say anything about super broken now did I sir! lol I just said I would have a hard time with it.

Okay, so you're saying that you would have a hard time with an army that is specifically built to beat your army type (and really only your army type) in that mission?

Yeah, that sounds about right. Good thing that no one in their right mind would field Warp Quake spam at Semis.

I've been thinking about it. I usually run Deathwing with a tac squad for objectives. Do you think its worth getting it in a rhino? That way, if I go second, I can place the Rhino up against the deployment zone and if the rhino blows disembark into the other person's deployment zone.

Going second is just bad in this scenario.

Do you think the messenger is a "unique model" for wound allocation? I'm inclined to think not, but need to be prepared for the argument.

I would guess that the model will be considered unique since in game terms it is infact different. Otherwise you would not be able to confirm that the messenger had been killed unless the unit was wiped out.

kestral wrote:I've been thinking about it. I usually run Deathwing with a tac squad for objectives. Do you think its worth getting it in a rhino? That way, if I go second, I can place the Rhino up against the deployment zone and if the rhino blows disembark into the other person's deployment zone.

Chances are most opponents can block this if you go second.

Do you think the messenger is a "unique model" for wound allocation? I'm inclined to think not, but need to be prepared for the argument.

Yes. It has additional special rules.

pretre wrote:

kestral wrote:I've been thinking about it. I usually run Deathwing with a tac squad for objectives. Do you think its worth getting it in a rhino? That way, if I go second, I can place the Rhino up against the deployment zone and if the rhino blows disembark into the other person's deployment zone.

Chances are most opponents can block this if you go second.

Do you think the messenger is a "unique model" for wound allocation? I'm inclined to think not, but need to be prepared for the argument.

Yes. It has additional special rules.

The difference between 40k and fantasy. Models with standards and such die last because someone else picks it up. You would think the same with a message. Hey the guy with the message died. Looks like that will never get delivered. lol!

On a second note: Mission 1 would be so much better and/or cooler if you had to get the messenger to your opponents mail box. Deploy a mail box on each side. That would be fun and challenging. NO MAIL FOR YOU!

Tomb King wrote:The difference between 40k and fantasy. Models with standards and such die last because someone else picks it up. You would think the same with a message. Hey the guy with the message died. Looks like that will never get delivered. lol!

It's all Johnny Mnemonic up in here. If that guy dies, we lose what's in his head.

Tomb King wrote:On a second note: Mission 1 would be so much better and/or cooler if you had to get the messenger to your opponents mail box. Deploy a mail box on each side. That would be fun and challenging. NO MAIL FOR YOU!

I love it...kinda like an inverse capture the flag game!

pretre wrote:

Tomb King wrote:The difference between 40k and fantasy. Models with standards and such die last because someone else picks it up. You would think the same with a message. Hey the guy with the message died. Looks like that will never get delivered. lol!

It's all Johnny Mnemonic up in here. If that guy dies, we lose what's in his head.

Commissar Jennings: That sounds awfully like an informant! *points his bolt pistol at the messenger* Your not an informant are you?
Messenger: *needs new underwear*

pretre wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:lol I have faced many GK's players and I have only lost 1 game I have won about 7 and drawn none so I am doing good, but this is kind of crazy.

So... Let me get this straight.

Your army has a hard time against one variant of GK, that hardly anyone plays, in one mission deployment type?

Yeah, that mission is super broken.

ok troll

Dr_Chin wrote:

pretre wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:lol I have faced many GK's players and I have only lost 1 game I have won about 7 and drawn none so I am doing good, but this is kind of crazy.

So... Let me get this straight.

Your army has a hard time against one variant of GK, that hardly anyone plays, in one mission deployment type?

Yeah, that mission is super broken.

ok troll

I'm confused...which one were you calling a troll...

ToI wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:

pretre wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:lol I have faced many GK's players and I have only lost 1 game I have won about 7 and drawn none so I am doing good, but this is kind of crazy.

So... Let me get this straight.

Your army has a hard time against one variant of GK, that hardly anyone plays, in one mission deployment type?

Yeah, that mission is super broken.

ok troll

I'm confused...which one were you calling a troll...

I think he was admitting that he was trolling by complaining about one army build targeted to beat his list in one mission being hard to win against.

pretre wrote:

ToI wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:

pretre wrote:

Dr_Chin wrote:lol I have faced many GK's players and I have only lost 1 game I have won about 7 and drawn none so I am doing good, but this is kind of crazy.

So... Let me get this straight.

Your army has a hard time against one variant of GK, that hardly anyone plays, in one mission deployment type?

Yeah, that mission is super broken.

ok troll

I'm confused...which one were you calling a troll...

I think he was admitting that he was trolling by complaining about one army build targeted to beat his list in one mission being hard to win against.

I sincerely hope so.

Does the rulebook say "rules" or statistics and equipment to create a unique model?

Thinking theoretically, how effective will people going first be in blocking the messenger out of the deployment zone? An ork Troop choice can block the entire board at maximum spread.

kestral wrote:Does the rulebook say "rules" or statistics and equipment to create a unique model?

Thinking theoretically, how effective will people going first be in blocking the messenger out of the deployment zone? An ork Troop choice can block the entire board at maximum spread.

It lists models with different wargear as an example but makes it pretty clear that a model is considered different if what it as an individual does is different in terms of the game.

Also, blocking someone out of your deployment zone isn't exactly the greatest way to go about it, since if you want to put your models into their deployment zone for the bonus points you either have to keep the line and just move up in which case you are probably in range of everything coming in from the board edge and that squad is going to get eaten.

ToI wrote:Also, blocking someone out of your deployment zone isn't exactly the greatest way to go about it, since if you want to put your models into their deployment zone for the bonus points you either have to keep the line and just move up in which case you are probably in range of everything coming in from the board edge and that squad is going to get eaten.

I think you're missing the point. He's not saying permanently barring them from your deployment zone, he's saying using the 18" push to make it much harder to get those +500.

Ok I get what he was getting at now...though I still think running a big long string of guys out along the whole board is just asking for that unit to get shot to bits first turn, even if you do get into the enemy deployment zone...

i don't know. it's a very aggressive way to deploy but if you somehow get seized on it's going to be very bad for you...

Well yeah... lol

But you've still pushed them back 18", which against some slower armies is a loooong ways and can be worth it. Especially since you just need to walk an inch for 500 vps.

pretre wrote:Well yeah... lol

But you've still pushed them back 18", which against some slower armies is a loooong ways and can be worth it. Especially since you just need to walk an inch for 500 vps.

Good point, I guess I'm just stuck on the fact that if you are going first you are probably getting that 1" into the deployment zone, but 80% of your stuff is going to be walking on anyway. I feel like the 1st turn will be duel of the troops choices.

ToI wrote:

pretre wrote:Well yeah... lol

But you've still pushed them back 18", which against some slower armies is a loooong ways and can be worth it. Especially since you just need to walk an inch for 500 vps.

Good point, I guess I'm just stuck on the fact that if you are going first you are probably getting that 1" into the deployment zone, but 80% of your stuff is going to be walking on anyway. I feel like the 1st turn will be duel of the troops choices.

Well, that's the same for any DoW deployment. The idea is that you can get a 500vp advantage on turn 1 if you play it right.

That's a big deal.

indeed, that's like killing a LR and THSS termies inside it by moving a model

pretre wrote:

ToI wrote:

pretre wrote:Well yeah... lol

But you've still pushed them back 18", which against some slower armies is a loooong ways and can be worth it. Especially since you just need to walk an inch for 500 vps.

Good point, I guess I'm just stuck on the fact that if you are going first you are probably getting that 1" into the deployment zone, but 80% of your stuff is going to be walking on anyway. I feel like the 1st turn will be duel of the troops choices.

Well, that's the same for any DoW deployment. The idea is that you can get a 500vp advantage on turn 1 if you play it right.

That's a big deal.

To counter this I am playing my DE with now an auto include Vect! I will steal your initiative and assault your messenger all in the same turn I win which will give my wych messenger FNP

Looks like they errated it again! You now have to have your messenger in their deployment zone on turn 6 to get the bonus points!

No other changes to the third mission yet though.

patrickparker wrote:Looks like they errated it again! You now have to have your messenger in their deployment zone on turn 6 to get the bonus points!

No other changes to the third mission yet though.

Hilariously, they just said "by turn six", which still means you get the bonus if he's inside on turn one. that's "by" turn six, not "during" or "at the end of" turn six.

So on tunr 1 you can deploy 1 HQ and 2 troop units. You must deploy 1 troop (with messenger). As an Eldar player this means 5 DA in a WS with Eldrad. Divination + turn of shooting + mind war = opponents dead messenger. Of course that turn of shooting is 121 S6 shots.

Icon720 wrote:So on tunr 1 you can deploy 1 HQ and 2 troop units. You must deploy 1 troop (with messenger). As an Eldar player this means 5 DA in a WS with Eldrad. Divination + turn of shooting + mind war = opponents dead messenger. Of course that turn of shooting is 121 S6 shots.

Remember it's unmodified dawn of war for the most part...you still have to be able to see your enemy. And if that is what you are deploying they probably will just deploy that messenger way the hell away from your shooty bomb of shootyness

That's the same as it was on the 30th.

where does it say that only one player can achieve the mission and be the only one to receive the 500 vps?? i would think that both players can do it the way the mission is written for scenario 1.

@julnlecs: It doesn't. Either or both can get it.

Then why is everyone fighting about having to go 1st. Im using blood angels and im just planning to move fast on my 1st turn and moving my tank into his deployment. It really is a dumb scenario.

Julnlecs wrote:Then why is everyone fighting about having to go 1st. Im using blood angels and im just planning to move fast on my 1st turn and moving my tank into his deployment. It really is a dumb scenario.

Because the person who goes first pretty much automatically gets it. The person who goes second could be stopped depending on army build*. That leads to a 500 point advantage based on the first turn roll. That's tough to come back from.

* Let's look at your example. You get second turn against space wolves with drop pods. They place their guy on the line. You place yours in a fast RB pretty far forward. Turn 1 happens. They move theirs over the line. 3 Drop pods fall around your guy, pop the RB and either kill or pin the squad. You are now down by 500 vp plus whatever the cost of the RB and squad. Or you face DE, they fly Vect and a Wych squad over to your RB surround and kill it or pop and kill you. Etc, so on. You're now down 500 vp. That's why first turn is important.

I doubt i would have my rb all by itself waiting for my opponent to just shoot it up. There is cover and i can surround my tanks around mine to cover it up. And if i had a all drop pod player in the semis on round one id be loving life. I just think the mission is dumb and easy to manipulate for both players. Concentrate on wiping out your opponent and you will probably win.

Julnlecs wrote:I doubt i would have my rb all by itself waiting for my opponent to just shoot it up. There is cover and i can surround my tanks around mine to cover it up. And if i had a all drop pod player in the semis on round one id be loving life. I just think the mission is dumb and easy to manipulate for both players. Concentrate on wiping out your opponent and you will probably win.

It is Dawn of War with amendments. You have to deploy one unit of troops (the one with the messenger) and can deploy UP TO one additional troop (or a Dedicated Transport) and one HQ total.

Your messenger has to be on the board turn one. How are you going to surround your messenger squad on turn one? The best you can do is deploy the messenger squad and one other to surround it with an HQ or messenger squad and transport with HQ inside. Still easy meat for an alpha strike.

Assault armies are going to have a fairly substantial advantage imo for this first mission, after having played a practice game against Templar last night. especially going first...All together this is a strange mission. I just wish it wasn't dawn of war...

Julnlecs wrote:Concentrate on wiping out your opponent and you will probably win.

It isn't the simple.

You both have 2500 VP. If your messenger doesn't survive or get into your opponent's DZ, your opponent has a possible 3000. That makes the margin of victory much harder to get. Remember that the win conditions are 'more than your opponent'. Even if you table your opponent, you still need to win by 1126 to 2500 to get a massacre. That 500 is quite the albatross around your neck.

Mission 2 is the same. Even if you table your opponent, you need 5 scoring units to massacre.
Mission 3, you need to hold at least 3 points (or win by 5 kps). Tabling may not get you that.

ToI wrote:Assault armies are going to have a fairly substantial advantage imo for this first mission, after having played a practice game against Templar last night. especially going first...All together this is a strange mission. I just wish it wasn't dawn of war...

Dawn of war is the only thing saving player 2 from losing there messenger on turn 1. Or atleast night fight is.

ToI wrote:Assault armies are going to have a fairly substantial advantage imo for this first mission, after having played a practice game against Templar last night. especially going first...All together this is a strange mission. I just wish it wasn't dawn of war...

Exactly, a lucky pop on their transport, or a fast moving army could assault your messenger first turn. Not to mention the chance that that unit gets pinned if their transport blows. Ugh. I like the concept of the two messengers passing in the dawn and leading to an escalated engagement.

Where does it say my troop messenger has to be one of the 2 that you deploy from dawn of war? It just says you pick a messenger from a troop unit and it has to deploy on the board. Wouldnt you then be able to choose a third unit to deploy on the board according to the scenario?

No. Troop Messenger must be deployed. Dawn of War only ALLOWS you to deploy 2 and 1 HQ. No specific exemption is given to the DoW deployment rules.

pretre wrote:

ToI wrote:Assault armies are going to have a fairly substantial advantage imo for this first mission, after having played a practice game against Templar last night. especially going first...All together this is a strange mission. I just wish it wasn't dawn of war...

Exactly, a lucky pop on their transport, or a fast moving army could assault your messenger first turn. Not to mention the chance that that unit gets pinned if their transport blows. Ugh. I like the concept of the two messengers passing in the dawn and leading to an escalated engagement.

It's a cool concept but gameplay wise it just has so many balance issues...as it stands I'm probably re-tooling my list to be a little more gankyface than it previously was. Also assault armies are going to have a certain advantage when it comes to the 2nd mission as well, That cluster feth in the center near the objective is just going to make assault armies giggle. All together the armies are going to HAVE to be highly mobile to an extreme to do well in these missions.

I dont really see whats so hard in this scenario. Most likely both players will receive the 500 vps and it will depend on who inflicts the most damage.

That is where divination comes in. If Eldar go first the Eldar can deploy anywhere at first, being offensive/defensive/stupid let oppnent deploy in where he wants (or where you baited him to). Eldrad divination get to redeploy within 18 iches or 12 out of LoS. Mind war lets you pick the messanger out without having to kill the squad. A sugrical strike of sorts. Daemons can do as well with GoC, but GK assasins are not invited to this party as that character will be walking in from the edge. Since Eldar messenger was in the WS it is 500 VPs to eldar + 1 for dead messenger on turn one. This assumes the oppnent messenger squad is on foot (nids) or in a AV10-12 vehicle. If in a venicle the ton of S6 are used to crack them out. AV 14 is an issue but with DoW cracking AV 14 at a distince is an issue for everyone. AV 10-12 not so much. Guard/Marines get to put a rhino/Chimera within 18 inches of enemy messenger spotlight the vehicle and destroy if from afar. A blunt approach but they are not eldar.

ToI wrote: All together the armies are going to HAVE to be highly mobile to an extreme to do well in these missions.

That's 5th edition for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Julnlecs wrote:I dont really see whats so hard in this scenario. Most likely both players will receive the 500 vps and it will depend on who inflicts the most damage.

Nothing is hard about it, but figuring out how to prevent your opponent from getting their messenger across is pretty key to victory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Icon720 wrote:That is where divination comes in. If Eldar go first the Eldar can deploy anywhere at first, being offensive/defensive/stupid let oppnent deploy in where he wants (or where you baited him to). Eldrad divination get to redeploy within 18 iches or 12 out of LoS.

Divination does not allow you to ignore the DOW 18" restriction. Edit: Nm, you got the transport and night fight part.

Julnlecs wrote:I dont really see whats so hard in this scenario. Most likely both players will receive the 500 vps and it will depend on who inflicts the most damage.

It's not what is hard about the mission, it's what is imbalanced about the mission. First turn pretty much guarantees you the 500 VP while going second you are pretty much hosed against any army that WANTS to go first. The biggest problem is that you can't keep him off the board to walk on. If you could then it would change the scenario dramatically and make it more balanced

I am so looking forward to the semi finals. With DE and GK countering some of the armies I have issues with opens an oppurtunity for mechdar. I am not a great player but both DE and GK armies I have faced have issues with volume of S6 shooting (DE) and/or eldar mobility (GK). Yeah Eldar.

The only real problem with the first mission is that Victory points gives the advantage to the player that wins the dice off (and gets to choose either 1st/2nd). The bonus points merely makes it even MORE of an advantage to win that roll.

Polonius wrote:The only real problem with the first mission is that Victory points gives the advantage to the player that wins the dice off (and gets to choose either 1st/2nd). The bonus points merely makes it even MORE of an advantage to win that roll.

THAT's why I'm including both Vect and the Baron in my DE list... plus, VP conditions are very favorable for MSU armies...

whembly wrote:

Polonius wrote:The only real problem with the first mission is that Victory points gives the advantage to the player that wins the dice off (and gets to choose either 1st/2nd). The bonus points merely makes it even MORE of an advantage to win that roll.

THAT's why I'm including both Vect and the Baron in my DE list... plus, VP conditions are very favorable for MSU armies...

Inherently favorable, however I feel like MSU has the disadvantage in the deployment for this scenario as your units are easier to kill. Just my thought

ToI wrote:

whembly wrote:

Polonius wrote:The only real problem with the first mission is that Victory points gives the advantage to the player that wins the dice off (and gets to choose either 1st/2nd). The bonus points merely makes it even MORE of an advantage to win that roll.

THAT's why I'm including both Vect and the Baron in my DE list... plus, VP conditions are very favorable for MSU armies...

Inherently favorable, however I feel like MSU has the disadvantage in the deployment for this scenario as your units are easier to kill. Just my thought

I actually already have a build thrown together for DE now because of this mission. Vect steals the init and I charge your messenger on turn 1 with a host of wyches at my back. Vect can kill off just about any squad in the game almost single handedly let alone a pack of angry witches at his back and an army of lances shooting at the enemy vehicle/survivors. Also if I blow the enemy vehicle up good luck with that obsidian grenade!

I know the 1st mission isn't very clear but I think you have to have the messenger alive and escorted into the other deployment zone by turn 6. If you go first and move into your opponents deployment zone great, you have escorted him there but he still has to be in the area by turn 6 and alive. Otherwise it doesn't count.

Now that being said who knows what these guys meant but I tihnk everyone can agree that this is a huge joke of a touranment now.

The way it is worded implies that the messenger needs to make it to the other zone before turn 6. Not, be in there on turn six. This mission is the joke. The other ones are completely fine...with the exception of typos.

Darkwynn wrote:
Now that being said who knows what these guys meant but I tihnk everyone can agree that this is a huge joke of a touranment now.

Sigh. No, we can't agree on that.

This is the same thing that comes up every time they release scenarios for 'AB. Yes, they are not balanced. Big deal. I remember GW's Gladiator tournaments when the scenarios were intentionally broken and you got called a sissy for complaining. Those were the days.

Seriously, man up and play or don't. Just don't complain about it.

Darkwynn wrote:I know the 1st mission isn't very clear but I think you have to have the messenger alive and escorted into the other deployment zone by turn 6. If you go first and move into your opponents deployment zone great, you have escorted him there but he still has to be in the area by turn 6 and alive. Otherwise it doesn't count.

No, "by turn 6" doesn't mean "on turn 6." Consider "I have to pay my credit card bill by September 15" - so long as the task (escort the messenger into the other deployment zone/pay my credit card bill) is done no later than the deadline (by turn 6/by Sept. 15), I've fulfilled the conditional statement.

pretre wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:
Now that being said who knows what these guys meant but I tihnk everyone can agree that this is a huge joke of a touranment now.

Sigh. No, we can't agree on that.

This is the same thing that comes up every time they release scenarios for 'AB. Yes, they are not balanced. Big deal. I remember GW's Gladiator tournaments when the scenarios were intentionally broken and you got called a sissy for complaining. Those were the days.

Seriously, man up and play or don't. Just don't complain about it.

Pretre, I am not talking about the balance of the scenarios. Considering I won Ard boys before I think I have a pretty good understanding of the tournament. The last year after I won the tournament went downhill from there. The scenarios always look like they are done last minute. No graphic design work or professionalism is put into it. They split the finals into three regions (which means they are not finals) and lowered the prize support/ effort into the end tournaments.

It's presented as half ass work to me and on top of that the scenarios are clear as mud. That is my issue with it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:I know the 1st mission isn't very clear but I think you have to have the messenger alive and escorted into the other deployment zone by turn 6. If you go first and move into your opponents deployment zone great, you have escorted him there but he still has to be in the area by turn 6 and alive. Otherwise it doesn't count.

No, "by turn 6" doesn't mean "on turn 6." Consider "I have to pay my credit card bill by September 15" - so long as the task (escort the messenger into the other deployment zone/pay my credit card bill) is done no later than the deadline (by turn 6/by Sept. 15), I've fulfilled the conditional statement.

I know Janthkin and by RAW I agree with you. The mission doesn't make a lot of sense from a players or a TO's viewpoint about the mission. I can only assume they meant what I mentioned before hand but the way its written or till they change it you play it like you said above.

Hey, with a free army on the line I'd play a scenario that included - "roll a D6 each turn, on a 6 you win." What do I have to lose? HOWEVER, I'd still want to try to figure out how to do as well as possible in the event neither player rolled a 6. Not sure how to maximize my chances in this one. The wound allocation issue a big one for a messenger in a terminator squad...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I actually kind of like the "Gladiator" Concept. When you're someone with a sub optimal army who doesn't play that often, anything that throws people's "perfectly tuned for the standard scenarios beatstick armies" off is fine.

I don't care for the "go first = win" part of this, but it doesn't really hurt the event for me, except perhaps on a philosophical level, in that less skilled players (such as myself) are more likely to win...

All I can say is , welcome to 'Ard boyz. The missions are never clear and to be honest, at 2500 points the games starts to have more and more issues in regards to match ups between codices.

I do agree that they should at the very least proof read these things, but it would be my assumption that the purpose of posting these things so far in advance is to use the public as a huge R&D team, I mean there is know way they could brain storm these missions or scrutinize them as well as the ENTIRE general public.

Now, that being said, if by 9/15 at latest they haven't at least clarified these things then I would say resume the bitch fest.

AB is put on be the sales department, like Janthkin said previously stated I believe, so from a business perspective it only makes sense to lend an advantage to the latest armies that you are trying to sell.

I am not trying to jump on GK more then they have been, but they currently are the easiest army to play.... until Necrons are released ; ) When you have played since 1st like I have you notice these patterns, after all there aim is to make money not just give away free crap...

Red Corsair wrote:All I can say is , welcome to 'Ard boyz. The missions are never clear and to be honest, at 2500 points the games starts to have more and more issues in regards to match ups between codices.

I do agree that they should at the very least proof read these things, but it would be my assumption that the purpose of posting these things so far in advance is to use the public as a huge R&D team, I mean there is know way they could brain storm these missions or scrutinize them as well as the ENTIRE general public.

Now, that being said, if by 9/15 at latest they haven't at least clarified these things then I would say resume the bitch fest.

AB is put on be the sales department, like Janthkin said previously stated I believe, so from a business perspective it only makes sense to lend an advantage to the latest armies that you are trying to sell.

I am not trying to jump on GK more then they have been, but they currently are the easiest army to play.... until Necrons are released ; ) When you have played since 1st like I have you notice these patterns, after all there aim is to make money not just give away free crap...

The thing is Grey Knights are not that expensive to get an army put together.

So, that still doesn't mean they don't want to sell them, and if anything that is more of an incentive for a player to start them, which makes them a good product to push.

Why do you think space marines are there best selling armies? They are easy to play, model and it doesn't take throngs of them to field. GK epitomize this. GK are also not cheap, nothing GW sells is cheap. Consider the fact that Draigowing fields what, 24 models in some builds, of which tally up to and beyond 400 dollars US. That's crazy....

Red Corsair wrote:So, that still doesn't mean they don't want to sell them, and if anything that is more of an incentive for a player to start them, which makes them a good product to push.

Why do you think space marines are there best selling armies? They are easy to play, model and it doesn't take throngs of them to field. GK epitomize this. GK are also not cheap, nothing GW sells is cheap. Consider the fact that Draigowing fields what, 24 models in some builds, of which tally up to and beyond 400 dollars US. That's crazy....

lol buy a sisters of battle army, an IG army, a dark eldar army, or even a Tau army. You will find 400 dollars for an army is actually cheap compared to others.

Am I the only one who feels Necrons would perform very well in this scenario? Provided they had at least 4 warrior squads and 3 monoliths, they could definitely have a strong presence. It would be easy enough to teleport a squad on the first mission, and on the second, monoliths could easily block the enemy from getting inside that 6 inch bubble. The monoliths main enemy is strength 10 weapons, and without a strong tau presence, I think they have a good chance.

BSent wrote:Am I the only one who feels Necrons would perform very well in this scenario? Provided they had at least 4 warrior squads and 3 monoliths, they could definitely have a strong presence. It would be easy enough to teleport a squad on the first mission, and on the second, monoliths could easily block the enemy from getting inside that 6 inch bubble. The monoliths main enemy is strength 10 weapons, and without a strong tau presence, I think they have a good chance.

Lol that would be so annoying if 3 monoliths traingled the middle and put all the warriors inside of the 3 of them. lol

BSent wrote:Am I the only one who feels Necrons would perform very well in this scenario? Provided they had at least 4 warrior squads and 3 monoliths, they could definitely have a strong presence. It would be easy enough to teleport a squad on the first mission, and on the second, monoliths could easily block the enemy from getting inside that 6 inch bubble. The monoliths main enemy is strength 10 weapons, and without a strong tau presence, I think they have a good chance.

4 warrior squads? That is still fail against MEQ armies with 12 combat squads or grey knights with even more. You don't even have to beat necrons by killing them. You just need to move those combat squads to the center or to the table quarters/terrain instead and you'll easily get a massacre.

And while you don't really have to worry too much about Tau railguns, necrons have a much greater concern - grey knights with S10 hammers!

S10 in assault is what stops Necrons and sadly for them, SW and GK are not all that uncommon.

jy2 wrote:

BSent wrote:Am I the only one who feels Necrons would perform very well in this scenario? Provided they had at least 4 warrior squads and 3 monoliths, they could definitely have a strong presence. It would be easy enough to teleport a squad on the first mission, and on the second, monoliths could easily block the enemy from getting inside that 6 inch bubble. The monoliths main enemy is strength 10 weapons, and without a strong tau presence, I think they have a good chance.

4 warrior squads? That is still fail against MEQ armies with 12 combat squads or grey knights with even more. You don't even have to beat necrons by killing them. You just need to move those combat squads to the center or to the table quarters/terrain instead and you'll easily get a massacre.

And while you don't really have to worry too much about Tau railguns, necrons have a much greater concern - grey knights with S10 hammers!

Well the point of what I said though was to block them form getting inside the middle with monolith walls.

This is true, but GK die as easily as any other marine, and they can throw out so many pieplates it's hilarious.

I was so looking forward to this event seeing as I placed 2nd in my local qualifier, but now that I see the scenarios I'm honestly wondering if it's worth the drive. Mission 1 is a freaking joke, and mission 2 is almost impossible to massacre unless your opponent is a massive idiot (not likely at an invitational). I don't mind mission 3 so much, but the other two are just poorly designed, especially mission 1. I really don't like 500 VP's being tossed around by a roll of the dice to see who goes first.

I'm all for inventive scenarios but c'mon GW. You have to do better than this. It's like you don't even know what edition you're in!

Aldarionn wrote:I was so looking forward to this event seeing as I placed 2nd in my local qualifier, but now that I see the scenarios I'm honestly wondering if it's worth the drive. Mission 1 is a freaking joke, and mission 2 is almost impossible to massacre unless your opponent is a massive idiot (not likely at an invitational). I don't mind mission 3 so much, but the other two are just poorly designed, especially mission 1. I really don't like 500 VP's being tossed around by a roll of the dice to see who goes first.

I'm all for inventive scenarios but c'mon GW. You have to do better than this. It's like you don't even know what edition you're in!

The sales team might not know what edition they are in. Also as far as how hard it is to get a massacre, it's supposed to be just that a massacre and if you and your opponent know what you are doing it SHOULD be exceedingly difficult to get one. I hate how people complain that it's so hard to get a massacre but honestly that's why it's called a massacre. If you can't get it (and all of the requirements are achievable) then you don't deserve it. I had a draw in prelims and I definitely didn't deserved anything more than a draw.

If you play against a good general with a balanced list, it should be hard to get a Massacre. But by virtue of the Scenario #2, lost just 1 or 2 scoring units and it is an impossibility to get the massacre. It definitely favors the army with the most amount of resilient troops. Expect Draigowing grey knights to dominate these scenarios.

jy2 wrote:If you play against a good general with a balanced list, it should be hard to get a Massacre. But by virtue of the Scenario #2, lost just 1 or 2 scoring units and it is an impossibility to get the massacre. It definitely favors the army with the most amount of resilient troops. Expect Draigowing grey knights to dominate these scenarios.

Not on my watch! I summon you Dark Eldar! muhahahha all of my shots instant kill ur pretty little models. I love the obj in the center if no terrain is there. If the semi's have a piece of terrain in the middle then that is broken and the TM should go f themselves! lol! I am not even bring my grey knights. I played a couple of missions yesterday. It literally comes down to who goes first. I hate to say it but its true. Vect and the baron will be plentiful in this round!

jy2 wrote:If you play against a good general with a balanced list, it should be hard to get a Massacre. But by virtue of the Scenario #2, lost just 1 or 2 scoring units and it is an impossibility to get the massacre. It definitely favors the army with the most amount of resilient troops. Expect Draigowing grey knights to dominate these scenarios.

I think I would be more concerned with mech-spam IG than 3-4 units of Paladins plus whatever other units Draigo can make scoring. GK's in general have some inherent advantages in this scenario simply because of Grand Strategy, but they still can't overcome their problem, which is a high initial points cost. But the lack of a true KP mission, I think, means that IG armies are the true winners in the "armies tailored to the scenario" contest.

Eldanar wrote:

jy2 wrote:If you play against a good general with a balanced list, it should be hard to get a Massacre. But by virtue of the Scenario #2, lost just 1 or 2 scoring units and it is an impossibility to get the massacre. It definitely favors the army with the most amount of resilient troops. Expect Draigowing grey knights to dominate these scenarios.

I think I would be more concerned with mech-spam IG than 3-4 units of Paladins plus whatever other units Draigo can make scoring. GK's in general have some inherent advantages in this scenario simply because of Grand Strategy, but they still can't overcome their problem, which is a high initial points cost. But the lack of a true KP mission, I think, means that IG armies are the true winners in the "armies tailored to the scenario" contest.

I was going to say the same thing. Draigowing is infinite amounts of not terrifying in the second scenario, simply because of the number of units that they have for scoring...even with grand strategy draigowing isn't an issue because it's mostly walkers being bumped and they die the same as any other tank.

ToI wrote:

Aldarionn wrote:I was so looking forward to this event seeing as I placed 2nd in my local qualifier, but now that I see the scenarios I'm honestly wondering if it's worth the drive. Mission 1 is a freaking joke, and mission 2 is almost impossible to massacre unless your opponent is a massive idiot (not likely at an invitational). I don't mind mission 3 so much, but the other two are just poorly designed, especially mission 1. I really don't like 500 VP's being tossed around by a roll of the dice to see who goes first.

I'm all for inventive scenarios but c'mon GW. You have to do better than this. It's like you don't even know what edition you're in!

The sales team might not know what edition they are in. Also as far as how hard it is to get a massacre, it's supposed to be just that a massacre and if you and your opponent know what you are doing it SHOULD be exceedingly difficult to get one. I hate how people complain that it's so hard to get a massacre but honestly that's why it's called a massacre. If you can't get it (and all of the requirements are achievable) then you don't deserve it. I had a draw in prelims and I definitely didn't deserved anything more than a draw.

jy2 wrote:If you play against a good general with a balanced list, it should be hard to get a Massacre. But by virtue of the Scenario #2, lost just 1 or 2 scoring units and it is an impossibility to get the massacre. It definitely favors the army with the most amount of resilient troops. Expect Draigowing grey knights to dominate these scenarios.

The problem I have with this, as you pointed out jy2, is the lack of balance in scenario #2. Imperial Guard can take upwards of 10-12 scoring units as a single troops choice. One mechanized platoon and a bunch of vet squads could easily dominate that mission over someone like Space Wolves who can only ever take 6 and cannot combat squad. Vanilla Space Marines and Blood Angels have a slight advantage with combat squads, and Grey Knights have no problem with scoring units since they can make any unit in the army scoring, but codices like Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines/Chaos Daemons, and Space Wolves can only ever take 6 and must kneecap themselves to do so. Any scenario that requires one army to have MORE scoring units within range of an objective than another goes against the balance of the current codex system since not everyone can take the same number of scoring units. Having 5 objectives on the board and requiring all 5 to be controlled for a massacre is doable with 4-5 scoring units if you play well and dominate the board, and even if you lose a unit. If I table my opponent and only lose 1 scoring unit in the process, how is that NOT a massacre? But if I only had 5 to start with, I wouldn't be able to score one. In the prelims you had to score 5 points more than your opponent, but the objectives were worth more points depending on where they were located, which is much more fair and actually encouraged playing tactically. This type of scenario doesn't require tactics, it requires more scoring units. One army should not have an advantage simply because it can field more of one type of unit than an opponent.

I'm not saying that it should be easy to get a massacre. I am simply saying that it should be possible for everyone, and should not be significantly easier for two codices than all of the rest. I field 5 scoring units at 2,500 points (3 of them max sized), which I consider relatively well balanced for a Space Marine army, but if my opponent is Imperial Guard with 12 scoring units (not unreasonable at 2,500), I have to completely destroy 8 units to prevent him scoring a massacre, and he only has to destroy 1 of mine (or at most 2 if I field 6 scoring units) to prevent me from doing so. In fact, if for some reason neither of us destroys any scoring units and both of us get all of them within 6" of the objective, he can still massacre simply because he is able to take more units. How is that fair?

Mission #1 is just silly and I don't think anyone can argue otherwise. It would be perfectly acceptable with Pitched Battle or even Spearhead deployment, but Dawn of War makes it ridiculously easy for the first player to score 500 VP's, then slam into the opposing unit if they deploy on the line and prevent them from getting across, or even destroy the unit entirely if they have enough firepower. Even if they don't, you are essentially playing mission #3 from the qualifier but with each side having 500 extra VP's. The scenario special rules in this case at best are useless, or at worst favor the first player heavily.

Mission 2: Or you can just park on the objective with 4-8 rhinos/Razorbacks and laugh at him when he tries to get his 10-12 guard squads anywhere near it.

Yeah, i don't buy the whole "IG have an advantage" thing. There's no troop choice I want that close to my IG squads.

@Tomb King- obviously there are armies that cost more to get to the final points cost but that is still a rubber argument made by you. Every GK player I know of plays them in addition to other armies, so in that regard they are well worth pushing. IG has been around forever, I have been playing them for almost 20 years and haven't needed to buy retail models since around 98 considering you can ebay everything you ever would desire for dirt cheap...

@jy2- All I can do is chuckle at that draigo wing nonsense there cost is way too high, at best you'll get 6 scoring units if it is a good draigowing build.... I really don't expect them to dominate that scenario unless they dodge some bullets and get an easy matchup... Paladins weakness is there LD, one bad roll and I have seen them chased off the table along with draigo...

@pretre- Thats all you can do, if they go first they drive their ENTIRE parking lot up onto it and laugh at you...

Polonius wrote:Yeah, i don't buy the whole "IG have an advantage" thing. There's no troop choice I want that close to my IG squads.

This was kinda my thought...if they are dividing out into all those squads, that means the blob squad is not longer the resilient blob it was, meaning they get eaten by everything. In an area that small it's not that hard to multiassault silly numbers of units if they are all trying to get in there. IG also doesn't really wanna be right up in midfield cause nearly every other army does it better...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red Corsair wrote: @pretre- Thats all you can do, if they go first they drive their ENTIRE parking lot up onto it and laugh at you...

Except that they can get up to it just barely with a first turn move, so can you...then it turns into a slugfest.

ToI wrote:

Red Corsair wrote: @pretre- Thats all you can do, if they go first they drive their ENTIRE parking lot up onto it and laugh at you...

Except that they can get up to it just barely with a first turn move, so can you...then it turns into a slugfest.

Exactly and Grey Hunters are going to win that slugfest. Guard don't really want to be sitting still in all those Chimeras on the objective. That's a lot of Krak Grenades.

Polonius wrote:Yeah, i don't buy the whole "IG have an advantage" thing. There's no troop choice I want that close to my IG squads.

You really have to think of a mech-IG army as a tank army that buys upgrades (i.e. troop units) to turn their transport tanks into scoring units; and with the ability to have escape hatches for the riders in case the parent transport is destroyed.

After that, it is just a matter of can the mech-IG blow their opponents scoring units off of the table in turns 1-4, and then move to the middle on turns 5-6.

The only missions that keep IG players honest are KP missions (and possibly assault-based missions).

I was under the impression that in the first game, anyone who managed to get their messenger into the other deployment zone got the 500 points so what is to stop anyone from putting their messenger into a skimmer and flying over any attempted "barricade" in the middle? I don't understand why the person who goes first wins automatically according to some people =/. Or is it only the first person to get their messenger over?

Also, unless you do in fact absolutely massacre and table (or come close to tabling) your opponent in the second mission, why should you expect a massacre? The requirements are tough and steep but you'll have to destroy your opponent to be able to claim it safely and I'll be happy with a major or minor win.

I play Eldar so taking 6 scoring units isn't really an option unless I do mech spam but I just don't have 12-14 grav tanks lying around.

mortetvie wrote:I was under the impression that in the first game, anyone who managed to get their messenger into the other deployment zone got the 500 points so what is to stop anyone from putting their messenger into a skimmer and flying over any attempted "barricade" in the middle? I don't understand why the person who goes first wins automatically according to some people =/. Or is it only the first person to get their messenger over?

Also, unless you do in fact absolutely massacre and table (or come close to tabling) your opponent in the second mission, why should you expect a massacre? The requirements are tough and steep but you'll have to destroy your opponent to be able to claim it safely and I'll be happy with a major or minor win.

I play Eldar so taking 6 scoring units isn't really an option unless I do mech spam but I just don't have 12-14 grav tanks lying around.

The reason that people have an issue with the first mission is that the tactical advantage of first turn is amplified greatly because of the deployment and the special tweak. 500 victory points is ALOT of VP to just throw around, and it also doesn't help that you get a bonus for killing the messenger as well so if the first player gets in range to assault the messenger squad first turn, not only is it 500 VP but probably a nice bonus of a full battlepoint...

And the skimmer arguement doesn't work cause there are only a few armies that have skimmers as DT for their troops

Also, victory points favor the person that goes first (more correctly, if favors the person that gets the first damage dealing phase), so this mission amplifies one of the biggest flaws to VP missions.

@preter...Um.... Hellhounds get there first and my bane wolf will keep you in your tanks, blow smoke and I have a nice cover save and you need 6's to hit them with the GH if you assault... Yea, also Valkyries.... What crappy guard armies are you used to playing?

Red Corsair wrote:@preter...Um.... Hellhounds get there first and my bane wolf will keep you in your tanks, blow smoke and I have a nice cover save and you need 6's to hit them with the GH if you assault... Yea, also Valkyries.... What crappy guard armies are you used to playing?

We can go "pewpew I do this" all day long. I was simply saying that it isn't simple enough to say 'Guard wins because they have more troops choices.'

I agree that first turn gets a huge advantage (as I very much so hope to go first) but it is what it is. I personally think it's the wrong deployment for this type of mission. I anticipate a good number of battle wagon ork players where I will be so this will be a pain, for sure. Oh well, I guess my messenger will be a DA model in a WS with star engines, 24" up and 12" in shooting phase, voila, 500 VP from 170 points of models; then after nightfight is over just turbo away from the enemy...lol

I think they should have had a large bonus for killing the messenger also to balance it out as if you get your guy across the board, you have to risk reprisal and think more about when/how to get him across. Oh well.

Red Corsair wrote:@preter...Um.... Hellhounds get there first and my bane wolf will keep you in your tanks, blow smoke and I have a nice cover save and you need 6's to hit them with the GH if you assault... Yea, also Valkyries.... What crappy guard armies are you used to playing?

i happen to agree with the preter. Once you get that close the IG loses the advantage. A mid/shortrange slugfest is not the place that IG wants to be. They have some tools but not that compete with a midrange strong army.

mortetvie wrote:I anticipate a good number of battle wagon ork players where I will be so this will be a pain, for sure.

BW ork players would have (at most) one BW on the line with their messenger in it (assuming Nobs in a BW), possibly with their HQ. That's best case scenario against orks. You find some side armor, pop it and then his nobz are sitting with their butts in the wind and the rest of his army (that wants to get to grips with you) started at the board edge. Mission 1 is not kind to BW orks. Now Mission 2 on the other hand...

@pretre

Well, if BW orks go first, a nob unit in a BW with Ghaz can pretty much charge anything and do crazy damage turn one so that might not be a desirable scenario. Even if they come from the board edge in battle wagons, that's 13" up, 2" from the BW which gives an extra 1" from the bases used, fleet 6 from ghaz' wagh and 6" charge; that is what, 27-28" of threat right there? Yeah, BW orks are still pretty dangerous on first turn even with DOW. In the first mission, they will be able to charge and engage whatever is near or past the center of the board.

Even if they just move up 13" turn 1, the next turn they can pretty much get to where they want to charge so it's really a game of cat and mouse for me against BW orks. It comes down to how well I can keep Ghaz from reaching my Wraithguard hehe.

The second mission, I agree that BW orks have a much clearer advantage and the 3rd, well that just comes down to the players more than armies IMO. It should be interesting.

No Waagh aloud on first turn. As usual Orks have one job on first turn and that is to take it through the nose.

I have bigger problems with mission 1 than I do with mission 2, but I still just dislike the concept of that sort of imbalance. Consider the following:

Platoon 1 - 635?
-Command (Chimera) - 85 points
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
Platoon 2 - 635?
-Command (Chimera) - 85 points
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?

That's 1,270 points, only slightly more than half of the Imperial Guard list not including any upgrades, and they already have 12 scoring units. In order to prevent a massacre I have to kill at a minimum 830 points of troops spread across 8 units in Chimeras (included in the cost because I have to open them up). If I have 6 full packs of Grey Hunters with a Wolf Guard in each pack, they have to at max kill two units worth a total of 456 points, and I can no longer get a massacre, even if I wipe them clean off the table. How is that at all fair, especially when the other 1,230 points of their list is ordnance and vet squads in Vendettas. If they get the first turn I likely won't be able to move out of my deployment zone for all the shaken, stunned and destroyed vehicles. I fair a little better going first, but it's still an uphill battle if those transports are hugging their deployment zone until turn 4.

It's an unbalanced scenario, if not quite as unbalanced as Mission 1.

Aldarionn wrote:If they get the first turn I likely won't be able to move out of my deployment zone for all the shaken, stunned and destroyed vehicles. I fair a little better going first, but it's still an uphill battle if those transports are hugging their deployment zone until turn 4.

well for starters you are only required to start with a single troop on the board according to the scenario, and only ABLE to deploy 1 HQ and 2 Troops, and if they have first you get the advantage of seeing them deploy and stay far from them (night fight for first turn in DoW)...All together the key is to not try to beat them at their own game, you need to use your mobility to get to them and run them through. Honestly the advantages you listed are the same types of advantages that IG has in everyother game. In a long range slugfest IG wins, don't try to beat them at that game, change the game and get up close. This game has some elements of "roll a die and win/lose" but you can give yourself the advantage if you play well. This of course (as said previously) is not to say that the scenarios are balanced, but I would rather see a mission like 2 where it will probably end up being a draw fest and a few may get larger victories, than many other missions I have seen.

Frankly, all the missions scream Drop Pod mass marines to me. A wall of drops pods to protect the entry on mission 1, a pile of drop pods landing on the object mission two, and Mission 3 it's tough for that build either.

Personally I despise missions like mission 2. If a deathstar has turn two, it's a forced gauntlet for the player 1 to survive. Thundercav have a field day there.

I was looking at DA for mission 2. An all Raven wing army can take 24 scoring units, but then again you would have to take all ravening. 6 Bikers + ATB + speeder + combat squads= 4 scoring units per a troop slot. We used to play mission 2 alot at a local store for tournaments and IG were not a problem. They have to move across the table and they do not last long moving or out of chimeras. I would hate to draw against Nids on this one. They can swarm the center with troops and make new ones. Even with a tank shock on the last turn you can’t push away enough bugs.

BlueDagger wrote:Frankly, all the missions scream Drop Pod mass marines to me. A wall of drops pods to protect the entry on mission 1, a pile of drop pods landing on the object mission two, and Mission 3 it's tough for that build either.

Personally I despise missions like mission 2. If a deathstar has turn two, it's a forced gauntlet for the player 1 to survive. Thundercav have a field day there.

I seriously thought about it...you could completely deny entry to the board on turn 1 if you got solidly lucky with your scatter rolls...but alas I would run something like 11 pods and I don't have that many...or that many marines to run them...

Aldarionn wrote:I have bigger problems with mission 1 than I do with mission 2, but I still just dislike the concept of that sort of imbalance. Consider the following:

Platoon 1 - 635?
-Command (Chimera) - 85 points
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
Platoon 2 - 635?
-Command (Chimera) - 85 points
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?
-Infantry Squad (Autocannon, Grenade Launcher, Chimer) - 110?

That's 1,270 points, only slightly more than half of the Imperial Guard list not including any upgrades, and they already have 12 scoring units.

Please bring this list.

If I owned Imperial Guard I might just do that to test my own theory. I'm not saying its a sure thing. I'm just saying it has certain advantages with the current scenarios, especially with only a 1/3 chance that KP's will even appear in the event at all.

Also, that's a pile of Autocannon and Scatter Laser/Heavy Bolter shots that can annoy Rhino lists from 36-48" away, which is not anywhere as bad as your comment makes it out to be. It won't bring down Land Raiders, but there are plenty of other toys Imperial Guard can bring that will.

Aldarionn wrote:If I owned Imperial Guard I might just do that to test my own theory. I'm not saying its a sure thing. I'm just saying it has certain advantages with the current scenarios, especially with only a 1/3 chance that KP's will even appear in the event at all.

Also, that's a pile of Autocannon and Scatter Laser/Heavy Bolter shots that can annoy Rhino lists from 36-48" away, which is not anywhere as bad as your comment makes it out to be. It won't bring down Land Raiders, but there are plenty of other toys Imperial Guard can bring that will.

I'm not saying it is bad. I'm just saying that I would much prefer to face that than pretty much any other list that I've seen for 'AB. (Other than the 80 warriors, 2 lords, 3 monoliths list, but I think that was a joke.)

I don't play this since GW is clealry not interested in opening a shop in Poland, but I was wondering if Brother Corbulo could be used to reroll the mission type roll in Mission 3. If so, then, well, pretty strong pick.

Alkasyn wrote:I don't play this since GW is clealry not interested in opening a shop in Poland, but I was wondering if Brother Corbulo could be used to reroll the mission type roll in Mission 3. If so, then, well, pretty strong pick.

Nope.)

Wow I totally did not know that orks could not wagh on the first turn... That changes how I play them in the future, thanks!

I just played scenario 2 with razorback blood angels against deathwing. They both have 6 troop choices and I barely won the match by a 2-1 in scoring units within 6in. How am I suppose get a massacre if it was a bloodfest? It felt almost impossible to win by a score of 5-0. Plus there was less than 10 models left on the BA side with 2 immobile razors and the DW had Belial and 3 terminators left with 1 immobile pred and 2 good preds left. Im just gonna go for a win on this mission no matter how big or small the margin is.

Looks like Scenario 3 has been updated for the quarters (controlling them, not the scoring if you hold two more than your opponent)

lance002 wrote:Looks like Scenario 3 has been updated for the quarters (controlling them, not the scoring if you hold two more than your opponent)

They also posted winners from the first round. The store I played at is not listed as well as its top 3. What gives? Hope this wont stop us from competing.


"To control a table quarter you must have more scoring units entirely within that quarter than your opponent.
Scoring units that are in two or more quarters cannot hold any quarters."

GW your joking right. Hope you all dont mess up your moves and have one over the line. They could just say they capture the corner they have the majority in. Now if you have centralized terrain and the game runs out of time you can lose scoring units to being unable to hold quarters lmao. This mission just keeps getting better and better!

Tomb King wrote:

lance002 wrote:Looks like Scenario 3 has been updated for the quarters (controlling them, not the scoring if you hold two more than your opponent)

They also posted winners from the first round. The store I played at is not listed as well as its top 3. What gives? Hope this wont stop us from competing.

Mines the same way. I would guess that it shouldn't be an issue. However it is concerning.

On the bright side they updated the deployment type for the first mission to pitched battle!

Luckily my store is somehow on there.

Updated deployment type is pretty sweet, pitched battle makes my life for daemons really nice. I dare people to come across the board. I actually think daemons will do quite well in all scenarios as long as I dont run into Nick N again...

new errata for scenaroes is up
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1960055a_Ard_Boyz_Semi-Final_Scenarios_09-06-2011

fix # 1 2 and 3

TK - thats a common rule for quarters scoring. Stops stupidity like one unit scoring 4 quarters. Just plan ahead and dont make moves that expose you to that risk.

Gah, can they fix the typo? Its "Daemon" or "Demon", not "Deamon"

At least scenario 1 is now pitched battle, much better.

Yet still odd that Scouts is not listed, but Outflank is...so you cannot Scout move but can use Scouts to Outflank? They need to be clearer on that for all missions. Seems odd to just flat deny Scouts....

Suprised no DoW set up any longer - mission 2 seems ideal for that

nosferatu1001 wrote:TK - thats a common rule for quarters scoring. Stops stupidity like one unit scoring 4 quarters. Just plan ahead and dont make moves that expose you to that risk.

Gah, can they fix the typo? Its "Daemon" or "Demon", not "Deamon"

At least scenario 1 is now pitched battle, much better.

Yet still odd that Scouts is not listed, but Outflank is...so you cannot Scout move but can use Scouts to Outflank? They need to be clearer on that for all missions. Seems odd to just flat deny Scouts....

Suprised no DoW set up any longer - mission 2 seems ideal for that

Scout is a USR. It is only disallowed for the messengers transport in game 1. "The unit can be deployed
in a vehicle with transport capacity but that vehicle cannot scout, infiltrate, outflank or deep strike."

TK - so what if its a USR?

Special Rules:
Infiltrate (page 92)
Deep Strike (page 95)
Outflank (Page 94)
Reserves (page 94)
Seize the Initiative (Page 92)

Infiltrate is a USR, yet is explicitly allowed. As I said, if you read more closely, they need to explain *exactly* what they mean - by including a USR on a list of special rules it implies that other special rules may not be in play

Just because Infiltrate is listed INCORRECTLY as a mission special rule doesnt mean the same must apply for a USR such as Scouts.

I dont see Furious charge, Relentless or Stealth in those rules either but Im pretty sure they're allowed

As far as Im concerned (and the pittsburgh semis is concerned) unless specifically dissallowed by the rules Infiltrate and Scouts is always in effect and so is Outflank as long as Reserves is in the game. Every year GW shows us they don't really play 5th ed by the mission rules they've written

Kirasu wrote:Just because Infiltrate is listed INCORRECTLY as a mission special rule doesnt mean the same must apply for a USR such as Scouts.

I dont see Furious charge, Relentless or Stealth in those rules either but Im pretty sure they're allowed

As far as Im concerned (and the pittsburgh semis is concerned) unless specifically dissallowed by the rules Infiltrate and Scouts is always in effect and so is Outflank as long as Reserves is in the game. Every year GW shows us they don't really play 5th ed by the mission rules they've written

I agree with everything you said except for Outflank. I see it as if the mission does not specify the use of outflank then you must assume no outflank as it is a special rule that can be included or excluded, not one inherent to any particular scenario. I might be wrong on that but that's how I've seen it. However yes, scouts is in effect because it's a USR much like furious charge and feel no pain, and I'm 150% certain that anyone that is going to argue the use of scouts is going to have a USR that they use that they wouldn't be so happy giving up on the precedent of no USRs.

Clauss wrote:Luckily my store is somehow on there.

Updated deployment type is pretty sweet, pitched battle makes my life for daemons really nice. I dare people to come across the board. I actually think daemons will do quite well in all scenarios as long as I dont run into Nick N again...

My store is not on there, wtf....I better be going to semi's

Dannygee wrote:

Clauss wrote:Luckily my store is somehow on there.

Updated deployment type is pretty sweet, pitched battle makes my life for daemons really nice. I dare people to come across the board. I actually think daemons will do quite well in all scenarios as long as I dont run into Nick N again...

My store is not on there, wtf....I better be going to semi's

I'm guessing it was some chump getting paid less than he would like doing the transcription and he missed a bunch of stores...god knows there were a lot of them.

Stores missing from the winners list is not uncommon at all. They just get lazy.

My store is on there, they just have three winners listed that never played at that store....?????? Guess GW better prepare for a lot of phone calls today...

Maybe your tournament information got all jumbled up in the united states postal warp?

ToI wrote:I agree with everything you said except for Outflank. I see it as if the mission does not specify the use of outflank then you must assume no outflank as it is a special rule that can be included or excluded, not one inherent to any particular scenario. I might be wrong on that but that's how I've seen it.

Outflank is part of the Reserves rule, not a rule unto itself.

My store is on there, with me in the proper placement, but they spelled my name wrong.

Hah same here culsander. No worries though, I can deal with it .
As per the outflanking/scouting, I will just wait to see what my stores says. Because regardless of my opinion, the TO will choose.

Clauss wrote:Hah same here culsander. No worries though, I can deal with it .
As per the outflanking/scouting, I will just wait to see what my stores says. Because regardless of my opinion, the TO will choose.

Thankfully I know the TO that's running ours so I know how he is ruling it.

The missions are not perfect but are now much better after the update, I share some players pain on mission 2 because it favors numbers but it's no worse then round one mission one... I played a list that had 9 Kill Points! Guard gives up 12 in troops usually minimum... So now I guess I have to struggle, Karma I suppose....

Edit: nevermind.

does anyone know how to find out if ur name will be on the list? my names not on the list. it seems our gw rep messed up the names.

I am thinking that is last years list as a place holder, while they update it to current.

The names listed for my store, are people who did not even play this year.

The list is just awful to begin with. Some stores are correct while others are wrong/missing...i don't put much stock in it...

Yeah I dont understand why even bother with a list if you arent going to make it semi-accurate

I advised my FLGS that I wouldn't be attending the semi finals and the 4th place finisher could have my spot. How is this being handled? My name showed up on the GW list, but I'm not attending; how does one who would go in my place even attend?

There is no real procedure anymore.. GW used to have a way but they stopped bothering

Basically how I do it is I ask for the qualifying store and their # so i can verify.. Make sure the retail person who handles the phones knows whats going on is all I can say

Wow my name isn't there...my LGS isn't even there. Seriously? Can we not get this list halfway accurate? I don't think that it is last years list as I remember advancing last year too.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I am thinking that is last years list as a place holder, while they update it to current.

The names listed for my store, are people who did not even play this year.

Unlikely, I didn't place last year and my name is on the list.

Akroma06 wrote:Wow my name isn't there...my LGS isn't even there. Seriously? Can we not get this list halfway accurate? I don't think that it is last years list as I remember advancing last year too.

I called my semi's location they said its fine. If they are not sure if your suppose to play or not aka not on the list then they let you play and then find out through gw if you were suppose to or not via your previous store placement.

Tomb King wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:Wow my name isn't there...my LGS isn't even there. Seriously? Can we not get this list halfway accurate? I don't think that it is last years list as I remember advancing last year too.

I called my semi's location they said its fine. If they are not sure if your suppose to play or not aka not on the list then they let you play and then find out through gw if you were suppose to or not via your previous store placement.

Ok cool. I just don't want to drive 6 hours only to find out that the guy here messed up and then have to turn around and drive 6 more hours back. I think I will do that thanks!

I got second in my event, told my TO that I wouldn't make round 2 and they didn't put me on the list. I'd check your TO for the next round to make sure everything will be good. Odds are your TO from round 1 wasn't clear/trade rep screwed up.

steinerp wrote:I got second in my event, told my TO that I wouldn't make round 2 and they didn't put me on the list. I'd check your TO for the next round to make sure everything will be good. Odds are your TO from round 1 wasn't clear/trade rep screwed up.

Yeah we have a local forum for games and such so I just posted that concern over there. I do remember him wanting to get everything all together after thosed that placed were announced, so I know he was thinking about it.

I kind of think the second mission ought to have its deployment rules switched from Pitched Battle to DOW. This is just to make people actually have to move. Otherwise, you could end up with some battles looking like a series of 17th century musket volleys (with everytone deploying on the 12" line), with turn 4/5 charges to the center.

Lol my prelims location isn't listed on the winners page and they're hosting the TN semis!

Don't think any of the TN stores are listed.

Eldanar wrote:I kind of think the second mission ought to have its deployment rules switched from Pitched Battle to DOW. This is just to make people actually have to move. Otherwise, you could end up with some battles looking like a series of 17th century musket volleys (with everytone deploying on the 12" line), with turn 4/5 charges to the center.

They'd have to change the bonus point for none of your units in your deployment zone then.

One objective missions always end up with a scrum in the center unless one side gets tabled. I tested this out against my buddy's Chaos list and I ended up with 40 something marines crowded around the center objective at the end.

Eldanar wrote:I kind of think the second mission ought to have its deployment rules switched from Pitched Battle to DOW. This is just to make people actually have to move. Otherwise, you could end up with some battles looking like a series of 17th century musket volleys (with everytone deploying on the 12" line), with turn 4/5 charges to the center.

Yay I can play TAU

culsandar wrote:My store is on there, with me in the proper placement, but they spelled my name wrong.

*joins club*

Not to be too supportive of GW here, but...

I imagine the stores in question just e-mailed a list of their winners, so it is more likely that the Prelim location got names wrong than transcription error.

Amazingly, both of my names were spelled correctly.

They used to give a certificate with you name on it that said you were a qualifier to round 2 semis. And then you would present that to the to in the semi round. I asked for it this year and they said gw isnt doing that anymore and that they are only writing down the names of the winners and passing them along. Well they messed up big time this year.

Julnlecs wrote:Well they messed up big time this year.

Little early to determine that, isn't it?

pretre wrote:

Julnlecs wrote:Well they messed up big time this year.

Little early to determine that, isn't it?

Yes but it's not too early to start complaining about it!

If you're playing at Pittsburgh see my tournament thread, for erratas/changes. Those are the final rules barring any typos

Please no "What if I bring an all Mekboy/Dreadnought ork army" questions...

wow, no dawn of war and only a one third chance of kill points, as a Guard player, I <3 Round 2!

Yeah was sorta surprised they added 2 pitched battles

Kirasu wrote:Yeah was sorta surprised they added 2 pitched battles

They should really switch Scenario 2 to DoW since they made the change to Scenario 1.

We'll see...

i disagree. I hate dawn of war deployment. whether I am playing an assault army or not. If I am playing my assault army it is too easy to get to my opponent and they dont stand a chance unless I roll bad. If I am playing my shooting builds then again it just gives a considerable advantage to assault based armies.

So i may have missed it somewhere but can someone give me a link to the list of stores and their top 3?

Chosen Praetorian wrote:So i may have missed it somewhere but can someone give me a link to the list of stores and their top 3?

Its on the same page as the prelim's!

Tomb King wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:So i may have missed it somewhere but can someone give me a link to the list of stores and their top 3?

Its on the same page as the prelim's!

Lol im dumb but i found it!

Legends (Cupertino, CA) called today to request I email my army list by next Monday so it can be verified by Saturday.

If you are playing there and have not received this request, I suggest you call (408) 253-2643 or 253-2601 to make sure your name has not fallen through the cracks.

Tomb King wrote:i disagree. I hate dawn of war deployment. whether I am playing an assault army or not. If I am playing my assault army it is too easy to get to my opponent and they dont stand a chance unless I roll bad. If I am playing my shooting builds then again it just gives a considerable advantage to assault based armies.

The reason for dawn of war is to make the game more dynamic. Parking lot armies hate DoW, but parking lot armies also aren't very fun or dynamic to play against.

ToI wrote:

Tomb King wrote:i disagree. I hate dawn of war deployment. whether I am playing an assault army or not. If I am playing my assault army it is too easy to get to my opponent and they dont stand a chance unless I roll bad. If I am playing my shooting builds then again it just gives a considerable advantage to assault based armies.

The reason for dawn of war is to make the game more dynamic. Parking lot armies hate DoW, but parking lot armies also aren't very fun or dynamic to play against.

Maybe I am just old school. I started in fantasy and every deployment was pitched battle back in the day lol.

Ha ha same here TK, back in the days where it was just PB style deployment and victory points.... thats it lol...

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

They just changed mission three. Now on the top of turn 3 if you roll a D6 and get a 3+ you automatically win the game. Sucks if you go second as you now have a 66% chance of losing.










Just kidding... lol, one week left anyone else ready to get this tournament knocked out already? Cant wait to play this tournament.

Im still not sure if ill be allowed to play since they havent fixed the list on prelims final winners.

sigh, the store i won at isn't listed either, but the person at my semi's location knows i am in

Im kinda worried about this winners list thing. I have to drive out of state and if i get down there and i cant play because GW is worthless im gonna be pissed.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:Im kinda worried about this winners list thing. I have to drive out of state and if i get down there and i cant play because GW is worthless im gonna be pissed.

Yeah, definately call ahead of time to confirm that youre in . I just got word last night from my store's employee that GW confirmed their prelim results, now if the semis location gets that info in time.... who knows.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:Im kinda worried about this winners list thing. I have to drive out of state and if i get down there and i cant play because GW is worthless im gonna be pissed.

TBH you should have called ahead to your store and reserved your spot weeks ago. You don't just show up to one of these things and expect to play. For all you know where you're going is full up on room.

culsandar wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:Im kinda worried about this winners list thing. I have to drive out of state and if i get down there and i cant play because GW is worthless im gonna be pissed.

TBH you should have called ahead to your store and reserved your spot weeks ago. You don't just show up to one of these things and expect to play. For all you know where you're going is full up on room.

Yeah, especially at a big location where people want to go. Call Showcase now. (Or PM mikhaila) or do both.

Showing up day of is a recipe for heartache. Heck, I called my location and I'm worried they might have not written it down. I might call again, just to double check.

The store I'm going to has me on their registry list on their website, but they spelled my name wrong.

Then again, so did GW on their list, and they weren't the same misspelling xD

culsandar wrote:The store I'm going to has me on their registry list on their website, but they spelled my name wrong.

Then again, so did GW on their list, and they weren't the same misspelling xD

I am not on the GW list but my FLGS has me signed up. As long as the store you qualified at can confirm with the semi-final location that you are supposed to be playing then the GW list is moot. You should call ahead though for sure. I am playing at Game Empire Pasadena (which doesn't have their winners listed for prelims, but is a semi-final location) and they have reached capacity at this point with 40 players.

pretre wrote:Showing up day of is a recipe for heartache. Heck, I called my location and I'm worried they might have not written it down. I might call again, just to double check.

I did this, and discovered they didn't have me written down.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Janthkin wrote:

pretre wrote:Showing up day of is a recipe for heartache. Heck, I called my location and I'm worried they might have not written it down. I might call again, just to double check.

I did this, and discovered they didn't have me written down.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Man, you convinced me. I'm calling today.

Wow, not a single person on either of the Phoenix Games entries is correct for our store. Oh well, I'm signed up properly at Semi Location and if they want they can call and confirm with the Store Owner who ran it

Hulksmash wrote:Wow, not a single person on either of the Phoenix Games entries is correct for our store. Oh well, I'm signed up properly at Semi Location and if they want they can call and confirm with the Store Owner who ran it

Where you gonna end up playing this year Hulk? Will I get my rematch in NE? haha

Nah, I barely signed up to play in the Semi's as it is. I went into the store hosting them on Saturday for a 40k RTT and when I asked if they were full up for the Semi's they had a single spot left so I signed up. It'll be interesting at least but I've reached a point where a 2,500pt army isn't worth a 4 hour drive on way to me . Especially since all the stores have a pretty large turnout showing up.

Hulksmash wrote:Nah, I barely signed up to play in the Semi's as it is. I went into the store hosting them on Saturday for a 40k RTT and when I asked if they were full up for the Semi's they had a single spot left so I signed up. It'll be interesting at least but I've reached a point where a 2,500pt army isn't worth a 4 hour drive on way to me . Especially since all the stores have a pretty large turnout showing up.

Ya I definitely wont be going to the finals if I make it. I dont like the idea of getting 3 massacre's and still losing the tournament lol! Too many people for the final round to be 3 games!

Well that can happen in the Semi's too though. Our store has 42 people that'll be playing. That's 3 Undefeated players at the end of it. Possibly 3 people with max scores so that's why I wouldn't make a long drive. It'll still be a fun day since I'm just gonna put down a ton of something and run with it

Hulksmash wrote:Well that can happen in the Semi's too though. Our store has 42 people that'll be playing. That's 3 Undefeated players at the end of it. Possibly 3 people with max scores so that's why I wouldn't make a long drive. It'll still be a fun day since I'm just gonna put down a ton of something and run with it

My thinking exactly...I wouldn't drive 5 hours to semis but I will go locally and have fun, and if I win then the better for it. But all together it's just going to be a crazy day

Looking at the Scenarios, I really think people will be hard pressed to get 3 Massacres, let alone max points in all three.

While a lot of people have grumbled about the scenarios, and i completely agree that they were not written or proofread well.

The level of difficulty to get three Massacres will be rather hard to do. Especially if you play competent opponents. Which we would hope everyone in the Semi's is..

Round 1: While the messenger gives some lee-way with 500 pts, winning by by 1125 VP's will be difficult unless you get a strong vs a weak player. In all honesty this should be the third round scenario. Where you will be matched up against the best players.

Round2: 5+ units more than the opponent, within 6" of the center? A lot of lists in the Prelim's didnt even have 5 scoring units. Lose one and you are out of luck, even if you table your opponent. And MAX points is almost impossible, especially controlling terrain, again unless you table your opponent.

Round 3: With Variable scenarios? The KP mission is by far the easiest, and most likely for massacres, but thats only a 1/3 chance.

I would be really surprised to see many scores over 63..

Landrain wrote:Looking at the Scenarios, I really think people will be hard pressed to get 3 Massacres, let alone max points in all three.

While a lot of people have grumbled about the scenarios, and i completely agree that they were not written or proofread well.

The level of difficulty to get three Massacres will be rather hard to do. Especially if you play competent opponents. Which we would hope everyone in the Semi's is..

Round 1: While the messenger gives some lee-way with 500 pts, winning by by 1125 VP's will be difficult unless you get a strong vs a weak player. In all honesty this should be the third round scenario. Where you will be matched up against the best players.

Round2: 5+ units more than the opponent, within 6" of the center? A lot of lists in the Prelim's didnt even have 5 scoring units. Lose one and you are out of luck, even if you table your opponent. And MAX points is almost impossible, especially controlling terrain, again unless you table your opponent.

Round 3: With Variable scenarios? The KP mission is by far the easiest, and most likely for massacres, but thats only a 1/3 chance.

I would be really surprised to see many scores over 63..

I have to say I have been having many of the same thoughts. The second scenario is definitely easier to score a Massacre on if you have SM, BA, or GK because you can combat squad your 6 troop choices into 12. Although they become less survivable it is definitely a good strategy. Massacres will probably not be that common in all 3 rounds.

@landrain:
I think you underestimate a couple things...
One: People getting into semis who will get curbstomped by a good opponent.
Two: The frequency at which tabling can happen at high levels of play for bad match-ups or bad dice rolling.
Three: The ability for really good generals to capitalize on that.

I am not one of those guys from number three, but I know some of them... If given half a chance, they will stomp you into oblivion.

Also,
Rd1: Will probably be most massacres since it is straight VP.
Rd2: Some armies can field 10+ scoring units without damaging efficacy.
Rd3: Crapshoot.

pretre wrote:@landrain:
I think you underestimate a couple things...
One: People getting into semis who will get curbstomped by a good opponent.
Two: The frequency at which tabling can happen at high levels of play for bad match-ups or bad dice rolling.
Three: The ability for really good generals to capitalize on that.

I am not one of those guys from number three, but I know some of them... If given half a chance, they will stomp you into oblivion.

Also,
Rd1: Will probably be most massacres since it is straight VP.
Rd2: Some armies can field 10+ scoring units without damaging efficacy.
Rd3: Crapshoot.

Tabling does not automatically mean you get a Massacre. Unless I missed something from the rules packet somewhere that states it does. For example in VPs you would still need to win by the margin to claim a massacre. Likewise in Scenario 2, even with your opponent tabled you would still need 5 scoring units to claim a massacre. That is how I understand tabling to work at least and the way we have always played it.

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Tabling does not automatically mean you get a Massacre. Unless I missed something from the rules packet somewhere that states it does. For example in VPs you would still need to win by the margin to claim a massacre. Likewise in Scenario 2, even with your opponent tabled you would still need 5 scoring units to claim a massacre. That is how I understand tabling to work at least and the way we have always played it.

I completely agree that that is how Tabling should work. i.e. you get to play out the rest of the game and try to get the rest of the objectives.

Unfortunately, no tabling rules were provided with the missions so you may end up playing any number of variants including massacres for tabling.

pretre wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Tabling does not automatically mean you get a Massacre. Unless I missed something from the rules packet somewhere that states it does. For example in VPs you would still need to win by the margin to claim a massacre. Likewise in Scenario 2, even with your opponent tabled you would still need 5 scoring units to claim a massacre. That is how I understand tabling to work at least and the way we have always played it.

I completely agree that that is how Tabling should work. i.e. you get to play out the rest of the game and try to get the rest of the objectives.

Unfortunately, no tabling rules were provided with the missions so you may end up playing any number of variants including massacres for tabling.

Ok, just making sure I hadn't missed something. Since that is how tabling is handled where I am playing then I am not going to worry or change my strategy now.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Ok, just making sure I hadn't missed something. Since that is how tabling is handled where I am playing then I am not going to worry or change my strategy now.

Of course, I never like to underestimate my ability to be completely owned.

In mission 2 you can table your opponent and still draw the game. haha!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:Well that can happen in the Semi's too though. Our store has 42 people that'll be playing. That's 3 Undefeated players at the end of it. Possibly 3 people with max scores so that's why I wouldn't make a long drive. It'll still be a fun day since I'm just gonna put down a ton of something and run with it

I think we are gonna be around 16 or so. Thats possibly 2 undefeated at the end of it.

pretre wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:Ok, just making sure I hadn't missed something. Since that is how tabling is handled where I am playing then I am not going to worry or change my strategy now.

Of course, I never like to underestimate my ability to be completely owned.

Nor do I!

Tomb King wrote:In mission 2 you can table your opponent and still draw the game. haha!

Ha, I hadn't even thought about that...

Tomb King wrote:In mission 2 you can table your opponent and still draw the game. haha!

Ha, I hadn't even thought about that...

Hulksmash wrote:Well that can happen in the Semi's too though. Our store has 42 people that'll be playing. That's 3 Undefeated players at the end of it. Possibly 3 people with max scores so that's why I wouldn't make a long drive. It'll still be a fun day since I'm just gonna put down a ton of something and run with it

Just called we have 19 at my store. That means as many as 3 can go undefeated. 42 can have up to 6 go undefeated for your tournament.

Our store Legends in CA is over-capacity right now at 44 people. Terrain will probably crappy considering their original cap was 24!

I am bringing some terrain to help mitigate that.

Just have your army bring its own terrain. Flickerfields or KFF or Shield, etc.

jy2 wrote:Our store Legends in CA is over-capacity right now at 44 people. Terrain will probably crappy considering their original cap was 24!

Ya, Disdainful and I are building/painting terrain to make sure we have plenty for the 40 players we are expecting. We don't need much but we wanted to make sure we had enough so all the tables have LoS blocking terrain.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

jy2 wrote:Our store Legends in CA is over-capacity right now at 44 people. Terrain will probably crappy considering their original cap was 24!

Ya, Disdainful and I are building/painting terrain to make sure we have plenty for the 40 players we are expecting. We don't need much but we wanted to make sure we had enough so all the tables have LoS blocking terrain.

Go go coke cans and electronics packing material!

I'm really excited to see what happens this weekend...I'm hoping I get to play against hulksmash.

I am pretty excited to play this weekend too. It's a shame Hulk moved so far away from Cali.

Just a note to everyone, make sure you confirm your spot this week before you make the trip to the semi store-we don't want any mishaps with not being able to play or something!

Looking forward to seeing who brings what to Pasadena too, should be some interesting competition.

Reecius wrote:I am bringing some terrain to help mitigate that.

Got any kroot forests?

But terrain will definitely be scarce there! I still can't believe that Legends is going to try to pull it off. With that many tables there will be hardly any room to move. In fact, I hope Game Kastle can help them out because they are short about 10 tables.

Either way, I'm not expecting much.

I know my store.

I'm counting on llight terrain...and know it will happen.

6 psyfleman dreads are going to have a feild day!

Deadshane1 wrote:I know my store.

I'm counting on llight terrain...and know it will happen.

6 psyfleman dreads are going to have a feild day!

light terrain means my bikes can just run all over everything without much worry...

It would be nice if they updated and corrected that damn winner's list. My store (and hence my own name) isn't even on it.

Caitsidhe wrote:It would be nice if they updated and corrected that damn winner's list. My store (and hence my own name) isn't even on it.

Contact the store you played at and advise them that they are not on the list. I imagine they can e-mail/call GW to tell them.

Caitsidhe wrote:It would be nice if they updated and corrected that damn winner's list. My store (and hence my own name) isn't even on it.

Being as how this is literally the 20th post about this read the last 20 post about how we said contact your store and let them know and it is fine. No use in hearing the same thing 20 times as it has an easy fix.



I got 2 questions for you all out there.

Who here has the most people attending their location(# of players, where at, and what store)?

Who here has the least amount attending their location(Same)?

Tomb King wrote:

Caitsidhe wrote:It would be nice if they updated and corrected that damn winner's list. My store (and hence my own name) isn't even on it.

Being as how this is literally the 20th post about this read the last 20 post about how we said contact your store and let them know and it is fine. No use in hearing the same thing 20 times as it has an easy fix.



I got 2 questions for you all out there.

Who here has the most people attending their location(# of players, where at, and what store)?

Who here has the least amount attending their location(Same)?

Don't think it's the biggest but we have 42 spots filled in MN at Legion Games

And yeah just call the store and let them know and you should be fine.

Well I just got an email from GW about how the first round winners list

They said to use the list they sent me to determine who is allowed to play, however if a player or store isn't on the list just dont worry about it and assume they're allowed

Guess that means they dont really intend their final list to be accurate

pretre wrote:

Caitsidhe wrote:It would be nice if they updated and corrected that damn winner's list. My store (and hence my own name) isn't even on it.

Contact the store you played at and advise them that they are not on the list. I imagine they can e-mail/call GW to tell them.

Yup, I'm playing at Showcase comics this weekend and I just messaged Mikhaila yesterday. He promptly got back and told me I was still in. I was worried because my store (Brave New Worlds) wasn't on the list (even though my store had told me tuesday that GW confirmed via email their prelim results). I had originally contacted Showcase the week after prelims to sign up for semis.

So if you signed up at a semis location just contact them to make sure your still good to go. However, if you waited til now to sign up at a semis location, best of luck to you in getting a spot ....

Tomb King wrote:

Caitsidhe wrote:It would be nice if they updated and corrected that damn winner's list. My store (and hence my own name) isn't even on it.

Being as how this is literally the 20th post about this read the last 20 post about how we said contact your store and let them know and it is fine. No use in hearing the same thing 20 times as it has an easy fix.



I got 2 questions for you all out there.

Who here has the most people attending their location(# of players, where at, and what store)?

Who here has the least amount attending their location(Same)?

Maxed out at 40. Game Empire Pasadena CA

The store my buddy qualified at has 3 dudes that never plyaed there listed as its winner. Hope he can get that fugured out.

keeblerpowell wrote:The store my buddy qualified at has 3 dudes that never plyaed there listed as its winner. Hope he can get that fugured out.

Tomb King wrote:Being as how this is literally the 20th post about this read the last 20 post about how we said contact your store and let them know and it is fine. No use in hearing the same thing 20 times as it has an easy fix.

Make that 21st. Not to mention

Kirasu wrote:Well I just got an email from GW about how the first round winners list

They said to use the list they sent me to determine who is allowed to play, however if a player or store isn't on the list just dont worry about it and assume they're allowed

pretre wrote:

keeblerpowell wrote:The store my buddy qualified at has 3 dudes that never plyaed there listed as its winner. Hope he can get that fugured out.

Tomb King wrote:Being as how this is literally the 20th post about this read the last 20 post about how we said contact your store and let them know and it is fine. No use in hearing the same thing 20 times as it has an easy fix.

Make that 21st. Not to mention

Kirasu wrote:Well I just got an email from GW about how the first round winners list

They said to use the list they sent me to determine who is allowed to play, however if a player or store isn't on the list just dont worry about it and assume they're allowed

lol now you see my pain.

My store might be the low one with 19 players. You wouldnt think that would be the small one by any means!

Usually the small one is pretty small cause it's in the middle of nowhere, but this year seems to be that everywhere is just packed

ToI wrote:Usually the small one is pretty small cause it's in the middle of nowhere, but this year seems to be that everywhere is just packed

Makes sense from a business perspective. If I was GW, I wouldn't want to pay out an army and two battleforces to some site where they had 6 guys. Less sites means more players at each site, hopefully means more competition and less 'Woo I picked a low attendance site and won an army!'. I know there was a bit of that in previous years.

pretre wrote:

ToI wrote:Usually the small one is pretty small cause it's in the middle of nowhere, but this year seems to be that everywhere is just packed

Makes sense from a business perspective. If I was GW, I wouldn't want to pay out an army and two battleforces to some site where they had 6 guys. Less sites means more players at each site, hopefully means more competition and less 'Woo I picked a low attendance site and won an army!'. I know there was a bit of that in previous years.

Oh yeah it definitely makes sense business wise. Makes people tune their armies which also means people paying for new models on split second decisions. I for one am glad that the competition is going to be heavy this year.

ToI wrote:

pretre wrote:

ToI wrote:Usually the small one is pretty small cause it's in the middle of nowhere, but this year seems to be that everywhere is just packed

Makes sense from a business perspective. If I was GW, I wouldn't want to pay out an army and two battleforces to some site where they had 6 guys. Less sites means more players at each site, hopefully means more competition and less 'Woo I picked a low attendance site and won an army!'. I know there was a bit of that in previous years.

Oh yeah it definitely makes sense business wise. Makes people tune their armies which also means people paying for new models on split second decisions. I for one am glad that the competition is going to be heavy this year.

Do you know if you get any say in what models you receive in your army?

I'm not entirely certain, but from what I've heard it's something like you say "I want this race and I want it to do something like XYZ." but I don't know how much actual say in it you get.

You get no say. They give you whatever they have too much in stock

Last year I got 7 valkyries, 5 leman russes, 3 basilisks, *one* box of cadians, a command HQ and 1 chimera.. Wasnt even a legal army

Kirasu wrote:You get no say. They give you whatever they have too much in stock

Last year I got 7 valkyries, 5 leman russes, 3 basilisks, *one* box of cadians, a command HQ and 1 chimera.. Wasnt even a legal army

And you easily traded/sold those 7 valkyries for a real army.

They are pretty generous with the armies and usually folks are able to make a bundle and still walk away with a good army.

pretre wrote:

culsandar wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:Im kinda worried about this winners list thing. I have to drive out of state and if i get down there and i cant play because GW is worthless im gonna be pissed.

TBH you should have called ahead to your store and reserved your spot weeks ago. You don't just show up to one of these things and expect to play. For all you know where you're going is full up on room.

Yeah, especially at a big location where people want to go. Call Showcase now. (Or PM mikhaila) or do both.

Showing up day of is a recipe for heartache. Heck, I called my location and I'm worried they might have not written it down. I might call again, just to double check.

I called as soon as the list for semis came out. I just see it as my luck for something like that to happen

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

pretre wrote:

culsandar wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:Im kinda worried about this winners list thing. I have to drive out of state and if i get down there and i cant play because GW is worthless im gonna be pissed.

TBH you should have called ahead to your store and reserved your spot weeks ago. You don't just show up to one of these things and expect to play. For all you know where you're going is full up on room.

Yeah, especially at a big location where people want to go. Call Showcase now. (Or PM mikhaila) or do both.

Showing up day of is a recipe for heartache. Heck, I called my location and I'm worried they might have not written it down. I might call again, just to double check.

I called as soon as the list for semis came out. I just see it as my luck for something like that to happen

Just PM or call Mikhaila. That'll confirm that you can play.

are they gonna fix the typos on last mission before saturday? lol

keeblerpowell wrote:are they gonna fix the typos on last mission before saturday? lol

Unlikely. It isn't unplayably broken, so they'll probably let it go.

LOL that means you can get a minor and major victory at the same time!!

Major Victory:
Score 3 more kill points than your opponent. Hold 2 more table quarters than your opponent. ***Control 2 or
more terrain features than your opponent***
Minor Victory:
Score 1 more kill point than your opponent. Hold 1 more table quarter than your opponent. ***Control 2 or
more terrain features than your opponent.***

I hope that TO's will realize the mistake here and say that minor victory come from controling one more and major from two.

That was fixed a while back. YOu might want to grab the most recent version.

"Massacre: Score 5 or more kill points than your opponent. Hold 3 or more table quarters
than your opponent. Control 3 or more terrain features than your opponent.
Major Victory: Score 3 more kill points than your opponent. Hold 2 more table quarters
than your opponent. Control 2 or more terrain features than your opponent
Minor Victory: Score 1 more kill point than your opponent. Hold 1 more table quarter
than your opponent. Control 2 or more terrain features than your opponent.
Draw: Score the same number of kill points. Hold the same number of table quarters.
Hold the same number of terrain features."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Check the page at:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=400002a§ion=&pIndex=2&aId=9500009&start=3&multiPageMode=true

The latest one is:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1960055a_Ard_Boyz_Semi-Final_Scenarios_09-06-2011

keeblerpowell wrote:LOL that means you can get a minor and major victory at the same time!!

Major Victory:
Score 3 more kill points than your opponent. Hold 2 more table quarters than your opponent. ***Control 2 or
more terrain features than your opponent***
Minor Victory:
Score 1 more kill point than your opponent. Hold 1 more table quarter than your opponent. ***Control 2 or
more terrain features than your opponent.***

I hope that TO's will realize the mistake here and say that minor victory come from controling one more and major from two.

That means you probably thought mission one was still dawn of war. That would of been a bad day showing up expecting that. It certainly changed my build!

Tomb King wrote:That means you probably thought mission one was still dawn of war. That would of been a bad day showing up expecting that. It certainly changed my build!

We'll see how contagious that is. At prelims the TO had the older copy of the missions, I ended up giving him the copies I printed.

pretre wrote:That was fixed a while back. YOu might want to grab the most recent version.

"Massacre: Score 5 or more kill points than your opponent. Hold 3 or more table quarters
than your opponent. Control 3 or more terrain features than your opponent.
Major Victory: Score 3 more kill points than your opponent. Hold 2 more table quarters
than your opponent. Control 2 or more terrain features than your opponent
Minor Victory: Score 1 more kill point than your opponent. Hold 1 more table quarter
than your opponent. Control 2 or more terrain features than your opponent.
Draw: Score the same number of kill points. Hold the same number of table quarters.
Hold the same number of terrain features."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Check the page at:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=400002a§ion=&pIndex=2&aId=9500009&start=3&multiPageMode=true

The latest one is:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1960055a_Ard_Boyz_Semi-Final_Scenarios_09-06-2011

Pretre I'm not sure you realized this but the current version still has screwed up victory conditions for the terrain features. It's still 2 for minor and 2 for major instead of 1 and 2.

ToI wrote:Pretre I'm not sure you realized this but the current version still has screwed up victory conditions for the terrain features. It's still 2 for minor and 2 for major instead of 1 and 2.

Well, my bad, I was reading quarters instead of terrain features. Apologies.

pretre wrote:

ToI wrote:Pretre I'm not sure you realized this but the current version still has screwed up victory conditions for the terrain features. It's still 2 for minor and 2 for major instead of 1 and 2.

Well, my bad, I was reading quarters instead of terrain features. Apologies.

All good, I just wanted to clear that up so we were all on the same page. I'm guessing most competent TOs will give 1 and 2 for the conditions since otherwise it makes no sense

ToI wrote:Usually the small one is pretty small cause it's in the middle of nowhere, but this year seems to be that everywhere is just packed

Idaho has 2 semi-finals so my money is on one or both of those having attendance in the single digits.

Blackmoor wrote:

ToI wrote:Usually the small one is pretty small cause it's in the middle of nowhere, but this year seems to be that everywhere is just packed

Idaho has 2 semi-finals so my money is on one or both of those having attendance in the single digits.

Keep in mind that the one in North Idaho covers East WA and OR, Idaho and Montana. The south one covers a similarly crazy sized area.

pretre wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:

ToI wrote:Usually the small one is pretty small cause it's in the middle of nowhere, but this year seems to be that everywhere is just packed

Idaho has 2 semi-finals so my money is on one or both of those having attendance in the single digits.

Keep in mind that the one in North Idaho covers East WA and OR, Idaho and Montana. The south one covers a similarly crazy sized area.

Yea, that doesnt mean those people are making the drive to that location though. So probably single digits!

Tomb King wrote:

pretre wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:

ToI wrote:Usually the small one is pretty small cause it's in the middle of nowhere, but this year seems to be that everywhere is just packed

Idaho has 2 semi-finals so my money is on one or both of those having attendance in the single digits.

Keep in mind that the one in North Idaho covers East WA and OR, Idaho and Montana. The south one covers a similarly crazy sized area.

Yea, that doesnt mean those people are making the drive to that location though. So probably single digits!

With that big of an area there are going to be a larger number of people making that drive. It's kinda unavoidable. I doubt we will see anybody with numbers in the single digits this time around but I may be wrong.

Probably going to see a full venue. People do Carpool. Thats what we are doing just the 3 of us travelling 100 miles.

pretre wrote:

ToI wrote:Pretre I'm not sure you realized this but the current version still has screwed up victory conditions for the terrain features. It's still 2 for minor and 2 for major instead of 1 and 2.

Well, my bad, I was reading quarters instead of terrain features. Apologies.

All good just glad that I wasn't seeing things. lol

Mission three really sucked rolling table quarters. Especially when playing against grey knights!