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

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

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

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

Clever, but impractical.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

But I'm just being argumentative now.

No you're not.

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

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will be prepared for either eventuality.

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

targetawg wrote:

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Polonius.

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

I'm not totally daft.

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

Sorry wolf scouts, normal deployment time for you!

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

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

Sorry wolf scouts, normal deployment time for you!

Yeah, I think that is the consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

dkellyj wrote:

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

Janthkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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