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.

Janthkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Janthkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

This.

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

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

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

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


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

Dracos wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, this.

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

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good to know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is this "real life" you speak of?

It is a myth.

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

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

Don't worry so am I.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:It is a myth.

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

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

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

Polonius wrote:

targetawg wrote:

pretre wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anglacon wrote:

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

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

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

Kaotik wrote:

Anglacon wrote:

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

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

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

lol nicely done.

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

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

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

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