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.

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

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

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

pretre wrote:

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

Yes.

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

No.

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

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

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

Todd wrote:

pretre wrote:

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

Yes.

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

No.

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

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

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

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

I'm looking at it right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outflank is a byproduct of the Reserves rule

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

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

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

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

You say that like GW knows its own rules.

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

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

Outflank is a byproduct of the Reserves rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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