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.

Danny Internets wrote:Derek, I don't see anyone here arguing that the scenarios, as they are currently written, are crystal clear. Clarifications are good, complete revamps of the rules 2 days before the tournament is to begin, especially ones that are open to obvious abuse, are bad.

But that's exactly what the problem is, the scenarios as written are a revamp. No one seemed to have a problem with them until their wording was explained. It was at that time that the potential for abuse became apparent.

If the rules aren't to people's liking, they always have the option to not play.

There's also the option to express our dislike. Which option do you think has a better chance of creating change?

wyomingfox wrote:

"What about Tau drones? Are they considered "spawned" or do they count for KP?"

Tau Drones attached to Squads will count as part of the squad under this new (maybe it is maybe it isn't official ) rule set on KP for Ard Boyz.

For example, drones attached to HQ commander count as part of the HQ FOC and must be destroyed along with the commander.
Drones attached to fire warrior squads count as troops and must be destroyed along with the squad.
Drones attached to dedicated transports count as part of the dedicated transports and don't count towards KP.

In the rulebook, however, they are regarded as separate KP from the Devil Fish as they are an independant unit. I would assume that they would be considered a "retinue" for commanders (IC) and thus a separate KP. For firewarriors and elite battlesuits whom do not have an IC, then they would just be part of the squad and not a separate KP.

As the Tau commander with drones & no bodyguard can still join other units the drones are NOT worth any Kill points.

Drones (with the exception of a gun drone Squad) are wargear, not retinue.

derek wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Derek, I don't see anyone here arguing that the scenarios, as they are currently written, are crystal clear. Clarifications are good, complete revamps of the rules 2 days before the tournament is to begin, especially ones that are open to obvious abuse, are bad.

But that's exactly what the problem is, the scenarios as written are a revamp. No one seemed to have a problem with them until their wording was explained. It was at that time that the potential for abuse became apparent.

I suggest you reread the original thread(s) on the scenarios. Particularly the bits where IG armies had 71 KPs available, and store owners were discouraging players from bringing them. People had adequate numbers of problems with the missions as originally interpreted; the clarifications have changed the issues a bit.

I guess people should also note the fact that in the 3rd mission, it is more important to capture both objectives than get the most KP. You grab both objectives and LOSE the KP war and still score a Mayor victory! So in 2 of the 3 missions, the battle is really about the objectives!

Yeah, it just came to me

If these changes are in effect then there is no way I'll win a game against IG with 260 troops at 6 KP in the second mission unless I table him. Here is hoping I don't draw an IG game second game.

But that's exactly what the problem is, the scenarios as written are a revamp. No one seemed to have a problem with them until their wording was explained. It was at that time that the potential for abuse became apparent.

The wording of the scenarios wasn't so much explained as it was completely changed. "HQ - 3 Kill Points" is very different from "Entire HQ Force Organization Chart selections - 3 Kill Points". And furthermore, lots of people had problems with the scenarios before they were "explained." I've heard more than a few complaints from within my own gaming circle and even a cursory examination of this forum and others will yield evidence of the same dissatisfaction existing outside of my group.

As for options, keeping one's mouth shut and quietly putting up with crap is a surefire way to get served more of the same in the future. The squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that jazz. There are only 2 reasons why I'm still planning on playing: (1) it's free, (2) I've already invested time and money into preparing for it.

Janthkin wrote:

derek wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Derek, I don't see anyone here arguing that the scenarios, as they are currently written, are crystal clear. Clarifications are good, complete revamps of the rules 2 days before the tournament is to begin, especially ones that are open to obvious abuse, are bad.

But that's exactly what the problem is, the scenarios as written are a revamp. No one seemed to have a problem with them until their wording was explained. It was at that time that the potential for abuse became apparent.

I suggest you reread the original thread(s) on the scenarios. Particularly the bits where IG armies had 71 KPs available, and store owners were discouraging players from bringing them. People had adequate numbers of problems with the missions as originally interpreted; the clarifications have changed the issues a bit.

I've read them. Guard has always had a problem with KP scenarios, and the way a large ammount of people read the scenarios confirmed, to them at least, that this was nothing new. However when I first posted the scenarios for my gaming group at least one person, and others agreed, that it was meant to read the way it has finally been clarified to. Which is why I said...

A person will read things one way, while another reads it different.

earlier in this thread. I'm not saying there weren't always problems with the way people interpreted them, I'm saying that it appears they were always intended to act favorably to Guard.

FAQ's have been emailed to event coordinators.. check your local stores to verify they have them and are posting them.

time to borrow a mech guard list

asugradinwa wrote:If these changes are in effect then there is no way I'll win a game against IG with 260 troops at 6 KP in the second mission unless I table him. Here is hoping I don't draw an IG game second game.

To be fair, unless you lose round 1 you probably won't face the all infantry horde in round 2. Round 1 is an objective mission, and with five objectives most players will hedge their bets with the "one in each quarter and one near the center" strategy. It won't be hard to push the IG off the neutral objectives, and the quarters deployement they'll have a hard time focusing fire. Deep strikers certianly help, but sort of assault troops could seriously gut any IG effort to claim objectives.

In the latter missions, simply leave everything in reserves as long as possible and play for a draw. You won't get the seven turns you'd need to table them (and smart IG players will leave units in reserve to prolong their platoons), so simply try to not lose 4KP worth of units. In Mission 3, make every effort to crash his objective, and hope for the best. 250 IG have a lot of shots, but aren't cumbersome.

Outside of IG, the only real winners of these rules changes all make at least nominal sense: Nid medium bugs and Tau gun drones off of Devilfish. A maxed out SM command squad with three ICs in a landraider is only 3kp, but it costs how many points?

It might be wishful thinking, but I think this tournament requires exactly the sort of army list any tourney does: Hard hitting units and a tough objective grabbers. Any army with those two things (something IG still lack, BTW) will have a punchers chance at these missions.

Just called my store. No emails from GW, no FAQ's. This is moving away from nuisance and into irritating. While I am not out to doubt anyone's veracity, and it was really good of Chris to wade in here and throw some more blood in the water, if the stores don't have it then it is not a rule. I just hope it's all clear by game day, although I hardly see that happening.

If t turns out that KP DO now follow FOC choices, then the potential guard players who got warded off by store owners prob. won't be too happy. However, someone's always gotta be pissed off. It's the nature of humanity.

Print out the first page of this thread and bring it with you. Hopefully it won't come to that but it may help.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Just got off the phone with Misty Mountain in Madison, WI and the owner told me he got the FAQ! It is FOC for a KP! Go ahead bring on the IG cheese!

Contents deleted due to redundancy . Anyways the email I got from the store was word for word the same as Mik's (Sorry, I can't remember how the to spell your full name) first post.

I think someone just won the didn't read any of the thread but posted anyway award.

Nope read the whole thread previously. Just confirming it from a second source (an actual store manager who recieved the FAQ from gamesworkshop). The version meshed with what Mik said. Anyone can contact the store himself if you google it and he can email you the FAQ (look at my post prior).

Anyways. I have been reading all the separate posts and it seams even with Miks postings that there is still alot of doubt (I for one) that it was going to happen. So I went ahead and posted the emailed FAQ along with the store name so that people can at least contact the store themselves to confirm (if they want to). Sorry if it was overkill.

Panic wrote:
that's crazy, a LR dedicated transport also gives up no KP...

And is yet another reason why Kill Points are a clumsy way of assigning 'value' to units.

BYE

Yeah I have to say I was really excited to participate in this tournament until today. Thanks, GW.

Here's another question that might require clarification:

Scenario 1 - Battlepoint Modifiers:
"+1 if all of your HQ choices are within 6 inches of an objective at the end of the game."
If you have a single HQ choice that is composed o separate units within that choice (e.g. IG Command squad and special weapons squads), then do every unit as part of that choice need to be within 6" of an objective, or just any unit from that choice?

Not necessarily a biggie, just curious.

Yes I would say so since it says all HQ choices. That HB squad is an HQ choice (or part of one) so it needs to cram in there.

Dogpile ftw.

I think I snorted coke out of my nose when i started reading about IG cheese. Man... THAT is funny.

The HB squad is not an HQ choice, in and off it self. It is a part of an entire choice. The Command Platoon is the "choice." The units that comprise the command platoon are not the "choice."

Im going to call my shop tomorrow and ask them if what mike said is true... because if it is, Ive got a very happy mech guard army.

10 chimeras FTW!

later,
fishborne

Nevermind thats a bad analogy.

The HQ choice is comprised of many smaller peices. You have to have all the peices there or "the HQ choice" is not there.

And a double post...

Similarly a unit may be composed of "smaller pieces" (individual models). So if I say that in order to capture an objective a unit has to be within 3" of an objective, does that mean every model within the unit must be within 3"? Or simply that some element of the unit must be within 3" (such as one model)?

Note that the bonus point modifier does not use the phrase "wholly within."

Well no it states in the rules for most things you only need to have one model in a unit within range. But that is a unit. An HQ choice is not a unit of units. They dont work that way. But yes you are right, as long as you have one model from every unit in that HQ choice within 6 you are good. Still very hard with some of the custom ard boys lists floating around.

Ill back up because we are going into a tangent that is neither here no there. To quote you from earlier:

dvdhwk wrote:The HB squad is not an HQ choice, in and off it self. It is a part of an entire choice. The Command Platoon is the "choice." The units that comprise the command platoon are not the "choice."

"The command platoon is the choice" - correct.

"The units that comprise the command platoon are not the "choice." - incorrect. The command platoon is the choice, therefore all it is composed of is also that choice.

An HQ choice is a whole of units.

If I take a farseer and warlock council, they count as one HQ choice.

If I seperate them, one alone cannot qualify for the bonus you are asking about because it doesnt comprise the whole HQ choice.

dvdhwk wrote:Here's another question that might require clarification:

Scenario 1 - Battlepoint Modifiers:
"+1 if all of your HQ choices are within 6 inches of an objective at the end of the game."
If you have a single HQ choice that is composed o separate units within that choice (e.g. IG Command squad and special weapons squads), then do every unit as part of that choice need to be within 6" of an objective, or just any unit from that choice?

Not necessarily a biggie, just curious.

If you have multiple parts to your command squad, you still only need to have 1 model from one unit withing 6" to claim this bonus point.

This just keeps getting better

mikhaila wrote:
If you have multiple parts to your command squad, you still only need to have 1 model from one unit withing 6" to claim this bonus point.

Is this an official clarification or your own interpretation? "Troops Choice" has been clarified to mean "Entire Troops selection from the Force Organization Chart" so why wouldn't "HQ choice" mean "Entire HQ selection from the Force Organization Chart"? If you extend the same logic, each of the units composing the FOC selection should have to be within an objective. One would hope that if GW is going to invent all sorts of new rules just for this tournament that they will at least be consistent in their application.