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.

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.