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.

scenario's are up.

mission 1: Victory points with 500 free points....given that the "neat" thing is nominating a messenger model and getting that model into the enemies deployment zone(not end of game, just get it there)...then you look at deployment...dawn of war.... so just set your dude up at the middle line, walk an inch, 500 points.....

mission 2: 1 objective, dead center, have more scoring units with 6" of it at end of game.

mission 3: were not good at this, so on turn 3 roll a dice and mission objective with will be either Kill points, table quarters, or control terrain features.....

<let's put a link in here --Janthkin>

Mission 3 (the variable victory condition mission) has the usual loophole with missions of this type: "To control a table quarter you must have more scoring units in that quarter than
your opponent." It doesn't specify WHOLLY within, so a single scoring unit in the middle of the board could be holding 4 quarters at once.

At least they've stopped removing USRs via "mission rules." That was annoying.

Soooo..it says no deepstriking,outflanking, blah blah. Except for daemons I assume..Cool, I can just deep strike it in there and get 500 VPs

Well, scenario 1 needs to be fixed. Other than that - get those Scoring units out folks - You can't get a massacre without five of them in scenario 2, and 2/3 of the conditions in scenario 3 depend on them. There is also a typo in the 3rd one - the # of terrain features you have to hold is the same for minor and major victories.

If they don't fix scenario 1 its really going to suck to set up first and get the initiative seized....

Does this mean there are no scout moves in any mission since scouts isn't listed or do scouts always get to move no matter what.

Mission 1 can be a extremely difficult for anyone going second. The player going first can pin the enemy deep in the deployment zone and something is going to have to be deployed because the messenger has to be on the table.

Mission two is going to need lots of scoring units. Just having one more scoring unit in the center will only get you a minor victory. To get a massacre you will need 5 more scoring units in the center. That means you need to have at least 5 in your list to begin with. That's tough.

Mission 3 - just go for the wipe out. By turn 3, if you are wiping out your opponent it won't matter what you roll. that being said I would want to choose the table quarter which has the most terrain features just in case you need to claim terrain. Very interesting for marine armies who have to decide whether to combat squad for the objective/table quarters roll or the keep the squads whole for the kp mission. They will need to decide before they know. I think most of them will split the squads for the 2/3 chance it's an objective based primary mission.

Hmmmm.. round 2 is tough if you go up against certain Guard builds or Tervigon bugs. I think people will think Marines varients could combat squad and rush the center, but those are just marines afterall and deathstars could rip[ through a bunch of them. The Guard and Tervigon builds will have their scoring units be non-important units in their army for dealing damage which means their opponents will need to attack the more dangereous non-scoring units to survive.

Janthkin wrote:Mission 3 (the variable victory condition mission) has the usual loophole with missions of this type: "To control a table quarter you must have more scoring units in that quarter than
your opponent." It doesn't specify WHOLLY within, so a single scoring unit in the middle of the board could be holding 4 quarters at once.

More evidence that the person writing these hasn't actually played much 5th edition; still got 3rd/4th on the brain.

Yeah, #1 is not very well thought out. Hopefully they will fix that.

Two will be a drawfest I think - I'm going to kill the opponent's scoring units at range then rush the middle - while he or she does the same. Given that very few armies have more than six or so, and I'm pretty confident I can kill 3, and confident that at least 3 of mine will survive, its hard to see where a major win is going to come from unless the melee in the center is decisive in the last few turns.

Here we go again....

While not as poorly worded as the first round, there is still a ton of loopholes and questions on things.

Mission 1: Umm...okay so I move an inch forward and get 500 VP.

Mission 2: More Scoring units....advantage to the Marines.

Mission 3: Mission Objectives not known until the 3rd round??? Knowing the mission objectives is one of the main things for a lot of armies.

Oh well....what and see what happens...I think they are really giving too much advantage to Marines and Grey Knights.

Yeah, because Grey Knights needed another advantage... <Grand Strategy>

Yeah not liking these missions. 5 or more scoring units only benefits the newer codexs like grey knights and ig. They need to reduce it down to 4 troop units if anything.

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.

I'm not sure whether to jump for joy at these scenarios, or cry like a baby...I'm playing biker marines so this is just insane for me, but at the same time, it is so awkward...

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.

Here's my take on the Ard Boyz Semi-final scenarios:

Scenario #1 - This scenario sounds a little silly. When they say deployment zone in DoW, they're talking about the entire 24" half of the board. How hard is it to cross that line? Any army going first should be able to easily get to the enemy deployment zone on Turn 1.

Other than that, this scenario will favor deathstar troop units as well as fast armies. Paladins and nob bikers may do well here, as will DE and mechdar. Good luck trying to take out those deathstar units or all those fast skimmers.

Be glad that shunting interceptors probably wouldn't count.


Scenario #2 - Gosh, this mission is just going to bone static gunlines like IG and Tau. Good luck trying to stay alive long enough to claim the center objective, especially against the more assaulty armies. This scenario will also IMO favor resilient scoring units such as paladins, scoring vendreads, 180 ork boyz, grey hunter-spam and deathwing. Yeesh, I don't think anyone will be taking necrons because of missions like this.

However, what I do like about this scenario is that it forces the army to be more balanced and troop-centric. You think you can win with just 3 5-man troop choices? Yeah, sure, table your opponents first....and then you still may not win if he takes out all your troops.


Scenario #3 - You really don't know what you'll be playing for here until Turn 3.....I like it! It's brilliant! This will force you to bring a truly balanced, all-comer's list. Want to bring a 30KP MSU list because so far, KP's don't matter? I don't think so. Want to bring a list with only 500pts worth of troops and 2000pts worth of killiness? Think again. How about a static shooty-MSU list that will just sit there and shoot the crap out of your opponent? You may have to move to get to terrain/table quarters.

The variableness of this mission truly favors the more flexible and balanced army. Don't think you can win the Semi's just by overloading 1 phase. Now you need to take into account all 3 phases of the game into your army build.


In short, bring a balanced army to the Semi's and you'll have chance.

Yep, a largely randomized chance. If you make it to one of the top tables in the last round, dumb luck could very well determine the winner, not play skill. Might as well call it "Lucky Boyz".

Krak_kirby wrote:Yep, a largely randomized chance. If you make it to one of the top tables in the last round, dumb luck could very well determine the winner, not play skill. Might as well call it "Lucky Boyz".

L(lucky)A(ahole) Boys.

I like all missions
1- VP vs KP yay no 6kp GKs
2-No terrain in the center of the map would make it real interesting. What cover? Depends how smart t.o.s are.
3-randomess is good.

Krak_kirby wrote:Yep, a largely randomized chance. If you make it to one of the top tables in the last round, dumb luck could very well determine the winner, not play skill. Might as well call it "Lucky Boyz".

Put yourself in a position to win on any of the possible outcomes, and luck ceases to be a factor. If your play skill falls short of achieving that, then randomness wasn't the problem.

Being that Tau player Janthkin and jy2 say won't like Scenario 2, I thought I'd give my opinion. I don't like Scenario 2. But don't worry, I'll have a plan...

Gus Indo wrote:Being that Tau player Janthkin and jy2 say won't like Scenario 2, I thought I'd give my opinion. I don't like Scenario 2. But don't worry, I'll have a plan...

Hopefully, they'll put a huge piece of TLOS-blocking terrain in the center.

Janthkin wrote:

Krak_kirby wrote:Yep, a largely randomized chance. If you make it to one of the top tables in the last round, dumb luck could very well determine the winner, not play skill. Might as well call it "Lucky Boyz".

Put yourself in a position to win on any of the possible outcomes, and luck ceases to be a factor. If your play skill falls short of achieving that, then randomness wasn't the problem.

I believe that was my point. Putting yourself in a position to win is a lot more difficult if you don't even know the objective till turn three. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sit home and sulk, I'll play the missions they give me. This sort of random silliness is just what I called it, dumb luck, and doesn't really contribute to finding the "Ardest" 40k general out there. It shouldn't be in the regionals at all, never mind game three.

And luck is always a factor. Collectible card game players generally have 10-15 individual matches with swiss pairing at any large event to determine a champ. The top five players consistently place at every event they attend. We have three matches, and if the pool is large enough two undefeated players often don't get a chance to play to an undefeated champ. I stopped caring how GW organizes it's competitive play system years ago, now I just look for events, set up my army, and try to put myself in a position to win...

Clauss wrote:Soooo..it says no deepstriking,outflanking, blah blah. Except for daemons I assume..Cool, I can just deep strike it in there and get 500 VPs

Or mishap and get none

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.

Allow me to amend. For me, if those missions aren't changed, it may not be worth it for me to make the trip. A long Saturday and a tank of gas is a pretty decent investment in something that's suppose to be fun. I've simply become more discerning about what reaches that threshold.

Mission 1's problem is almost entirely the Dawn of War deployment that goes with it; that's not hard to fix.

Agree totally. Until fixed though, it simply rewards going first even more than most VP missions do.

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.)

This is actually tough on MSU armies as well, including mech vets, razorback wolves, etc. I don't dislike the mission as a whole, but Semis can (and often do) turn on who got more massacres, not just more wins.

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.

The random mission isn't terrible, but it's easy to simply chant "if you can't handle [blank], you're not skilled enough." Luck is going to be a factor, not for the best players, but for the middling players. If I draw a really good player in round three, and I take paladins, I've got a one in three chance of having a huge advantage, and part of me might just roll the dice, esp. if it's otherwise a bad matchup.

Interestingly, they're not clear about contesting anything for that mission. Do normal rules for contesting apply? Or can both players "control" a terrain feature and/or quarter by having a scoring unit near it/in it?

This first mission is definitely going to be a die roll to determine who has the massive advantage. In situations where it would be a draw it is literally going to be who goes first that gets the win...after that second look at it, I'm not sure I like it. If you could not deploy the messenger and have him walk on at the beginning of the first turn like everything else but were still disallowed from the other things like deepstrike/reserves then it would be much better cause you could have some strategy if you lose the roll off.

Couple of questions about these, you guys tell me your interpretations.

Mission 1:

A: It says Dawn of War but doesn't mention first turn night fight. Is it in effect? (My prelim store said no last time).
B: Does the messenger have to start on the board with your alloted 1 HQ 2 Troop? He cannot reserve, but can he first turn enter the board as done by Dawn of War?
C: Do you get the bonus VPs at any time? Start messenger in the middle of the board, top of first turn drive him up 12" into enemy deployment zone (half the board with DoW) I'm already up 500 vps? Or is it only at the end of game? (Reading leads me to believe former, for now)
D: Take note that it's not RGL.

Mission 2:

A: Doesn't specify troops, so Grand Strategy, Kantor Sternguard, etc. count? Seems combat squading have some advantage here.
B: Five scoring units? Ouch.

Mission 3:

A: Obvious errata to victory conditions.
B: We assume you only roll once for the objectives? But it doesn't tell you to, is it possible that each player has a seperate one?

culsandar wrote:Couple of questions about these, you guys tell me your interpretations.

Mission 1:

A: It says Dawn of War but doesn't mention first turn night fight. Is it in effect? (My prelim store said no last time).
B: Does the messenger have to start on the board with your alloted 1 HQ 2 Troop? He cannot reserve, but can he first turn enter the board as done by Dawn of War?
C: Do you get the bonus VPs at any time? Start messenger in the middle of the board, top of first turn drive him up 12" into enemy deployment zone (half the board with DoW) I'm already up 500 vps? Or is it only at the end of game? (Reading leads me to believe former, for now)
D: Take note that it's not RGL.

A: It doesn't say to modify the scenario at all so 1st Turn night fight I assume would still be in effect as that is part of the scenario
B: That's the same thing I'm wonder if they will change but as is reads right now it has to be deployed on the board so not deploying anything is no longer an option to anybody
C: As read it's as soon as you get him into the enemy deployment zone.
D: At very least it's not RGL

Mission 2:

A: Doesn't specify troops, so Grand Strategy, Kantor Sternguard, etc. count? Seems combat squading have some advantage here.
B: Five scoring units? Ouch.

A: As stated before the advantage here is marines of all sorts, and grey knights in particular
B: Yeah...that hurts, I have 8 scoring units in objective missions but still...that's a lot of units to have crowding the board center

Mission 3:

A: Obvious errata to victory conditions.
B: We assume you only roll once for the objectives? But it doesn't tell you to, is it possible that each player has a seperate one?

A: Yeah, typos are bad...
B: It says pretty clearly that the roll is to determine what the victory condition for the game is. But yes, roll once and that is the objective for both players for that game.

Mission 3 is nothing more than an updated "Unplanned Assault" which is one of my favorites.

jbunny wrote:Mission 3 is nothing more than an updated "Unplanned Assault" which is one of my favorites.

Indeed, it's a good mission. However the first two missions are going to be all sorts of a luck fest for many armies. While I appreciate scenarios that are written better than the prelims the first two are still horribly unbalanced.

Perhaps, for mission 1, by "opponents deployment zone" they mean where your opponent was able to deploy. For example, if you lined up down the center forcing your opponent in the back 6 inches of his side, THAT is his deployment zone.

Just a thought. I personally read that the way everyone else is, but it seems kinda unfair to whoever plays second.

If you're playing at Legions in pittsburgh check my event thread for erratas to these missions to make them coherent (Assuming GW doesnt)

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.