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.

Thursday? UGGG!

I don't plan to change my list but there have been scenarios in the past that give big KP bonuses. Like the ones that give big bonuses for HQ's, Elites, or stuff that moves more than 6". Big enough to consider tweaking the list, but I probably will stick with what I have.

This year I built an army specifically for ardboyz and it was such a pleasure to do. I did not put anywhere near the normal effort of my usual armies - magnets/drilled gun barrels/banners, always lots of banners or most of all PAINTING. That's right! I have joined the ranks of just going to play some games and not caring what my army looks like, aside from WYSIWYG. It was a HUGE part of my enjoyment of this year's ardboyz. Once I am done with the competition I will pas it on and get back to my 3 year long Imperial Guard project.

I am looking forward to playing 3 games against 3 opponents I do not usually play or have ever met before but I may be a bit rusty. I haven't done much since my second computer death of the season and hockey playoffs.

The missions should be a minor thing and the event should be about gameplay. I hope that is how it plays out.

Oh and one last thing - 2500 point Blood Angels army for sale starting Sunday!

I had read on another forum that the last scinerio's were made by a redshirt in VA (not even a developer) who made them the night before they were posted and had no over sight. He also tailored it to his ork horde list. He took first in his tourney This seemed to me to be speculation but on the other hand given the parameters of the missions it does make sense. I just hope that the semi-finals will not be a repeat of the same. Though as a Nid horde player it would not bother me too much.

Seems like my theory was correct.. The guy last year did an amazing job with the missions and the tournament in general..

So GW had to take the responsibility away from him or lay him off.. lol

Omeryar wrote:I had read on another forum that the last scinerio's were made by a redshirt in VA (not even a developer) who made them the night before they were posted and had no over sight. He also tailored it to his ork horde list. He took first in his tourney This seemed to me to be speculation but on the other hand given the parameters of the missions it does make sense. I just hope that the semi-finals will not be a repeat of the same. Though as a Nid horde player it would not bother me too much.

1. Not a redshirt, two guys who work in Trade sales. One of them, Joe Neet, posted something about the missions on a board, and the witch hunt and exaggerations started.

2. I think Joe played Ork Biker Nobz, not horde. He also didn't make up the 3rd scenario, the other person on the team did.

3. Joe did not place 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. I don't believe the other guy played, but I'm not sure. Absolutely sure he didn't place.

4. Yes, it's speculation. No, it doesn't make sense. You're saying someone would deliberately cheat, and yet you know nothing about them. I know Joe, personally and professionally, for many years, and he simply wouldn't do that.

GW is moving to Memphis, half the team was down there, or traveling. Missions for 'ardboyz fell through the cracks. Joe got the hot potato tossed to him and had a day to write them up.

I wouldn't fall into extremist hyperbole over the scenarios being a little tardy...this is a free tournament after all.

I'm not sure what the delay is from, and I too would prefer to see them sooner rather than later; but as long as they give me at least 24 hours I can adjust.

Yeah I usually just make an army the night before anyhow.. 'ard boyz isnt worth making sure every model has GT quality paintjobs considering it has no painting score

mikhaila wrote:

Omeryar wrote:I had read on another forum that the last scinerio's were made by a redshirt in VA (not even a developer) who made them the night before they were posted and had no over sight. He also tailored it to his ork horde list. He took first in his tourney This seemed to me to be speculation but on the other hand given the parameters of the missions it does make sense. I just hope that the semi-finals will not be a repeat of the same. Though as a Nid horde player it would not bother me too much.

1. Not a redshirt, two guys who work in Trade sales. One of them, Joe Neet, posted something about the missions on a board, and the witch hunt and exaggerations started.

2. I think Joe played Ork Biker Nobz, not horde. He also didn't make up the 3rd scenario, the other person on the team did.

3. Joe did not place 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. I don't believe the other guy played, but I'm not sure. Absolutely sure he didn't place.

4. Yes, it's speculation. No, it doesn't make sense. You're saying someone would deliberately cheat, and yet you know nothing about them. I know Joe, personally and professionally, for many years, and he simply wouldn't do that.

GW is moving to Memphis, half the team was down there, or traveling. Missions for 'ardboyz fell through the cracks. Joe got the hot potato tossed to him and had a day to write them up.

The thing I don't understand, and I don't mean to be a complaining fanboy, but how long did they know about the Ard Boyz?

If anything they should have had at least a rough drat of the primer missions when they announced the event, and and have had the semi-finals missions worked out and posted the day after the preliminaries.

Everything that has gone down this year just smacks of poor planing. I can understand that everything is crazy with them and the move, but the first work day after the Preliminaries, this should have been a priority.

You have a tournament, that is being held nationally, where the prize at the semi-finals is a full army, and you are doing this while the country is coming out of a bad recession.

I honestly think that full armies at the semi-finals where a bad idea, you put that big of a prize out there, and you are sure to cause drama. Doing everything at the last minute sure doesn't help.

Scenarios are up:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1210230a_2010ArdBoyzSemiScenarios40K.pdf

The semis scenarios are posted. Sorry for the delay guys, and please don't shoot the messenger.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=400002a§ion=community&aId=9800048a

John

Jesus, why not just call it the assault army round? These missions suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An entire army can outflank in scenario 3, and scenario 1 is just asking for arguments with that fog of war, BS. Scenario 2 with the deep striking objectives? That is a little too much randomness for me.

These all hurt shooting armies a lot, I am not a fan of these missions at all.

People might as well start making 24" diameter cardboard circles for scenario #1. It'll save a lot of time when the shooting phase comes around.

Wow some strange stuff in there... I kinda like it lol.

#1. The fog won't make a huge difference. 24" hole in the center of the board, start 12" from the center, and the fog has a 50% to dissipate turn 2.

#2. By the bottom of turn two you know where all the points will be, if that isn't enough time to get to where you need to be then you need to rethink your mobility.

#3. Stay away from your opponent's flank side

Pretty tame by 'Ard Boyz standard. No modified killpoints, etc. Of course, I could be biased with my DE...

Reecius wrote:Jesus, why not just call it the assault army round? These missions suck.

An entire army can outflank in scenario 3, and scenario 1 is just asking for arguments with that fog of war, BS. Scenario 2 with the deep striking objectives? That is a little too much randomness for me.

These all hurt shooting armies a lot, I am not a fan of these missions at all.

As to scenario 3: as it's a KP mission, AND it's DoW, it's not too hard to avoid outflankers from the fixed side - you'll know which edge is your opponents before you walk on the board, as well as which units are actually in Reserve, and can plan accordingly. And, as a bonus, no Night Fight on turn 1 - move-and-fire guns will be in good shape. A little clarification might be nice, just to make it crystal clear that units not held in Reserve come in on your own table edge, as normal for DoW, but the current wording is reasonably understandable.

I like the idea behind the Fog. In practice, it would have been simpler to leave it at "Units completely in the Fog require Night Fight rolls to shoot at," rather than dealing with the LoS-drawing-issue.

My only real complaint is that one of the bonus points in Mission 2 is automatic for achieving a Massacre, and impossible any other way - +1 for holding all the objectives means you also got all 5 objectives, no?

BlueDagger wrote:Wow some strange stuff in there... I kinda like it lol.

#1. The fog won't make a huge difference. 24" hole in the center of the board, start 12" from the center, and the fog has a 50% to dissipate turn 2.

#2. By the bottom of turn two you know where all the points will be, if that isn't enough time to get to where you need to be then you need to rethink your mobility.

#3. Stay away from your opponent's flank side

Big agreement from me. I feel like these are some of the most well written (I don't see any glaring rules issues or holes at first glance like last time) scenarios we've seen at ard boyz for a while. I also think that these are pretty tame for ard boyz, yet have enough oddness to make it, well, ard boyz.

Thumbs up from me. And I play mechanized guard so a couple are pretty poopy.

Well, I like the missions. What makes me sad is that they could have been more elaborate or quirky, but of course trying to make the game fun for the angry-typing fanboys is a fool's errand...

Looking forward to the game!

Hey! I reserve my right to be an angry typing fan boy!!

We'll see how it pans out, but I can just envision horde Orks coming on the board with outflanking, that would be joyous.

Well, just have to make the best of it.

I dont see any big problems with the missions.. I will be making a big 24" circle tho for mission 1 to speed up the game.

I wonder who these missions will benefit the most? Wolves seem pretty solid with acute senses for mission 1 and loganbased shooting armies can move and fire with a lot of weapons. Plus they get a ton of scoring units

Mission 3 is going to really show who the noobs are heh.. If they get first 1 and decide to move on from board edges.. then get face rolled by the other guys reserves being A LOT closer (such as a unit in a land raider). Its interesting to be sure

Seems like a lot of these missions really support armies that go second

My only major question whether did they really meant "troop choices" for the scenario #3 bonus point, or did they mean "units from troop choices".

solkan wrote:My only major question whether did they really meant "troop choices" for the scenario #3 bonus point, or did they mean "units from troop choices".

I'd believe units, otherwise that gives infantry platoons a pretty large advantage

Janthkin wrote:I like the idea behind the Fog. In practice, it would have been simpler to leave it at "Units completely in the Fog require Night Fight rolls to shoot at," rather than dealing with the LoS-drawing-issue.

I like this better, good call on making it clearer and easier, but still has the same effect.

Reecius wrote:Hey! I reserve my right to be an angry typing fan boy!!

We'll see how it pans out, but I can just envision horde Orks coming on the board with outflanking, that would be joyous.

You have to remember that what makes Outflanking dangerous is that units might be showing up on either side of the board - if you want to be safe, you're compressed into the middle (where the rest of the enemy army is probably coming for you). Here, if the Horde Orks go into Reserves, you just use 2/3 or so of your deployment zone - when they eventually show up, they're either walking on from their long board edge as usual (24+" from your units), or they're walking on from their short edge (24"+ from your units). And it's a KP mission - it's not like coming for your objective will get them the win.

Now Broadsides - THOSE would be effective walking on via their short edge.

Yeah some clarification on the reserves in mission 3 would be good.. I predict some confusion considering dawn of war says "move them on from your board edge exactly like reserves".. since the reserve rule is being ALTERED for mission 3 then it could be reasoned moving on "as reserves" means you can also move on from the edges

I see it both ways, so I hope John clarifies it a bit.

Kirasu wrote:I dont see any big problems with the missions.. I will be making a big 24" circle tho for mission 1 to speed up the game.

I wonder who these missions will benefit the most? Wolves seem pretty solid with acute senses for mission 1 and loganbased shooting armies can move and fire with a lot of weapons. Plus they get a ton of scoring units

Mission 3 is going to really show who the noobs are heh.. If they get first 1 and decide to move on from board edges.. then get face rolled by the other guys reserves being A LOT closer (such as a unit in a land raider). Its interesting to be sure

Seems like a lot of these missions really support armies that go second

Started pondering the strategy behind Mission 2 & objective "placement." It doesn't have the "objectives have to be x inches away" requirement - do you deep strike your objectives on top of your opponents, and fight over that little piece of board, or do you spread them around? Do you try for the "middle of the board" placement on one of them? Yeah, I like these.

Janthkin wrote:]Started pondering the strategy behind Mission 2 & objective "placement." It doesn't have the "objectives have to be x inches away" requirement - do you deep strike your objectives on top of your opponents, and fight over that little piece of board, or do you spread them around? Do you try for the "middle of the board" placement on one of them? Yeah, I like these.

'
Depends on your army, as eldar I'll spread but as a CC or horde army definately stack

BlueDagger wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Started pondering the strategy behind Mission 2 & objective "placement." It doesn't have the "objectives have to be x inches away" requirement - do you deep strike your objectives on top of your opponents, and fight over that little piece of board, or do you spread them around? Do you try for the "middle of the board" placement on one of them? Yeah, I like these.

Depends on your army, as eldar I'll spread but as a CC or horde army definately stack

And your opponent's army, and the terrain, and initial deployment of both armies, and whether you're going first or second - it's just neat how they've taken a fairly well-understood mechanic (objective placement) and made it more interesting again.

That's why I like the idea of going second in all 3 missions.. First mission lets you take advantage of night fight AND have the final say on objectives. However, assault armies may want first turn so you are 100% guaranteed one turn of night fight as you move your transports into the fog. Properly built BA lists could crush people if they swarm with scouting baals and 60 assault marines in transports (Or terminators) that move through the fog

Mission 2 well you can see where all the objectives are before you decide where to move. Again you also get the final say. Could even do reserve riposte fairly well by placing them all exactly 12" from your board edge.. If your army has some troops that can sit and shoot and other units to move up and assault you're golden. Vs a shooting army I would place all the objectives in their grill so they cant flee to the corners (If Im playing assault)

Then for mission 3 you get to see where your opponent has to deploy first, and because of no night fight the person who goes SECOND actually gets 1 more shooting phase than the opponent in essence (Normally not the case due to night fight). This mission also can be huge for the 2nd player if there is a ruling on how "reserves" will work when moving on from dawn of war. If they say you move on from the sides then the second player can seriously dominate depending on how poorly the 1st player deploys

Im torn between a loganwing (not all terminators just cylcones) army with 11 Kps and a blood angel in your face assault list. Alpha strike guard could be crippled badly if the fog continues (already pretty bad with 1 turn of fog against a smart opponent.. Who cares abou the middle.. Deploy some of your guys near the edges of your zone and get night fight. Corner deployment forces guard to deploy further and further back with each successive unit, thus multiplying the night fight issues.

This is looking like a big win for assault armies or shooting armies that can move around

Much better then the preliminaries, I like them.

I only wish they where the preliminary missions.

Kirasu wrote:That's why I like the idea of going second in all 3 missions.. First mission lets you take advantage of night fight AND have the final say on objectives. However, assault armies may want first turn so you are 100% guaranteed one turn of night fight as you move your transports into the fog. Properly built BA lists could crush people if they swarm with scouting baals and 60 assault marines in transports (Or terminators) that move through the fog

How do you see going 1st or second changing whether you take advantage of night fight? You start rolling to dissipate at the start of each full turn, starting with the second turn. Both players will undergo night fight in turn 1, and have the chance to play without night fight starting on turn 2. In fact as a shooting player I'd imagine you'd want first to capitilize on being the first player with a turn that doesn't have night fight (if it dissipates in the beginning of T2 for instance), and as an assault player, you'd likely want first as well, you get two moves essentially before your opponent gets a shooting phase that (might) be without night fight.

Kirasu wrote:Mission 2 well you can see where all the objectives are before you decide where to move. Again you also get the final say. Could even do reserve riposte fairly well by placing them all exactly 12" from your board edge.. If your army has some troops that can sit and shoot and other units to move up and assault you're golden. Vs a shooting army I would place all the objectives in their grill so they cant flee to the corners (If Im playing assault)

I agree here, going 2nd will allow you to have the end of game objective grabbing move, as well as knowing where the last 2 will be placed (since you'll place them at the start of your first turn).

Kirasu wrote:Then for mission 3 you get to see where your opponent has to deploy first, and because of no night fight the person who goes SECOND actually gets 1 more shooting phase than the opponent in essence (Normally not the case due to night fight). This mission also can be huge for the 2nd player if there is a ruling on how "reserves" will work when moving on from dawn of war. If they say you move on from the sides then the second player can seriously dominate depending on how poorly the 1st player deploys

I agree with your assessment of going 2nd here as well. As a shooty guard player, I'll be aiming for second so I can see my opponents deployment and then fire into it, rather than firing at the little/nothing he has deployed if i roll on first and allowing him to be better informed when choosing to bring in from side/long edges.

What is confusing about the reserves? It says:

"At the beginning of turn 1, the first player rolls to see where their reserves arrive from. On a 1-3 it’s the right board edge, 4-6 the left board edge, their opponent gets the opposite table edge. Units may still arrive from your normal edge as well."

-It says at the beginning of turn 1 you roll to see where you reserves arrive from, on a 1-3 its the right board edge, etc, and units can arrive from your normal edge as well. Seems pretty clear to me (maybe I'm missing something) that your reserves move on from your long AND short on T1.

How do you see going 1st or second changing whether you take advantage of night fight? You start rolling to dissipate at the start of each full turn, starting with the second turn. Both players will undergo night fight in turn 1, and have the chance to play without night fight starting on turn 2. In fact as a shooting player I'd imagine you'd want first to capitilize on being the first player with a turn that doesn't have night fight (if it dissipates in the beginning of T2 for instance), and as an assault player, you'd likely want first as well, you get two moves essentially before your opponent gets a shooting phase that (might) be without night fight.

Well that is sorta what I said heh.. Assault armies want to go first to take advantage of night fight. Going second does play a big role, Ill explain. First turn you benefit from night fight and then you move your assault elements into position, this is the MOST crucial turn for any assault army really.. If you go first then you know your opponent has to deal with night fight while you're on the cusp of launching your attack AND probably smoke. If you go second you have a 50% chance that the fog goes away during that critical turn

As for the reserves part.. Dawn of war says they move on exactly as reserves.. It is true they are not reserves, but they move on AS reserves. If the rule for reserves is CHANGED then they must follow the *new* version of reserves. This is the case when rules change yet older books still referrence something (Like DH inducting guard.. They may include X unit but that unit is now different they cant use the old version)

Normal reserves allows you only to move on from your board edge. Out flank is a subsection of reserves that allows units to deploy differently. This mission seems to alter the reserve rule itself so units that move on "exactly as per reserves" would have to follow the new version of the rule

Although, I also see the point that its not actually reserves and therefore bypasses the rule even if it says they move as reserves..

All in all, these look pretty reasonable and better written than many GW products. There are just a couple things that should be clarified or written better though, e.g.:

- As mentioned above, in the first scenario it should really say something like "Night fighting applies when shooting into, out of, or through a table quarter with fog." As is, some jerk could lawyer up on the text and argue that it only affects shooting across the quarter.

- The Tie condition for the second scenario says you don't tie if you have equal objectives but more than 4 KP difference, but as far as I see, nowhere does it actually say what did happen in that case! That's actually a pretty big oversight that should be fixed.

- Scenario 2 should clarify what happens if an objective Deep Strikes into impassable terrain. If one does happen to land there, that's a definite bonus to scoring jump infantry and such that will still be able to reach it. Personally I think it'd be simplest to just state the same text as Inertial Guidance on Drop Pods, reducing the distance so they don't scatter onto models or terrain, though I don't have a problem w/ how objectives scattering onto units is currently managed in the scenario.

- Several bonus points are based around killing the opponent's highest point unit, or preserving your own. It never says what happens if you have multiple units that are the same highest price.

- For Scenario 3, it should clarify that they meant to say Troops "choices" rather than units. That's not an unreasonable condition, but it should be confirmed to stave off inevitable uncertainty.


Personally I prefer the standard endgame scheme, rolling after Turn 5, but the fixed 6 turns is not unreasonable.

Scenario 2 looks pretty hard to Massacre in based purely on taking objectives. Four objectives (five with the bonus) is a fair amount to take and hold. I think that comment was made by several people about the prelim scenario that had four objectives as well. It's a little weird that one bonus point there duplicates the Massacre result. I'm assuming they did that on purpose because it'll be so difficult to take all four physical objectives.


The three as a whole definitely comes across as fairly assault oriented, and certainly requiring of a fair bit of mobility. I think they seem pretty reasonable though, and more or less balanced. Off the cuff after a first read through, I don't think the advantages and disadvantages in these are particularly stronger than in the standard 5e game. I.e., sure, mech is probably pretty strong here to move and take objectives, and assault will probably be the focus, but both of those are basically always the case under current rules and books.