40k Ard Boyz 2011, Scenario 1

[s_harrington]

Does the traitor model you give to your opponent keep all his wargear and special rules?
If he's in terminator armor, can they stick him on say... a raider?

[DarkLink]

Yes, obviously.

I'm excited since I take a couple wussy Warrior Acolytes (for the melta). I hope I play a Deathwing player or something. "Hey, thanks for your Terminator, here's a Guardsman for you:)."

[s_harrington]

If it is, I'm all about handing them a psyker and then opening up on him with my Grey Knight Stormraven. Eat mindstrikes you foul witch..err brother marine.

[AngelsofDeath]

The traitor does not keep anything, it never has before. He has a specific profile WS4 BS4 S4 T4 I5 W2 A2 LD10 Save 4+/5+ and becomes a special character. Hell those stats are better then a regular marine and better than any other standard troop stat out there.

Your not going to get that and Termi armour( if I give you a Termi your getting a 4+/5+ save and your gonna like it cause the mission says so!) or Fleet or Power from Pain or DoA or any other special rule or item. Be for real he is a TRAITOR!!!! And deserves to die as one.

[s_harrington]

I just enjoy looking at the max points.
Mission 1: 26
Mission 2: 24
Mission 3: 23

Talk about diminishing returns....

[AngelsofDeath]

I just enjoy looking at the max points.
Mission 1: 26
Mission 2: 24
Mission 3: 23

Talk about diminishing returns....

Yea points are a bit odd I guess. But the bonus points for each mission seem to get a little bit harder to get each mission as well, just mu thought on it. I like the idea of Victory Points for the last mission instead of kill points. People seem to go all out more when you are getting points every time you are killing something just about.

I would be looking for a wording change on the missions maybe to include your question about the traitor. I dug out an old traitor mission from a previous GW event and it is specific that the traitor will have the following stats given, is classified an indep char, and has a close combat weapon. Nothing else at all. Veteran players who have played this type of mission know this.

[Tynskel]

I like the whole traitor idea. Relatively easy model to kill. Just pop the transport, and charge the a-hole!

Interesting, two of the missions use random game length. That is a little different.

[Tynskel]

Something to think about:

Witch Hunters and Grey Knights have an advantage in this scenario with the Vindicare Assassin.

[thecactusman17]

I think that the best option for nids would be to give their opponent a tervigon. Even if it cant poop out easy kps, it wil be impossible to hide in cover and weaker than they well intuitively expect.

[Tynskel]

I think that the best option for nids would be to give their opponent a tervigon. Even if it cant poop out easy kps, it wil be impossible to hide in cover and weaker than they well intuitively expect.

You can get thrown out of the tournament for being a git.

[ArchonPhelps]

I think that the best option for nids would be to give their opponent a tervigon. Even if it cant poop out easy kps, it wil be impossible to hide in cover and weaker than they well intuitively expect.

Brilliant! Anyone who thinks other wise is a tard haha

[Archon Charybdis]

GW told my TO that the Traitor is literally a model taken out of your 'Ard Boyz army list--not just an extra or spare-- and given to your opponent. If an opponent wants to play his game down one Tervigon as opposed to say one gaunt, I think I'd be pretty okay with that. The traitor still fits in transports, regardless of it's actual physical model.

[AngelsofDeath]

A few of us at the local game store have been look at the missions, and it seems GW has updated them over the past few days. They have cleared up a few areas, but one that is still a question to us is the very first mission and that they put Infiltrate under the Special Rules for that mission.

Infiltrate falls under the Universal Special Rules and so does Counter-Attack, Eternal Warrior, Fearless, Feel No Pain, Fleet, Etc... Etc.. you get my point here. So if Infiltrate is the only one listed that my lead some A-Hole to try to say that the rest of the Universal Special Rules were not allowed unless stated by your codex or some other reason because they were not listed under the missions Special Rules.

Point being, why is Infiltrate put as a Special rule for the first mission or even mentioned anyway? Anyone have a clue or an excuse as to why they would do this?

[DarkLink]

It has to do with deployment, not USRs. Some missions may restrict use of things like reserves and infiltration, so they list when those are allowed. It has nothing to do with, say, FNP.

Of course, I thought that was a relic of 4th ed missions.

[AngelsofDeath]

It has to do with deployment, not USRs. Some missions may restrict use of things like reserves and infiltration, so they list when those are allowed. It has nothing to do with, say, FNP.

Of course, I thought that was a relic of 4th ed missions.

So help me understand this. On just that mission you can Infiltrate but not the other 2. Can you Scout since it is not mentioned as a Special Rule?

[Tynskel]

scout is not a rule that has to be announced, like infiltrate-- infiltrate, deep strike, and reserves are rules that allow you to withhold deployment when normally you would have to deploy. Whereas a unit with scouts just needs to be on the board, and in between finishing deployment and game starting, they make a free move.

[thecactusman17]

Units with scout may outflank.

[DarkLink]

Honestly, I don't get why they even list that stuff. In 4th ed, missions sometimes didn't allow reserves or the like, iirc. In 5th, though, everything is allowed by default. You don't need to state explicitly that infiltrate is allowed. You should just explicitly state if it isn't allowed.

[thecactusman17]

did anyone else completely forget about nightfight on turn 6 in round 2? In fairness my opponent had no shooting by that point (Nurgle daemons) so he wasn't paying much attention either.

Note to any tournament organizers: Missions with odd or complex rules after the game starts should be mission 1, and easily remembered scenarios as mission three. For example, in this case Get Dat Git should have been mission 3 and Whoz Gots Da Motz should have been mission 1. Because Mission 1 has a weir late-game special rule, mission 2 would have VP (which are just math, if a little more complex than KPs), and mission 3 would have had nothing worse than a single character swap with an easily referenced statline and rules.

[Tynskel]

I think your problem is that you play the same everyday. If you played scenarios more often, this wouldn't be an issue.

[thecactusman17]

The main organizers at my FLGS use the 3x3 mission structure in almost all tournament games with minor tweaks if any, simply because they allow every army to have clear advantages and disadvantages over the course of the game. Scenarios can be fun, but we've noticed that they tend to make some armies very powerful and others almost useless. For example, Get Dat Git can be abused by giving your opponent an oversized monstrous creature (try giving him an oversized Mycetic Spore or Tervigon for example) and watching him frantically try to hide the unit.

[Tynskel]

wait? The current structure screws Necrons, Tau, and Sisters.

That is just a cop-out answer.
Scenarios, where you hammer the rules system will truly show the capabilities of armies and generals.

Yeah, that's completely fine. If your opponent wants to give up their transport or monsterous creature, that's fine. That's hilarious. And you know what? You have to deal with it.

Cookie Cutter games lead to Cookie Cutter lists.


The point that a tournament that makes scenarios is one that you are forced into designing your army to work for those scenarios. Not for normal games. This causes changes to all people's playing style.