Read on to get an idea of what’s changed and where we’re headed!
We’ve got the new 40k ITC Champions Missions ready for you all to enjoy!
First of all, a huge thanks to everyone that helped. The players, community of ITC TOs, and FLG staff that put in the hours to make this all come together. Without you all, this wouldn’t work.
What’s Changed?
We listened to all of the feedback we got and applied it to the new missions. At first glance it may not seem like a lot has changed as the adjustments are subtle but the end result is a BIG difference. Here are some of the highlights:
- A general shift from “kill stuff” to holding objectives. The bonus point for each mission is now much easier to score.
- You now must select one Seek and Destroy secondary and one Maneuvers secondary.
- None of these stack with one another within the given categories making it harder to pick up the “kill stuff” secondaries as quickly.
- Most of the “hold stuff” secondaries can now double score in the same turn to make them easier to attain even if the game doesn’t finish.
- As you have to take at least one choice from the Maneuvers category, it further cuts back on destroying your opponent’s army feeling like it is so impactful to winning the mission.
- Objective placement has been refined to increase the need to leave your deployment zone and play aggressively. Coupled with the changes to scoring the bonus point, games will be much more dynamic.
- Secondaries have been modified where needed to make them more or less appealing, and in some cases removed entirely where we felt they no longer served the purpose they were intended for such as King Slayer.
- We added in several new and exciting secondaries to increase variety and allow for new ways to play.
- We updated the deployment style from two to one and the new deployment is quite dynamic, rewarding the player going second by allowing them to react to the player going first’s deployment, re-roll the deployment map once if they choose to and to choose their deployment zone to offset the power of the alpha strike.
- So long Seize the Initiative!
Where We go from Here.
Now it’s time for trial by fire! These missions will be in Beta for the next two weeks. Starting on the 24th of February, 2020 we will start collating player feedback to make any final changes that come up. On the 28th of February, 2020 we will finalize them for the season. In the meantime, these are good to go and so feel free to use them in your events but they may change between now and the 28th to address any issues that come up during this Beta period.
We have three more missions that are quite different on the way as well but are still WIP. Also, the crew has been working on an alternate Maelstrom style mission set for even more variety or you can just choose to play Chapter Approved missions as well and still score ITC points! The world is your oyster, go crazy, play games and have fun!
And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
Is it just me or is the link going to the old missions?
You may have to refresh it.
After a quick read over I gotta say I am very impressed and think these are going to be a welcome change to my local tournaments. The old missions were very good but were getting a little stale and these seem different enough to make it interesting and familiar enough that it isn’t a huge leap to learn them.
Glad you like them.
? Kingslayer is gone ?
Finally after 2 years.
Too bad gangbusters isn’t more restricted, but eh. Can’t win ’em all
Let loose the Greater Daemons! lol
The wording on Titan Slayers for wounds lost is different from Gang Busters so can I get clarification on this? Does that mean that if I do 5 wounds to gang unit A and 5 wounds to gang unit B, I would get 0 points? Second question, do I have to do 6 wounds in a single turn to get a point?
6 to 1 unit in GB. TS can be spread around.
Good for you guys mixing it up! ITC rules evolved to where they were for a reason and now they’ll evolve, again!
Thanks =)
Should have just used faction maelstrom decks.
You can do that if you want to, that is the beauty of the system =)
Right now the game is to easy to break (play iron hands/Raven Guard) having randomized objectives that you can’t always rely on would help balance out the more broken aspects. It also would help offset the imbalance that favors elite lists.
Ah, I don’t think that is true personally but YMMV. The powerful armies are powerful regardless of format. It’s not like Iron Hands won’t be Iron Hands when playing Maelstrom.
They’ll still be broken yes, but look at the top tables at LVO, if you draw 3 cards saying hold these objectives on the opposite board edge, those centurion blocks aren’t going to cut it. It would push balanced lists rather than min-maxing.
I don’t think so, honestly. It hurts anyone that isn’t super mobile in the example you gave. Lots of armies would suffer. And in that type of environment, you could take an Iron Hands airforce and still crush face and win the mission. Missions can help for sure but they don’t solve it without straight resorting to comp.
You’re a god damn saint Reece
Lol, thanks.
Totally agree Jonathan. I realize the example you give below might be a little extreme but your theory is sound. Random objectives will force diversification in lists. Its a bit like Tactical Objectives where even with a mediocre force, if you get the right cards you can be more competitive. Wont achieve balance but at least it helps. To say IH will always be powerful doesnt mean changes shouldnt be implemented to mix things up. Anything to force such factions from taking meta lists is a good thing.
This is looking really cool! I greatly appreciate the increased focus on objectives and board control!
The changes to secondaries also look really good! I’m glad to see several superfluous options disappear, and I’m really intrigued to see how Sappers and The Postman shake out!
Yeah, we will see how they work in the wild but we’ve been enjoying them.
Glad you like them!
I’m really worried about these new concession rules. It seems like I get punished if my opponent concedes. You could lose out on 10+ pts really easily now. What’s stopping me from calling it on a losing game round 3 on top table if my buddy is also undefeated to let him jump up to win an event?
How so? You play out the rest of the game and score points. All of their units count as destroyed for win conditions. You should end up with a super high score.
If all their units are destroyed, I can get kill or kill more. If I take butchers, I cant score that any more. If I take old school, I can get last strike. The bigger deal is definitely the primary tho.
*I can NOT get kill or kill more on subsequent turns
The intention is that you fulfill the kill stuff requirements. I will clarify it.
Sweet! I for one can’t wait to try out the CA19 missions when you finalize those for ITC implementation.
Several of my likewise competitive friends have played games of CA19 since all these rumors started flying around and everyone has said their games have been a ton of fun. I know there is a lot of hate but perhaps people should just give them another try (myself included). I do think it will be more folks into the comp scene overall.
I personally hope the 3 objective mission goes away at some point, but thank you all for at least increasing the number of board objectives in general!
Yeah, lots of folks have really enjoyed the CA missions. If you do, go for it! You can still get the sweet, sweet points =P
I like the 3 objective one, and I personally liked the even 4 since it gave hyper elite armies (Knights and some Custodes builds, for example) a way to not auto-lose “hold more”.
I liked the 4 objective mission too and if that many 5 objective missions is too much we can look at adjusting during this beta period.
“Cut to the Heart Bonus Point: If a player controls the center objective and their objective at the end of their player turn, they gain 1 point.”
This is now control center + yours… should it be control center + Opponent’s?
I think the mission changes and secondaries will be quite interesting. Postman I can already see Ravenwing loving!
Yeah, that is right. It is very easy to get now. If it is too much in testing we can tune it up.
Looks great! One thing, sappers says “For each objective rendered Unscorable, earn 1pt per turn”. Unlike Recon or Engineers, it never says anything about scoring during your turn, so right now, it seems like it can be scored in each player turn. I’m sure that’s not intentional, so just maybe change it to “…earn 1pt per at the end of your player turn”.
Thanks for all you do!
Good catch!
I’m trying to get an idea of how widely implemented CA2019 will be within the ITC track. Do you guys see yourselves adding it to super GTs like LVO? Or will those events still do the champions pack?
There’s also a format that a local GT of mine is doing where they essentially turn the secondaries into a malestrom deck that I think would add a certain level of depth to the scene. Would that be something you guys are interested in looking at for ideas?
We go with what is popular honestly so it is a possibility albeit a remote one.
A few comments:
Deployment: Some clarity on “The Attacker will deploy first” would be nice. Is it suppose to mean “The Attacker deployed their entire army” or is it still alternating unit deployment?
Headhunter: For the love of the Empreror can this be Character unit and not just Character? The Geminae Superia are bad enough without giving up multiple Secondary Points because both 2 Wound Models are Characters, that can regenerated to give up even more points.
Gang Busters: Isn’t it a bit unfair that this along with Titan Slayers are the only Seek and Destroy Secondaries that can be claimed by killing one unit? 8 Ogryn or Tyranid Warrior aren’t that hard to kill. And they are only 1.5 points worth of kills for The Reaper.
Good catch on the deployment wording, I tightened that up.
Gang Busters is meant to be a reward for taking out very tough units so it is designed for a full unit of say Bullgryn. Literally no one takes Ogryn so that isn’t a worry and it doesn’t apply to Tyranid Warriors as they are troops.
What about, say, Killa Kanz or Crisis Suits? Feels like there’s a bit of a vacuum there for units with lots of wounds but that aren’t actually that tough.
I wish gang busters was what was holding back killa kans.
Well some top ork players actually considered running a max squad after CA. However gangbusters was probably the one of the main things that prevents it.
There are a lot of units that don’t deserve being gangbustered. There needs to be a ppm requirement.
nah, it’s not secondaries holding them back. Orks gave up every secondary you could think of, one more easy one after HH, Reaper, and BB wasn’t going to make a difference.
Regardless, I think if they were really good and worth taking, then they should probably still give up gang busters.
Can I suggest we change marked for death from “100pt or more” to “more than 100pt” ?
5-man plague marine were already an unfortunate target of marked for death for the last year now, and their favorite load-out is exactly 100pt !
its a super specific nitpick, but an important one if the unit is ever to see any competitive play.
Any arbitrary breakpoint is going to have those edge cases, unfortunately. If not Plaguemarines, then something else.
my kneejerk reaction was at first also to cry “but my plague marines” but then I remembered that a) playing DG and bringing PM is not a sign of maximum competitive play at the moment anyway b) hopefully PA gives us a reason to run bigger squads (and maybe finally fixes max squad size to 21) and c) exactly what reecius is saying here
Yeah, I applaud you for taking them at all. Frankie runs a big unit kitted up for melee and they hit like a truck but they’re difficult to use.
I’m mildly optimistic that whenever PA drops for death guard we might see some improvements to running them.
Will run a big close combat squad of them once I get a drill or two, right now it’s mostly smaller squads with blightlaunchers and sometimes a flail if I have the points (have found it handy to beat up infiltrating stuff/ countercharge things that get into my lines)
Quick question re recon – it says one in each table quarter is one point and two is two points – would it stack to a point where if I have 4 in each at the end of my turn that’s full points for that secondary or am I trying to game this too much?
2pts max.
It looks like objectives are changed from the core rules. Instead of measuring to the center (so it does not matter on the size of the objective) you measure to the edge of the objective. Is the size an objective is supposed to be defined anywhere for itc? 40mm base etc?? (Since the rules themselves do not define obj. Size, because it isn’t needed)
We’ve always measured to the closest point. We don’t define objective size and it’s never been an issue.
So why not add it in? It’s a clear deficiency. Just because it has not previously been an issue, does not mean it can’t be one in the future. It literally costs you nothing and does nothing but tightens up your rules, and make them better.
Ah, I mean we could, it’s never been an issue in the time I have played the game, ever. People either bring 28 or 40mm objective markers, or poker chips and now we see the neoprene markers people like to use.
I just don’t think we need to dictate that aspect of it. If someone wants to use something creative on a I don’t know, 30mm base then go for it, IMO. It may be prudent to say to use something reasonable but I have been playing this game for well over 20 years and it has never been something that needed addressing.
well now I know how to mess with Reece at BAO.
6′ diamater objective marker incoming.
Why stop there, I will make a 12″ mat for the 6″ objective.
This has been the case in ITC since seventh. You measure to the edge not the middle, this eliminates argument about the where the middle is exactly. I do agree that ITC should define the min. and max size of an objective.
Does reaper work for intercessors now? So a squad of 10 gets me 1 reaper point?
Yes
So if both opponents have Sappers on one unit do they cancel out and neither scores a hold for it and neither scores a sappers secondary?
Also does the postman model need to be within 3 of the objective or just the unit?
What about the Marked for Death change for 100pts.
That means my custodes troops are now eligible for it. Like Cmon, atleast make 200pts.
If it was to curb marines, it doesnt help because most marines run 5man Intercessors that are 85pts
Weren’t they always targetable tho?
200pts is far too restrictive.
Custodian Guard are PL8 and Sag guard are PL7…they’ve always been choose-able.
Objective placement for nexus control doesn’t work with dawn of war and can be made to not work with frontline assault if an objective is placed near the center of the board.
That was a typo, thanks, I missed it in editing.
Nexus Control objective placement in deployment zones is too restrictive. That 12” from the table edge just make it impossible to place at Dawn of War at all. Front-line Assault is under big question too. It is also leaves almost no variety at Vanguard Strike. Also i am sure, since Deployment zone objectives placed last, there will be a lot of situations where objective 3 or 4 just can’t be placed. That is a huge oversight – that is needed to be redesigned.
It was a typo.
It should be 6″, right?
Yes, that is what it says now.
What exactly are you attempting to balance here?
Every problem ITC “solves” leaves more problems in it’s wake.
Are you trying to promote auto pilot alpha strike murder ball lists?
How did you get our internal memo about creating murder balls? That was top secret….
Reece, I suggest you eliminate the cabal member who oversaw the distribution of that memo. You are so close to Compete and total control of everything 40k to allow this kind rank amateurism.
?
Lol, I think you are right. It’s time to become utterly ruthless if we are to finalize our evil plans, muahaha!
C’mon Reece, everyone knows how much you love Deathstars! These new ITC rules are just trying to hasten their return to 40k! 😉
lol
Actually these new rules favor board control and durability, especially since the attacker/defender roles largely mitigate alpha strike armies
Yes, massively. That was one of the reasons why the above comment was so funny.
I like the overall changes with maybe the exception of always deploying everything at once. Prefered the old system with at least sometimes you go I go since “all at once” is horrendously bad for stuff like nurglings that you mostly bring for screening out threats. I get that you are trying to make it simpler for people by only having a single set up type but still that one stings a bit.
Other than that I really like the change to gangbusters (people whining that custodes guard are not eliquible anymore, please remember that most lists ran wardens/FW terminators anyway), I like that you kept kill more (not a mono knight player myself but kill more going away would have further kicked armies like that) and last but by far not least I really like that you divided secondaries in 2 categories
Glad you like them.
Well,
First, thank you for listening and making changes to the format. I know it isn’t and easy undertaking.
That being said, I feel, I haven’t played any games yet, that you made too many changes. I think the missions are great, how you achieve bonuses is nice and how no more roll to seize is good, nice job!
I think the secondaries are a convoluted mess now. It feels like you want the game to go to hero hammer, with the quality of characters vastly different army to army. You will make it increasingly more difficult for ITC get new players with huge changes like this.
ITC also has to be in a place that is watchable. It won’t be in an Esport if the audience can’t follow the game.
I would have recommended roll out the missions and the snooze changes now until the end of Quarter 2. Then drop the secondary changes. People would have time to play learn the missions and bonus, then the secondary changes spice up the back half of the year, assuming you even need to do that.
Anyway, not bitching, just feedback and thanks again for listening to your base and making changes.
Appreciate the feedback. The secondaries aren’t all that different, just tuned up with some fun variety added in.
I don’t want the game to go any direction other than to be more fun and engaging so that more people play. That’s my only “agenda” so to speak. I also didn’t make these on my own, it was a group effort involving loads of people.
As for the game being hero hammer? I don’t think so but it is possible. If you take the hero oriented missions you are risking a LOT. If that hero dies you can’t score points.
But, that is also why we have this two week Beta phase so that we can adjust anything that is seriously out of whack.
Well,
First, thank you for listening and making changes to the format. I know it isn’t an easy undertaking.
That being said, I feel, I haven’t played any games yet, that you made too many changes. I think the missions are great, how you achieve bonuses is nice and how no more roll to seize is good, nice job!
I think the secondaries are a convoluted mess now. It feels like you want the game to go to hero hammer, with the quality of characters vastly different army to army. You will make it increasingly more difficult for ITC to get new players with huge changes like this.
ITC also has to be in a place that is watchable. It won’t be an Esport if the audience can’t follow the game.
I would have recommended roll out the missions and the snooze changes now until the end of Quarter 2. Then drop the secondary changes. People would have time to play learn the missions and bonus, then the secondary changes spice up the back half of the year, assuming you even need to do that.
Anyway, not bitching, just feedback and thanks again for listening to your base and making changes.
Thank you for listening and making changes, I know it isn’t easy.
I think the secondaries will unbalance the game. Turning the game into more of a “hero hammer” look and gives some armies, like marines, even more benefits because they have more durable characters and access to a a lot of snipers. I hope I am wrong, but I think this will be a big negative.
I love the changes to the missions, bonuses and seize. The game is going to be very convoluted, with more paper tracking, on secondaries. I think this will also negatively impact the watchability of games on stream.
Just some feedback,
Keep up the good job.
Loving these new rules. One suggestion for “Distances are measured to and from models to the closest point of the objective marker when determining which models are in range to control an objective.” Can you change this back to “the center of the objective” a la GW rules? The 6 inch neoprene objectives are becoming more common and really aid the game. It’s a small thing, but people who are used to using poker chips and things are used to having a more than 3 inch bubble for their objectives. It creates some grey area (since RAW 3 inches to the neoprene objective would be a 6 inch bubble, which is obviously silly).
When you use the rubber pads you just count it if you are on it, it’s really easy. You wouldn’t measure to the edge of them in that case. We don’t measure to the center of the objective marker because when it comes down to the nitty gritty it can be very difficult to measure, particularly in 3 dimensions.
Glad you are enjoying them!
Love the constant evolution of the game you guys keep pushing. Reading articles and comments like this always get my brain spinning.
Question and a suggestion for you
Question-Is the intent for SAPPER and ENGINEER to be combinable or for them to be mutually exclusive? The wording of the current rules leaves a grey area to argue you can you stack SAPPER and ENGINEER on the same unit and still score both in a turn from the same objective. The sapper rule says the OPPONENT can’t score secondaries on it (not all players) and the engineer rule only requires a unit to “control” an objective.
Suggestion-If we are trying to use secondary missions to impact play style…how about a secondary that punishes alpha strike play.
Proposed secondary-Sweep and Clear (or something with “auspex” in it)
Earn 1 point if you kill a unit that did not begin the game on the table (all deepstrike…outflank…etc.)
Earn 2 points if you kill that unit the same turn it arrived
This may impact army building and stop the worst combos if there is a chance to give up secondary points. Does a player send his suicide unit in to remove a threat on the field and risk giving up easy secondary points?
You can make the same unit a Sapper and an Engineer if you wanted to but they can only do one at a time per the secondary rules.
Doh…my reading comprehension skipped over that section in my initial readings
***
Manuevre Secondaries may not be scored concurrently by the same unit or on the same objective
***
Thanks for taking the time and kindly addressing something that was already there in plain sight
Happy to help =)
Looking great! My only thought would be to find a more ’40k’ name for postman. Makes it feel more like something from a videogame rather than the grim dark.
We all thought of this and it stuck, lol: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/519WyLUvIXL._SX342_.jpg
Man Gang Busters still makes units such as Vypers unviable 🙁 Killing a fragile unit of 3 immediately grants 3 VP’s. I really wish these secondaries that gave points based on killing a certain unit type took into account that the toughness of said unit type varies wildly depending on the faction. Or I’d rather they just didn’t exist since they limit unit choice in factions that already have very few decent choices.
We really should make a list of units that shouldn’t be gangbustered.
Beasts of nurgle: 30ppm, 6w each.
Killa Kans: 35ppm, 6w each
Vypers though… I dnno 3+ save, 6w, 47ppm…
You could just exclude vehicle keyword as a possibility. Off hand all of the units I can think of it being aimed at are infantry.
Beast of Nurgle though I think will be really good in these missions. They’re perfect for engineers, sappers, etc.
Was anyone taking Vypers to begin with though? I literally have never seen one in a tournament this edition.
They’re not great, but being punished by Gangbusters (and now BGH) certainly doesn’t help them any.
After thinking about it and discussing it, I think a 3+ or better save should be a requirement on Gang Busters.
Let’s take Beasts of Nurgle, Chaos Spawn or Killa Kans for example. It’s a beefy unit with a crappy save and cheap cost because it is balanced to have beef instead or armor.
To get 4VPs you need to get through 24 wounds of 4+, 5++ or even just 5+ saves. This is super easy to do with almost any army in the game.
Compare this to BGH for example:
4VP GB: 24w T5 5+ 120-150 pts
4VP BGH: 50w T7 3+ ~500pts
It’s a pretty stark difference. When thinking of pts costs GW puts everything into consideration: wounds, save, toughness, damage output. However because of current gangbusters, 2W 2+ 4++ is worth 1/40th of a max secondary, meanwhile 6W 5+ is worth 1/4th. And I think it’s ridiculous because the latter model is easier to kill in most scenarios.
The 3+ or better save requirement will ensure that the unit is not only beefy, it’s an armored elite unit.
my man, killa kans HAVE a 3+ save.
I don’t disagree with your point but do your research. I made a similar suggestion to Reece. The biggest issue with killa kans though isn’t the enemy killing them and getting secondaries. It’s the fact that it’s a leadership 6 unit with no way to buff morale since all the morale boosting ork stuff is infantry or ORK locked.
Shows how much I’ve seen/used them. Yeah then they should give up gangbusters. Not chaos spawn or beasts tho.
As a man that plays an Ork kan army I can attest to that, lol.
I urge you to think about my suggestion though. We’d see way more Beasts of Nurgle and Chaos Spawn in lists if killing 4 of them didn’t award 4 VP.
Mr Pampreen sir you forget the snakebite relic which makes gretchin fearless within 12 inches, although you need to keep that character alive. 150 grots protected by a KFF or two might score recon and king of the hill with some characters and ork friends.
First of all, it’s a snakebite warlord trait not relic and YOU SIR FORGOT ABOUT FREEBOOTAS. Raise the pirate flag once a game for auto pass morale!
Cutting it off at a 3+ save would just make it so there is absolutely no reason to take Vypers over say Warwalkers. Warwalkers are 6W, 6T, 4+/5++ vs Vypers 6W, 5T, 3+. And keep in mind Warwalkers and Vypers are the exact same points cost.
“I think you should change this secondary in a way that benefits one specific unit that I like and essentially no others. It’s only fair.”
Liking the changes, just played a local event with them and they were universally liked with one exception, people were missing the two deployment types. Not having any alternating deployment makes infiltrators very polerizing and definatly removes a stragic element from the game even if you dont do a roll for first turn after deploying it would be great to still have that diversity in the mission set.
Glad to hear people liked them. And, the data actually shows that infiltrator armies (Raven Guard) win LESS often in all or nothing deployment. We all thought it would not work that way but in fact it did. It turns out it is more balanced to deploy the way we are now.
Ya I understand that (I would have assumed what the data says was how it wound up working) However My concern was more around armies that have a couple of infiltrators Alternating deployments gives the defender some control over where the attackers infiltrators can go, and I’ve found that it winds up being even more polarizing i.e. I’m the attacker I can confine my opponent to their deployment zone with only 2 or 3 units of infiltrators as opposed to him at least getting an option to take some of that area of the board.
Even keeping the roll to go first before deployment in this situation is fine. It also helps promote more differences in the missions, with the current set it does have some feeling like the missions are so simmilar and that the deployment is the more important factor – certinly fine as it gives the defender a bit more of an advantage but I’d like to see the counter play that the alternating deployments brings
Why not try out both? We went with the data as to what was most fair but if you want variety try it out with a different deployment style.
Are we going to get specific language that if your opponent concedes you max kill based secondaries? So you still get your butchers bill etc? I see there is mention of the primaries but nothing about secondaries.
Butchers would be problematic, because its quite possible even if you table someone you don’t necessarily max Butchers.
Yeah, exactly.
So that means someone can just concede and cost you points if you take butchers? Butchers is already super bad now with the changes why would anyone ever take it?
Butchers can be scored in both player turns, it is already quite good.
Has there been any suggested changes to BGH? A Rhino vs Repulsor Executioner each gives away 1pt but are vastly different in points and ease of kill?
No, we just left it as it was a catchall for killing big things.
Can mek gunz and large leman russ units score gangbusters points? They’re a single unit on the army roster, but split up after deployment.
They cannot, since they split up once the game begins and it is not possible to score any wounds on them prior to the start of the game.
AP are you sure about this? It is not so clear by reading the rule. I do not see a clause in GBs that mentions units that split apart. They start the game a a multi model unit so this probably needs clarification.
“Gang Busters: For every 6 wounds inflicted on a non Troop battlefield role multi-model unit composed entirely of models with 3 or more wounds, score 1 point. Units with the SWARM keyword do not count towards this mission.
Once any wounds from a unit are counted towards your Gang Busters Secondary Objective, that unit may not score points for another Seek and Destroy Secondary Objective.”
It doesn’t need to be restated because you don’t pick units pregame to do gangbusters on, like mark for death.
you pick a secondary that gives you points if you do wounds to a unit with a specific set of characteristics. When you do wounds to a leman russ unit or mek gun, it doesn’t fulfill those requirements.
It is the reverse of say, character dreadnought. On the list it isn’t a character but it later gains the character keyword and as such, qualifies for head hunter.
I hope that helps!
Thanks Steven I completely read that wrong.
Curious, Sappers states that you cannot attack/use psychic powers on your turn. However, then goes on to describe that once unscorable, it will be rendered scorable if you do several things, including attacking and using psychic powers. However, this rendering scorable quantifier list does not quantify it being on your turn.
So, there is one line stating they cannot attack during your turn. And another stating you cannot attack at all. Several folks I’m in discussion with believe if you’re engaged in melee on the opponents turn and forced to fight, you will render the objective scorable. This means it’s near useless to take as attacker as the defender can easily just walk in a junk unit to engage your sapper in melee and negate the sapping effect.
It is for sure better as the defender and on purpose. If someone tags you in melee and forces you to fight, the objective is no longer being sapped.
However I think it still has value for the attacker but not as much as for the defender where you can cause a big points swing using it. Time will tell if it is popular or not, it was the biggest experiment and we assumed it would be the most likely to either have issues or be unpopular.
However, as I mentioned, the initial sentence states attacking on your turn, then the later sentence states attacking at all. It’s conflicting in the way it’s worded. One sentence literally means it caused the sapping to not work if your opponent gets into melee with the sapper on their turn, the other means it doesn’t.
A clarification in the intent of the wording would be nice.
The intent is if they make any attacks the “spell is broken” so to speak, whether that be because they initiated it or it was thrust upon them.
Engineers: “if one or more of these units starts and ends your turn within 3” of an objective marker you control”
Unless I’m missing something, this definitely does not have to be the same objective marker. IE I can start my turn on one objective, and end on another, as long as I fulfil the other requirements.
But then the 2 pointer makes no sense, unless it specifically only works if your two units only interact with 2 objectives total (no more no less) .
“If you have two Engineer units performing this role on two separate objectives and one or more of the objectives is outside of your deployment zone, earn 2pts”
#confused