Crossfire and VPs vs Tabled

[Project XXVIII]

I have a campaign game coming up, involving the mission "Crossfire".

 

My confusion comes up with the missions Victory Conditions versus GW's "Boots on the Ground" and "Tabled" rulings.

 

Kinda fuzzy on this, but it seems as though no matter what the Defender gets 8 turns to score VPs by either;

i) Destroying as many units as possible.
ii) Claim/Reclaiming as many deployment zones as possible, obviously if there are no attacking models left, their movement becomes M"xTurns left until they hit 8.

Attacker on the other hand just wants to score VPs by;

i) Keeping units alive.
ii) Getting as many units as possible off the opponent's table edge.
iii) Claiming Defender Deployment zones.

 

So if I am the Attacker, and I run a unit off the board, it still counts "in play", and is set aside for the allocation of VPs once the battle commences, be that either by;

 

i) Getting all my units off of the Defender's Edge.
ii) Destroying all the Defender's units.

iii) Having all my units destroyed.

iv) Turn 8 concluding.

 

Also,.. Flyers,.. are they destroyed by exitting the Defender's table edge,.. or put aside to claim VPs like a regular "Non Minimum Distance" unit.

 

Much appreciation.
 

[Eddie Orlock]

I'd love to offer you some thoughts on this, but I'm a little lost. What publication or website is the 'Crossfire' mission found on? Can you supply a page number or a link?

 

So much in the OR depends on exactly what's written in what contexts.

[Project XXVIII]

Chapter Approved, Page 51.

 

There's actually an additional question I'll add about the "Forced March" rule for this mission. 

 

Does this modification change ALL unit's advance abilities, such as the Ravenwing's Turbo Boost or Flyers' Super Sonic?

[Eddie Orlock]

There's actually an additional question I'll add about the "Forced March" rule for this mission. 

 

Does this modification change ALL unit's advance abilities, such as the Ravenwing's Turbo Boost or Flyers' Super Sonic?

As much as there's a temptation to try to read this as the turbo-boost ability replaces rolling with getting a six and force march replaces rolling with rolling twice allowing us to recur our effects to claim the Ravenwing advances you get some version of D6+6 or even a flat 12 there's a stronger precedent that more often shows up in army construction wherein you can't exchange an exchanged item. Lest we get Avenger Exarchs with arbitrarily large quantities of Shuriken Catapults.

 

In more detail we can look at Force March and Turbo-Boost as abilities that trigger at the same time and go back to the Sequencing side-bar on pg 178 that'll tell us that the active player picks one to resolve and once one is chosen the player no longer has a base advance die to exchange for the alternative.

 

-------

 

Sudden Death and Boots on the Ground is a Matched Play rule, Crossfire is a Narrative mission, so applying matched play rules to it is optional. If you and your opponent agree to apply that standard the mission would end as soon as the attacker vacated the battlefield, but the hard text would also say the attacker lost making this seem like a poor option. So, I agree that a defender left alone in the field would have the remaining unopposed turns to try to scramble back into their scoring areas.

 

I'm not seeing any formal provision that prevents aircraft from scoring in this mission. Going back to the sequencing side-bar I'd reckon that the alternate fate from 'Punch Through the Defences' triggers at the same time as the demise from leaving the field allowing the active player to chose which fate befalls his flyer.

 

For that matter, it doesn't appear that units that escape the defenders end count for anything except D3 victory points at the end. It's a good thing that we're not compelled to use sudden death on this mission.

 

-------

 

Curious note, that since sudden death isn't a thing here, if an attacker was to try some MSU strategy and failed to advance enough to the break through area or defender's deployment zones it's possible that the defender could win with no units left in the field if they hemorrhaged the attacker enough.

[Project XXVIII]

 

As much as there's a temptation to try to read this as the turbo-boost ability replaces rolling with getting a six and force march replaces rolling with rolling twice allowing us to recur our effects to claim the Ravenwing advances you get some version of D6+6 or even a flat 12 there's a stronger precedent that more often shows up in army construction wherein you can't exchange an exchanged item. Lest we get Avenger Exarchs with arbitrarily large quantities of Shuriken Catapults.

 

It was more to my interpretation that the "Forced March" ruling from the mission affected units that did not nave previous modifiers to their "Advance" ability.  So Ravenwing and Flyers would not subscribe to "Forced March", they already have "Turbo Boost" and "Supersonic", respectively.

 

I'm not trying to imply that Ravenwing should have a 6+D6" Advance for this mission,.. I just wanted to see other's train of thought that Ravenwing/Flyers would be excempt from this mission rule.

 

 

 

Sudden Death and Boots on the Ground is a Matched Play rule, Crossfire is a Narrative mission, so applying matched play rules to it is optional. If you and your opponent agree to apply that standard the mission would end as soon as the attacker vacated the battlefield, but the hard text would also say the attacker lost making this seem like a poor option. So, I agree that a defender left alone in the field would have the remaining unopposed turns to try to scramble back into their scoring areas.

 

This is how I am also interpreting it,.. though it seems rather open to abuse.  Say for example a Terminator Force,.. or Jump Packs,.. or Drop Pods,.. with a little ingenuity, an attacking Marine force could have enough scoring units off the board by the end of the 2nd movement phase that the defenders couldn't catch up.

 

Which plays into your statement here;

 

Curious note, that since sudden death isn't a thing here, if an attacker was to try some MSU strategy and failed to advance enough to the break through area or defender's deployment zones it's possible that the defender could win with no units left in the field if they hemorrhaged the attacker enough.

 

Because I'm attempting this very strategy.  Multiple Drop Pods with MSU, walk off the board ASAP, score enough points that my opponent can't catch up.

 

As I don't have access to the Chapter Approved Book personally, I dont know if said mission comes from a greater mission section that disallows any of the previoulsy mentioned units.

 

 

You've mentioned a number of times the "Sequencing Sidebar", I'm getting the impression the more I look into rules in 8th, that this excerpt from page 178 is literally the glue that holds 8th editon together.

[Eddie Orlock]

I'm not trying to imply that Ravenwing should have a 6+D6" Advance for this mission,.. I just wanted to see other's train of thought that Ravenwing/Flyers would be excempt from this mission rule.

Neither do I. You grabbed the wrong excerpt.

In more detail we can look at Force March and Turbo-Boost as abilities that trigger at the same time and go back to the Sequencing side-bar on pg 178 that'll tell us that the active player picks one to resolve and once one is chosen the player no longer has a base advance die to exchange for the alternative.

What I assert is that, for example, a Ravenwing unit in this scenario has the choice between the 6" advance from their datasheet, or 2d6" from the mission specific rule.

----

 

You've mentioned a number of times the "Sequencing Sidebar", I'm getting the impression the more I look into rules in 8th, that this excerpt from page 178 is literally the glue that holds 8th editon together.

Yeah. In it's defence though, historically the conflicting rule resolution rule has been required to make most editions of the game function.

 

We've alluded to a few different ways in which this mission could be horribly distorted from a competitive balance perspective. I think it's worth noting that in all their passages about narrative play they make some labour about how they're not rigorously designed. I read some authorial intent that if you're trying to super optimise for this you're missing the point and not simulating the command experience they're trying to set up. I mean, if you won the mission turn two by podding into the end zone and sauntering off it's not much of a game and test of your acumen now is it. Not much of an experience for the other player either. I guess, if they saw it coming the could flood the zone with chaff and you could grind that out against a mix of cultists anvils and berserker hammers but this still feels to me like a bit of a silly game. Ultimately, I'd leave it as something you need to discuss with your opponent to manage the expectations and prevent hard feelings.

 

I think we should start a thread elsewhere on this because we're in danger of drifting off into game session management philosophy though.

----

In the CA book it's part of a series of 'Stronghold Assault' missions. There's a designer's note in the lower corner of pg 45 about the crossfire mission being a more rewarding experience for 'ground-based armies that contain few, if any, units that can fly.' So, no hard rule, as such, but a quick note that efficiently implies much of what I raved about above. Also, next page has a mandatory alternate org-chart for these with a whopping 5 command points per detachment.