Reserve rolls and meeting engagement

[JakeM]

This came up a few times including at the last tournament. I knew I was right but I couldnt find the rule at the time.

Character CAN be assigned to units before rolling for meeting engagement.

Pg 142
" Characters can chose to enter the battle on their own or as a part of a unit they are allowed to join. If the battle uses dice to determine when and where reserves enter, state if the character is joining a unit before making any rolls. If so, make a single roll for both."

[Shadow76]

i would argue that on pg 149 of meeting engagement, if specifies that characters have to roll on their own, not with a unit.  im not sure why pg 142 says what it says since both the dawn attack and meeting engagement specify what to do.  The only thing i can think, is that for other scenarios in the bigger book (ie not the standard 6 scenarios but the other 9 there) it might come up, or if you are doing your own scenario.

as a whole i would follow the deployment for the actual scenario that specifies that characters have to roll separately than read a paragraph that talks about all scenarios as a whole as these rules are general to all scenarios unless the specific scenario trumps it, which in meeting engagement it does.

[Bill]

My only thought on it is the word reserves. Meeting engagement deployment isnt technically reserves. But I would imagine that yes you roll separate but the character can than be placed in any of
The units held in reserves.

[JakeM]

Bill - They are reserves
Pg 149
"On a roll of a one the unit must be held back as reserves"

Shaddow76 -
I understand your point, but I think the entry on Pg149 for meeting engagment is intended to make it clear that you have to roll for characters and that you do not roll one die for all of them.

"Before deploying the army, roll a dice for each separate unit, including each individual character and war machine"

"Characters can choose to either enter the battle on their own or as part of a unit..."

One rule dose not need to over rule the other. Both rules can be applied.

If the rule on pg 142 is not meant to apply to Meeting engagement then what is it meant to apply to? None of the other pitched battles use reserves. I think its a far stretch to say that the rule at the beginning of the pitched battle section is not meant to apply to a pitched battle, but is intended to apply to something in a completely different part of the rule book and not even all rule books.

Lastly I would just say. Doesn't this seem like it makes more sense?

[Shadow76]

Bill - They are reserves
Pg 149
"On a roll of a one the unit must be held back as reserves"

Shaddow76 -
I understand your point, but I think the entry on Pg149 for meeting engagment is intended to make it clear that you have to roll for characters and that you do not roll one die for all of them.

"Before deploying the army, roll a dice for each separate unit, including each individual character and war machine"



"Characters can choose to either enter the battle on their own or as part of a unit..."

One rule dose not need to over rule the other. Both rules can be applied.

If the rule on pg 142 is not meant to apply to Meeting engagement then what is it meant to apply to? None of the other pitched battles use reserves. I think its a far stretch to say that the rule at the beginning of the pitched battle section is not meant to apply to a pitched battle, but is intended to apply to something in a completely different part of the rule book and not even all rule books.

Lastly I would just say. Doesn't this seem like it makes more sense?

Just a quick look showed that on pg 389 surprise encounter  and pg 416 creating your own scenarios, of the collectors edition book, can also use reserve units.  As well as some armies use reserve units.  It could be talking about either of these. 

I personally think it is pretty clear by saying to roll a die for each individual unit.  That is just my personal opinion.  Have you posted on either librarium online or warseer to see what those communities think?  this is the first i have seen the argument for this line of thought, so im not really sure what others think, just going off of my gut feeling.  But so there is no arguments just lay down your theory before each tourney and see how they play it.  I am always a fan of not having my slann roll separately from my Temple Guard.  more than once i have had them split.  not fun.

[keithb]

Personally, I think dawn of war and meeting engagement can be too debilitating for armies that rely on their general's leadership and BSB anyways..

[Rhys]

agreed, next tourney should be the battleline scenario for all games for balance purposes with with either missions or battle modifiers to keep things interesting.

on topic, i agree with shadow. rules for individual scenarios would take precendence over general rules.

[Shadow76]

I know brother will disagree with me here, but.......we did a tourney in Whiz Store once where the owner made his own modifications for the scenarios.   i thought it was refreshing to play something different.  I have always been a fan of playing something different even if it might be a little unbalanced for certain armies.  I always figured, you never know you you are going to play or what the terrain is, so bring a balanced list.  Dont put all of your eggs in one basket.  adapt and over come. 

I think everyone is at a disadvantage as no one knows the scenarios before hand.  Therefore it is fair. 

On the same point, i like playing with terrain.  I like have mysterious forests, and building that might do something, bane stones etc.....   I think it makes the game interesting.  I also think it adds challenges to the tournaments.  I know a lot of people disagreed with me and jared playing with rivers on that one map, but heck,  im lizards.  i paid the points to be aquatic and i have never been at a tourney that had rivers.  Well i cant quite say that as the one at Whiz store had a river, but i didnt get a chance to play on that table.   

I guess in total i like change.

BTW this greatly wandered away form the topic.   Sorry.

[Rhys]

I know brother will disagree with me here, but.......

i was fine with the random scenario rules until they ruined my casting dwellers on your slann's unit lol. and like i've said before, my view on randomness is largely influenced by the army i play. you play lizardmen, they're very reliable in all respects, near infallible LD, strong shooting and support units, dependable combat troops, good monsters and slann bring a HUGE amount of stability to the most unreliable phase of the game. i think these factors make you more able to take advantage of mysterious terrain/random scenarios etc. my daemons are the same way. i don't mind randomness when i'm using them because the army is flexible enough to adapt. my beastmen on the other hand are severely crippled by something as trivial as having one or 2 units outside my general's LD range or other random things that i have no control over. this is largely where my qualms with randomness come in, it gives the more competitive books (lizards, warriors, daemons, dark elves) an even bigger advantage against the less competitive books.

[Benjamin]

Scenarios posted before-hand leave no excuses. Scenarios revealed the moment of the tournament results in frustration and confusion.

Don't get me wrong, I like chaos and randomness more than the next person. But when it comes to semi-competitive formats, surprises from the TOs aren't seen favorably by most players. My two cents.

[Shadow76]

Good point Ben.  Posting the scenarios before hand not only will allow people to adjust their army accordingly but will also allow for figuring out issues beforehand, like the question asked in this post

[keithb]

Scenarios posted before-hand leave no excuses. Scenarios revealed the moment of the tournament results in frustration and confusion.

Don't get me wrong, I like chaos and randomness more than the next person. But when it comes to semi-competitive formats, surprises from the TOs aren't seen favorably by most players. My two cents.

Some armies have no answer to "You general starts off the table"   Or "Your BSB is on the left flank, the rest of the army is on the right".

Certain armies NEED to have these two characters center to their battle line or they will have a very uphill battle.   Doesn't matter when the scenarios are posted.  Can't change the army book.

[Benjamin]

Some armies have no answer to "You general starts off the table"   Or "Your BSB is on the left flank, the rest of the army is on the right".

Certain armies NEED to have these two characters center to their battle line or they will have a very uphill battle.   Doesn't matter when the scenarios are posted.  Can't change the army book.

When the scenarios are posted does matter, to me at least. I'm of the mind that problems can and should be fixed, if possible.

If a player knows the scenarios beforehand, those mechanical issues you rightly pointed out can be brought to the TOs' attention in a timely fashion, and the event can be made better for it.

Possible solutions made possible by knowing the issue in advance, listed by my preference:

• player brings a different list/army
• if the issue is bigger than one army book, the TOs alter/exchange the offending scenario
• player knows he'll take a bad scenario on the chin and still try to have fun anyway
• worst-case, the player can decide this tournament won't work for him

We can't change the army books, but there are other variables that players and TOs can change. But none of those can be changed after the fact, which I feel is why it's important to put it out ASAP and take in the feedback.