SR 2024 - Invasion Questions

SR 2024 Invasion is a very interesting scenario.

However, some things about it are a bit puzzling. For reference here is the scenario

And a close up on the map.

1.) Objective Blue 40 is 22" from the blue side of the map. Ostensibly, Objective Red 30 is 23"-24" (seems like objectives are counted as 1" in these measurements) from red side. How is it closer to Blue side than Objective Blue 40? Are tables no longer meant to be 48"x48"?

2.) There are no measurements for Objective Blue 50. Where is it meant to be placed?

3.) Objective Red 30 is able to be captured by turn 4 by Blue player without an intervening obstruction making it hard to move around and into the blue deployment zone. Isn’t Player 2 all but guaranteed the 5 points and (likely) the win?

Overall love the new scenarios. Excited to play on them!

There’s a lot of these measurement questions on them though so I’m hoping we get a second draft soon that cleans these up.

It also seems like some of the scenarios use the language “Zones controlled = 1 VP” Where others list each type of objective one at a time “Objective Terrain = 1 VP, Objectives = 1 VP, Cache = 1VP” etc. so that being consistent would be nice.

  1. The Tip a the end of the scenario reminds you these scenarios are not symmetrical. The distance from the 20mm flag and 30mm objective is 5" measured base to base. The diagram may not be to scale.

  2. Identical to the red 50mm. Other scenarios use a similar shorthand

  3. Sounds like a good reason to be second player on the roll off. And a great reason for player 1 to push for that objective.


If the scenarios are not symmetrical I’d strongly ask to give measurements to every objective.


Yeah, i guess the lack of symmetry in that early tip and throughout this scenario and the lack of a scale or a grid caused me to be confused. It just isn’t clear the 50mm should have the mirrored placement. If that shorthand is going to be used it would help to have an indicator of some kind.

The map not being to scale is confusing. Looking at this layout and comparing it to reality would have a handful of not insubstantial differences.

And finally, yeah i mean being player 2 is kinda guaranteed victory unless the terrain for player 1 has no obstructions to the 30mm and the terrain for player 2 does. Otherwise p2 goes turn 1, move solo to 30, turn 2-4 move it 5" until it caps (actually if you put a second solo 5" away you could cap it turn 3). Meanwhile p1 has to kill that solo and overcommit to that side. So the investment for p2 is one or two solos while p1 is gonna be exposing their flank and somewhat surrendering the right side to stop the cap. Even if they do stop it they will probably have almost no control on the other side and need to recover just to get back in the game.

I might be overstating things. The image is probably skewing this in my mind bc of how close it looks. But it does seem like this scenario might be too heavily weighted. I look forward to testing it though.

The trick is to time it so you score the 5 points on your opponents turn and win out immediately

1 Like

Testing showed definite counter play. You do have to be up 5 on your opponents turn your your opponent is highly incentivized to push to regain control

1 Like

It says you only need to be up 3 on your opponent’s turn to win.

yep yep dev brain, sorry 3 up

1 Like

I would like to second this. The mixture of the tip saying scenarios are not symmetric, coupled with the style of shorthand used, seems to leave the scenario design open to conflicting interpretations


Is the red 30mm objective 5" from the blue flag, or 23" from the table edge?

The wording seems to imply that we are able to move the opponent objective terrain once secured. Is this intended?

Also, are one of the objectives supposed to be a cache? It says securing a cache earns you 1VP but I do not see any cache in the scenario.

The scenario is saying if you capture an objective of the other player’s color, you can move it 5" after scoring. If you get it back to your own deployment zone, and are the first to do so, you get 5 pts.

However, since the 30mm is < 15" from P2’s deployment zone, P2 can run a solo to just barely within 3" of the 30mm and at the end of their second turn it will move behind that solo but still wtihin 3" of it, at hte end of P1’s turn 3 unless they are contesting that objective which is now ~ 23"-24" away from the edge of the P1 deployment zone, the 30mm will move another 5" towards the P2 deployment zone. And at the end of P2’s 3rd turn, they will have moved that same solo back to within 3" of the 30mm and scored the 5pts, winning the game.

So essentially, this scenario requires P1 to have fast models on the left side of the board and run them towards the 30mm to contest and kill any solos that try to get within 3" of the 30mm. Depending on the solo(s) P2 commits, this could be difficult or improbable requiring P1 to over-commit to make sure to stop it otherwise they lose.

Since the commitment is minimal for P2, I am concerned that while P1 is overcommitting to the left side to stop certain defeat, P2 will be able to win on the right side and guarantee a scenario victory over there. Either way, essentially, P1 feels at a drastic disadvantage. 5pts is too much to reward when the scenario is going to be so imbalanced in favor of P2, IMO.

But I will have to see how it plays out in practice.

the 30mm is 5" from the flag

1 Like