Linked Scenario - Defend the Farm

I’m planning on starting the linked scenario set on Monday, so was reading through the first, Defend the Farm. I think there are some typos, and I had some questions.

During setup, the defender places Investigation Markers on the table, and the attacker places Searchable Markers. In the Scenario Rules, the first paragraph goes through what the Defender can do with the Investigation Markers. in the second paragraph, there are details on what the Attacker can do - this is still talking about Investigation Markers, but from the text, I think this should actually be Searchable Markers, not Investigation - is this correct?

If an attacking model ends its turn touching an Investigation Marker…can burn the crop. Remove the marker from the table.

Also, similar to questions I’ve asked elsewhere…is either type of Marker supposed to be a specific type underneath? From the context, I’m guessing that all of both types of Markers should be either blank or lettered, but…the scenario doesn’t say. So, are they intended to be randomised, and potentially give gear or contain a hazard? If they give gear or contain a hazard, and are removed by being interacted with, do they still count for the scenario objectives?

As much as I really like the narrative elements in this game, I wish the scenario writers would be a little more explicit in pointing out when things work differently to the standard rules.

The markers are there to represent either the crops or the terminals to activate the defenses. I do not believe they are meant to actually be searchable for this scenario.

So, what part of the scenario leads you to the conclusion that the markers don’t act as normal markers? Or is that just your assumption?

Based on the way the scenarios are written, and the answer given by Modiphius staff on another thread asking about Battle mode scenario markers, if a scenario tells you to use a marker as an objective, and tells you what effect it has, it’s 100% safe to assume that the marker has that effect rather than the standard one for that marker type.

Hopefully the technical writing of the scenarios and the rules in general improve. Modiphius is obviously dedicated to the game. I trust that a lot of things will get a 2nd pass. As I’ve been playing through the scenarios with a friend, we have found that the technical writing in the scenarios have more problems than the core rules, which generally have held up pretty well.

A buddy and I have started a thread over on BGG to track problems we’ve had with specific narrative scenarios, either because the rules were confusing, or we found some way to break the scenario. I plan to keep adding to that thread as we go through more of them.

1 Like

As jcmonson and NoisyAssassin mentioned, the markers are just markers and only interact in the way described in the scenario rules, so the underside of the markers can be anything. It should have been made clear that the Investigation Markers in this scenario do not function the usual way but need interacting with. I’ll note for it to be added to the FAQ.

The line that says: ‘If an attacking model ends its turn touching a Investigation Marker…’ so they can burn the crop should say ‘Searchable’ not ‘Investigation Marker’.

Several people created the scenarios in Wave 1 and standardisation across future scenarios is something we’ve been working on to ensure these differences do not occur, as well as detailing the exceptions. In some scenarios, the markers should have been face-up letters and numbers to avoid confusion.


The third paragraph under battlefield setup, coupled with the first two paragraphs in the scenario rules

My point was, nothing in any of that outright says the markers DON’T have their normal effects. The fact they have other effects doesn’t outright counter this.

But this makes it abundantly clear. Awesome, thanks.