Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's a good point.

I could see a solid argument being made either way in this instance.

I went back and looked at the diagrams and have concluded that this is RAW vs RAI.

By RAW, Gwar! is right. Nothing in the rules as written contradict the stance that The first player is more limited than the second in these scenarios.

By RAI, To anyone who has spent anytime with reading diagrams, maps, or blueprints it is very clear that both sides are restricted. This is due to a two colour system to represent players 1 and 2 then white to represent neutral territory/no mans land.

The problem is that GW failed to give a Key to these diagrams. As such they have no official meaning according to RAW. I can easily see it in the diagrams but without the Key to back them up, the diagrams have no meaning.

I disagree.

The instruction for player 2 to "deploy" is not defined so clearly.

Also, while Rules as Written would literally not include wordless graphics, I don't see why it would have any standing in that context.

That and there is no reason whatsoever to say that diagrams do not count as part of the rules. It's completely unsupported in fact.

G

The problem with the diagrams is that they're completely unlabeled. Based on comparison of diagrams to RaW, the diagrams show the potential deployment areas for Player 1, not the deployment zones for both players.

Exactly aj, A map without its key is worthless in a situation like this.

I've never seen either Pitched Battle or Spearhead played with anything other than both players having symmetrical deployment zones. I have played 5th edition since it's release in a major metropolitan area with multiple clubs and at multiple tournaments all over the US Southeast.

RAW or no I'd suggest that players taking the literal route are going to be in the minority here... I think it's time for a "How do you play it" poll.

Green Git: There's simply no reason for such a poll. The rules are extremely clear here, they even (for once) define what they're talking about. Halves are defined, quarters are defined, and then the players are told exactly where they may place their units.

I think the confusion is caused by people glancing at the diagram rather than reading the rules. I certainly fell subject to such confusion before reading this thread.

So should every diagram presented in the brb that is not specifically referred to in writing in the rules be ignored?

Yes, because a diagram without a legend is useless.

ajfirecracker wrote:I think the confusion is caused by people glancing at the diagram rather than reading the rules. I certainly fell subject to such confusion before reading this thread.

Or the "confusion" is caused by people looking at both the diagram and the rules and using them both to determine the deployment zones. Sometimes I think YMDC causes more confusion than it fixes, but that' s just me. Personally, I can see the RAW argument, but I think it is ignoring the context (IMO) the diagram provides (so do we start having RAI vs RAW vs RAD arguments now?). In any case, unless you're actually playing with Gwar, who cares how you play it? I know all the stores/tourneys I have played at go with the symetrical deployment zones because they deemed that was the most logical interpretation of the rules as written, but if I went somewhere that played it with the "RAW" version, I'd adjust and move on with the game. When in Rome and all that jazz. We don't have to be 40k evangelicals, preaching the word of our god RAW to the unwashed masses who are all playing the game "wrong".

At least seeing this thread gives me one more thing to check on before I start games when I play with a new opponent or at a different venue. Shoot, I might even see if people at my store want to try it that way for a game or two for kicks.

Sidenote: Going second in DoW has advantages because you can just hold everything off the board on your Turn 1, denying your opponent a turn of shooting and allowing you to roll on right where you want to and alpha-strike if he got too close. I think DoW is probably one of the most tactical deployments because of all the fun stuff you can do with it.

I say let people play the game however they want.

Both sides views are both correct, it just depends on how they interpet them and then how they decide to play them.

I sent an email to Jon Spencer (the rules guy) at GW about this.

I know his decision has no bearing on our discussion here, but this is kind of a big deal and it could be amusing to see if GW knows or cares about it.

Well... We need to look at the definition of a table quarter. The Diagram has 4 deployment zones available for player one. It says that these are the table quarters. for player one, the table quarter. I would argue that the definition of a table quarter for player one means the entire corner of the table, minus the restriction. Because the restriction is applied to any of the 4 possible corners, all table quarters are defined as having a 12" no deploy zone.

After player one deploys, it says player 2 deploys. It doesn't state that the definition of a table quarter changes. so if the definition of a quarter defined by player one still stands, player 2 cannot deploy within 12" of the center.

Horst wrote:After player one deploys, it says player 2 deploys. It doesn't state that the definition of a table quarter changes. so if the definition of a quarter defined by player one still stands, player 2 cannot deploy within 12" of the center.

Errm, what? it never defines what a Table Quater is. They assume you are not an idiot. Player 1 is explicitly told "You cannot Deploy within 12" of the center". Player 2 is told "Deploy in the opposing quarter"

ajfirecracker wrote:Green Git: There's simply no reason for such a poll. The rules are extremely clear here...

Disagree. The very fact that this thread has gone on for as long as it has shows the rules are NOT clear. The way every opponent (of mine) down to the man has played it in opposition to this current argument shows the rules are not clear.

Why would anyone be opposed to a poll to see how players are actually doing this?

Gwar! wrote:Errm, what? it never defines what a Table Quater is. They assume you are not an idiot.

Awful lot of assuming going on here for such a literal sort. I could just as say "They" will assume everyone knows the 12" circle in the middle of the diagram applies to both players.

So we found another breakdown in the rules language. Bravo, you get a cookie and Teh Innerwebz.

I think it would be worth pointing out that the previous time that someone noted that a diagram was out of touch with the main rule text was the multiple combat diagram and the multiple combat rules. So there is a precedent for the diagrams being correct, even if the corresponding text is vague or missing.

You can now go back to the Literalists and Diagrammers civil war already in progress.

Polonius wrote:One weird result of this is that in pitched battle, a unit can deploy closer normally than it could through infiltrate.

IMHO, I think that fact alone blows any idea out of the water that this was something intended by the writer.

Luckily most tournaments write their own scenarios and those that don't will still have a tournie judge around to make sure this doesn't happen.

I think it is pretty important in semi-competitive games to maintain the correct 'buffer' zone needed for each scenario (which I believe is supposed to be 18-24").

yakface wrote:

Polonius wrote:One weird result of this is that in pitched battle, a unit can deploy closer normally than it could through infiltrate.

IMHO, I think that fact alone blows any idea out of the water that this was something intended by the writer.

Luckily most tournaments write their own scenarios and those that don't will still have a tournie judge around to make sure this doesn't happen.

I think it is pretty important in semi-competitive games to maintain the correct 'buffer' zone needed for each scenario (which I believe is supposed to be 18-24").

The thing is, Infiltrate allows you to deploy outside your deployment zone, which is why it has the 18" rule (12" in optimal conditions). Normal Deployment is limited to your deployment zone, thus is more restrictive.

This was a pretty interesting debate. I would say that Gwar! has the right of it, with the important point that an unlabeled diagram adds no argument to the debate but merely more conjecture backing up his points.

I know our group has always assumed it was the 12" from the center sort of deal too, just like in 4th, but we might have to discuss this.

I think it is worth pointing out too that just because we believe that something should be done a certain way, or that it used to be done a certain way, does not mean that is how it is done now. This is a new edition of the rules, and looking back on older editions does not help our understanding of them. In fact, as many of us continually find, knowledge of older editions limits our ability to understand the new rules as they are, rather than how we expected them to be.

The argument here for asymetrical deployment rests on an assumption because the RAW as presented does not define the deployment zone for both players.

The assumption amounts to:
"His opponent then deploys in the opposite half (this is his deployment zone)."

"His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter (this is his deployment zone)."

But as we know that's not what the rules say. They say:

"His opponent then deploys in the opposite half." "His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter."

Why assume that they do mean for the second player has different deployment zones when everything else in the rules assumes symmetry for both players in all other things (points, FOC restrictions, turn structure etc)? Why not assume instead that barring explicit instructions to the contrary the deployment zones are symmetrical?

I do believe that quarters and halves are both defined, Gwar, which is why the argument against your position makes so little sense.

Arschbombe wrote:Why assume that they do mean for the second player has different deployment zones when everything else in the rules assumes symmetry for both players in all other things (points, FOC restrictions, turn structure etc)? Why not assume instead that barring explicit instructions to the contrary the deployment zones are symmetrical?

The reason the other things are symmetrical is because the rules say they are. The rules for deployment state they are not symmetrical.

Gwar! wrote:The rules for deployment state they are not symmetrical.

No they don't. They don't define the deployment zone for the player going second. Why does only the first player get a deployment zone? No where does it say that a table quarter or half equates to a deployment zone.

Arschbombe wrote:They don't define the deployment zone for the player going second.

Yes, they do.
"His opponent then deploys in the opposite half" "His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter"

A Half and A Quarter are defined by the English Language (in case you didn't know) and "A Half" is not the same as "A Half Minus 12 Inches" and a "A Quarter" is not the same as "A Quarter Minus a Circular Sector emanating from the centre of the table with a Radius of 12" and Angle of 90 Degrees"

GW never made a big deal out of the change in target priority in 5e (it is completely lacking now) - why would they make a deal out of a smaller change?

I actually missed the fact that TP tests were removed in my first reading.

Oddly, when it says to deploy "on his half the table" in dawn of war deployment, no one questions what that means.
Yet when the same phrase is used in pitched battle people complain when it is suggested that this should . . . actually be done?!?

I still assert that the diagrams are for reference and refer to player 1- as this is the only player that is told to use such a deployment zone. Notice that in Dawn of War, player 2 has to deploy 18" from player 1's units - this is NEVER shown in any diagram either.

Why is it CONSISTENT to assume this is different?

Gwar! wrote:Yes, they do.
"His opponent then deploys in the opposite half" "His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter"

It doesn’t say, like it does for the 1st player “this is his deployment zone” to clearly draw the distinction between the deployment zones of the two players. Your assumption is that by not having done so, this was their intent. My assumption is that by not having done so, this was not their intent.

A Half and A Quarter are defined by the English Language (in case you didn't know) and "A Half" is not the same as "A Half Minus 12 Inches" and a "A Quarter" is not the same as "A Quarter Minus a Circular Sector emanating from the centre of the table with a Radius of 12" and Angle of 90 Degrees"

And thus is your reputation cemented. Thank you so much for those definitions. They really were the missing pieces in this puzzle.

Arschbombe wrote:

A Half and A Quarter are defined by the English Language (in case you didn't know) and "A Half" is not the same as "A Half Minus 12 Inches" and a "A Quarter" is not the same as "A Quarter Minus a Circular Sector emanating from the centre of the table with a Radius of 12" and Angle of 90 Degrees"

And thus is your reputation cemented. Thank you so much for those definitions. They really were the missing pieces in this puzzle.

I am glad to have been of help.

He was being facetious.

G

Gwar wrote:Just to add a disclaimer: I don't give a flying banana how you play it. I am just replying to viewpoints posted in this thread with a literal RaW interpretation. If this offends you, then a Rules Forum might not be the best place for you

i couldn't resist...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I never noticed the difference in the rules deployments for spearhead as has no one in my local group. luckily, i'm the only one who reads 40k forums in the group!