Spearhead...Deploying Second?

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.

**Orkeosaurus**

Hmm. I'd kind of like to pursue this further, but I'm no Nurglitch or dogma, and class starts tomorrow.

Alright, as for how I see the rules here; the instruction for Player 2 to "deploy" is where I see the ambiguity in the text. Other rules do state (and require) that both players have a deployment zone, and instructions for how to deploy are given to Player 1 for both missions. In this case, it comes down to a question of whether or not the instruction to "deploy" means to follow the rules for deployment/use of the deployment zone given to Player 1, or if it merely means to deploy according to the other rules governing deployment in 40k (such as not deploying in a dedicated transport bought for a different unit, etc).

I think in terms of going by the text, there is little reason to assume that the instruction to "deploy" is an instruction to follow the rules for deployment given to Player 1; in that sense, I think that the text favors asymmetrical deployment, but does allow for ambiguity.

This is where the diagrams come in. Making a diagram that only shows the deployment options for the first player - especially when there's no indication of this being true - makes very little sense. Especially for the Pitched Battle diagram, where there's only two possible sides being represented. In this sense, I think the diagrams favor symmetrical deployment; it's possible that they are showing deployment for Player 1, but I figure it's at least as unlikely as the text telling Player 2 to follow Player 1's rules for the mission's deployment when told to deploy.

For this reason, I think both interpretations are valid. Both are going by what is most probably trying to be expressed, but are using two different sources. This is while only looking at the rulebook itself, and not bringing in issues of popular convention or balance, which both favor symmetrical deployment.

**fire4effekt**

Gwar! wrote:My name is Gwar and I like putting ribbons in my hair and kissing all the boys

Oh hai, i fixed yur post too!

**Gwar!**

fire4effekt wrote:
Gwar! wrote:My name is Gwar and I like putting ribbons in my hair and kissing all the boys

Oh hai, i fixed yur post too!

Errm... wut?

**fire4effekt**

it was from pg 2, or even 1. just ribbin ya, i feel your wrong(RAI not RAW) here but ive got no back up i just feel intent was a 12" circle. Either way you do Dakka a great service, thanks Gwar!

**Orkeosaurus**

Gwar! wrote:My name is Gwar and I like putting ribbons in my hair and kissing all the boys

I KNEW IT!

**Gwar!**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Gwar! wrote:My name is Gwar and I like putting ribbons in my hair and kissing all the boys
I KNEW IT!

Oh Blast you caught me. I admit it, I am the Stephen Fry of the 40k world (That is to say, Incredibly Educated, Well Spoken, Attractive and unabashedly homosexual

)

**Orkeosaurus**

What?

You mean you're not a Gaemr Gurl?

**Alpharius**

This thread has lost its way.

Too many personal attacks.

Too many off topic spam posts.

Closed.