This was alluded to by Gwar! and perhaps a few others in another thread, and has been asked by Teeef in the 5th sticky, but I was wondering what everyone else in the internets thought.

Nowhere in the spearhead deployment is there anything saying that the player who deploys second must follow the 12" from the center rule that the first player must follow. It seems that it is possible to deploy right on top of the center of the map if you are deploying second. How do you play it?

(I think the RAW here is obvious, but if we can find something that will fix this problem, we may even win the game.)

I've never played that the 2nd player may deploy up like that, but the RAW does not mandate it.

I have always played it as both players deploy 12" from the center.

rednekgunner wrote:I have always played it as both players deploy 12" from the center.

Likewise. Never seen it played any other way. Somone want to quote the exact description?

The table is divided into four quarters, formed by drawing two imaginary perpendicular lines through the centre point. So a 6'x4' table would have four 3'x2' quarters.

The players roll-off, and the winner chooses to go first or second. The player that goes first then chooses one of the long table edges to be his own table edge. He then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his side the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table (this is his 'deployment zone'). His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter.

As you can see, "His Opponent" does not have any sort of restriction on where he can deploy his models other than "the diagonally opposite quarter". I'll redo the quote using "Player 1" and "Player 2" In Place of the Respective Pronouns.

The table is divided into four quarters, formed by drawing two imaginary perpendicular lines through the centre point. So a 6'x4' table would have four 3'x2' quarters.

The players roll-off, and the winner chooses to go first (Player 1) or second (Player 2). The player that goes first Player 1 then chooses one of the long table edges to be his own table edge. He Player 1 then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his Player 1's side the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table (this is his Player 1's 'deployment zone'). His opponent Player 2 then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter.

As you can see, Player 2 has exactly 1 Restriction on Deployment, that he must "deploy in the diagonally opposite quarter."
I am afraid that this is one of the common misconceptions with the missions in 5th edition, the same way how a lot of people thought you got all your Models on the 2nd turn of Dawn of War.

Maybe the diagram doesn't count as RaW, but it shows pretty clearly that the 12" radius 'can't deploy here' zone from the centre extends into both deployment zones.

Gully Foyle wrote:Maybe the diagram doesn't count as RaW, but it shows pretty clearly that the 12" radius 'can't deploy here' zone from the centre extends into both deployment zones.

No, it is a diagram with a 12" circle in it. Nothing in the Diagram hints to what that circle does, so you look to the full rules, which are clear that only Player 1 needs to deploy 12" from the Centre.

True, but the diagram does suggest that this is another case of GW's PissPoorRulesWriting (patent pending)

Scott-S6 wrote:True, but the diagram does suggest that this is another case of GW's PissPoorRulesWriting (patent pending)

Or it could be to explain the slightly more complicated Player 1 Deployment

Well spotted. I don't think I'll adopt that change, but it seems perfectly correct to me.

I have always played the 12" applied to only player 1, as that is the only player mentioned.

shrug

kirsanth wrote:I have always played the 12" applied to only player 1, as that is the only player mentioned.

shrug

As have I. I never realised this was an issue at all to be honest.

Wow, remind me never to play any of you haha

the diagrams are meant to be followed and are clear

I'm sticking to not allowing either player 1 or 2 to deploy within the 12 inch radius of the center board.

Play it however you like

Deuce11 wrote:Wow, remind me never to play any of you Evil Rule following meanies haha

the diagrams are meant to be followed and are clear But I will ignore them anyway

I'm sticking to not allowing either player 1 or 2 to deploy within the 12 inch radius of the center board because rules are for sissies..

Play it however you like because I don't like playing it by the rules.

Oh hai, I fixed your post!

Would you care to rationalise your view. Say, provide evidence and such. I was kind enough to do so, so I expect the same back.

For the people that have played games where the second player isn't pushed back, how does the game play? Does the second player have a big advantage?

I'd imagine this one isn't going to get a lot of traction. Having a divide between armies that prevents first turn charges is a big part of the 40k environment. These are the sort of RAW results that make me a bit nervous, simply because they both upset the balance of the game and they seem to run counter to how things have been played, without in any way making a big deal of it. I mean, 5th edition has been out for almost a year and this is the first I've heard of this. It's lead to the question: what's more likely, that GW made a fairly dramatic shift in how missions work, but so subtly so that hardly anybody noticed; or that GW simply was unclear in describing one of the missions. The worst part is? I don't know which one to believe.

Polonius wrote:For the people that have played games where the second player isn't pushed back, how does the game play? Does the second player have a big advantage?

I'd imagine this one isn't going to get a lot of traction. Having a divide between armies that prevents first turn charges is a big part of the 40k environment. These are the sort of RAW results that make me a bit nervous, simply because they both upset the balance of the game and they seem to run counter to how things have been played, without in any way making a big deal of it. I mean, 5th edition has been out for almost a year and this is the first I've heard of this. It's lead to the question: what's more likely, that GW made a fairly dramatic shift in how missions work, but so subtly so that hardly anybody noticed; or that GW simply was unclear in describing one of the missions. The worst part is? I don't know which one to believe.

But the thing is, the Second Player can Dictate how far away he starts. If he Starts right at the centre when there are enemies 12" away, more fool him. If he is going for a Seize the Initiative (not a good Strategy even with Sicarius) Player 1 Will know (because Player 2 has Sicarius) and not Deploy exactly 12" from the centre. Again, it is the Player going Second who Dictates how "fast" the charge will happen, and that's only if Player 1 Deploys Right at 12".

In Short, this does absolutely nothing to the metagame, unless the metagame is defined by extraordinarily inept tacticians.

Gwar! wrote:

Deuce11 wrote:Wow, remind me never to play any of you Evil Rule following meanies haha

the diagrams are meant to be followed and are clear But I will ignore them anyway

I'm sticking to not allowing either player 1 or 2 to deploy within the 12 inch radius of the center board because rules are for sissies..

Play it however you like because I don't like playing it by the rules.

Oh hai, I fixed your post!

Would you care to rationalise your view. Say, provide evidence and such. I was kind enough to do so, so I expect the same back.

Oh come on now Gwar. There is no reason to flame everybody that wanders in here. I think he did rationalize his view, which is that he doesn't care about the rules in this instance. When a person is a little bit insulting, and you're highly insulting back, you still end up being the more insulting one.

It has never been an issue.

Until I read this thread.

When we play, if player 1 is afraid of turn 1 assaults, he backs up into his deployment zone - like in every other scenario. If player 2 wants to get near his opponent, he deploys forward - like in every other scenario.

I may have to try a few games restricting player 2 as some say is needed, but explaining why may be weird.

Polonius wrote:Oh come on now Gwar. There is no reason to flame everybody that wanders in here. I think he did rationalize his view, which is that he doesn't care about the rules in this instance. When a person is a little bit insulting, and you're highly insulting back, you still end up being the more insulting one.

I was not being insulting. I parodied his post via the quote, clearly in jest. I then respectfully asked that he provide a rational and concise proof of why he feels the way he plays is correct. I deduced that he in fact thinks that both Players starting 12" away is RaW, from the language he used such as "the diagrams are meant to be followed and are clear" and "I'm sticking to not allowing either player 1 or 2 to deploy within the 12 inch radius of the centre board".

If that insulted you I apologise unreservedly and offer my first borne son as compensation.

kirsanth wrote:It has never been an issue.

Until I read this thread.

When we play, if player 1 is afraid of turn 1 assaults, he backs up into his deployment zone - like in every other scenario. If player 2 wants to get near his opponent, he deploys forward - like in every other scenario.

I may have to try a few games restricting player 2 as some say is needed, but explaining why may be weird.

Depending on the size of the board and the size of player 1's army, simply deploying further back can really limit his options. Admittedly, most armies now are mechanized or have a big alpha strike possible, but there might be some old gun lines rattling around that do get a big screwed by this. Maybe I'll try a few games like that to see how it works.

Yea the second player would have to be mad or have some ace up his sleeve to deploy right at the center. Either way that strategy seems dubious, and I would welcome my opponent to do that. In my gaming circle I guess we never read this close enough, cause we've always played it both players deploy more than 12" away from the center. The raw is clear though, as Gwar has shown.

The only variance for board sizes in our games are for larger scale (generally Apoc) or campaign games.

And even so, in those circumstances, it has never come up.

We do have one IG player that until recently (read: the new codex came out) was having some issues, but that scenario had NOTHING to do with it - even in his eyes.

The only problem I ever see with Spearhead are the newer Players who fail to realise that placing all 1500-2000 of your points in 1 corner is not a good idea and don't use reserves to bring things along the table edge.

No hard feelings.. its a game and i don't get that up-in-arms about it. I actually did not mean to insult anyone in the slightest bit and apologize if I did.

My evidence, that Gwar asked for, is the diagram meant to be referenced in the BGB.

I dare not go on a limb outside of that because i don't have any of the materials in front of me.

Thanks for getting my back, Polonius.

Deuce11 wrote:My evidence, that Gwar asked for, is the diagram meant to be referenced in the BGB.

You don't need the book, I already quoted the text verbatim (see my first post in this thread). It mentions nothing about player 2 having to deploy 12" from the centre. It certainly does for Player 1, which is why the Diagram is needed.

Gwar! wrote:In Short, this does absolutely nothing to the metagame, unless the metagame is defined by extraordinarily inept tacticians.

In fairness, that seems to be the case in most of the 40k world...

Good catch on this Gwar.

I think that there is evidence to back this RAW up as being RAI as well. It is the title, Spearhead.

And yes, this does have a bit of impact on the metagame if your playing 'Nids or Orks.

Two things:
First, I would avoid mentioning that the impact to the game (that would allow player 2 to get much closer to the enemy) only matters if someone is a bad player...

If player 2 builds an army that wants to get close to the enemy, then player 1 wont be also getting close for that turn 1 potential assault. Even if player 1 can deploy in the corner to maximize the distance between units, allowing player 2 to get right up on the board center can provide an overwhelming advantage for an agressive army. Essentially, player 2 gets more deployment zone 'area.' Thus the change from 12 inches out for player 2 to right at the table center for player 2 affects everyone, not just the 'tacticly inept.'

Second, while the rules as quoted does not say that the restriction for player 1 affects player 2, the diagram is not consistant with the view that player 2 can be right on the table center. The diagram, if it were to support that position, would be a quarter circle--since it would only affect one player. Couple this with the fact that most people tend to believe that player 2 follows the same deployment rules as player 1, and we see that (right or wrong) player 2 does not get to be in the table center in most games of this deployment type. For me this rule falls into a 'grey' area, as it seems more of an 'easter egg' type discovery about player 2 getting extra inches of deployment over player 1, that breaks tradition from the other deployment types.

I think there could be many instances of this kind of rule in the rule book, where they dont write the restriction explicit to both players but assume both players will be playing by the same rules. Regardless of opinion and intent and RAW, however, there is definately a precedent set by the numerous people that play where player 2 has to stay 12 inches from the center. So at this point, how feasable is it to get this rule interpretation past some stranger without him simply scooping or otherwise refusing to play?

I'd been playing it with both players restricted in friendly games (just based off of wanting to play and both of us assuming that we understood deployment after skimming through.)

However, the table quarter is clearly defined in the text, leaving no ambiguity about how the second player deploys (i.e. anywhere within the table quarter).

Yeah, it's hard to describe asymmetrical deployment zones as not giving an advantage. It might not be major, but there is one.

I don't see my group changing the way we play it, but I'm now prepared to play it another way.

DevianID wrote: So at this point, how feasable is it to get this rule interpretation past some stranger without him simply scooping or otherwise refusing to play?

Until this thread I have never seen anyone assert that player 2 cannot deploy into the table quarter chosen, as this is what the rule says.

I think it would be harder for me to tell a player going second they MUST move back despite the rules not saying so.

This may just be me though.

The main problem is that the circle covers all four corners, when i first read it, i thought both players had to be 12" away, actually, at a tournament a couple weeks ago it was played that way, so it is a very common misconception. I'll be honest i didn't even think of it, but it doesn't say the 2nd player is restricted like the 1st, so i would play it like this. For friendly games however i wouldn't really care.

This is actually a hold over from a prior edition. The spearhead looks at first identical to the old table quartes deployment where both players where restricted. This is just a carry-over thought process or assumption from the last rule-set.

So, I agree with the RAW interpretation of the Spearhead deployment. Up to this discussion, I have played every game with both players have restricted deployment. I looked at the rulebook again, and read all the deployments again (probably the first time really reading them since the first and only read). Looking at Pitched Battle, I see

"The players roll-off, and the winner chooses to go first or second. The player that goes first then chooses one of the long table edges to be his own table edge. He then deploys his force in his half of the table, with all models more than 12" away from the table's middle line (this is his 'deployment zone'). His opponent then deploys in the opposite half.""


Going by the same line of thinking, the player who goes second does not need to stay 12" back (he just needs to stay in the opposite half). Would that be accurate, by a strict RAW?

Thanks

As I read it, Dawn of War is the only one that restricts Player 2 more than player 1.

The idea that the player that deploys first has to really consider his deployment is not strange for me. Odds are that player will get the first turn as well, which can be an advantage as well.

The more I read this, the more I want to play the other way now, to see how it plays.

The RAW interpretation is correct that the 2nd player may deploy in his quarter and not be restricted by the 12" no man's land in the center of the table. Only by interpreting the rules that both deployment zones are the same (which can be inferred by the diagram) do we end up at the conclusion that the 2nd player may place units up to the center of the table. Using Rules as Drawn the white area is described as an area where the player may not place units. It should be inferred that the first player and the second player must follow the same rules for placing units.

The only problem is that Player 2 now faces a larger amount of firepower in the first turn from Player 1 or a possible first round assault unless a successful Seize the Initiative was rolled.

I myself would play by the RAI version where both players have the same deployment zone. Then again I play almost all friendly games as well.

Does no-one realise that the drawings have to be symetrical otherwise people will complain that player 1 always had to have the North facing edge?

I am with gwar on this one. My local shop plays 12" for both players, but it is pretty clear that player 2 is not restricted. It really makes no difference to me, worst case I have to deplay a bit further back than I had wished. We constantly alter our strategies to deal with complications that arise, and this is just another complication.

Damn...you mean all this time...

Gwar! wrote:Does no-one realise that the drawings have to be symetrical otherwise people will complain that player 1 always had to have the North facing edge?

No sir, player 1 would simply be force to always have the TOP facing edge. Orient the rulebook as required, suddenly your table looks precisely the same as on the diagram!

What I've gathered from this thread is the following:

ONE: few people refute that player 2 can, by RAW, deploy anywhere in his assigned quarter.

TWO: few people play it that way.

The Defenestrator wrote:

TWO: few people play it that way.

Indeed. I believe this is what is known as an "Easter egg"

I believe that is what is known as "overlooking the rules" or perhaps "being used to older rules".

Or just "missing something". Happens all the time.

kirsanth wrote:I believe that is what is known as "overlooking the rules" or perhaps "being used to older rules".

Or just "missing something". Happens all the time.

It happens with Dawn of War too. Hell, even I did it. Once. Before I bricked my Opponent for being a sneaky git.

Pitched Battle has the exact same wording and white (non-deployment) area in the diagram. It's 12" for both players, just like Pitched Battle is 12" for both.

Bad writing, and slowed interpretations.

this has got to be one of the most ludicrous RAW calls to go so far as to start ignoring the BRB and claim that a diagram that shows a full circle of the board that no one can deploy in should be ignored because it doesnt fit someones fanatical devotion to RAW no matter how stupid it may seem.....

Should we also claim that the two players need to fling themselves down a hill and see who rolls further to decide who gets to go first....... there is nothing in the Spearhead rules that sates that you use dice for the roll off..............

DJ Illuminati wrote:Should we also claim that the two players need to fling themselves down a hill and see who rolls further to decide who gets to go first....... there is nothing in the Spearhead rules that sates that you use dice for the roll off..............

No, that's covered on Page 2. Pay Attention.

Except it only mentions first player as needing to use the diagram.

Player two is deploying in "the diagonally opposite quarter" or "the opposite half".

It does not even say "opposite deployment zone" or you would have a case, and this discussion would not be happening.

To be fair, it's pg. 2. You, Pay Attention! lol

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Should we also claim that the two players need to fling themselves down a hill and see who rolls further to decide who gets to go first....... there is nothing in the Spearhead rules that sates that you use dice for the roll off..............

No, that's covered on Page 2. Pay Attention.

It doesnt say to look at page 2........ couldnt I just ignore that like you suggest that we should ignore the diagram....

Nurgleboy77 wrote:To be fair, it's pg. 2. You, Pay Attention! lol

That is what I said.

Break no rule.

Or was that trolling?

Gwar! wrote:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:To be fair, it's pg. 2. You, Pay Attention! lol

That is what I said.

its what you said after an edit

DJ Illuminati wrote:It doesnt say to look at page 2........ couldnt I just ignore that like you suggest that we should ignore the diagram....

It says to roll off. The rules for rolling off are found on Page 2. Nowhere does it say "LOOK AT T3H PRETTY PICTURE!" It lays out the full rules in Text plain as day.

It also doesn't tell you how to breathe. Do you ignore that too during a game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:To be fair, it's pg. 2. You, Pay Attention! lol

That is what I said.

its what you said after an edit

No, it isn't.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:It doesnt say to look at page 2........ couldnt I just ignore that like you suggest that we should ignore the diagram....

It says to roll off. The rules for rolling off are found on Page 2. Nowhere does it say "LOOK AT T3H PRETTY PICTURE!" It lays out the full rules in Text plain as day.

It also doesn't tell you how to breathe. Do you ignore that too during a game?

so if we can assume that when it says to roll off it mean with dice, and we can assume we know how to breathe......cant you assume that the diagram shows that the deployment is the same for player two, they just didnt have enough room to discribe the entire process to explain to people that you have to follow the same rules as player one....or maby a SIMPLE DIAGRAM would get the point across

DJ Illuminati wrote:so if we can assume that when it says to roll off it mean with dice, and we can assume we know how to breathe......cant you assume that the diagram shows that the deployment is the same for player two, they just didnt have enough room to discribe the entire process to explain to people that you have to follow the same rules as player one....or maby a SIMPLE DIAGRAM would get the point across

So adding the words "As Per the First player" were totally beyond them? It would have cost them a whole fraction of a [Insert whatever country they print these off now in's currency]? Look, you can whine and rant all you want, the fact of the matter is, I have proof. You do not.

at what point are we ignoring rules and following them to the letter...... if you are going to tell me that we ignore things in the book unless it is told to you like you are a 5 year old, then I demand that you uphold that same viewpoint to the entire book. You cannot ignore some things in the book and in the same breath say that everything in the book is written exactly as we should play them

Remember, DJ, Gwar's head would explode if he ever said "I'm wrong".

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:so if we can assume that when it says to roll off it mean with dice, and we can assume we know how to breathe......cant you assume that the diagram shows that the deployment is the same for player two, they just didnt have enough room to discribe the entire process to explain to people that you have to follow the same rules as player one....or maby a SIMPLE DIAGRAM would get the point across

So adding the words "As Per the First player" were totally beyond them? It would have cost them a whole fraction of a [Insert whatever country they print these off now in's currency]? Look, you can whine and rant all you want, the fact of the matter is, I have proof. You do not.

You have proof that they didnt write the book like a computer program, you dont have proof of what the deployment is as there is a diagram on the same page that contradicts your view.

DJ Illuminati wrote:at what point are we ignoring rules and following them to the letter...... if you are going to tell me that we ignore things in the book unless it is told to you like you are a 5 year old, then I demand that you uphold that same viewpoint to the entire book. You cannot ignore some things in the book and in the same breath say that everything in the book is written exactly as we should play them

I am not ignoring anything. If you could please point out in the RULES for Deployment where it says "Both Players use the Diagram opposite", I would be much obliged, as I cannot find it in any of my 3 Rulebooks.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Remember, DJ, Gwar's head would explode if he ever said "I'm wrong".

I have found that if you hold him to his own methods of proving something that he just gives up and makes snide comments.

The diagram is perfectly applied to player 1 and is quite helpful to explain where the first player's deployment zone is.

Player two is never told to reference it, nor told to deploy is LESS than the entire area described.

Why is it more logical to assume the authors meant to write something other than what they put into text?

The picture has a use. To one player.

editing to add: I have read Gwar! admitting he was wrong. No need to keep attacking him. Try posting some rules instead of blind assertions that FOLLOWING RULES MAKES ONE A BAD PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO CHEAT!
Which is what just happened.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:at what point are we ignoring rules and following them to the letter...... if you are going to tell me that we ignore things in the book unless it is told to you like you are a 5 year old, then I demand that you uphold that same viewpoint to the entire book. You cannot ignore some things in the book and in the same breath say that everything in the book is written exactly as we should play them

I am not ignoring anything. If you could please point out in the RULES for Deployment where it says "Both Players use the Diagram opposite", I would be much obliged, as I cannot find it in any of my 3 Rulebooks.

As soon as you can show me where it says that a roll-off is done with a 6 sided die..... I wanna use a 20 sided.....it doesnt say I cant..... and the book only says Almost all dice rolls are made by a d6...... but Roll-off doesnt say it is..... so I must assume that it is one of the few that doesnt

DJ Illuminati wrote:As soon as you can show me where it says that a roll-off is done with a 6 sided die..... I wanna use a 20 sided.....it doesnt say I cant..... and the book only says Almost all dice rolls are made by a d6...... but Roll-off doesnt say it is..... so I must assume that it is one of the few that doesnt

Well now you are just acting like a 4 year old.

But regardless, you can use a D20 just fine, so long as both Players use one. It does not really matter what you use. Of course, us Adults go on the assumption that every mention of "Dice" is a D6 unless otherwise stated.

kirsanth wrote:editing to add: I have read Gwar! admitting he was wrong. No need to keep attacking him. Try posting some rules instead of blind assertions that FOLLOWING RULES MAKES ONE A BAD PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO CHEAT!
Which is what just happened.

NO I AM NEVER WRONG MUAHAHAHAHAHA! But seriously, kirsanth is right. Bring Proof or stop posting.

kirsanth wrote:The diagram is perfectly applied to player 1 and is quite helpful to explain where the first player's deployment zone is.

Player two is never told to reference it, nor told to deploy is LESS than the entire area described.

Why is it more logical to assume the authors meant to write something other than what they put into text?

The picture has a use. To one player.

editing to add: I have read Gwar! admitting he was wrong. No need to keep attacking him. Try posting some rules instead of blind assertions that FOLLOWING RULES MAKES ONE A BAD PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO CHEAT!
Which is what just happened.

If it was just that simple then why did they need to draw a full circle to show what 12 inches looks like.......they didnt need to show in Dawn of War that 1/2 a board was 24 inches, why wouldnt they just to look at a diagram of what table quarters looks like and measure it yourself....... nope they put a full circle in there even though 3/4 of that circle is redundant

DJ Illuminati wrote:If it was just that simple then why did they need to draw a full circle to show what 12 inches looks like.......they didnt need to show in Dawn of War that 1/2 a board was 24 inches, why wouldnt they just to look at a diagram of what table quarters looks like and measure it yourself....... nope they put a full circle in there even though 3/4 of that circle is redundant

Ok, firstly, they put a full circle because Player 1 Can Deploy in any Corner.

Secondly, Dawn of War just shows a Table Split in half, with no mention of 24" or 18" on the Diagram

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:As soon as you can show me where it says that a roll-off is done with a 6 sided die..... I wanna use a 20 sided.....it doesnt say I cant..... and the book only says Almost all dice rolls are made by a d6...... but Roll-off doesnt say it is..... so I must assume that it is one of the few that doesnt

Well now you are just acting like a 4 year old.

But regardless, you can use a D20 just fine, so long as both Players use one. It does not really matter what you use. Of course, us Adults go on the assumption that every mention of "Dice" is a D6 unless otherwise stated.

kirsanth wrote:editing to add: I have read Gwar! admitting he was wrong. No need to keep attacking him. Try posting some rules instead of blind assertions that FOLLOWING RULES MAKES ONE A BAD PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO CHEAT!
Which is what just happened.

NO I AM NEVER WRONG MUAHAHAHAHAHA! But seriously, kirsanth is right. Bring Proof or stop posting.

ostart

No reason to start calling names.....

and there is nothing that says I have to use the same dice as the other player.

The point I am making is that if you say we should view the rule in a vacuum with absolutely no common sense allowed, then use that rule for all of your judgement calls here.....dont just pick and choose


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:If it was just that simple then why did they need to draw a full circle to show what 12 inches looks like.......they didnt need to show in Dawn of War that 1/2 a board was 24 inches, why wouldnt they just to look at a diagram of what table quarters looks like and measure it yourself....... nope they put a full circle in there even though 3/4 of that circle is redundant

Ok, firstly, they put a full circle because Player 1 Can Deploy in any Corner.

Secondly, Dawn of War just shows a Table Split in half, with no mention of 24" or 18" on the Diagram

sooooooo whay didnt they just show table quarters and allow the player to measure his 12 inches like they do in the other deployments........they showed a full circle of 12 inches that nothing can be deployed in




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwar - why is there no possible way that any of us can be right about this unless we agree with you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote: Adults go on the assumption that every mention of "Dice" is a D6 unless otherwise stated.

And us Adults over here, where assumptions are allowed in our world, would assume that the Diagram shows the deployment of both players in relation to the board.

If you are going to say that assumptions are allowed, then ALL assumptions are allowed! If you are going to say that the rules must be specific to the point of irrational devotion to the written letter, then that must apply in all stances.......

What is the word I keep wanting to use.... oh yea........hypocritical...... that seems to be what I am seeing.

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I believe that is what is known as "overlooking the rules" or perhaps "being used to older rules".

Or just "missing something". Happens all the time.

It happens with Dawn of War too. Hell, even I did it. Once. Before I bricked my Opponent for being a sneaky git.

Just out of curiosity gwar, what misconception on DoW were you talking about?

skarousis wrote:Just out of curiosity gwar, what misconception on DoW were you talking about?

Most people I know, at first anyway, thought their army moved on Turn 2, when in fact you get it on Turn 1.

Gwar! wrote:

skarousis wrote:Just out of curiosity gwar, what misconception on DoW were you talking about?

Most people I know, at first anyway, thought their army moved on Turn 2, when in fact you get it on Turn 1.

So they thought you played the first turn with only your potential HQ and 2 Troops? Then on turn 2 they move in the rest of the army that is not in reserves?

skarousis wrote:So they thought you played the first turn with only your potential HQ and 2 Troops? Then on turn 2 they move in the rest of the army that is not in reserves?

Yup, thats how it was here and I've heard it in other places too. Heard it happened on 40k radio too >.>

Gwar! wrote:

skarousis wrote:So they thought you played the first turn with only your potential HQ and 2 Troops? Then on turn 2 they move in the rest of the army that is not in reserves?

Yup, thats how it was here and I've heard it in other places too. Heard it happened on 40k radio too >.>

weird. For once i read the rules correctly right off the bat

Gwar:

There is absolutely no need to try to get absolutely everyone who posts into agreeing with your point. There are some people who are always going to have a different point of view and at some point you just need is no point in trying to argue with someone who isn't interested in being convinced. You've made a good point and convinced many people.

However, the diagram alone is going to always convince some people and you just have to accept that fact and be prepared to deal with those people when you play them.


DJ Illuminati:

Similarly, Gwar has presented a good point backed up with proof from the rules. While you may feel that "common sense" dictates these missions to be played one way, you have to realize that what is common to you isn't common to everyone. If you go into games assuming that everyone is going to be playing with the same "common sense" despite the fact that the rules do seem to state otherwise, you're going to have the same issues.


In other words, just let it go. There is no need for any kind of hostility, name-calling or ridiculous points about what the rulebook doesn't explicitly tell you to do.

Make your points, post any counters to other people's arguments and move on. You will never be able to convince everyone, so you should only hope to make strong enough points that most people 'silently' reading agree with you.


In short: Please keep it civil so I don't have to lock this thread or there will be reprecussions.

I never noticed this either, and have always seen it played with both restricted. The diagram does show the full circle, but without rules support i don't think it means anything. I'll probably point this out to my local redshirts and see what they think.

Spears are pointy, so I could go either way on this one.

My question for Gwar and the others who hold his opinion is based on their inperpretation of "Spearhead Deployment" - How do you play "Pitched Battle"?

As was pointed out by another poster, it only states that the 2nd player has to deploy in the opposite half. Do you play with one player having a 12" deployment zone, and the other player having a 24" deployment zone?

It would seem to me that you would have to play it this way, if you play Spearhead in the way to mentioned. It is also grossly unfair for any objective mission (ie: 2/3s of them).

Personally, I see the diagrams as a visual representation of the written rules (as they are in the rest of the book), a clarification of GW's poor rules writing, one might say. The shaded areas illustrate deployment zones, while the White represent no man's land.

Alerian wrote:As was pointed out by another poster, it only states that the 2nd player has to deply in the opposite half. Do you play with one player having a 12" deployment zone, and the other player having a 24" deployment zone?

Yes. It's called "I am going first", which is such a HUGE advantage in IGYG systems that the player going second gets some advantages to balance it out, namely deploying second and a larger Deployment Zone.

I think sometimes there are particular cases regarding the rules where the vast majority will see it the same way regardless of the RAW. This looks like one of those cases. To me there is no reason to dismiss a diagram in the rulebook. The diagrams are just as much a part of the rules as the written words, if this were not the case there would be no need to include them. In this case why would GW show a full circle. Player 1 cannot deploy inside Player 2's table quarter so we know that quarter circle is not shown in reference to the player who goes second. An arrow is provided inside the circle to define the radius and it doesn't matter which quarter circle this arrow appears, it's the radius and is the same distance at any point along the boundary of the circle when measured from the center. Do we really need to discuss the basics of geometry? I dont think so.

G

Going second already has a huge advantage.

You get to deploy AFTER seeing your opponent's entire deployment. Talk about good intel - any military commander would kill for that advantage.

Giving 1/2 the table as a deployment zone is adding insult to injury.

Gwar! wrote:

Alerian wrote:As was pointed out by another poster, it only states that the 2nd player has to deply in the opposite half. Do you play with one player having a 12" deployment zone, and the other player having a 24" deployment zone?

Yes. It's called "I am going first", which is such a HUGE advantage in IGYG systems that the player going second gets some advantages to balance it out, namely deploying second and a larger Deployment Zone.

Now that you mention it neither Pitched Battle or Dawn of War allow one player to have a larger deployment zone than their opponent.

G

Here's the thing:

It's not a sure fire thing that GW intended there to be a 24" bubble in the center. We simply assume that because old editions had that in their quarters missions.

Now, this being a fairly big change to one of the core missions, I (and i think a lot of others) think that if GW really meant the RAW, they would have made a slightly bigger deal of it, making it explicit. There is, however, no requirement for that.

I've though it through, and I don't see the RAW deployment being horribly unfair, although giving one player a larger deployment zone (and the ability to react to his opponents deployment) is at least a little unfair. That good tactics can mitigate this is a false premise, as good tactics can make good use of any advantage, no matter how small.

The fact that we've been playing for a year and nobody seems to find Spearhead missions inherently unbalanced seems to indicate that how most people play it works pretty well.

Polonius wrote:

I've though it through, and I don't see the RAW deployment being horribly unfair, although giving one player a larger deployment zone (and the ability to react to his opponents deployment) is at least a little unfair. That good tactics can mitigate this is a false premise, as good tactics can make good use of any advantage, no matter how small.

Re-read my point, please.
Pitched Battle has the same style of wording as Spearhead. However, instead of opposite corner, it states opposite half.

You don't think that one person getting a 12" deployment zone, and the other person getting 1/2 the table as a deployment zone is horribly unfair? Especially in objective missions?

You have to play Spearhead and Pitched battle the same way, because of the language. Either they both have the 24" no-mans land, or niether do. It may not seem like a big deal in Spearhead, but it is a HUGE deal in Pitched battle.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Now that you mention it neither Pitched Battle or Dawn of War allow one player to have a larger deployment zone than their opponent.

Pitched Battle Does. So Does Dawn of War.

So Polonius you are basically saying that diagrams appearing in the rulebook do not count as rules? If that is the case then it opens a big can of worms.

G

Alerian wrote:You don't think that one person getting a 12" deployment zone, and the other person getting 1/2 the table as a deployment zone is horribly unfair?

No, because the Person going First gets the advantage of Larger Deployment and the First Turn, while the player going second gets the advantage of seeing the opposing army first and getting the last turn.

Green Blow Fly wrote:So Polonius you are basically saying that diagrams appearing in the rulebook do not count as rules? If that is the case then it opens a big can of worms.

That is not what he is saying at all. The diagrams in the Deployment section do not do anything. Other Rules give Diagrams as clear examples, or as the rule themselves. Nowhere in the deployment rules does it reference the diagram whatsoever.

Gwar! wrote:

Alerian wrote:As was pointed out by another poster, it only states that the 2nd player has to deply in the opposite half. Do you play with one player having a 12" deployment zone, and the other player having a 24" deployment zone?

Yes. It's called "I am going first", which is such a HUGE advantage in IGYG systems that the player going second gets some advantages to balance it out, namely deploying second and a larger Deployment Zone.

Actualy, wouldnt Dawn of War give the second person a SMALLER deployment zone? And this is supposed to balance against the HUGE advantage that going first has? How???

DJ Illuminati wrote:Actualy, wouldnt Dawn of War give the second person a SMALLER deployment zone? And this is supposed to balance against the HUGE advantage that going first has? How???

A Player going second in Dawn of War has a huge advantage. He can deny the enemy an entire shooting phase by not deploying anything and rolling on Turn 1. This counteracts the theoretical disadvantage of the smaller deployment zone.

Gwar! wrote:

Alerian wrote:You don't think that one person getting a 12" deployment zone, and the other person getting 1/2 the table as a deployment zone is horribly unfair?

No, because the Person going First gets the advantage of Larger Deployment and the First Turn, while the player going second gets the advantage of seeing the opposing army first and getting the last turn.

I think he was referring to pitched battles, where, if the deployment rules for player 1 don't apply to player 2, player 2 isn't required to stay 12" away from the line down the table's center.

Which would be a huge advantage. Gamebreaking, for some armies.

Gwar! wrote:

Alerian wrote:You don't think that one person getting a 12" deployment zone, and the other person getting 1/2 the table as a deployment zone is horribly unfair?

No, because the Person going First gets the advantage of Larger Deployment and the First Turn, while the player going second gets the advantage of seeing the opposing army first and getting the last turn.

Umm Gwar..you are slipping..the person going first gets the 12"deployment.

The person going second gets 1/2 the table for deployment, gets to set up after seeing the 1st player's entire deployment, and gets the last turn (By your interpretation).

Unless the 2nd player is incredible inept, it is almost an autowin in objective missions...especially for some armies

Orkeosaurus wrote:Which would be a huge advantage. Gamebreaking, for some armies.

It is only Gamebreaking if Player 1 Deploys like an idiot.

It's an extra foot for assault armies regardless.

And this time, it's an extra foot along the entire table, not at one point.

Alerian wrote:Umm Gwar..you are slipping..the person going first gets the 12"deployment.

The person going second gets 1/2 the table for deployment, gets to set up after seeing the 1st player's entire deployment, and gets the last turn (By your interpretation).

Unless the 2nd player is incredible inept, it is almost an autowin in objective missions.

Yeah, you are right there. The mind got a little muddled. It is 2am after all :(

But anyway, all I say is what the rules say. if you can show me a rule that says Player 2 Deploys the exact same way as player one, let me know. Until then I will be of the opinion that "opposite Half" means just that, the opposite half.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Now that you mention it neither Pitched Battle or Dawn of War allow one player to have a larger deployment zone than their opponent.

Pitched Battle Does. So Does Dawn of War.

after reading the rules for mission deployment I was under the impression that in Pitched Battle both players deploy up to 12" from their long table edge, hence both DZs are equal in area... In DoW each player can deploy up to 24" from their deployment zone and Player 2 must not deploy within 18" of Player 1's units. They both have an equal area to deploy in caveat the restriction on Player 2. You cannot make a case that either player can deploy units outside of their DZs. Scouts and infiltrators gave their own special rules for deploying.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:after reading the rules for mission deployment I was under the impression that in Pitched Battle both players deploy up to 12" from their long table edge, hence both DZs are equal in area... In DoW each player can deploy up to 24" from their deployment zone and Player 2 must not deploy within 18" of Player 1's units. They both have an equal area to deploy in caveat the restriction on Player 2. You cannot make a case that either player can deploy units outside of their DZs. Scouts and infiltrators gave their own special rules for deploying.

Well, you are mistaken. In Pitched Battle, "The player that goes first then chooses one of the long table edges to be his own table edge. He then deploys his force in his half of the table, with all models more than 12" away from the table's middle line". Then "His opponent then deploys in the opposite half."

Opposite half. No mention of 12" from the centre.

In Dawn of War, the player going first can place his models right on the centre line, meaning he has a 24" deployment zone, while player 2 has a 6" Deployment zone, especialy if player one spreads his troops to cover the length of the board.

It depends on whether or not "deploy", by definition, requires player 2 to observe the instructions for the mission's deployment given to player 1.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Actualy, wouldnt Dawn of War give the second person a SMALLER deployment zone? And this is supposed to balance against the HUGE advantage that going first has? How???

A Player going second in Dawn of War has a huge advantage. he can deny the enemy an entire shooting phase by not deploying anything and rolling on Turn 1. This counteracts the theoretical disadvantage of the smaller deployment zone.

The point is that your premise that going second is balanced by the larger deployment zone is flawed as I can hold reserves in any other mission and deny him shooting just as Dawn of war does....

I fail to see how being forced to deploy second, in a smaller deployment zone, giving 1/2 the board to the other player before the games starts, and being within 1st turn assault range of Orks, Tyranids, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar and anything else that can get jump infantry/open-top-vehicles as a troop choice, AND giving the other player a chance to claim objectives and then hold you off, is some how balanced by a modified Reserves rule..........

Gwar! wrote:

Alerian wrote:Umm Gwar..you are slipping..the person going first gets the 12"deployment.

The person going second gets 1/2 the table for deployment, gets to set up after seeing the 1st player's entire deployment, and gets the last turn (By your interpretation).

Unless the 2nd player is incredible inept, it is almost an autowin in objective missions.

Yeah, you are right there. The mind got a little muddled. It is 2am after all :(

But anyway, all I say is what the rules say. if you can show me a rule that says Player 2 Deploys the exact same way as player one, let me know. Until then I will be of the opinion that "opposite Half" means just that, the opposite half.

My point is that diagrams are just as much rules as the written word, throught the entire rulebook. They are visual representations of the rules. They are there to clarify some of GW's poor writing as welll as help with some player's poor reading comprehension (that is just a general statement, and is not directed any anyone ).

When in doubt of what a rule is saying, look to the diagrams for clarification. It works that way in the entire BRB.

Here, the diagrams do not match your interpretation.

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Actualy, wouldnt Dawn of War give the second person a SMALLER deployment zone? And this is supposed to balance against the HUGE advantage that going first has? How???

A Player going second in Dawn of War has a huge advantage. he can deny the enemy an entire shooting phase by not deploying anything and rolling on Turn 1. This counteracts the theoretical disadvantage of the smaller deployment zone.

The point is that your premise that going second is balanced by the larger deployment zone is flawed as I can hold reserves in any other mission and deny him shooting just as Dawn of war does....

I fail to see how being forced to deploy second, in a smaller deployment zone, giving 1/2 the board to the other player before the games starts, and being within 1st turn assault range of Orks, Tyranids, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar and anything else that can get jump infantry/open-top-vehicles as a troop choice, AND giving the other player a chance to claim objectives and then hold you off, is some how balanced by a modified Reserves rule..........

Well it is a good thing you do not need to see. These are the rules GW have written and these are the rules 99% of people will follow. If you are worried about First Turn Charges, don't be an idiot and deploy so they cannot get you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alerian wrote:Here, the diagrams do not match your interpretation.

Yes, they do. Nowhere does it state the diagrams are valid for both players. The rules themselves suggest they are valid only for the person deploying first. I implore you to take another look at the directions that the player deploying second must follow. They are, in order:

Pitched Battle wrote:His opponent then deploys in the opposite half.

Spearhead wrote:His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter.

Dawn of War wrote:His opponent then does the same in the opposite half, but must position his three units more than 18" from enemy units.

Only in Dawn of War does it prescribe any sort of secondary limit. The other two have no such limit. Thus, the player deploying second does not have a limit on his Deployment Zone other than the Quarter/Half he is in.

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

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Actualy, wouldnt Dawn of War give the second person a SMALLER deployment zone? And this is supposed to balance against the HUGE advantage that going first has? How???

A Player going second in Dawn of War has a huge advantage. he can deny the enemy an entire shooting phase by not deploying anything and rolling on Turn 1. This counteracts the theoretical disadvantage of the smaller deployment zone.

The point is that your premise that going second is balanced by the larger deployment zone is flawed as I can hold reserves in any other mission and deny him shooting just as Dawn of war does....

I fail to see how being forced to deploy second, in a smaller deployment zone, giving 1/2 the board to the other player before the games starts, and being within 1st turn assault range of Orks, Tyranids, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar and anything else that can get jump infantry/open-top-vehicles as a troop choice, AND giving the other player a chance to claim objectives and then hold you off, is some how balanced by a modified Reserves rule..........

Well it is a good thing you do not need to see. These are the poorly explained rules GW have unknowingly written and these are the rules I follow. If you are worried about First Turn Charges, don't be an idiot and deploy so they cannot get you.

Fixed that for you..........

Your failing to tell me how all the advantages of going first on Dawn of War is balanced for the second player by having a 6' deployment zone.

The person going second in Dawn of War is the one who can be limited to a 6" deployment zone... and this is pretty much always the way the mission is played.

I think the issue here is how Pitched and Spearhead battles are resolved.

DJ Illuminati wrote:Your failing to tell me how all the advantages of going first on Dawn of War is balanced by having a 6' deployment zone.

And you are failing to come up with any sort of rules quotes to back up your argument. Also, I would LOVE a 6 foot Deployment zone. Could I get some Pictures of your tables? they must be impressive.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think the issue here is how Pitched and Spearhead battles are resolved.

Correct. However, I brought up Dawn of War as an example because there were claims of "but people MUST have the same Deployment zone or else it isn't fair!".

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Your failing to tell me how all the advantages of going first on Dawn of War is balanced by having a 6' deployment zone.

And you are failing to come up with any sort of rules quotes to back up your argument.

My argument is that in one breath you said that the second player gets a Larger deployment zone in Pitched Battle and Spearhead to balance the fact that the other player goes first.......

yet in the second breath you say that it is fair for the second player to have all the disadvantages in Dawn of War.

Dawn of War seems to be the weak link in your argument as it doesnt support your first statement in any way.

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Your failing to tell me how all the advantages of going first on Dawn of War is balanced by having a 6' deployment zone.

And you are failing to come up with any sort of rules quotes to back up your argument.

My argument is that in one breath you said that the second player gets a Larger deployment zone in Pitched Battle and Spearhead to balance the fact that the other player goes first.......

yet in the second breath you say that it is fair for the second player to have all the disadvantages in Dawn of War.

Dawn of War seems to be the weak link in your argument as it doesnt support your first statement in any way.

And your rules quotes are....

Please argue the facts, not the characters of the people.

Thirdly, Dawn of War has Modified Deployment and Reserve Rules that makes the smaller Deployment zone advantageous.

I didn't notice that pitched battle was similar. `I thought both players had be 12" off the line. That's a huge advantage for whoever goes second.

I don't even know what to think.

Polonius wrote:I didn't notice that pitched battle was similar. `I thought both players had be 12" off the line. That's a huge advantage for whoever goes second.

I don't even know what to think.

"There is no Spoon" is a good Start. Then bewbies.

Gwar! wrote:
Thirdly, Dawn of War has Modified Deployment and Reserve Rules that makes the smaller Deployment zone advantageous.

I want to see a rules quote that proves that.........

or is it just opinion......

I am more concerned about your method for understanding RAW as opposed to the RAW itself. You ask me for rule quotes to back up what I say yet you can make any statement based on those very rules and demand more effort on my part to prove you wrong. My point is no longer what the RAW is in the book as we all can read it for ourselves, and you will ignore anything I post that supports my view (diagram)

My point is now how you justify these rules to yourself, we cannot begin to agree with you until we see the path of logic that you used to make these statements. If the method is flawed than we can only assume that the results may be flawed as well.

If you notice, MANY of the people here do not play it your way and yet you are insistent on your ruling, maby your logic is not inline with the BRB. Saying that larger deployments balance going second somehow justify your ruling on Spearhead, yet this ruling doesnt hold up in Dawn of War, as there are many disadvantages to going second, so why doesnt the second player get a larger deployment zone in that mission. It is not consistent.....and if it is not consistent, doesnt that show that there is a mistake somewhere?

DJ Illuminati wrote:If you notice, MANY of the people here do not play it your way and yet you are insistent on your ruling, maby your logic is not inline with the BRB.

Firstly, many people also DO play it my way. Secondly, why is my logic faulty just because some people disagree with me?

Thirdly, stop trying to make fallacious arguments. Claiming that "it isn't consistent" is not an argument.

Fourthly, I take the time to spell-check my posts, I ask that you return the courtesy.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:If you notice, MANY of the people here do not play it your way and yet you are insistent on your ruling, maby your logic is not inline with the BRB.

Firstly, many people also DO play it my way. Secondly, why is my logic faulty just because some people disagree with me?

Once again you are stating an unproven opinion, many of the posts in here show that they do not.

Second, I am not saying your logic is flawed because some of us dont agree with you, I am saying it is flawed because your rationality for claiming it works a certain way is not proven/consistent with the other deployments.......all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.........

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

Dawn of war has rules about keeping and 18" buffer, but also mitigates that with it's own reserves system.

the other two missions simply give an advantage to the second player, straight up.

I have yet to see it played that way for either of those missions though.

DJ Illuminati wrote:Once again you are stating an unproven opinion, many of the posts in here show that they do not.

And many show that they do. Obviously some do, some don't.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Once again you are stating an unproven opinion, many of the posts in here show that they do not.

And many show that they do. Obviously some do, some don't.

Your still dodging the question I put to you........

DJ Illuminati wrote:Your still dodging the question I put to you........

I have yet to see you ask or answer a rules question in this thread or others.

And you sir have been dodging my rules question. What rules do you have to support your position? I have already outlined the rules that support mine, so it would be polite if you could do the same.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Your still dodging the question I put to you........

I have yet to see you ask or answer a rules question in this thread or others.

If I quote an FAQ you would say it is not allowed in the debate, if I quoted an example in an older rule book you would not allow it

Is is known as questioning my methods for my logic.

I am allowed to question yours in kind, I see the page but do not understand how you can claim the rule is your way because it gets balanced by the size of the deployment zone.

But since you cant see the "forest for all the trees" I will spell the question out for you.

How can you justify your ruling if your ruling isn't consistent? If it isnt consistent, then how do you expect us to follow your same viewpoint if it is based on speculation instead of fact?

Obviously the example I gave earlier of using a d20 while the other player uses a d6 was based on a flawed method to get to that point. The rules didnt contradict me and say I couldn't, but even an Admin on here pointed out how rediculous it was. So obviously the method of making a ruling is just as important to a good ruling as is the written word.

I see the words on the page, yet even though there is a diagram that conflicts with your ruling you stick with it. I want to know what it is that makes you ignore one part of the page and yet claim that the resulting ruling is fair in each deployment as it either gives a HUGE advantage to the second player or a HUGE disadvantage, when the rules as shown in the diagram would be seen as more fair to both parties in every deployment.

Deployment consistency doesn't matter, besides all of the deployments are different and have their own rules anyway thus they can't be compared to each other in the first place. The diagrams are also not referenced by the rules in this case; most other diagrams elsewhere in the book are, and are not necessary to play the game. I will echo Gwar! in asking that you show your proof for the diagrams having any weight in the rules debate what so ever. An example of rules backed diagrams would be the diagram on pg. 79, it has text stating which rule it supports. The Spearhead picture has no such text and is thus not a rule and can be disregarded on these forums.

*Primps for the shot for Gwar!'s signature* Also, I 100% agree with Gwar!

Norade wrote:Deployment consistency doesn't matter, besides all of the deployments are different and have their own rules anyway thus they can't be compared to each other in the first place. The diagrams are also not referenced by the rules in this case; most other diagrams elsewhere in the book are, and are not necessary to play the game. I will echo Gwar! in asking that you show your proof for the diagrams having any weight in the rules debate what so ever. An example of rules backed diagrams would be the diagram on pg. 79, it has text stating which rule it supports. The Spearhead picture has no such text and is thus not a rule and can be disregarded on these forums.

*Primps for the shot for Gwar!'s signature* Also, I 100% agree with Gwar!

How about the fact that it is in the RB.......or should we just start ignoring anything that we dont like, even if its in the RB.

For pitched battle both players have equally sized DZs. It is the same for DoW except that Player 2 must not deploy with 18" of an enemy units. Gwar you have not spelled out why you feel differently on this and I am curious as to why.

G

DJ Illuminati wrote:
If I quote an FAQ you would say it is not allowed in the debate, if I quoted an example in an older rule book you would not allow it

Is is known as questioning my methods for my logic.

I am allowed to question yours in kind, I see the page but do not understand how you can claim the rule is your way because it gets balanced by the size of the deployment zone.

But since you cant see the "forest for all the trees" I will spell the question out for you.

How can you justify your ruling if your ruling isn't consistent? If it isnt consistent, then how do you expect us to follow your same viewpoint if it is based on speculation instead of fact?

Obviously the example I gave earlier of using a d20 while the other player uses a d6 was based on a flawed method to get to that point. The rules didnt contradict me and say I couldn't, but even an Admin on here pointed out how rediculous it was. So obviously the method of making a ruling is just as important to a good ruling as is the written word.

I see the words on the page, yet even though there is a diagram that conflicts with your ruling you stick with it. I want to know what it is that makes you ignore one part of the page and yet claim that the resulting ruling is fair in each deployment as it either gives a HUGE advantage to the second player or a HUGE disadvantage, when the rules as shown in the diagram would be seen as more fair to both parties in every deployment.

FAQ's are not the rules the games is played by, and thus are useless here. Older rule books are not the topic of debate here and thus are not important.

The rules aren't consistent because they cover different things. As for rolling, I would not care if people tried the dice rolling loophole and claimed it as legal. I would however roll my d100 in subsequent games against such a player. As for the admin, he basically called you hard headed and said the some people will never see the truth.

Once again the diagram isn't rules.

DJ - unfortunately the diagram can support Gwar just fine, as it shows a 12" zone regardless of which zone the player initially chooses.

There is consistency in that 1 is rules the other is a potential explanation for those rules. You have yet to give any rules that actually state that player two has the deployment zone you claim they do. You have a diagram which can be firmly interpreted in a number of ways, yet you claim that your version is the only one, and with nothing in writing to support that.

Norade wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:
If I quote an FAQ you would say it is not allowed in the debate, if I quoted an example in an older rule book you would not allow it

Is is known as questioning my methods for my logic.

I am allowed to question yours in kind, I see the page but do not understand how you can claim the rule is your way because it gets balanced by the size of the deployment zone.

But since you cant see the "forest for all the trees" I will spell the question out for you.

How can you justify your ruling if your ruling isn't consistent? If it isnt consistent, then how do you expect us to follow your same viewpoint if it is based on speculation instead of fact?

Obviously the example I gave earlier of using a d20 while the other player uses a d6 was based on a flawed method to get to that point. The rules didnt contradict me and say I couldn't, but even an Admin on here pointed out how rediculous it was. So obviously the method of making a ruling is just as important to a good ruling as is the written word.

I see the words on the page, yet even though there is a diagram that conflicts with your ruling you stick with it. I want to know what it is that makes you ignore one part of the page and yet claim that the resulting ruling is fair in each deployment as it either gives a HUGE advantage to the second player or a HUGE disadvantage, when the rules as shown in the diagram would be seen as more fair to both parties in every deployment.

FAQ's are not the rules the games is played by, and thus are useless here. Older rule books are not the topic of debate here and thus are not important.

The rules aren't consistent because they cover different things. As for rolling, I would not care if people tried the dice rolling loophole and claimed it as legal. I would however roll my d100 in subsequent games against such a player. As for the admin, he basically called you hard headed and said the some people will never see the truth.

Once again the diagram isn't rules.

I am not going to have the same debate with you or anyone else on the bandwagon that I just had with Gwar...... if you can, go back to page 1 and read up to this point and maby you will see what I am trying to say.......




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:DJ - unfortunately the diagram can support Gwar just fine, as it shows a 12" zone regardless of which zone the player initially chooses.

There is consistency in that 1 is rules the other is a potential explanation for those rules. You have yet to give any rules that actually state that player two has the deployment zone you claim they do. You have a diagram which can be firmly interpreted in a number of ways, yet you claim that your version is the only one, and with nothing in writing to support that.

That is a two way street....... and I have already stated that I dont care what the final verdict on this thread is, I will continue playing it just like the 40+ other people at my LFGS, and at the other stores that host tournaments....... anything I read on here isnt going to change what the 300+ people and stores around me will play.

What I am getting at is that I dont think it is fair to make a ruling on a debate while ignoring other parts of that same debate that appear in the RB right next to the rule in question.

If you all threw darts at a dartboard to make a ruling, I would question why that method was used, I have yet to see a reason that Gwar's ruling is correct and that I too should ignore the diagrams even though we have shown that the deployments as he as ruled would be increadably unbalanced to a player no matter what deployment was used.

Excuse me if I want a fair game as opposed to a questionable reading that can be abused by people too lazy to question why it was ruled in contrast to fairness, material in the rule book, and in contrast to itself.

Hmmm.

Does each player get a deployment zone or just the one who deploys first?

The rules on page 93 have been quoted several times in this thread. But I don't think they've gone far enough.

"Once deployment is finished, the player that chose his deployment zone first starts game Turn 1 with his first player turn."

To me this implies that the player who deployed second also chose a deployment zone. Otherwise it would just say "the player who deployed first..." or "the player that chose his deployment zone..."

The deployment zone is defined in the earlier paragraph:

"He then deploys his forces in one of the two table quarters on his side of the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table (this is his deployment zone)."

In the absence of rules that clearly define the second player's deployment zone to have different dimensions than that of the first player, I have to conclude that his deployment zone mirrors that of the first player and has the 12" restriction as well.

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!

That pic made some coworkers almost have to dodge orange juice coming out of my nose.

that burns!

Wow, I go afk for a few hours and look what happens. Good show, everyone. Maybe the intensity could go down just a bit, but it's been a great read. I have some comments, just to make sure people are on the same page.

@Arschbombe:
Whether or not the words "deployment zone" are used makes no difference to the argument, as both players are told to "deploy." Even if it did, (and, mind you, this is only from a RaI standpoint) it is quite common to use parentheses once in a paragraph to indicate that what is inside of them applies to the rest of the paragraph. Otherwise things wouldn't necessarily flow that well (and, mind you, this is only from a RaI standpoint).

@solkan (and others who support the "diagrams are rules" position):
I know for a fact that the diagrams do not accurately depict the rules all the time, as I have seen many players confused by the example given on p.30 for blast weapons. In the text it says that the center of the blast must be over the targeted model, not that it must be completely over the base of the targeted model. This is an important distinction that the example given fails to utilize, and because of that many players I've played with have been quite confused and frustrated when I've used it against them. This is one case in particular where that is so, but even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter because, as others have said, the diagrams questioned in this thread might just deal with the person going first.

Actually, after thinking a bit more on the subject, I've noticed that Arschbombe has pointed out something that supports the conclusion that the diagrams are only used for the player going first. If he is indeed correct about the parenthetical, then it seems likely that the diagrams were intended to mention deployment only for the player going first as well (clearly marking out the "zones"). But again, that's just RaI.

warboss wrote:

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!

U am Legend.

Gwar, the english definition of halves and quarters doesn't matter, primarily because the deployment types define quite explicitly what a quarter means and what a half means (except DoW, but it's after Pitched Battle, which does define a half). There's really no ambiguity in the rules. They're quite clear in the text, and the diagrams don't contradict them, they just describe something other than what most people assume.

Arschbombe, the intent of the developers cannot be indicated by the text. It's simply not possible. You're probably interpreting what you think the intent is off of A) a completely unlabeled diagram (which does in fact correspond to something: Player 1's possible deployment options) and/or B) the way you've done it before.

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, the english definition of halves and quarters doesn't matter, primarily because the deployment types define quite explicitly what a quarter means and what a half means (except DoW, but it's after Pitched Battle, which does define a half). There's really no ambiguity in the rules. They're quite clear in the text, and the diagrams don't contradict them, they just describe something other than what most people assume.

Nowwhere in any way shape or form does it define "half" or "Quarter" that is different from English. In Fact, it does go out of its way to define a quarter for the thickies: "The table is divided into four quarters, formed by drawing two imaginary perpendicular lines through the centre point". Player 1's instuctions are "He then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his side the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table". That does not change the definition of a Quarter. All it does is impose a secondary restriction.

Compare to the Second Players instructions: "His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter." No Such Restriction.

Can you explain that one please?

I'm not disagreeing with you, Gwar. I'm saying that there's no reason to argue anything other than what the text says, because the text is quite clear. My point was that your argument based on the meaning of half and quarter was unnecessary, because the first few lines of each deployment type (except DoW) clearly indicate what GW means (for once).

I'm just going to sit back and watch the show, for two reasons:
1. I've been playing Daemons since 5th came out, so you all are just arguing about rules for other people.
2. I've heard people complain about the lack of options in the standard missions. Well, here you go. Roll your mission, roll your deployment, and then flip a coin to see whether you stick to the text or the diagrams for deployment. Instant diversity, right?

Yep, we've just doubled our mission options!

Wehrkind wrote: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.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the reader to base his understanding of the current rules on past rules. This version is based on 40K v4 which was based on 40K v3 and many things have carried over from the previous versions (exclusive use of D6, Close Combat To Hit and Wound charts, turn sequences, etc). In fact, during the leadup to 5th edition GW made quite a show of releasing difference reports, telling players exactly what changed from 4th to 5th (and how 5th was superior).

Is it more reasonable to suppose that game designers have inserted "Easter Egg" type rules changes with no fanfare just waiting for someone to discover them or just that an error of omission was made?

The Green Git wrote:Is it more reasonable to suppose that game designers have inserted "Easter Egg" type rules changes with no fanfare just waiting for someone to discover them or just that an error of omission was made?

You mean like removing Target Priority tests?
Or the ability of beasts to move up levels in ruins?

This is more logical than to assume the writers meant the words they wrote?
ummm?

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, the english definition of halves and quarters doesn't matter, primarily because the deployment types define quite explicitly what a quarter means and what a half means (except DoW, but it's after Pitched Battle, which does define a half). There's really no ambiguity in the rules. They're quite clear in the text, and the diagrams don't contradict them, they just describe something other than what most people assume.

Nowwhere in any way shape or form does it define "half" or "Quarter" that is different from English. In Fact, it does go out of its way to define a quarter for the thickies: "The table is divided into four quarters, formed by drawing two imaginary perpendicular lines through the centre point". Player 1's instuctions are "He then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his side the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table". That does not change the definition of a Quarter. All it does is impose a secondary restriction.

Compare to the Second Players instructions: "His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter." No Such Restriction.

Can you explain that one please?

So you have psychic powers now?

G

I bet Target Priority Tests were left out by accident and GW are just too Drunk to put out an Errata


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:Gwar, the english definition of halves and quarters doesn't matter, primarily because the deployment types define quite explicitly what a quarter means and what a half means (except DoW, but it's after Pitched Battle, which does define a half). There's really no ambiguity in the rules. They're quite clear in the text, and the diagrams don't contradict them, they just describe something other than what most people assume.

Nowwhere in any way shape or form does it define "half" or "Quarter" that is different from English. In Fact, it does go out of its way to define a quarter for the thickies: "The table is divided into four quarters, formed by drawing two imaginary perpendicular lines through the centre point". Player 1's instuctions are "He then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his side the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table". That does not change the definition of a Quarter. All it does is impose a secondary restriction.

Compare to the Second Players instructions: "His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter." No Such Restriction.

Can you explain that one please?

So you have psychic powers now?

I am confused, who was that directed towards?

No, it's not reasonable to conclude that designers have inserted Easter Eggs into the rules. In fact, it's unreasonable to conclude anything about designer intent for how the rules work, unless it's in the rules.

The fact of the matter is that the rules are clear, the charts match the rules (if you read them as the options for player 1's deployment), and there's no reason to demand that we ignore every rule in 5th that wasn't either in previous editions or widely celebrated.

kirsanth wrote:You mean like removing Target Priority tests?
Or the ability of beasts to move up levels in ruins?

This is more logical than to assume the writers meant the words they wrote?
ummm?

Both of which were covered in the difference reports GW plastered all over the web. These were plainly pointed out as changes. Nowhere did I see the words "New and exciting deployment zone options" anywhere.

This whole notion of the game authors expecting every consequence of the words they penned (or more likely cut and pasted) into the new edition is ludicrous. You and I both know the best crafted documents of men have unintended meanings sometimes conveyed through poor word choices. To expect the authors of a toy soldier rules system perfectly conveyed their intentions is MORE illogical than expecting they are humans, fallible and therefore subject to error.

I would submit to assume the authors did not make mistakes is the gravest fallacy.

The Green Git wrote:I would submit to assume the authors did not make mistakes is the gravest fallacy.

That is why they have an Errata System. If they choose to not update it, then we must assume that what is written is what they intended to write.

Unless my flyers are different than yours, those changes are not on them.

Either way, even if the rules are full of mistakes and written by barricudas, they're still the rules. If you want to play W40K you must play by those rules. Otherwise you're playing some similar game based heavily upon 40K rules (such as any game incorporating house rules).

Gwar! wrote:

The Green Git wrote:I would submit to assume the authors did not make mistakes is the gravest fallacy.

That is why they have an Errata System. If they choose to not update it, then we must assume that what is written is what they intended to write.

No we dont have to assume anything.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

The Green Git wrote:I would submit to assume the authors did not make mistakes is the gravest fallacy.

If they choose to not update it, then we must assume that what is written is what they intended to write.

No we dont have to assume anything.

G

Resolution?

Edited out a double quote

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

The Green Git wrote:I would submit to assume the authors did not make mistakes is the gravest fallacy.

That is why they have an Errata System. If they choose to not update it, then we must assume that what is written is what they intended to write.

No we dont have to assume anything.

Ok, we do not assume anything. What rules do we use? The ones in the Rulebook and Errata.

ajfirecracker wrote:No, it's not reasonable to conclude that designers have inserted Easter Eggs into the rules. In fact, it's unreasonable to conclude anything about designer intent for how the rules work, unless it's in the rules.

What's all this talk of intent? I said "They made a mistake" not "They intended..." anything. Your contention is the designers intended deployment to depart from previous conventions based on some word parsing. I reject the word parsing. You might uncovered a potential meaning of the words in the deployment description but you can no more assert that this is the intended meaning than I can. Only the author can confirm or deny the intended meaning.

ajfirecracker wrote:The fact of the matter is that the rules are clear, the charts match the rules (if you read them as the options for player 1's deployment), and there's no reason to demand that we ignore every rule in 5th that wasn't either in previous editions or widely celebrated.

What's not clear is the intent of the author. You have to add extra words to make the picture match the rules and that requires assumption of the authors intent. Since I (nor you) can know the intent I'll fall back to convention. It used to be played this way, everyone around here still plays it this way, the wording allows for it to be played this way, so I'll continue to play it this way.

No one is demanding anything be ignored. Quite the contrary, it's unreasonable to ignore established convention. You suggest that providing one side with an additional advantage in a larger deployment zone, closer deployment to the enemy or more objectives within your deployment zone is correct. I suggest that this is a language gaff. Only the author can say what was *intended*.

I know how I'll play this. By the rules. The one that says "The most important rule..." on page 2.

The Green Git wrote:

Wehrkind wrote: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.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the reader to base his understanding of the current rules on past rules. This version is based on 40K v4 which was based on 40K v3 and many things have carried over from the previous versions (exclusive use of D6, Close Combat To Hit and Wound charts, turn sequences, etc). In fact, during the leadup to 5th edition GW made quite a show of releasing difference reports, telling players exactly what changed from 4th to 5th (and how 5th was superior).

Is it more reasonable to suppose that game designers have inserted "Easter Egg" type rules changes with no fanfare just waiting for someone to discover them or just that an error of omission was made?

Actually, you make my point exactly, Green Git.

The 5th edition rules are not dependant on the 4th edition rules. 5th edition is a stand alone game; no where does it say "A copy of Warhammer 40,000 4th Edition is required to use the contents of this book" for a reason, that reason being that every standard rule is contained in the book. The rules are written such that a complete newbie can pick up a copy of 5th edition and know how to play (though of course he would need a codex to build an army.)
As such, the only words that are relevant to the rules of "Warhammer 40,000, 5th Edition" are the words in that book. By looking at other games, no matter how closely related, for rules clarifications you are looking at sources that have no bearing on what the rules actually say.
That is not to say looking at how things were done in 4th, or 3rd, or Necromunda might not be a bad plan if you decide something needs a house rule, but it does not clarify what is written in the 5th edition rule book. Let me repeat that:

Text from outside of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition does not clarify the text of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rule book.

Just because they did it one way last edition does not mean they are doing it the same way this edition. Starting with the assumption that things are the same will only trip you up when the change is made in a somewhat unclear fashion. Nearly everyone has experienced this so far going from 4th to 5th. If you haven't yet, this might be your time. Relish it!

The Green Git wrote:What's all this talk of intent? I said "They made a mistake" not "They intended..." anything.

That is just another way of saying "They intended to do it another way but made a mistake."

What's not clear is the intent of the author. You have to add extra words to make the picture match the rules and that requires assumption of the authors intent. Since I (nor you) can know the intent I'll fall back to convention. It used to be played this way, everyone around here still plays it this way, the wording allows for it to be played this way, so I'll continue to play it this way.

M grey Hunters used to be able to Move 12" in a Rhino, Disembark, fire they bolters then assault. Rules change, live with it.

I know how I'll play this. By the rules. The one that says "The most important rule..." on page 2.

I have reported this post for a breach of the Dakkadakka YMTC Rule #7, which sates that "Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates." I Politely ask you familiarise yourself with these rules before posting again.

I also want to point out that this is Proof that TMIR is only ever used to get your own way.

Gwar! wrote:That is why they have an Errata System. If they choose to not update it, then we must assume that what is written is what they intended to write.

Or we could assume that GW doesn't care what was intended as long as you have fun playing. Maybe there was nothing intended and you just stumbled into a word gaff. We could assume that GW already *has* defined what to do over and over again... come to an agreeable solution for both players or dice it off if you can't.

I think that assumption works too.

Leave RAI out.

Assumptions = RAI.

RAW = Text from 5e books

Wehrkind wrote:Just because they did it one way last edition does not mean they are doing it the same way this edition. Starting with the assumption that things are the same will only trip you up when the change is made in a somewhat unclear fashion. Nearly everyone has experienced this so far going from 4th to 5th. If you haven't yet, this might be your time. Relish it!

You and I both know this is not something as fundamental as the dropping of Priority tests. You are trying to apply word parsing to effect a change in deployment zones that has gone nigh well undiscovered for about a year and a half...

Again, I know how I'll play it.

The Green Git wrote:
What's all this talk of intent? I said "They made a mistake" not "They intended..." anything. Your contention is the designers intended deployment to depart from previous conventions based on some word parsing. I reject the word parsing. You might uncovered a potential meaning of the words in the deployment description but you can no more assert that this is the intended meaning than I can. Only the author can confirm or deny the intended meaning.

What's not clear is the intent of the author. You have to add extra words to make the picture match the rules and that requires assumption of the authors intent. Since I (nor you) can know the intent I'll fall back to convention. It used to be played this way, everyone around here still plays it this way, the wording allows for it to be played this way, so I'll continue to play it this way.

No one is demanding anything be ignored. Quite the contrary, it's unreasonable to ignore established convention. You suggest that providing one side with an additional advantage in a larger deployment zone, closer deployment to the enemy or more objectives within your deployment zone is correct. I suggest that this is a language gaff. Only the author can say what was *intended*.

I know how I'll play this. By the rules. The one that says "The most important rule..." on page 2.

A) Don't bring the most important rule into YMDC. It's a guide to remembering to be a nice guy, not how the rules should be interpreted.

B) I contend nothing about the designers intent. I contend that we should ignore their intent and play by the rules of the game.

C) I'm not adding words to the diagram, I'm telling you what the diagram represents based on the written rules. The diagram currently has no description whatsoever, so there's simply no reason to claim it represents both players deployment areas. In fact, there is a reason - the written rules - to claim that it does not represent this.

D) The wording of the rules does not allow you to demand that your opponents deploy 12" from the center or that they may deploy within 18" but past the center line. The wording of the rules is clear. It defines table halves and quarters and tells you which players may deploy with which restrictions. The fault arises when you assume the game must have been the same as previous editions (if it were, why would they print new rules?) and/or that the unlabeled diagram is all you need to understand deployment. If it were, they would not have provided a written guide as well.

E) Convention should be ignored when it contradicts the rules, which is what you are demanding be ignored. Specifically, the written rules for deployment given for each deployment type.

Gwar! wrote:I Politely ask you familiarise yourself with these rules before posting again.

I also want to point out that this is Proof that TMIR is only ever used to get your own way.

I would never suggest that someone bow to my interpretation of a rule or that I was somehow the infallible arbiter of intent based on word parsing. I am content to let a D6 decide for me, for I know my own understanding is human and therefor fallible.

I would also like to point out that your statement is being used to ascribe motives of selfishness and an unwillingness to compromise to me. This is a personal attack and a violation of Dakka Rules http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp.

Also, posting regarding advantages may convince some people one way or the other, but it's irrelevant to the rules discussion.

And even if it weren't one side being advantaged consists of being advantaged relative to how you assume the rules should play out, which is to say, they're better off than if the rules were different.

If that's the standard we use to determine whether or not we should follow a particular rule, then I demand a rewrite of the whole book to favor any army I personally am playing, as anything else puts me at a disadvantage relative to that outcome.

The Green Git wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I Politely ask you familiarise yourself with these rules before posting again.

I also want to point out that this is Proof that TMIR is only ever used to get your own way.

I would never suggest that someone bow to my interpretation of a rule or that I was somehow the infallible arbiter of intent based on word parsing. I am content to let a D6 decide for me, for I know my own understanding is human and therefor fallible.

I would also like to point out that your statement is being used to ascribe motives of selfishness and an unwillingness to compromise to me. This is a personal attack and a violation of Dakka Rules http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp.

If i had said "Green Git uses TMIR to Cheat" that would be a personal attack. What I stated no way constitutes a personal attack.

Actually, in this particular case it is possible to know the intent of the authors. You can, in fact, find examples 5th edition games played by the designers using the spearhead deployment. I will leave you in suspense as to the result...

Modquisition on:
Its not a personal attack but everyone's getting snarky. Lets move back to rules discussing or the thread will be closed. Thanks. Edit: Olympia beat me to it.

olympia wrote:Actually, in this particular case it is possible to know the intent of the authors. You can, in fact, find examples 5th edition games played by the designers using the spearhead deployment. I will leave you in suspense as to the result...

Oh Noes! Battle Reports with Errors! UNPOSSIBLE!

Gaming club member just brought this thread to our attention.

I am paid in part to do technical writing, and let me tell you that sometimes you get so close to the text and your own intentions in what you're trying to explain that you utterly fail to recognize that there's some basic assumption, some sort of technological comprehension, that one would need first in order to understand what you're trying to say. There's a missing piece that you naturally fill in as you edit the text because "Of course that's how it is."


I propose that the 5th Ed. rulebook writers were in much the same predicament. Does anyone know how many drafts and polishes they went through? Through how many pairs of hands the rulebook passed during development, with requisite changes afterwards?

Lord knows how close the writers were to the text. When people make these arguments "They couldn't have spared [x number] of words to make this more clear?" it always sound quasi-asinine to me.

Perhaps the writers just didn't realize you needed those words because it sounded crystal clear to them, and they'd been working on it for months and so their intention was very clear in their own minds, and they didn't want to treat their audience like idiots by explaining what seemed obvious to them.


I propose the following: the preponderance of how players have interpreted the Spearhead deployment rules is the correct deployment scheme. The authors of the rulebook tried their best to make the meaning clear, and then it's up to the players to read the language and follow it.

I would guess that the vast, vast preponderance of 40K 5th Edition players enforce the 12" pushback from table center on player 2 in a Spearhead scenario.

Lacking a concrete argument that this is wrong; and lacking a FAQ to make this clear - we then must have some faith that when there's clearly just a vocal minority arguing RAW incessantly and trying to overturn what a thousand-times-their-number of people have interpreted the rules to mean that the vocal minority is loud, but also wrong.

Clearly most people got what the authors were intending...and I have not heard a panoply of outcries that player 2 somehow gets screwed in a Spearhead deployment due to having to follow the same restrictions.

I would argue that if there was only a 12" pushback for one player and not both you would not have the diagram included in the deployment directions as there would only ever be one table quarter in which the pushback was enforced - and you would seriously have to be slowed to require a diagram of a circle to make it clear to you that said pushback for that single player, in that single table quarter, was enforced on ALL four table quarters no matter which one they chose.

I believe that falls into "No gak, Sherlock" territory.

Gwar! wrote:

I know how I'll play this. By the rules. The one that says "The most important rule..." on page 2.

I have reported this post for a breach of the Dakkadakka YMTC Rule #7, which sates that "Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates." I Politely ask you familiarise yourself with these rules before posting again.

I also want to point out that this is Proof that TMIR is only ever used to get your own way.

A fine example why nr 7 shouldnt exist.

Gwar! wrote:

olympia wrote:Actually, in this particular case it is possible to know the intent of the authors. You can, in fact, find examples 5th edition games played by the designers using the spearhead deployment. I will leave you in suspense as to the result...

Oh Noes! Battle Reports with Errors! UNPOSSIBLE!

Are you so lacking in confidence that you assume your fundamentalist RAW interpretation does not square with how the actual game writers play their game

Rules change, that can't be denied, but there are certain trends that can normally be relied on for rules changes between editions. First, GW announces the big ones ahead of time. Second, most changes are made in groups, where several rules change to create a new balance (no more target priority but gaining cover saves from your own troops, Kill Points instead of victory points coupled with pure objective missions).

Yes there are rules changes that are unannounced and stand alone (things like frag grenades being S4 against vehicles in close combat), but they also tend to be explicit. What concerns me is that the basic missions have been dramatically re-worked with no real announcment, and seemingly nothing to counter balance the huge advantage that could give some armies. I add in the years of balanced play we've gotten out of 24" buffers, and those simply seem like bad missions.

olympia wrote:Are you so lacking in confidence that you assume your fundamentalist RAW interpretation does not square with how the actual game writers play their game

I am saying the Game Writers played the game incorrectly, as they did not play the game as they wrote it. Just more proof of the low standard of GW employees.

olympia wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

olympia wrote:Actually, in this particular case it is possible to know the intent of the authors. You can, in fact, find examples 5th edition games played by the designers using the spearhead deployment. I will leave you in suspense as to the result...

Oh Noes! Battle Reports with Errors! UNPOSSIBLE!

Are you so lacking in confidence that you assume your fundamentalist RAW interpretation does not square with how the actual game writers play their game

1. Last warning to all. Politeness is required and we're hitting that point. Lets not go there.
2. I may have to steal part of this for sig material.

NOTICE * THIS IS NOT SNARKY OR A PERSONAL ATTACK

Gwar if we end up following your examples eventually we will all have to carry knives and guns when we play to enforce our interpretations of the rules. It is really a lot simpler than you are letting on.

G

1. We don't now?
2. This is OT to the discussion.

I personally intend on using my Rambo knife to carve symmetrical deployment zones into the playing surface.

Note this is a "How You Will Play It" post and is not intended to convey literal RAW.

If the text works, and the diagrams fit only player 1's deployment options, nothing needs added nor removed to play the way the authors wrote it. In all three scenarios this is true - note the lack of an 18" marker for player 2 in the Dawn of War.

As for intentions? YMDC

The Green Git wrote:I personally intend on using my Rambo knife to carve symmetrical deployment zones into the playing surface.

Note this is a "How You Will Play It" post and is not intended to convey literal RAW.

Again, we're not supposed to do that now? Mmm...that explains the falloff in opponents lately...

ITS MARBO KNIFE! DUDE TOTALLY SEZ SO IN THE FLUFF UR PLAYING IT WRONG!

(that was a joke, please don't modhammer me)

Kitzz wrote:ITS MARBO KNIFE! DUDE TOTALLY SEZ SO IN THE FLUFF UR PLAYING IT WRONG!

(that was a joke, please don't modhammer me)

Again... I'm playing it as a "Rambo" knife but know it's not RAW.

As to the: "I'm a technical writer and I understand them screwing up" argument: It's an eloquent explanation for why you would play RaI. The problem is that we know the RaW and can only guess at RaI, and even then we're not sure that our understanding of intent will be agreed upon (this is why debates often argue RaI).

As to there being a loud but wrong minority: If the minority is advocating RaW, it cannot be wrong, because it agrees with the rules by definition. It can be unpopular or unsportsmanlike, and sometimes is, but it cannot be wrong.

Cairnius wrote:I propose the following: the preponderance of how players have interpreted the Spearhead deployment rules is the correct deployment scheme. The authors of the rulebook tried their best to make the meaning clear, and then it's up to the players to read the language and follow it.

I would guess that the vast, vast preponderance of 40K 5th Edition players enforce the 12" pushback from table center on player 2 in a Spearhead scenario.

That may be a good point.

To nearly everyone who read the rules for mission deployment, the rulebook said to deploy symmetrically.

A majority of people, even a vast majority of people, may be wrong.

This is why Republic > Democracy.

kirsanth wrote:Leave RAI out.

Assumptions = RAI.

RAW = Text and diagrams from 5e books

Fixed that for ya

Alerian wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Leave RAI out.

Assumptions = RAI.

RAW = Text and diagrams from 5e books

Fixed that for ya

QFT

Kirsanth wrote:If the text works, and the diagrams fit only player 1's deployment options, nothing needs added nor removed to play the way the authors wrote it. In all three scenarios this is true - note the lack of an 18" marker for player 2 in the Dawn of War.

ajfirecracker wrote:A majority of people, even a vast majority of people, may be wrong.

But how do you go about proving that to be the case for something that doesn't physically exist?

Orkeosaurus wrote
But how do you go about proving that to be the case for something that doesn't physically exist?

well apparently you have never taken a philosophy course, it happens all the time.
As others point out all the time, RAI is fail. Think about the beatles when they wrote any song. It is impossible for us to deduce what he intended the song to be, it is also impossible for himself to say what he intended the song to be because as he was writing it his intentions may have changed. This goes with any author of any book from any time period. English 101.

Now in the first page of topics Gwar! posted the exact rules from the rulebook. Now, I would suggest you go and read the passage again. This time when you attempt to interpret the rules, take the rules, READ WHAT IT SAYS, and DO NOT ADD ANYTHING ELSE. People are interpreting the chart to mean 2 different things; if it doesn't have a caption, it is not interpretable (because you would be adding something). From what the WORDS actually say, second player can deploy anywhere in his table quarter.

Now I will accept all arguements that have zero of your personal interpretation of the rules. I do not care what you THINK about the rules, I care about what the rules ACTUALLY SAY. Once you do this you will realize that the second player can deploy anywhere within his table quarter.

Orkeosaurus: You look at whatever evidence you have. In 40K, evidence of right and wrong ways to play the game is given by the rules.

Grey Knight Luke wrote:well apparently you have never taken a philosophy course, it happens all the time.

Then explain it to me.

As others point out all the time, RAI is fail. Think about the beatles when they wrote any song. It is impossible for us to deduce what he intended the song to be, it is also impossible for himself to say what he intended the song to be because as he was writing it his intentions may have changed. This goes with any author of any book from any time period. English 101.

"English 101." is a little patronizing for someone who referred to The Beatles as "he".

Now in the first page of topics Gwar! posted the exact rules from the rulebook. Now, I would suggest you go and read the passage again. This time when you attempt to interpret the rules, take the rules, READ WHAT IT SAYS, and DO NOT ADD ANYTHING ELSE. People are interpreting the chart to mean 2 different things; if it doesn't have a caption, it is not interpretable (because you would be adding something). From what the WORDS actually say, second player can deploy anywhere in his table quarter.

Now I will accept all arguements that have zero of your personal interpretation of the rules. I do not care what you THINK about the rules, I care about what the rules ACTUALLY SAY. Once you do this you will realize that the second player can deploy anywhere within his table quarter.

For one: I don't really care what you, personally, will or will not accept.

For two: I would be interested in how you go about reading something written in English without outside knowledge of, say, the English language.

ajfirecracker wrote:You look at whatever evidence you have. In 40K, evidence of right and wrong ways to play the game is given by the rules.

But most people think the rules say you deploy symmetrically, so what the evidence there means is contested.

@ Orkish:

Good job, you can dissect my post for any and all errors, point out the flaws and understand what I said. Why can't you do that with the actual rules?

Did I wrong you in some manner prior to this?

@ Orkish:

no not at all, I would just ask that you take the rules, write it out like a post and dissect what it says. then you will have an answer. Its a simple thing. OR go look at the first posts by Gwar. I am not taking Gwar's side. He has already done the work for you. What else is there to argue.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:A majority of people, even a vast majority of people, may be wrong.

But how do you go about proving that to be the case for something that doesn't physically exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles#Indiscernibility_of_identicals

As much as I could get flamed by non-believers or believers, the above are examples of things you are looking for. Various people throughout history have argued as to whether or not they exist. How they each went about it can be found in various historical documents, provided as references to those pages. Others can probably be found via google search.

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.

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!

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?

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!

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

I KNEW IT!

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 )

What?

You mean you're not a Gaemr Gurl?

This thread has lost its way.

Too many personal attacks.

Too many off topic spam posts.

Closed.