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

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.



The 'Pitched Battle' Deployment rules say (rulebook, pg 92): "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 [inches] away from the table's middle line (this is his 'deployment zone'). His opponent then deploys in the opposite half."

The 'Spearhead' Deployment rules say (rulebook, pg 93): "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 of the table, more than 12 [inches] away from the centre of the table (this is his 'deployment zone'). His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter."

NOTE: Please also take a look at the diagrams relating to both mission deployments found on pages 92-93 of the rulebook.




QUESTION: Do you play that the player deploying second must abide by the same 'push-back zone' that the first player must abide by (12" away from the middle-line/center of the table, respectively)?



OPTION A. I play that the second player to deploy DOES NOT have to abide by the 'push-back' restriction that the first player does and therefore they are free to place their models anywhere within their half of the table or table quarter, depending on the mission respectively.


OPTION B. I play that the second player to deploy DOES have to abide by the same 'push-back' restriction that the first player does and therefore they may not deploy within 12" of the table's center-line or center-point of the table, depending on the mission respectively.


OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

As much as I am going to be alone on this, I play by Option A, as I feel this is what the rules say.

I read it as and thought it was A, as well as having played it that way until YMDC pointed out that there was contention.

Given the contention in that thread I am surprised at the results of this one.

I voted b just because it seems like there are so many rules keeping the opponent away from a first turn assault.Unless you have some sort of special rule.

Reading the rules again, and more carefully, I vote A.

We have always played B, and probably will continue to do so, but if I have my way it will be method A. I don't care much either way, but I think A is correct.

I voted B, although I think both readings are supported by the rules.

Voted Option B, since that's how we've been playing it. However, I would prefer Option A as it opens up opportunities for both the 1st player and the 2nd that you don't get with with Option B.

B. Despite word parsing to play as A offends convention and flies in the face of most accepted game design principles.

I voted option A.

In another thread I argued for what is option B here and my mind was changed by the people who argued the other side.

I think that A is a pretty clear RAW option. I've changed the way I play and the friends I most often play have changed and we enjoy playing with the A option.

augustus5 wrote:I voted option A.

In another thread I argued for what is option B here and my mind was changed by the people who argued the other side.

I think that A is a pretty clear RAW option. I've changed the way I play and the friends I most often play have changed and we enjoy playing with the A option.

Glad to know. Having played both ways myself, our group now alternates between them now and then, and we find that the RaW (A) is far more tactically strenuous (aka Enjoyable ).

I've always played with Option B, but I think Option A would be more fun.

The diagram appears to show the deployment zones for both players. In my opinion, its a mirrored effect, so I picked B, its the way every friendly game, and tournament I've ever played at does it, and will continue to be so.


Clay

I voted B. It's fair and prevents certain armies/builds from getting first turn assaults in almost every game.

I've only seen it played as B, but the next time it comes up in casual play I'm going to ask my opponent to roll/flip a coin since it would make it more interesting to leave open the possibility of first turn charges without it always being the case.

All the more reason for tournaments to write up their own scenarios, I say.

B.

The diagram shows a "no man's land".

Also, GW went to great pains to ensure the inability of first turn assaults with the use of scout moves and infiltration. It seems strange that they would indend for units that are deployed normally to be able to be closer to the enemy than scouts or infiltrators.

In addition, there are major game balance issues in objective based missions (2/3 of the games) if one player only gets a 12" deployment zone, while the other gets 1/2 the table.

It appears that GW merely did a poor job describing the diagrams.

B

The diagrams clearly explain intention where their words did not.

--EDIT--

But I HAVE tried using that diagram and it is impossible to put my entire army on it... to small.

B makes the most sense based on DoW. If you consider DoW, an opponent is able to deploy anywhere on his half of the board, and the opposing player can only deploy anywhere on his side of the board 18 inches or further away. In the one deployment that they go out of their way to spell out that one player gets an entire half of the board, they also go to the effort of saying that you have to be 18 inches away. With only 3 units on the board at this point, its also the easiest one to do this in. Why would they expect you to put your full army within a 12 inch band (actually, a 11 or less if you don't want to be first turn assaulted)?

Actually, I just had an interesting thought. It would be the first player that gets the small band, and the second player who gets the big band, so it would be the second player who dictates if the first player gets to assault first turn or not. This idea is interesting to me, and I think it warrants further thought.

I voted B. A is what the rules seem to be saying, but I personally don't think that's intentional, just dodgy wording. Particular;y given the little wrinkle with infiltrating that was pointed out in the other thread.

i think theres diagrams accompanying the text for deployment rules, but I may be wrong. I voted for option B as while it may not be raw it is how people do it and would seem to be what logic would dictate. GW has a thing for symmetry or whathaveyou.

That being said option A would be interesting to try out. Nothing like 1st turn charges to make junk units like hormagaunts, spawn, raveners, and gargoyles (notice 3 of these are tyranids???) useful. I think itd be interesting to form a testgroup around it to see if this modification of deployment rules makes for a more or less 'balanced' and 'fun' way to play 40k.

I voted B because I was responding to the question as written.

The Rules say A, actually, but the diagram "implies" B. Like most of these discussions it really does not matter as long as you and the opponent agree BEFORE setting up.

The rules say A, but everyone around here plays it as option B. I think letting some armies deploy their ENTIRE army half way across the table could get a little unfair (Orks, Land Raider Heavy lists...).

Option B.

I think it's clearly intended that the 'opposite' side - in which the second player is deploying - is meant to mirror that of the first player.

If the second player doesn't abide by the pushback then you aren't deploying on the 'opposite' side (or table quarter), you are just deploying 12" from the imaginary line the first player is required to abide by on the 'other' side.

DoW


EDIT: To avoid confusion I'd like to highlight the fact that I said "I think it's clearly intended..." rather than "it is clearly intended." One states my opinion and reasoning for said opinion (if I thought it was unclear to me, I would state it as such, but I do not) the other states a fact which is obviously untrue.

Hopefully that stops people from jumping to conclusions and making unnecessary snide remarks!

DogOfWar wrote:I think it's clearly intended

if it was clear, we wouldn't be arguing.

I consider B is intended by my reading of the rules and the diagram, and B is how we play. I fully accept that A is a wholly acceptable and supportable argument on the words of the text however, and I consider that A and B are simply entirely different games with different tactics and strategies.

Alerian and insaniak sum up my feelings pretty well. I've always played it B despite the kind of strange wording. RAW it's clearly A, but it's not how I play it which is what the vote calls for.

That said I'd sort of like to vote for option D - GW learns to love labels and clear antecedents in all of their rulebooks.

Edit: I also feel bound to note - that if anyone ever challenged me on this I would immediately play it as A since my playing choice, and that of my local group, is totally unsupportable in a rules debate and that if GW means it as B this is a clear case for errata and not their weak wrist FAQ.

Thor665 wrote:Alerian and insaniak sum up my feelings pretty well. I've always played it B despite the kind of strange wording. RAW it's clearly A, but it's not how I play it which is what the vote calls for.

That said I'd sort of like to vote for option D - GW learns to love labels and clear antecedents in all of their rulebooks.

Edit: I also feel bound to note - that if anyone ever challenged me on this I would immediately play it as A since my playing choice, and that of my local group, is totally unsupportable in a rules debate and that if GW means it as B this is a clear case for errata and not their weak wrist FAQ.

My mind just assploded at the reasonableness of this Post. Stop it! You are giving Dakka a weak image (Joking of Course)

I play as how the diagrams show. I picked b. It shows ofr both the missions how you are to deploy. The white circle in spear heads is out of bounds just like the 24 inch white block in pitched. I feel that they included the diagrams to fix any shady spelling people might try to use to give them an advantage.

I picked B, i think it infers that both player's must abide by the push back but RAW then i suppose you play option A. i'll have to try it some time i hadn't actually noticed this before.

Slackermagee wrote:I voted B. It's fair and prevents certain armies/builds from getting first turn assaults in almost every game.

If the first player deploys deep in their zone they can deny any chances at a first round assault.

RAS - Rules as Shown

I chose option B, because the diagrams show how it's supposed to work. This is basically GW putting the RAI right there in the book next to poorly worded RAW. In many cases, RAI sucks because "well there's no way to know what GW was intending".

Here, though, we CAN. They SHOWED us.