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.

When youdeep strike, you're required to place the models "in base contact with the original model in a circle around it. When the first circle is complete, a further circle should
be placed with each model touching the circle inside it. Each circle should include as many models as will fit."

That's pretty easy if you're dropping 1, 7, or 19 models. You get a full blown circle. This question is based on what happens when you don't have enough models to make a full circle.

Maybe it's just convention among my regular playgroup, but we seem to try and place the models into as tight a formation as possible.

In each diagram, the first-placed model, the one that scattered, is represented as O, and other models in the unit are o.

Meaning that, with 3 models, you get:
oO o
and with 4 models, you get:
oO oo

But, I don't think that's required, reading it closer. Is it legal to place three models like:
oOo

or four like:
o oOo


Each of those seems to satisfy the requirements that the subsequent models in the unit are placed in contact with the first model dropped.

I think your last picture is broken - but I agree with your assessment. I've never worried about anything other than being in base to base with the first model - the rest of the models are placed however is most convenient either in game terms or just to get them placed quickly. Obviously you need to make a complete circle before going onto the next layer but other than that there are no special requirements.

I don't really think it matters either - the fact that they need to be in base to base makes pretty much any formation vulnerable to blasts the same way. You do occasionally get to avoid dangerous terrain but that is pretty rare.

1, and 2 are wrong IMO, unless the model on the diagonal is touching the center model. If it is then they are all legal

Yeah - I don't know what's going on with that last image - if you view source, you'll see that it's got all the o's there, but something is making them render funny.

It does matter, however. Consider Flamers of Tzeentch.

If you can land like this:
Enemy oOo

Then you can get all three flame templates able to hit the enemy.

If you're required to land like this:

Enemy oO o

OR
Enemy O oo

then you're limited to only laying down two templates on the turn you land, or possibly a third, but at such an angle that it might not cover many models.

Clthomps wrote:1, and 2 are wrong IMO, unless the model on the diagonal is touching the center model. If it is then they are all legal

Assume all the circles are touching. Drawing with ascii placement is difficult.

Of course, we can't be sure what the designer intended as he left too much open.

It seems assumed that you would have enough models to actually MAKE a circle. It seems like the intent was to pack the models in as tight a formation as possible. We do continually see this reference to a Circle. Make a Circle, complete this circle, another circle, etc.

With the models in this formation (the capital O being the first placed Deep Striker):

oOo

You have created a Line, not a Circle. Again, this is not violating RAW but the line (to me anyway) "feels" wrong. This looks like another good subject for the "How would you play this" poll.

Well, to be fair...if you only have three models and you're placing two around the first, you can't make a circle whatever you do. But I can understand interpreting it to mean that you're trying to make a circle, one step at a time - which would make the cross or line formations illegal. But you'll have someone argue that a cross formation is closer to a circle than 4 guys making a half circle...anyway who knows.

And yes, redbeard, flamers are a good example, should have thought of it since we were just doing it this past weekend.

If you don't have enough models to complete a circle you can place the models freely as long as everyone touches a model in the smaller circle (only one model in many cases)

So oOo is definitely fine.

Webbe wrote:If you don't have enough models to complete a circle you can place the models freely as long as everyone touches a model in the smaller circle (only one model in many cases)

So oOo is definitely fine.

No... oOo is definitely LEGAL RAW. In my opinion it's not right, but that's just an opinion. Of course, modeling a foot long Killkannon on my Battlewagon and measuring ranges from the tip of the barrel is LEGAL RAW but it's most certainly not fine, right or anything but exploiting a rules loophole.

If you hold to the general convention that when a rule is unclear that you follow the interpretation that gives you the LEAST benefit, it would appear lining up models to get extra flamer template off violates that convention.

The Green Git wrote:
If you hold to the general convention that when a rule is unclear...

Is this rule unclear? It seems that everyone here, so far, has agreed that it is legal. Reading the rules, it doesn't seem unclear at all. As long as everyone in the outer circle touches someone in the inner circle, it's a legal formation.

... that you follow the interpretation that gives you the LEAST benefit, it would appear lining up models to get extra flamer template off violates that convention.

I have always thought that this was the worst possible argument. What if it is my opponent who is controlling the flamers? In this case, the line would be of the least benefit to me, so it becomes legal when my opponent deep strikes his flamers, but illegal when I deep strike mine? No. Interpretations need to be worked out prior to knowing who they will benefit or hurt.

Should each model touch as many others as possible?

Redbeard wrote:

I have always thought that this was the worst possible argument. What if it is my opponent who is controlling the flamers? In this case, the line would be of the least benefit to me, so it becomes legal when my opponent deep strikes his flamers, but illegal when I deep strike mine? No. Interpretations need to be worked out prior to knowing who they will benefit or hurt.

This argument as you call it, refers to an actual disagreement, and is proffered as an alternative to the D6 roll. It is assumed that both players will play by the agreed ruling, so it follows that if you give yourself the least advantage, your opponent will follow the same rules if and when the situation comes up for him. Yes stuff should be worked out ahead of time, but we all know that doesn't always happen.

When a player sets a precedent for erring on the side of caution, usually their opponent will too.

Of course this excludes the tournament. Presumably there is a judge to call in those situations.

Redbeard wrote:When youdeep strike, you're required to place the models "in base contact with the original model in a circle around it. When the first circle is complete, a further circle should
be placed with each model touching the circle inside it. Each circle should include as many models as will fit."

Rules as written, there is nothing wrong with the oOo.

Rules as intended (whatever that means), I have never seen anybody ever position the Deep Striking models in any but the most favorable formation to themselves, and I have never seen anybody complain about it. Ever. I guess people could assume that the intent is to create as clumped up a cluster as possible, but that seems to me to be a great flight of fancy requiring a giant leap in our Game Dev Telepathy abilities.