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.

I'm getting fairly tired of seeing plain-jane pitched battle scenarios in the events I attend, and I'm wondering if minimizing the impact of deployment variants like Dawn of War is really such a good thing.

What is your favorite deployment type? What is the most balanced deployment type? Any experiences with alternate deployment rules from GT missions is also welcome.

I find that pitched battle is the most balanced, while Spearhead is my favorite.

I like all three major variants. Dawn of War is a particularly nice twist.

I also rather like the triangular ones based on a corner; the old Cleanse II deployment. It's a little trickier to measure, but if you've got a diagram it's still pretty quick & easy.

I'm a fan of most deployment types. I do find that lack of alternates (just played a 4 game RTT with mostly pitched battle) makes certain infantry heavies a lot more powerful (HWT, Long Fangs, Broadsides, etc) because they can ignore the negatives of DoW.

Every tournament I've attended has used a balanced mix of all three, and I find that works pretty well. I enjoy all of them, although Spearhead is a bit of a challenge at times since people often set up boards without considering how well they work diagonally as well as horizontally.

Running only one deployment type has become a major problem for most tournaments. Let's face it, not only is it boring, it doesn't challenge us as players to overcome whatever obstacles Spearhead or DoW may present to our particular army. I know people claim pitched battle is the most fair but I would disagree. It's fair for certain armies but actually limits (or significantly enhances) the potential of others. If one element of the tournament scene is to allow the better players to shine (yes, I understand there are other important factors as well in any tournament including fun and fairness) then creating a bland repetitive deployment method hinders that. But honestly, I'm also frustrated that so many tournaments can't think outside the box and only offer us the three missions from the core rulebook as well.

If you are frustrated with the current situation try talking to your local tournament organizers. I know a lot of us actually appreciate constructive (not argumentative or nasty) feedback and do try to take it into consideration, especially when your argument is well thought out and you help by providing example alternatives.

I'm a fan of random deployment in tournaments - I haven't seen any kind of trend towards a single type of deployment in tournaments, and I get around. I *have* met players who don't want to play DoW in friendly games though.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I hit up all 3 deployment types in a 3 game tournament. In 5 games it's normally 2 pitched battle, 2 spearhead, and one DoW which is a fine split.

I get a bit disappointed by consistently getting only one DoW in a five game event. It's the most important deployment type in terms of shaking up list design, so a better "default mix" would be 1 Pitched, 2 each of Spearhead & DoW, or 1 Spearhead, 2 each Pitched & DoW.

Mannahnin wrote:I like all three major variants. Dawn of War is a particularly nice twist.

I also rather like the triangular ones based on a corner; the old Cleanse II deployment. It's a little trickier to measure, but if you've got a diagram it's still pretty quick & easy.

This is what I used as the fourth deployment at the Ironman tournament two weeks ago. It seemed to go over well with standard mission objectives.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm a fan of random deployment in tournaments - I haven't seen any kind of trend towards a single type of deployment in tournaments, and I get around. I *have* met players who don't want to play DoW in friendly games though.

When your army is mostly Elites and Heavy Support, DoW SUCKS!

Happygrunt wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm a fan of random deployment in tournaments - I haven't seen any kind of trend towards a single type of deployment in tournaments, and I get around. I *have* met players who don't want to play DoW in friendly games though.

When your army is mostly Elites and Heavy Support, DoW SUCKS!

You mean when your army is mostly assaulty elites and non move-and-fire HS, DoW sucks.

That's the point. It forces you to balanced your army design between what works in Pitched Battle vs. what works in DoW.

Mannahnin wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm a fan of random deployment in tournaments - I haven't seen any kind of trend towards a single type of deployment in tournaments, and I get around. I *have* met players who don't want to play DoW in friendly games though.

When your army is mostly Elites and Heavy Support, DoW SUCKS!

You mean when your army is mostly assaulty elites and non move-and-fire HS, DoW sucks.

That's the point. It forces you to balanced your army design between what works in Pitched Battle vs. what works in DoW.

DoW is just a bad deployment type anyway you look at it. If I want to run a siege army, I shouldnt have to be at a disadvantage to the guy who brought lots of fast stuff and fast troops just because we deployed in a funny way.

It's a subjective opinion, but I'm still going to tell you that you're wrong.

DoW represents that an army doesn't always have the luxury of attempting the mission it prefers.

You have the choice to make an army which does really well in one type of mission or deployment, but a better army is one which can perform well in all of them.

Players who write off DoW as "a bad deployment type" are handicapping themselves and inhibiting the growth of their own play and army design skills.

Mannahnin wrote:It's a subjective opinion, but I'm still going to tell you that you're wrong.

DoW represents that an army doesn't always have the luxury of attempting the mission it prefers.

You have the choice to make an army which does really well in one type of mission or deployment, but a better army is one which can perform well in all of them.

Players who write off DoW as "a bad deployment type" are handicapping themselves and inhibiting the growth of their own play and army design skills.

I am going to assume that was an insult towards my tactical skills. It was a gentleman's insult, so I shall give a gentleman's response. Your mother dresses in stupid clothes and you smell funny!
(Mods, please dont kill me )

And every turn my vindicator's are not moving or shooting is a turn wasted.

I really hate DoW. It seems like it's all I ever play.

Happygrunt wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You have the choice to make an army which does really well in one type of mission or deployment, but a better army is one which can perform well in all of them.

Players who write off DoW as "a bad deployment type" are handicapping themselves and inhibiting the growth of their own play and army design skills.

I am going to assume that was an insult towards my tactical skills. It was a gentleman's insult, so I shall give a gentleman's response. Your mother dresses in stupid clothes and you smell funny!
(Mods, please dont kill me )

It's all in good fun. I love facing people with your attitude in DoW in tournaments, though.

Actually, that's not really true. I don't mind my wins being easier, but I don't like them to actually be EASY, and it often makes the game less fun when my opponent is sad because he brought a bad army for the mission.

Happygrunt wrote:And every turn my vindicator's are not moving or shooting is a turn wasted.

Well, given that in DoW there are no such turns, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

I find that, as a Tau player, Dawn of War deployment really handicaps my army against armies with troops who can out-assault me, or are simply effective. Tau troops just kind of stink, and there's not much to be done about that, so when you see two mobs of 30 Ork Boyz and a Warboss at the 24", it feels really darn unfair.

I guess I just feel that it's too easy to be corralled with this deployment. Six feet is too small, at least for the Tau.

Don't Tau have that issue regardless of deployment zone?

DoW sucks but it is necessary.

Spearhead is my favorite as it offers the most options.

Pitched battle is good fun.

Like Mannahnin, I also really like the diagonal deployment.

Beyond those, they just get wacky and lame, IMO. I like the basics the basics the most as they offer the greatest amount of flexibility.

Guardsman 101 wrote:Don't Tau have that issue regardless of deployment zone?

Depends on how good you are at meat shields and re-deployment.

With a good roll for first turn, a line of kroot can keep those same orks 6" from their own board edge. With a bad roll, you hope you bought stabilization for your broadsides and pull the orks in two directions.

Mannahnin wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You have the choice to make an army which does really well in one type of mission or deployment, but a better army is one which can perform well in all of them.

Players who write off DoW as "a bad deployment type" are handicapping themselves and inhibiting the growth of their own play and army design skills.

I am going to assume that was an insult towards my tactical skills. It was a gentleman's insult, so I shall give a gentleman's response. Your mother dresses in stupid clothes and you smell funny!
(Mods, please dont kill me )

It's all in good fun. I love facing people with your attitude in DoW in tournaments, though.

Actually, that's not really true. I don't mind my wins being easier, but I don't like them to actually be EASY, and it often makes the game less fun when my opponent is sad because he brought a bad army for the mission.

Happygrunt wrote:And every turn my vindicator's are not moving or shooting is a turn wasted.

Well, given that in DoW there are no such turns, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

First turn. My vindicators need to go flat out 18", so they cant shoot. Turn wasted.

Lorek wrote:I find that, as a Tau player, Dawn of War deployment really handicaps my army against armies with troops who can out-assault me, or are simply effective. Tau troops just kind of stink, and there's not much to be done about that, so when you see two mobs of 30 Ork Boyz and a Warboss at the 24", it feels really darn unfair.

I guess I just feel that it's too easy to be corralled with this deployment. Six feet is too small, at least for the Tau.

I understand your pain. I've been playing exclusively with a Kan wall Ork army for a while now and I most certainly don't look forward to DOW missions, but I do absolutely understand the importance of them towards balancing the strengths of armies...if there was no DOW, for example, my Kan Wall would tend to do much, much better overall in tournaments!

But the one issue I really do have with DOW is pretty much what you are saying (although not explicitly). One of the fundamental points of 5th edition is that the person who sets up first gets to (generally) go first.

This means you gain the ability to strike first at the cost of giving away the position of where your units will start on the table. The problem with DOW is, that the position of the 3 units that you start on the table is generally immaterial. What is MUCH more important in DOW is using the ability to set up first to screw up your opponent's deployment.

So in the case of Tau, your opponent wins the roll to go first, then uses his deployment to shove your 2 units back against the board edge. He then gets the first turn getting to bring on his army as quickly as possible to rush your lines (as well as the 3 units already halfway on the table). When you get your first turn now your units are smooshed near your board edge and since you have to bring on your reserve units first you now are having a hard time even getting things on where you want them...not to mention worrying about the 3 enemy units that started on the table and are now dangerously close to your lines.

A lot of this problem falls squarely on the shoulders of the sucky Tau rules, but I almost think it would be more fair in DOW deployment if the person who chose to go first sets his 3 units up SECOND...I think that would actually make DOW a whole heck of a lot more balanced towards a wider variety of matchups. That way if someone uses their units to do a 'push back' their opponent is going to get to go first and roll on everything to fire at those 'push back' units before they get a chance to move.

It would really give players a tough choice of whether they want to go first or second in some cases (besides the normal considerations for capturing objectives, etc).

yakface wrote:A lot of this problem falls squarely on the shoulders of the sucky Tau rules, but I almost think it would be more fair in DOW deployment if the person who chose to go first sets his 3 units up SECOND...I think that would actually make DOW a whole heck of a lot more balanced towards a wider variety of matchups. That way if someone uses their units to do a 'push back' their opponent is going to get to go first and roll on everything to fire at those 'push back' units before they get a chance to move.

It would really give players a tough choice of whether they want to go first or second in some cases (besides the normal considerations for capturing objectives, etc).

I don't agree. For assault armies, setting up on the middle line w/2 troops & an HQ means you're choosing to split your forces, in the hope that your front wave is successful enough to give the rest of your army time to catch up. Otherwise, you're feeding your army to your opponent piecemeal, and he can always choose not to deploy at all, bringing his entire army to bear on a fraction of yours on turn 1.

Yeah, DoW is like playing the game in reverse. If you are mobile it is often better to go second as you can react to your opponent. If you are static, you need to run into position as fast as possible.

I like it though, as it allows a lot of tactical play with push back units, etc. It is necessary for balancing the game though, absolutely.

Happygrunt wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:And every turn my vindicator's are not moving or shooting is a turn wasted.

Well, given that in DoW there are no such turns, I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

First turn. My vindicators need to go flat out 18", so they cant shoot. Turn wasted.

You said (first quote, above) "moving or shooting". Since they can move on turn 1, according to you, the turn's not wasted.

Not to mention that if you go second it's entirely possible that your opponent will have one or more units forward ~the 24" line, which your Vindi can even shoot on turn 1! Actually, that's not a bad piece of DoW list selection, even if you did it by accident. It gives your opponent an incentive to NOT push you back all the way, since your Vindicator/s can punish him if he does.