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.

So yesterday i played a game. I set up a 4x6 to be played one by two different people so we can get more games in, like my club ALWAYS DOES. I even told my opponent this. So i deployed as if we where playing on halfs because i wwent first. Then my opponent deployed on fthe full 4x6. This ended up costing me the game. MY opponent even said that my deployment is what cost me. And everytime he said that i replayed, "Well i deployed thinking we where playing half's". I even told him i thought we where playing halfs while he was deplying.
So should i be upset about this or not?

hotsauceman1 wrote:So yesterday i played a game. I set up a 4x6 to be played one by two different people so we can get more games in, like my club ALWAYS DOES. I even told my opponent this. So i deployed as if we where playing on halfs because i wwent first. Then my opponent deployed on fthe full 4x6. This ended up costing me the game. MY opponent even said that my deployment is what cost me. And everytime he said that i replayed, "Well i deployed thinking we where playing half's". I even told him i thought we where playing halfs while he was deplying.
So should i be upset about this or not?

Halves or Quarters? It sounds like you mean quarters.

Well half by widthwise. So two games can go on the same board.

He set up a 4x6 to be used as two 4x3 tables.

He deployed on the left 4x3 table. His opponent deployed on the 4x6 table (or both 2x3 tables)

Just make sure in the future that you know what both sides are doing. You should've said something when he deployed improperly.

Umm. Shouldn't you have said something when he deployed and not when you lost?

I'm guessing he means on a 4x6 they only use 4x3, which seems crazy.

Sounds like you guys didn't communicate very well. Also, the time to point out you're playing halfs was as you were deploying and then correcting him when he tried to use his whole half, not AFTER the game is over.

Just let it go and do a better job of communicating next time.

I did when he deployed. I said ok to it because no one else was coming.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I did when he deployed. I said ok to it because no one else was coming.

If you said okay, what's the problem. If you didn't like it, you should have said that it wasn't okay. Would you have complained about it if you tabled him?

hotsauceman1 wrote:I did when he deployed. I said ok to it because no one else was coming.

You brought it up and allowed it to happen. If you are going to be upset be upset at yourself.

The way I think is It is just a game and no reason to get upset unless someone breaks my toys.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I did when he deployed. I said ok to it because no one else was coming.

That's where the breakdown happened then. I would have insisted that he used half of the table or that you could redeploy.

I suppose, I just hated hearing "Your deploment is why you lost" over and over again when i told him how i deployed.

I'm with kronk. It sucks, but you need to stick up for yourself.

Well im still reltively new there and i didnt want to be "That Guy"

If you said something and you guys agreed to play 4x6 you should have redeployed. The game changed. I have VASTLY different strategies on short boards (4x3 and 4x4's) than standard or larger boards. It's ok to be that guy if sometimes, not to be a dick, but to be fair, or to learn.

And why didn't you say something when he deployed like that?


On top of that, it seems like you should have actually been in a better position. Half of his army vs your entire army.

Its actually a tactic called refused flank. Where you deploy most of your forces on one side so you can hit him when he's strung out.

What Grey Templar said, there's 2 ways it could of gone down, he deploys more or less 50/50 on both sides and you take on his 50 with your 100, then you take on the rest of his 50 with probably 75

Or he only deploys 1 or 2 units outside and it's not much different than if he deployed like you. You have no right to be upset, you could of said " Oh sorry, it was my understanding we'd only be using this much space, can I just move a few of my units around?"

hotsauceman1 wrote:Well im still reltively new there and i didnt want to be "That Guy"

You're being a doormat.

Don't just assume that the other person knows what you're thinking or agrees with you. Make it clear.
Don't know if you guys have agreed to the same thing? Ask.

“Maybes are for babies!”

pretre wrote:Umm. Shouldn't you have said something when he deployed and not when you lost?

This.

If you didn't make things clear at the beginning, how was he supposed to know?

If he WAS supposed to know, you still should have addressed it before the game. Communication's what it's about, yo.

To be fair, he did explain it before deployment. And then his opponent proceeded to use the entire length of the board anyway, without explaining why. The OP then told him again why he deployed the way he did, but apparently the opponent just ignored him.

That's pretty poor sportsmanship by the opponent. Yeah, the OP could have suggested that he be allowed to redeploy ("I didn't realise we weren't going to be sharing a table with anyone else. Do you mind if I redeploy?"), but the opponent actually broke the rules by ignoring the established gaming surface (p88).

To be honest, the only reason I can see this happening is because of an error in communication. You say you made it clear that you were only using half the board, but I think he must have misunderstood, at which point it would have been best to reiterate the situation while he was deploying.

How small of a game were you having to be theoretically playing in a 4x3 area?

And you should have made an issue of it when he deployed, or upon realizing that no one else was there you should have asked to redeploy based on the new scenario.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Well im still reltively new there and i didnt want to be "That Guy"

"That guy" who wants to see a fair game played? Definitely be "that guy".

Sounds like gears changed in the middle and instead of redeploying yourself first you let him do whatever. In that instance it is silly to get upset since you set yourself up in that position by not requesting to redeploy or making your opponent follow the same deployment rules/process you used already.

Next time don't let it happen and you have no reason to be upset.

Skriker

It sounds like your "That Guy" anyways...the "Too Nice Guy"... so if you aren't careful you'll get walked all over. You can be nice but don't be too nice. Even when I was new I made sure that I stood my ground I didn't mind getting beat but I made sure it was on an even playing field. Take this situation and learn from it and don't let it happen again, but don't be upset by it and surely don't let it ruin your experience.

just seems like a little misunderstanding, when he started to deploy on the whole of his side you should have said "oh were useing the whole table.. ok let me redeploy before you do then, so i can use the whole table too"