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.

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.