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.

Alerian wrote: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.

Yeah, you are right there. The mind got a little muddled. It is 2am after all :(

But anyway, all I say is what the rules say. if you can show me a rule that says Player 2 Deploys the exact same way as player one, let me know. Until then I will be of the opinion that "opposite Half" means just that, the opposite half.

Gwar! wrote:

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.

after reading the rules for mission deployment I was under the impression that in Pitched Battle both players deploy up to 12" from their long table edge, hence both DZs are equal in area... In DoW each player can deploy up to 24" from their deployment zone and Player 2 must not deploy within 18" of Player 1's units. They both have an equal area to deploy in caveat the restriction on Player 2. You cannot make a case that either player can deploy units outside of their DZs. Scouts and infiltrators gave their own special rules for deploying.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:after reading the rules for mission deployment I was under the impression that in Pitched Battle both players deploy up to 12" from their long table edge, hence both DZs are equal in area... In DoW each player can deploy up to 24" from their deployment zone and Player 2 must not deploy within 18" of Player 1's units. They both have an equal area to deploy in caveat the restriction on Player 2. You cannot make a case that either player can deploy units outside of their DZs. Scouts and infiltrators gave their own special rules for deploying.

Well, you are mistaken. In Pitched Battle, "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" away from the table's middle line". Then "His opponent then deploys in the opposite half."

Opposite half. No mention of 12" from the centre.

In Dawn of War, the player going first can place his models right on the centre line, meaning he has a 24" deployment zone, while player 2 has a 6" Deployment zone, especialy if player one spreads his troops to cover the length of the board.

It depends on whether or not "deploy", by definition, requires player 2 to observe the instructions for the mission's deployment given to player 1.

Gwar! wrote:

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.

The point is that your premise that going second is balanced by the larger deployment zone is flawed as I can hold reserves in any other mission and deny him shooting just as Dawn of war does....

I fail to see how being forced to deploy second, in a smaller deployment zone, giving 1/2 the board to the other player before the games starts, and being within 1st turn assault range of Orks, Tyranids, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar and anything else that can get jump infantry/open-top-vehicles as a troop choice, AND giving the other player a chance to claim objectives and then hold you off, is some how balanced by a modified Reserves rule..........

Gwar! wrote:

Alerian wrote: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.

Yeah, you are right there. The mind got a little muddled. It is 2am after all :(

But anyway, all I say is what the rules say. if you can show me a rule that says Player 2 Deploys the exact same way as player one, let me know. Until then I will be of the opinion that "opposite Half" means just that, the opposite half.

My point is that diagrams are just as much rules as the written word, throught the entire rulebook. They are visual representations of the rules. They are there to clarify some of GW's poor writing as welll as help with some player's poor reading comprehension (that is just a general statement, and is not directed any anyone ).

When in doubt of what a rule is saying, look to the diagrams for clarification. It works that way in the entire BRB.

Here, the diagrams do not match your interpretation.

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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.

The point is that your premise that going second is balanced by the larger deployment zone is flawed as I can hold reserves in any other mission and deny him shooting just as Dawn of war does....

I fail to see how being forced to deploy second, in a smaller deployment zone, giving 1/2 the board to the other player before the games starts, and being within 1st turn assault range of Orks, Tyranids, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar and anything else that can get jump infantry/open-top-vehicles as a troop choice, AND giving the other player a chance to claim objectives and then hold you off, is some how balanced by a modified Reserves rule..........

Well it is a good thing you do not need to see. These are the rules GW have written and these are the rules 99% of people will follow. If you are worried about First Turn Charges, don't be an idiot and deploy so they cannot get you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alerian wrote:Here, the diagrams do not match your interpretation.

Yes, they do. Nowhere does it state the diagrams are valid for both players. The rules themselves suggest they are valid only for the person deploying first. I implore you to take another look at the directions that the player deploying second must follow. They are, in order:

Pitched Battle wrote:His opponent then deploys in the opposite half.

Spearhead wrote:His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter.

Dawn of War wrote:His opponent then does the same in the opposite half, but must position his three units more than 18" from enemy units.

Only in Dawn of War does it prescribe any sort of secondary limit. The other two have no such limit. Thus, the player deploying second does not have a limit on his Deployment Zone other than the Quarter/Half he is in.

Just to add a disclaimer: I don't give a flying banana how you play it. I am just replying to viewpoints posted in this thread with a literal RaW interpretation. If this offends you, then a Rules Forum might not be the best place for you

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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.

The point is that your premise that going second is balanced by the larger deployment zone is flawed as I can hold reserves in any other mission and deny him shooting just as Dawn of war does....

I fail to see how being forced to deploy second, in a smaller deployment zone, giving 1/2 the board to the other player before the games starts, and being within 1st turn assault range of Orks, Tyranids, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar and anything else that can get jump infantry/open-top-vehicles as a troop choice, AND giving the other player a chance to claim objectives and then hold you off, is some how balanced by a modified Reserves rule..........

Well it is a good thing you do not need to see. These are the poorly explained rules GW have unknowingly written and these are the rules I follow. If you are worried about First Turn Charges, don't be an idiot and deploy so they cannot get you.

Fixed that for you..........

Your failing to tell me how all the advantages of going first on Dawn of War is balanced for the second player by having a 6' deployment zone.

The person going second in Dawn of War is the one who can be limited to a 6" deployment zone... and this is pretty much always the way the mission is played.

I think the issue here is how Pitched and Spearhead battles are resolved.

DJ Illuminati wrote:Your failing to tell me how all the advantages of going first on Dawn of War is balanced by having a 6' deployment zone.

And you are failing to come up with any sort of rules quotes to back up your argument. Also, I would LOVE a 6 foot Deployment zone. Could I get some Pictures of your tables? they must be impressive.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think the issue here is how Pitched and Spearhead battles are resolved.

Correct. However, I brought up Dawn of War as an example because there were claims of "but people MUST have the same Deployment zone or else it isn't fair!".

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Your failing to tell me how all the advantages of going first on Dawn of War is balanced by having a 6' deployment zone.

And you are failing to come up with any sort of rules quotes to back up your argument.

My argument is that in one breath you said that the second player gets a Larger deployment zone in Pitched Battle and Spearhead to balance the fact that the other player goes first.......

yet in the second breath you say that it is fair for the second player to have all the disadvantages in Dawn of War.

Dawn of War seems to be the weak link in your argument as it doesnt support your first statement in any way.

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Your failing to tell me how all the advantages of going first on Dawn of War is balanced by having a 6' deployment zone.

And you are failing to come up with any sort of rules quotes to back up your argument.

My argument is that in one breath you said that the second player gets a Larger deployment zone in Pitched Battle and Spearhead to balance the fact that the other player goes first.......

yet in the second breath you say that it is fair for the second player to have all the disadvantages in Dawn of War.

Dawn of War seems to be the weak link in your argument as it doesnt support your first statement in any way.

And your rules quotes are....

Please argue the facts, not the characters of the people.

Thirdly, Dawn of War has Modified Deployment and Reserve Rules that makes the smaller Deployment zone advantageous.

I didn't notice that pitched battle was similar. `I thought both players had be 12" off the line. That's a huge advantage for whoever goes second.

I don't even know what to think.

Polonius wrote:I didn't notice that pitched battle was similar. `I thought both players had be 12" off the line. That's a huge advantage for whoever goes second.

I don't even know what to think.

"There is no Spoon" is a good Start. Then bewbies.

Gwar! wrote:
Thirdly, Dawn of War has Modified Deployment and Reserve Rules that makes the smaller Deployment zone advantageous.

I want to see a rules quote that proves that.........

or is it just opinion......

I am more concerned about your method for understanding RAW as opposed to the RAW itself. You ask me for rule quotes to back up what I say yet you can make any statement based on those very rules and demand more effort on my part to prove you wrong. My point is no longer what the RAW is in the book as we all can read it for ourselves, and you will ignore anything I post that supports my view (diagram)

My point is now how you justify these rules to yourself, we cannot begin to agree with you until we see the path of logic that you used to make these statements. If the method is flawed than we can only assume that the results may be flawed as well.

If you notice, MANY of the people here do not play it your way and yet you are insistent on your ruling, maby your logic is not inline with the BRB. Saying that larger deployments balance going second somehow justify your ruling on Spearhead, yet this ruling doesnt hold up in Dawn of War, as there are many disadvantages to going second, so why doesnt the second player get a larger deployment zone in that mission. It is not consistent.....and if it is not consistent, doesnt that show that there is a mistake somewhere?

DJ Illuminati wrote:If you notice, MANY of the people here do not play it your way and yet you are insistent on your ruling, maby your logic is not inline with the BRB.

Firstly, many people also DO play it my way. Secondly, why is my logic faulty just because some people disagree with me?

Thirdly, stop trying to make fallacious arguments. Claiming that "it isn't consistent" is not an argument.

Fourthly, I take the time to spell-check my posts, I ask that you return the courtesy.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:If you notice, MANY of the people here do not play it your way and yet you are insistent on your ruling, maby your logic is not inline with the BRB.

Firstly, many people also DO play it my way. Secondly, why is my logic faulty just because some people disagree with me?

Once again you are stating an unproven opinion, many of the posts in here show that they do not.

Second, I am not saying your logic is flawed because some of us dont agree with you, I am saying it is flawed because your rationality for claiming it works a certain way is not proven/consistent with the other deployments.......all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.........

One weird result of this is that in pitched battle, a unit can deploy closer normally than it could through infiltrate.

Dawn of war has rules about keeping and 18" buffer, but also mitigates that with it's own reserves system.

the other two missions simply give an advantage to the second player, straight up.

I have yet to see it played that way for either of those missions though.

DJ Illuminati wrote:Once again you are stating an unproven opinion, many of the posts in here show that they do not.

And many show that they do. Obviously some do, some don't.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Once again you are stating an unproven opinion, many of the posts in here show that they do not.

And many show that they do. Obviously some do, some don't.

Your still dodging the question I put to you........

DJ Illuminati wrote:Your still dodging the question I put to you........

I have yet to see you ask or answer a rules question in this thread or others.

And you sir have been dodging my rules question. What rules do you have to support your position? I have already outlined the rules that support mine, so it would be polite if you could do the same.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Your still dodging the question I put to you........

I have yet to see you ask or answer a rules question in this thread or others.

If I quote an FAQ you would say it is not allowed in the debate, if I quoted an example in an older rule book you would not allow it

Is is known as questioning my methods for my logic.

I am allowed to question yours in kind, I see the page but do not understand how you can claim the rule is your way because it gets balanced by the size of the deployment zone.

But since you cant see the "forest for all the trees" I will spell the question out for you.

How can you justify your ruling if your ruling isn't consistent? If it isnt consistent, then how do you expect us to follow your same viewpoint if it is based on speculation instead of fact?

Obviously the example I gave earlier of using a d20 while the other player uses a d6 was based on a flawed method to get to that point. The rules didnt contradict me and say I couldn't, but even an Admin on here pointed out how rediculous it was. So obviously the method of making a ruling is just as important to a good ruling as is the written word.

I see the words on the page, yet even though there is a diagram that conflicts with your ruling you stick with it. I want to know what it is that makes you ignore one part of the page and yet claim that the resulting ruling is fair in each deployment as it either gives a HUGE advantage to the second player or a HUGE disadvantage, when the rules as shown in the diagram would be seen as more fair to both parties in every deployment.

Deployment consistency doesn't matter, besides all of the deployments are different and have their own rules anyway thus they can't be compared to each other in the first place. The diagrams are also not referenced by the rules in this case; most other diagrams elsewhere in the book are, and are not necessary to play the game. I will echo Gwar! in asking that you show your proof for the diagrams having any weight in the rules debate what so ever. An example of rules backed diagrams would be the diagram on pg. 79, it has text stating which rule it supports. The Spearhead picture has no such text and is thus not a rule and can be disregarded on these forums.

*Primps for the shot for Gwar!'s signature* Also, I 100% agree with Gwar!

Norade wrote:Deployment consistency doesn't matter, besides all of the deployments are different and have their own rules anyway thus they can't be compared to each other in the first place. The diagrams are also not referenced by the rules in this case; most other diagrams elsewhere in the book are, and are not necessary to play the game. I will echo Gwar! in asking that you show your proof for the diagrams having any weight in the rules debate what so ever. An example of rules backed diagrams would be the diagram on pg. 79, it has text stating which rule it supports. The Spearhead picture has no such text and is thus not a rule and can be disregarded on these forums.

*Primps for the shot for Gwar!'s signature* Also, I 100% agree with Gwar!

How about the fact that it is in the RB.......or should we just start ignoring anything that we dont like, even if its in the RB.

For pitched battle both players have equally sized DZs. It is the same for DoW except that Player 2 must not deploy with 18" of an enemy units. Gwar you have not spelled out why you feel differently on this and I am curious as to why.

G

DJ Illuminati wrote:
If I quote an FAQ you would say it is not allowed in the debate, if I quoted an example in an older rule book you would not allow it

Is is known as questioning my methods for my logic.

I am allowed to question yours in kind, I see the page but do not understand how you can claim the rule is your way because it gets balanced by the size of the deployment zone.

But since you cant see the "forest for all the trees" I will spell the question out for you.

How can you justify your ruling if your ruling isn't consistent? If it isnt consistent, then how do you expect us to follow your same viewpoint if it is based on speculation instead of fact?

Obviously the example I gave earlier of using a d20 while the other player uses a d6 was based on a flawed method to get to that point. The rules didnt contradict me and say I couldn't, but even an Admin on here pointed out how rediculous it was. So obviously the method of making a ruling is just as important to a good ruling as is the written word.

I see the words on the page, yet even though there is a diagram that conflicts with your ruling you stick with it. I want to know what it is that makes you ignore one part of the page and yet claim that the resulting ruling is fair in each deployment as it either gives a HUGE advantage to the second player or a HUGE disadvantage, when the rules as shown in the diagram would be seen as more fair to both parties in every deployment.

FAQ's are not the rules the games is played by, and thus are useless here. Older rule books are not the topic of debate here and thus are not important.

The rules aren't consistent because they cover different things. As for rolling, I would not care if people tried the dice rolling loophole and claimed it as legal. I would however roll my d100 in subsequent games against such a player. As for the admin, he basically called you hard headed and said the some people will never see the truth.

Once again the diagram isn't rules.

DJ - unfortunately the diagram can support Gwar just fine, as it shows a 12" zone regardless of which zone the player initially chooses.

There is consistency in that 1 is rules the other is a potential explanation for those rules. You have yet to give any rules that actually state that player two has the deployment zone you claim they do. You have a diagram which can be firmly interpreted in a number of ways, yet you claim that your version is the only one, and with nothing in writing to support that.

Norade wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:
If I quote an FAQ you would say it is not allowed in the debate, if I quoted an example in an older rule book you would not allow it

Is is known as questioning my methods for my logic.

I am allowed to question yours in kind, I see the page but do not understand how you can claim the rule is your way because it gets balanced by the size of the deployment zone.

But since you cant see the "forest for all the trees" I will spell the question out for you.

How can you justify your ruling if your ruling isn't consistent? If it isnt consistent, then how do you expect us to follow your same viewpoint if it is based on speculation instead of fact?

Obviously the example I gave earlier of using a d20 while the other player uses a d6 was based on a flawed method to get to that point. The rules didnt contradict me and say I couldn't, but even an Admin on here pointed out how rediculous it was. So obviously the method of making a ruling is just as important to a good ruling as is the written word.

I see the words on the page, yet even though there is a diagram that conflicts with your ruling you stick with it. I want to know what it is that makes you ignore one part of the page and yet claim that the resulting ruling is fair in each deployment as it either gives a HUGE advantage to the second player or a HUGE disadvantage, when the rules as shown in the diagram would be seen as more fair to both parties in every deployment.

FAQ's are not the rules the games is played by, and thus are useless here. Older rule books are not the topic of debate here and thus are not important.

The rules aren't consistent because they cover different things. As for rolling, I would not care if people tried the dice rolling loophole and claimed it as legal. I would however roll my d100 in subsequent games against such a player. As for the admin, he basically called you hard headed and said the some people will never see the truth.

Once again the diagram isn't rules.

I am not going to have the same debate with you or anyone else on the bandwagon that I just had with Gwar...... if you can, go back to page 1 and read up to this point and maby you will see what I am trying to say.......




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:DJ - unfortunately the diagram can support Gwar just fine, as it shows a 12" zone regardless of which zone the player initially chooses.

There is consistency in that 1 is rules the other is a potential explanation for those rules. You have yet to give any rules that actually state that player two has the deployment zone you claim they do. You have a diagram which can be firmly interpreted in a number of ways, yet you claim that your version is the only one, and with nothing in writing to support that.

That is a two way street....... and I have already stated that I dont care what the final verdict on this thread is, I will continue playing it just like the 40+ other people at my LFGS, and at the other stores that host tournaments....... anything I read on here isnt going to change what the 300+ people and stores around me will play.

What I am getting at is that I dont think it is fair to make a ruling on a debate while ignoring other parts of that same debate that appear in the RB right next to the rule in question.

If you all threw darts at a dartboard to make a ruling, I would question why that method was used, I have yet to see a reason that Gwar's ruling is correct and that I too should ignore the diagrams even though we have shown that the deployments as he as ruled would be increadably unbalanced to a player no matter what deployment was used.

Excuse me if I want a fair game as opposed to a questionable reading that can be abused by people too lazy to question why it was ruled in contrast to fairness, material in the rule book, and in contrast to itself.

Hmmm.

Does each player get a deployment zone or just the one who deploys first?

The rules on page 93 have been quoted several times in this thread. But I don't think they've gone far enough.

"Once deployment is finished, the player that chose his deployment zone first starts game Turn 1 with his first player turn."

To me this implies that the player who deployed second also chose a deployment zone. Otherwise it would just say "the player who deployed first..." or "the player that chose his deployment zone..."

The deployment zone is defined in the earlier paragraph:

"He then deploys his forces in one of the two table quarters on his side of the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table (this is his deployment zone)."

In the absence of rules that clearly define the second player's deployment zone to have different dimensions than that of the first player, I have to conclude that his deployment zone mirrors that of the first player and has the 12" restriction as well.