Switch Theme:

Green Tide  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

If the battlefield is 44x60", can i divide it into four even quarters which are 11x60", or in four even quarters which are 44x15", and deploy a unit which has at least 11 models in each quarter (if the quarter is in my deployment zone), allowing me to score 5 points at the end of the first battle round ?

BATTLEFIELD SUPREMACY
GREEN TIDE
Progressive Objective
Orks are known to swarm the battlefield in great waves. To their foes, it can seem as though their hordes stretch over the horizon.

At the start of the battle, divide the battlefield into four even quarters. Score 3 victory points at the end of the battle round if two or more battlefield quarters each have an ORKS unit from your army that contains 11 or more models wholly within them. Score 5 victory points at the end of the battle round instead if all four battlefield quarters each have an ORKS unit from your army that contains 11 or more models wholly within them.


   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





I remember people dicussing this when it first came out. The way it is worded, there is nothing to stop you making rows or columns as long as they are equal.

8930 points 6800 points 75 points 600 points
2810 points 4090 points 2650 points 3275 points
55 points 640 points 1840 points 435 points
2990 points 700 points 2235 points 1935 points
3460 points 1595 points 2480 points 2895 points
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

By RAW, it appears yes.

Talk to your TO/opponent, though-they have a good chance of feeling differently.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Everyone is aware of what "quarters" refers to, as that term has been used for years. Yes, you can do it in columns, but as a TO I'd rule against you in a single heartbeat and put you on "that guy" watchlist for the duration.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

I'm with nosferatu1001. It's badly defined, but not so unclear as to not be clear enough to make you look like you are trying to carve out an unfair advantage if you don't go with divided by the middle of the board edges quarters.
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

What any TO would decide is irrelevant. This is about RAW. Many factions with 9th edition codeces have secondaries tailored for them, which are very easy to do. Why not orks as well ?
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Good grief do we need to define what a quarter of a battlefield is now? Get a grip… you know the answer, and any “but RAW” posturing is just starting a thread to have a fight.

There are decades of precedent of what people accept a quarter of the battlefield to be. Follow that and don’t be a prat.

Try and exploit this in real life and tell me how it goes…

And before any “but this forum is about RAW” NOPE it is about playing the game. You know how this should be played so don’t be (gonna say it) That Guy.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator






It's a fair question, even if the intent behind the question is slightly ridiculous.

I've seen editions where "quarters" meant drawing lines that bisect each table edge and meet in the middle. I've also seen editions where "quarters" meant drawing lines that bisect each table corner. Though the latter doesn't produce equal areas unless the table is a square, so maybe that doesn't fit the definition of a "quarter".
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Good grief do we need to define what a quarter of a battlefield is now? Get a grip… you know the answer, and any “but RAW” posturing is just starting a thread to have a fight.

There are decades of precedent of what people accept a quarter of the battlefield to be. Follow that and don’t be a prat.

Try and exploit this in real life and tell me how it goes…

And before any “but this forum is about RAW” NOPE it is about playing the game. You know how this should be played so don’t be (gonna say it) That Guy.


Keep on living in the past, while the rules change. I dont care.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 p5freak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Good grief do we need to define what a quarter of a battlefield is now? Get a grip… you know the answer, and any “but RAW” posturing is just starting a thread to have a fight.

There are decades of precedent of what people accept a quarter of the battlefield to be. Follow that and don’t be a prat.

Try and exploit this in real life and tell me how it goes…

And before any “but this forum is about RAW” NOPE it is about playing the game. You know how this should be played so don’t be (gonna say it) That Guy.


Keep on living in the past, while the rules change. I dont care.


I mean, this riposte proves you only posted for a fight. I do hope they needlessly FAQ this just for the egg on your face. We don’t need another BCB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Cheex wrote:
It's a fair question, even if the intent behind the question is slightly ridiculous.

I've seen editions where "quarters" meant drawing lines that bisect each table edge and meet in the middle. I've also seen editions where "quarters" meant drawing lines that bisect each table corner. Though the latter doesn't produce equal areas unless the table is a square, so maybe that doesn't fit the definition of a "quarter".


Knowing the OP’s posting history, there is no fair intent behind it, just a weird desire to find an exploit to show off.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/20 08:06:49


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 JohnnyHell wrote:

I mean, this riposte proves you only posted for a fight. I do hope they needlessly FAQ this just for the egg on your face. We don’t need another BCB.


They wont FAQ it, because they dont care. If it hasnt been fixed until now, it wont be in the future. Or it is intended that way, we dont know.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Knowing the OP’s posting history, there is no fair intent behind it, just a weird desire to find an exploit to show off.


Its always about finding holes in the rules, because GW is infinitely stupid in their writing. Normally humans learn from mistakes, GW doesnt.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/20 08:27:05


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I think it's rather clear that quarters of a battlefield is splitting it so that the four parts that are supposed to meet in the middle, just like it's clear that d6 need to be cube-shaped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
We don’t need another BCB.


p5freak is what you get when you order a BCB from wish.com

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/20 11:21:58


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




This reminds me of the 1st edition AoS deployment rules which had one player divide the battlefield into 2 equal parts, however they liked. Technically you could split the battlefield into an even number of columns 1mm wide and assign alternating columns to each player.

Just like with BCB's posts I'm wondering what the point of these types of posts are? You presumably already knew you were technically correct, but I think it's probably much more valuable to know how a rule is likely to be played when ambiguous or badly written. What's the point of all the posturing after that's been established? IMO it makes this forum pretty useless for one of its main purposes, which is figuring out odd or unclear rules interactions.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




There is no point, P5 knows how this wil, actually be played irl, much like not allowing assault weapons to fire after advancing in 8th

It's a non point. Let the thread die
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

And just to draw a neat FAQ bow under this, GW have decided that quarters are the logical ones expected, not the weird stripe systems posited.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: