Advance Deployment
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
Advance Deployment
Before I ask my question let me define a couple of things:
Adance Deployment: Place this model after normal deployment, up to 6" beyond the established deployment zone. (Hordes, pg. 33)
Deployment, generally: The first player chooses any edge of the battlefield and deploys all his forces completely within 10" of that edge. (Hordes, pg. 40)
So, I have always bee playing that I have to place my Advance Deployment models completely within 16" of my table edge (or completely within 13" if going first in an SR scenario). But while rereading the rules today, I'm not so sure. Perhaps I'm thinking too much about this, but, the rules for Advance Deployment don't say that the model must be placed completely within. It just says placed up to 6" beyond the established deployment zone. Reading the rules regarding measuring distances (Hordes, pg. 30), it seems to me that you could legally place an Advance Deployment model with just the back part of its base within the Advance Deployment zone. Is this legal?
Yes, the PP forums are down again.
Adance Deployment: Place this model after normal deployment, up to 6" beyond the established deployment zone. (Hordes, pg. 33)
Deployment, generally: The first player chooses any edge of the battlefield and deploys all his forces completely within 10" of that edge. (Hordes, pg. 40)
So, I have always bee playing that I have to place my Advance Deployment models completely within 16" of my table edge (or completely within 13" if going first in an SR scenario). But while rereading the rules today, I'm not so sure. Perhaps I'm thinking too much about this, but, the rules for Advance Deployment don't say that the model must be placed completely within. It just says placed up to 6" beyond the established deployment zone. Reading the rules regarding measuring distances (Hordes, pg. 30), it seems to me that you could legally place an Advance Deployment model with just the back part of its base within the Advance Deployment zone. Is this legal?
Yes, the PP forums are down again.
Devstro- Posts : 91
Join date : 2012-03-12
Location : Cleveland
Re: Advance Deployment
Wow, I've never thought about that one.
It seems to me that PP is very specific about the wording of "within" and "completely" within. The WM/H rule set does, in almost every case, go with "the letter of the law" over and against "the spirit of the law." If it is in fact "within" rather than "completely within," that would lead me to the believe that you could edge the fig over the deployment line. I'll have the check the SR rules to see if it is specified.
It seems to me that PP is very specific about the wording of "within" and "completely" within. The WM/H rule set does, in almost every case, go with "the letter of the law" over and against "the spirit of the law." If it is in fact "within" rather than "completely within," that would lead me to the believe that you could edge the fig over the deployment line. I'll have the check the SR rules to see if it is specified.
Dark Aletheia- Posts : 567
Join date : 2011-11-25
Age : 44
Location : Bluffton, OH
Re: Advance Deployment
Considering the deployment deals with "completely within" and that advance deployment refers directly to the former, your models should be completely within.
I think they also use "up to" as the maximum range within which you can go.
But that is worth telling the guys writing the SR documentation to double check their sentence !
I think they also use "up to" as the maximum range within which you can go.
But that is worth telling the guys writing the SR documentation to double check their sentence !
GregB- Posts : 369
Join date : 2011-12-09
Age : 45
Location : Findlay, OH
Re: Advance Deployment
During a brief inturlude when the forums were working, I posted this there. Everyone agrees that it is "completely within" despite not using this language (which is inconsistent with the way ambush and reinforcements are worded, i.e. using the term "within"). No one has been able to point out a place where it is explicitly stated in the rules however. The best is what has been mentioned by SHWTD, it is a part of deployment, and deployment refers to completely within.
I do think it is odd that the rules for advance deployment are not anywhere near the section that specifically deals with deployment. Oh well, I'll stop being pedantinc now, and just keep this in mind if I ever decide to write some miniature game rules.
I do think it is odd that the rules for advance deployment are not anywhere near the section that specifically deals with deployment. Oh well, I'll stop being pedantinc now, and just keep this in mind if I ever decide to write some miniature game rules.
Devstro- Posts : 91
Join date : 2012-03-12
Location : Cleveland
Re: Advance Deployment
Devstro wrote:During a brief inturlude when the forums were working, I posted this there. Everyone agrees that it is "completely within" despite not using this language (which is inconsistent with the way ambush and reinforcements are worded, i.e. using the term "within"). No one has been able to point out a place where it is explicitly stated in the rules however. The best is what has been mentioned by SHWTD, it is a part of deployment, and deployment refers to completely within.
I do think it is odd that the rules for advance deployment are not anywhere near the section that specifically deals with deployment. Oh well, I'll stop being pedantinc now, and just keep this in mind if I ever decide to write some miniature game rules.
And in the meantime, I think it should be adressed n the next SR 2013 document.
EDIT : I asked the question on the PG forum. Just to confirm if possible.
GregB- Posts : 369
Join date : 2011-12-09
Age : 45
Location : Findlay, OH
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|