PDA

View Full Version : 24" Apart to start game?



captaincortez
07-08-2009, 02:34
When I deploy my, say, Empire handgunners 12" in and my opponent deploys his gobbos directly across from them 12" in, we are at least 24" apart. I believe that the handgunners cannot shoot if they get the first turn as the 2 units have to be at least 24" away. My buddy thinks that because they are 24" away, they can shoot.

What's up with this? Shoot or not? 24"?

Thanks.

Sarah S
07-08-2009, 02:36
Over 24" apart. The rules are clear.

Kalandros
07-08-2009, 03:02
MORE THAN 24" APART

Thus nothing with a range of 24" can shoot at the start without moving.

Drachen_Jager
07-08-2009, 04:12
Deploy 1/4" back from the line so there's no argument.

Troah
07-08-2009, 04:23
Woah wait...if you start and you're in firing range on turn one, you being the person who can shoot, you have to move before you can shoot?

Kalandros
07-08-2009, 04:43
Only if you have Ranged Weapons of 24" max range. Mostly gunpowder weapons.

Because you have to deploy MORE THAN 24" apart, thus you cannot be 24" apart and be exactly in range on turn 1 without moving. If your opponent gets first turn 1 and moves - thats fine since you're now in range.

Condottiere
07-08-2009, 09:05
Used to play that 24" was in range for handguns, before someone noticed it had to be greater than 24". What's interesting is when facing crossbows, and you have to decide whether you want to initially deploy within their range.

Atrahasis
07-08-2009, 09:25
Which is why I always take crossbows over handguns. I'd rather have the extra round of shooting/ability to set up a few inches back than the -1 save.

Gazak Blacktoof
07-08-2009, 10:12
Woah wait...if you start and you're in firing range on turn one, you being the person who can shoot, you have to move before you can shoot?

It's sensible if you think about it. You wouldn't want to be attempting to form an army up within range of the enemy's bows and guns. Granted it doesn't work perfectly as there are still massed fire weapons with a range greater than 24".

Lord Solar Plexus
07-08-2009, 13:13
Woah wait...if you start and you're in firing range on turn one, you being the person who can shoot, you have to move before you can shoot?

No, if you are in firing range, you obviously do not have to move.

The problem is that handgunners are out of range.

Condottiere
07-08-2009, 16:02
Maybe we should have some missile weapons with variable ranges.

Urgat
07-08-2009, 16:34
Don't handgunners add 1D6 to their first shot's range? The ogre ones do (brace of handguns), and I though they used the empire gun rules?

Gazak Blacktoof
07-08-2009, 16:44
Empire handguns no longer have that rule.

TheDarkDaff
07-08-2009, 20:56
Don't handgunners add 1D6 to their first shot's range? The ogre ones do (brace of handguns), and I though they used the empire gun rules?

They also used to be able to move and fire but had to spend a turn reloading after shooting.

trapper
08-08-2009, 03:35
Im just trying to figure this one out. You both deploy 12" in and are therefor exactly 24" apart, how is that out of range? Its not more than 24"...it IS 24". Unless Im missing something here. (chaos and bretonians...dont do much shooting myself)

Kalandros
08-08-2009, 04:53
How about actually READING the rulebook?

Page 2.

<<the important thing is that the opposing armies must be separated by a distance of more than 24" at the start of the game>>

trapper
08-08-2009, 05:01
Hmm, I have read the rulebook, thanks for being cool about answering a simple question about the game. I never noticed that rule before, I just always had assumed that 12" in x2 on a 48" table was 24" apart, I am so sorry I offended you in my question by having missed a line in the rulebook.

Kalandros
08-08-2009, 05:11
Eh I just find it annoying having to repeat these Rulebook quotes on every forum, people need to find a little bit of time to read the rulebook and understand its rules.

Don't be offended, yourself, with how a message might "sound", its the internet after all, easier to write words in a certain 'angry' way than to say them to someone's face in that same manner. o;

Condottiere
08-08-2009, 08:47
Actually, the fact that armies must be separated by more than 24" tends to get overlooked.

rtunian
08-08-2009, 12:20
Hmm, I have read the rulebook, thanks for being cool about answering a simple question about the game. I never noticed that rule before, I just always had assumed that 12" in x2 on a 48" table was 24" apart, I am so sorry I offended you in my question by having missed a line in the rulebook.

no, you are in the wrong here, trapper.

posting a question thread in a rules forum is one thing...

it's another thing altogether to jump into a discussion that's already going, using your memory as a source for rules, to discredit postings that have already been made in answer to the original question. when you do that, you should expect to generate a fair amount of ire.

if you find that you are reading a rules thread, and someone says something that strikes you as odd or makes you say "wait, is that what the rules are?" the right thing to do is to refer to your rule book, not to post your memory of what the rule might be, then get all defensive when someone is annoyed that they have to repost the correct answer.

trapper
08-08-2009, 18:30
No, I never argued against the answers, I just asked how it worked out to that. I had even posted in my post 'unless Im missing something' to try and clear things out. In any game I've played people have shot me first turn at 24", even against people who have played for years. I never tried to discredit the answers just understand them. It even started with 'Im trying to figure this out' not 'no you're wrong'. So I didnt jump in and use my memory to discredit anything, I jumped in and asked what I was missing to get that answer. I just take it badly when people get all mad that I havnt read the rulebook, as I have, a few times, I've just never noticed that one rule.

And for re-posting the rule, there was no quote specifialy showing deployment. I was just trying to clarify what the rule specificaly was, not start an argument on the rules. I've spent a couple years loosing warriors and knights to 24" first turn shots and was shocked to see people saying that couldnt happen.

rtunian
08-08-2009, 18:56
No, I never argued against the answers, I just asked how it worked out to that. I had even posted in my post 'unless Im missing something' to try and clear things out. In any game I've played people have shot me first turn at 24", even against people who have played for years. I never tried to discredit the answers just understand them. It even started with 'Im trying to figure this out' not 'no you're wrong'. So I didnt jump in and use my memory to discredit anything, I jumped in and asked what I was missing to get that answer. I just take it badly when people get all mad that I havnt read the rulebook, as I have, a few times, I've just never noticed that one rule.

And for re-posting the rule, there was no quote specifialy showing deployment. I was just trying to clarify what the rule specificaly was, not start an argument on the rules. I've spent a couple years loosing warriors and knights to 24" first turn shots and was shocked to see people saying that couldnt happen.

posts 2, 3, and 6 all say that you have to be more than 24", and the op is asking about how far apart you have to be in deployment. that their answers were relative to deployment (as in, "more than 24" during deployment) is implied by the nature of the question.

also post 16 in there refers you to the page that the rule is on.
and if you look at post 7, he says that it's even hard to catch at first.

look, the rules take a long time to get perfectly. i obviously don't get them right all the time myself. not even spirit, condo, or t10 are right 100% of the time. there's nothing wrong with being mistaken.

like i said before, if there's something in a rules thread that makes you say "huh? i didn't think it was like that" you should look at the rule book first, and if you still can't find the answer, then you post.

my condolences for your having been taken advantage of (knowingly or unknowingly by your opponents) over the years.

T10
08-08-2009, 19:38
How about actually READING the rulebook?

Page 2.

<<the important thing is that the opposing armies must be separated by a distance of more than 24" at the start of the game>>

I am sure most of you realize that this is specific to the standard scenario (as detailed in "Playing the game").

-T10

Kalec
09-08-2009, 07:02
Well, yes, but since when did Fantasy players play anything besides a pitched battle?

T10
09-08-2009, 09:04
Mm. This game would perhaps benefit from a more dynamic scenario framework, perhaps something along the lines of the (in my opinion) excellent WH40k missions.

-T10

Condottiere
09-08-2009, 09:14
There are variants, like siege.

But I'm all for an attempt to recreate mission objectives for Fantasy.

nosferatu1001
09-08-2009, 10:53
Same here - too many people are hung up on "a clash of two opposing armies fighting to the death" - as if all battles, especially mere skirmishes like omst 2k point WHFB, never had any point other than simply killing more of them than they kill of you.

40K objective missions are great - "kill everything" can be a little dull!

Bac5665
09-08-2009, 13:35
I don't see how...

That's like chess players saying "hey, I'm board with this. Lets try a game where pawns can move like queens!!" Just my opinion. I very much support the idea that people should make the game fun for them though.

rtunian
09-08-2009, 14:44
more like, "hey i'm bored with this, let's try a game where you have to protect your queen instead of your king"

or, "...where the four squares in the middle are impassable"
whew, that would be hard, i think.

Calyst
09-08-2009, 15:07
Actually didn't GW post some raider scenario rules in the new White Dwarf Online type portion?

Jetty Smurf
09-08-2009, 16:12
There are a couple of Lizardmen scenarios on the GW site. Well, there were, last I checked.

OT: I have also suffered from the "misread more than 24 inches as 24 inches" syndrome. I also (being lizardmen) suffered from this, rather than benefitting (was always sub-2k, so skinks and limited range heavens is all that I used for ranged attacks). This goes for my 2 friends I play with, who after being informed by myself (after I was involved in another thread on this topic) about the specific rules now deploy and "shoot" correctly :)

nosferatu1001
09-08-2009, 18:33
Heavens is unlimited range for all the damage spells -it's only the buffs that are range limited...

Jetty Smurf
10-08-2009, 04:30
Heavens is unlimited range for all the damage spells -it's only the buffs that are range limited...


Exactly.

This is why the 24 inch away rules never really mattered for me. But it is nice to be out of range of some enemy shooting when they get first turn ;)

Atrahasis
10-08-2009, 08:03
more like, "hey i'm bored with this, let's try a game where you have to protect your queen instead of your king"

or, "...where the four squares in the middle are impassable"
whew, that would be hard, i think.

Allessio Cavatore has his own company, and produces a ruleset that does almost exactly that - I think one of the variations is that you get a certain number of points and can buy your chess pieces, so you could start with 4 knights but would then not be able to afford any bishops, for (invented) example.

Condottiere
10-08-2009, 10:49
I always wandered what would happen if I played a horde army of Pawns.

nosferatu1001
10-08-2009, 16:22
Exactly.

This is why the 24 inch away rules never really mattered for me. But it is nice to be out of range of some enemy shooting when they get first turn ;)

You said "limited range of heavens" ;)

Jetty Smurf
10-08-2009, 17:24
You said "limited range of heavens" ;)

Oh, I meant UNlimited range of heavens.

I guess it's a bit late to go back and edit that now, heh.

Lord Solar Plexus
11-08-2009, 14:33
I always wandered what would happen if I played a horde army of Pawns.

You would find it lacking in shooting. Seriously, that's one of the best aspects of chess.

Zeuy
28-08-2009, 23:15
How about actually READING the rulebook?

Page 2.

<<the important thing is that the opposing armies must be separated by a distance of more than 24" at the start of the game>>

Hopefuly 20 days isn't threadomancy and nobody minds its a little off-topic, but...

Further down on p. 2, " In a 4' deep table, the deployment zones are 12" deep... the important thing is that the opposing armies must be separated by a distance of more than 24" at the start of the game." So, how exactly are we supposed to follow this section, Deployed for Battle? Does this mean we must deploy just short of 12"? If so, how much should just short of 12" be and do both players have to commit to this distance? Or can one player deploy a unit at 12" to force his opponent to deploy a little bit further back if he deploys straight across? Not that this really matters; I'm simply curious.

Condottiere
28-08-2009, 23:27
We've always deployed at almost 24" apart, so the rule is now even if we were to measure it from initial deployment and it came to 24" exactly, an additional 1mm is added to prevent a Magic Missile or musket shot, if either side hadn't moved a unit towards each other.

nosferatu1001
29-08-2009, 05:55
Hopefuly 20 days isn't threadomancy and nobody minds its a little off-topic, but...

Further down on p. 2, " In a 4' deep table, the deployment zones are 12" deep... the important thing is that the opposing armies must be separated by a distance of more than 24" at the start of the game." So, how exactly are we supposed to follow this section, Deployed for Battle? Does this mean we must deploy just short of 12"? If so, how much should just short of 12" be and do both players have to commit to this distance? Or can one player deploy a unit at 12" to force his opponent to deploy a little bit further back if he deploys straight across? Not that this really matters; I'm simply curious.

Staggered deployment.

The first player deploys 12" in, then the next player must ensure that their unit is at least 24" away. This could still be 12" away from their table edge as long as it isnt directly opposite the first unit.

Not difficult, it was a fairly standard 40K deployment.

Jetty Smurf
30-08-2009, 18:08
I'm not sure how off-topic this question is, but is it legal to measure the distance between your units and your enemys units before the battle begins?

I.e. I deploy a unit and the opponent measures the distance from that unit to a spot on his side of the table to help him figure out his deployment.

I had this happen to me not so long ago. It was a small warbands game, so nothing significant, but when it happened it did make me feel rather uncomfortable.

I don't remember reading anything about this, so I'm asking here :D

Sarah S
30-08-2009, 18:12
One way to look at it is that you MUST measure from your opponents units. After all, the rules say you must be more than 24" apart at the start of the game, so how can you do that without measuring to them?

After all, mistakes get made when people just deploy 12" in from the table edges.

stonetroll
31-08-2009, 07:07
I'm not sure how off-topic this question is, but is it legal to measure the distance between your units and your enemys units before the battle begins?


I think this is about as illegal as it gets within a game of WHFB. What would be the point of "guess range weapons" if the guessing was take out? Also, I love to deploy my units 11.5" in just to make my opponent second guess the exact distance instead of being able to calculate if he can charge me or not.


One way to look at it is that you MUST measure from your opponents units. After all, the rules say you must be more than 24" apart at the start of the game, so how can you do that without measuring to them?

After all, mistakes get made when people just deploy 12" in from the table edges.

Which is why you should measure the dimension of your table BEFORE any deployment starts and then calculate the depth of your deployment zones.

Sarah S
31-08-2009, 07:26
Because if you don't measure then you don't know your opponent isn't cheating?

Why should I trust your measurements?

stonetroll
31-08-2009, 07:31
You dont have to.

You have the same right as I do to measure the size of the table before we start the game (and from those measurements calculate the depth of your deployment zone).

Sarah S
31-08-2009, 07:37
And a right to measure 24" from your models to ensure I am following the rules for my deployment and you are following the rules for mine.

After all, if I don't, and you get a turn 2 charge or something stupid like that, what am I going to do then?

stonetroll
31-08-2009, 07:52
You will be able to tell him that he cheated. Because you both measured the size of the table, and therefore you can calculate that said turn 2 charge (assuming a unit with M6 not being march blocked lined up against a unit that also deployed in max distance) is not possible.

If this would turn up during the game, I would tell my opponent that he has made a mistake and that, through calculation, the charge he is making, cannot be possible.

I would even go so far as to claim that, in the situation described above, he is not able to DECLARE the charge (as it is not legal to declare a charge that you know you cannot make).

Sirroelivan
31-08-2009, 07:58
We usually measure 12 inch to each side from the centre of the table and put a number of dice on those lines. It's an easy way to mark your deployment zone.

stonetroll
31-08-2009, 08:03
We usually measure 12 inch to each side from the centre of the table

This is what I do as well in my friendlies. I know the tables my gaming groups play on are 48", so I do not need to measure them to calculate the depth of my deployment zone.

If you are unsure of the width of the table you are playing on, it pays to measure it before starting deployment.


and put a number of dice on those lines. It's an easy way to mark your deployment zone.

I see a lot of people doing this. And when I do, I rub my hands, because this action means that I know exactly how far my opponent has deployed onto the table (allowing me to precisely calculate my distances to him).

Try putting your "diceline" eleven inches in the next game you play (this is not cheating btw) and watch how your opponent will misjudge his charges ;)

Sarah S
31-08-2009, 08:06
You will be able to tell him that he cheated. Because you both measured the size of the table, and therefore you can calculate that said turn 2 charge (assuming a unit with M6 not being march blocked lined up against a unit that also deployed in max distance) is not possible.

If this would turn up during the game, I would tell my opponent that he has made a mistake and that, through calculation, the charge he is making, cannot be possible.

I would even go so far as to claim that, in the situation described above, he is not able to DECLARE the charge (as it is not legal to declare a charge that you know you cannot make).

That's too late, and the game is wrecked because the positions of the units, even without the charge, are impossible. Better to head that off before the game starts isn't it?

Condottiere
31-08-2009, 08:10
We normally measure from the table edge to the front of the unit during deployment, since a standard table is 48" wide. Exception to this are scouts, who need to remain 10-12" away from the enemy.

Of course, if some scenario requires it, you will be forced to measure between units.

stonetroll
31-08-2009, 08:12
That's too late, and the game is wrecked because the positions of the units, even without the charge, are impossible. Better to head that off before the game starts isn't it?

So you say that, when I deploy my Doom Diver, I should measure the distance from your Chaos Knights to my Doom diver to make sure that he is not within 24" ?

Great :D


We normally measure from the table edge to the front of the unit during deployment, since a standard table is 48" wide. Exception to this are scouts, who need to remain 10-12" away from the enemy.

Of course, if some scenario requires it, you will be forced to measure between units.

Technically you are doing the same thing I do (except I measure the size of the table when I'm not sure its 48").

nosferatu1001
31-08-2009, 11:48
If you have been told to remain more than 24" away, you have been given permission to measure however you wish to ensure this is followed.

The prevalence of guess range in fantasy means that directly measuring between units is frowned upon, however that does not alter that it is perfectly legal to measure between the units.

Sarah S
31-08-2009, 12:36
After all, how do you plan on deploying your scouts 10" away from the enemy as well?

Of course you can measure when you deploy units.

rtunian
31-08-2009, 13:27
you don't measure across to your enemy. you measure from the center line.

your enemy might choose to not deploy at the 12" line. if he deploys behind the line an inch or more, your measurement will tell you exactly where he is, and that's not fair, because it gives you information on his battle tactics that you are not supposed to have.

more than 24" apart is NOT the rule. the rule is 12" from center so that you are more than 24" apart. big difference. the rule says that you measure from the center. the rule does not say that you measure from your opponent's deployment.

additionally, if you measure your deployment solely based on your opponent's deployment, you could potentially violate the rule that you must be 12" from the center, if your enemy deploys .5" "behind the line", and you deploy 24.1" exactly away, you will be .4" over the line.

scouts are another story. scouts have the right to know where the enemy is because they are scouting ahead!!! they have the right to know how far away exactly an enemy is because of the scouting rules. scouts do not have to deploy in your deployment zone and deploy last after everyone else. they are not an example for the legality of measuring exactly where your opponent deploys.

Condottiere
31-08-2009, 13:42
Scouts are exceptional - if your opponent permits it, you could measure between units; I wouldn't, since there are other alternatives.