PDA

View Full Version : (MOMUS)'s Fantasy Poll #18: Sideways Deployment



Lord Dan
02-11-2014, 18:50
For the record, I take requests:


i have an idea for your next poll, a question about those players who decide to deploy artillery, random move models and large monsters sideways.

So how about it? Whether it's to gain an extra inch of movement, or to decrease the chance of being offed by a cannonball turn 1, what is your opinion on players deploying their units sideways?

Please take a moment to respond to the poll, above.

EvanM
02-11-2014, 19:13
its a stupid gimmick tbh. but whatever.

Vulgarsty
02-11-2014, 19:14
Wellington deployed his men on a reverse slope at Waterloo to minimise their exposure to French artillery, I see this as a (sort-of) table top analogy.

StygianBeach
02-11-2014, 20:14
I think it is mostly fine, the only time I dont like it is if a warhamchine rotates into range after being out of range at deployment.

Mainly thinking of the Hell Blaster here

HurrDurr
02-11-2014, 20:29
Strongly support, it adds a little bit of depth and it's one of those cool tricks that once a new player learns they feel they can reward themselves for using it. I like any play that isn't in the book but evolves from the game and players stretching the limits. Sort of like double flees, etc.

MOMUS
02-11-2014, 21:55
That quote is a lot more PC than I remember it...


Strongly support, it adds a little bit of depth and it's one of those cool tricks that once a new player learns they feel they can reward themselves for using it.

I didn't even have to state my case and somone has shown the exact mentality I was going to highlight.
it has no depth, people do it cuz someone did it to them. It's sloppy play.
Its a gimmick.
I play a lot of tournamnet games in the UK I practice regularly against players who are consistently ranked high in the country, they didn't get there cuz they deployed their cannon sideways.
The people that mainly do this I find are players who copy rather than create good play on the board.

Aranel
02-11-2014, 22:06
That quote is a lot more PC than I remember it...



I didn't even have to state my case and somone has shown the exact mentality I was going to highlight.
it has no depth, people do it cuz someone did it to them. It's sloppy play.
Its a gimmick.
I play a lot of tournamnet games in the UK I practice regularly against players who are consistently ranked high in the country, they didn't get there cuz they deployed their cannon sideways.
The people that mainly do this I find are players who copy rather than create good play on the board.

I think this is a little unfair. Just because somebody uses a certain trick doesn't mean they are sloppy players or uninnovative. I am sure that you use certain gimmicks invented by others to win your tournament games; as do I and everybody else I know!

N00B
02-11-2014, 22:17
I think it is a stupid response to stupid rules. Turning something like a chariot sideways to avoid cannonballs is a valid tactical response to them being easier to hit if they are facing the cannon. The fact that they are easier to hit facing the cannon than sideways reflects a problem with the rules, not the players.

Nubl0
02-11-2014, 22:56
Why should I make it easy for a cheap cannon to take my old blood on carnosaur off the table turn one? It's not sloppy play, it's just playing the game.

HurrDurr
02-11-2014, 23:02
That quote is a lot more PC than I remember it...



I didn't even have to state my case and somone has shown the exact mentality I was going to highlight.
it has no depth, people do it cuz someone did it to them. It's sloppy play.
Its a gimmick.
I play a lot of tournamnet games in the UK I practice regularly against players who are consistently ranked high in the country, they didn't get there cuz they deployed their cannon sideways.
The people that mainly do this I find are players who copy rather than create good play on the board.

I like more choices, it takes up a wider section of the board to deploy sideways. Now I get to make a decision and weigh in on it, saying that "people don't do this until they are cheesed by it first." is just silly. You're telling me you learned how to double flee, knew the perfect way to declare a cannon shot, learned to redirect and chaff all by yourself and every other little nuance within the game on your own? Have you seen the spread sheets and charts for empire warmachines? Some of those are simple but I find you learn best when learning from better players anyways, copying is kind of a good thing. I rarely see it come into play and when it does it isn't like its pushing steam tanks into your back line on turn one, you get maybe 2 inches ahead. I think it's in the same boat as some of the other "meta-gaming" tricks, once again I'm quoting starcraft. Protoss buildings are meant to produce units, no where in the rules did it say to build them into a wall and to put ranged units behind them in other to fend off melee attackers early game. Yet that was something that evolved out of an unrefined sand box of a game. I like all the little gimmicks that make the game more varied than charging and rolling dice. I think it falls into the same category as causing a unit to overrun into a new fresh combat allowing it to fight twice in one turn, just another cool trick that isn't really layed out in the rules in plain english.


I deployed 2 large units of gladeguard right onto the front line as far forward as they could be, my opponent dropped 2 volley guns and an engineer, he got first turn and both my units fled from casualties taking 2 wizards with them. It was still a fun game and I learned something new.

EvanM
02-11-2014, 23:37
I think it is mostly fine, the only time I dont like it is if a warhamchine rotates into range after being out of range at deployment.

Mainly thinking of the Hell Blaster here

True, but remember that you had to also deploy your units RIGHT up on that 12" line to be in range after the helblaster pivots. So, you could simply always deploy 1" away from the edge of your zone when facing empire.

HurrDurr
02-11-2014, 23:42
True, but remember that you had to also deploy your units RIGHT up on that 12" line to be in range after the helblaster pivots. So, you could simply always deploy 1" away from the edge of your zone when facing empire.

And suddenly thought provoking tactics were born, drop all your chaff first and try to force him to drop his warmachines before you deploy your meat and potatoes, or simply sacrifice an inch or so on your deployment, CHOICES!!

English 2000
03-11-2014, 00:02
I think it is mostly fine, the only time I dont like it is if a warhamchine rotates into range after being out of range at deployment.

Mainly thinking of the Hell Blaster here

Agreed. Doing it to reduce the odds of cannons getting early kills is fine.

That's in the same box as facing frenzied models backwards to avoid being forced to charge, or blocking your own frenzy charge with chaff.

The Helblaster move is something I regard as poor play and it goes against the spirit of the rules. I'd like to call it cheating but it's technically within the rules so I can't.

I've never pulled that kind of stunt with my Helblasters and I'd certainly ding someone on sportsmanship if they tried to pull that in a tournament.

HurrDurr
03-11-2014, 00:14
Agreed. Doing it to reduce the odds of cannons getting early kills is fine.

That's in the same box as facing frenzied models backwards to avoid being forced to charge, or blocking your own frenzy charge with chaff.

The Helblaster move is something I regard as poor play and it goes against the spirit of the rules. I'd like to call it cheating but it's technically within the rules so I can't.

I've never pulled that kind of stunt with my Helblasters and I'd certainly ding someone on sportsmanship if they tried to pull that in a tournament.

But frenzied blood thirsy fast cav can turn their backs to stop frenzy bait and that's okay, and a monster can just randomly turn sideways at the end of it's move? Those are all the same thing in my eyes, and I'd ding yah right back. Very good examples of what I was talking about as well, it isn't thematic at all to have frenzied units reform to stop frenzy bait, it's just another trick(you could hardly call that a simple gimmick, it could be game changing.)

English 2000
03-11-2014, 00:26
But frenzied blood thirsy fast cav can turn their backs to stop frenzy bait and that's okay, and a monster can just randomly turn sideways at the end of it's move? Those are all the same thing in my eyes, and I'd ding yah right back. Very good examples of what I was talking about as well, it isn't thematic at all to have frenzied units reform to stop frenzy bait, it's just another trick(you could hardly call that a simple gimmick, it could be game changing.)
The difference is that turning your back with frenzy means you can't choose to charge on the next turn.

Turning your monster to minimise cannon exposure means you may have to give up optimal charge arcs in your next turn. Doing in the deployment phase means you probably lose the chance to charge on turn 1 if you go second, therefore potentially exposing yourself to a second round of cannon fire.

These moves all limit your ability to take the fight to the enemy in your next turn and with much longer charge distances in 8th edition you run a much higher rock of taking a side or rear charge. You are giving up something to gain that advantage.

In the case of the Helblaster you're not giving anything up.

Landonelf
03-11-2014, 02:34
What English2000 said.

Your sacrificing a potential turn 1 charge to gain a moderate chance to avoid a cannonball. Its a compromise and this can really hurt you vs armies that vanguard or scout.

The only models that can do it without sacrificing any potential charges are random movers. And honestly, a lot of the units with Random movement are so horrendiously out of balance already, that an extra inch or two of advantage isn't going to matter.

IE a Steam Tank or Abom is going to wreck your face no matter what lol.

Also, in an edition where most ridden monsters are cannon bait, i wont begrudge someone trying to minimize their chances of losing a 500pt model on turn 1.

HurrDurr
03-11-2014, 05:16
Giving something up when making a play isn't the only way to judge whether a particular move is gamey or not, I can see why people who were caught off guard would be upset. But I've also seen this happen by mistake before as well. Nowhere in the rules does it say or even imply in fluff, that warmachines face forward directly across the table edge, but I'm not trying to say they are all accidents.

Typically you use the flipping frenzy units when you don't want to charge anyways, as in no sacrifice anyways, the alternative being that you charge or fail frenzy and possibly charge that target anyways. Not to mention that when going first you can't charge but may be in threat of frenzy baits from fliers or vanguard moves (wildriders can charge what, 21"?) I think you overstate how much of a sacrifice is being made, negating a few chances to fail frenzy here and there when you "should" be taking more tests is a net gain overall imo.

MOMUS
03-11-2014, 09:05
I think this is a little unfair. Just because somebody uses a certain trick doesn't mean they are sloppy players or uninnovative. I am sure that you use certain gimmicks invented by others to win your tournament games; as do I and everybody else I know!

I think it's completely fair, I've observed competitive play for a number of years and it is regularly totted out on 'noobs' and the like by players who are good but not at the top. It's like they are scrabbling for every edge, they would ironically gain if they just played the game more.
while I may occasionally use a double flee they are in no way the same thing. Double takes skill, practice and preparation to pull off and isn't a garenteed solution even when done right.


And suddenly thought provoking tactics were born, drop all your chaff first and try to force him to drop his warmachines before you deploy your meat and potatoes, or simply sacrifice an inch or so on your deployment, CHOICES!!
There is nothing thought provoking about deploying a unit sideways.


But frenzied blood thirsy fast cav can turn their backs to stop frenzy bait and that's okay, and a monster can just randomly turn sideways at the end of it's move? Those are all the same thing in my eyes, and I'd ding yah right back. Very good examples of what I was talking about as well, it isn't thematic at all to have frenzied units reform to stop frenzy bait, it's just another trick(you could hardly call that a simple gimmick, it could be game changing.)

Denying yourself a charge with backward ripperdactyls etc is at least having a drawback to the potentional gain. That's tactics, balancing risk and reward. Deploying sideways is all reward. No thought and no skill.

N00B
03-11-2014, 10:17
If an oponent deploys "sideways" stick your cannon in the corner to face down its length. Manage your deployment better or take the trade off.

Lord Shadowheart
03-11-2014, 10:23
I'll admit I do this from time to time, with my Corpse Cart, any extra movement for that thing helps.

Ramius4
03-11-2014, 12:13
Wellington deployed his men on a reverse slope at Waterloo to minimise their exposure to French artillery,

So... On a slope. ;)

ewar
03-11-2014, 12:24
I have deployed monsters sideways before to reduce cannon ball risk, I don't see it any different to running cavalry/infantry in line to avoid the same thing, but doing it with ranged weapons to gain range is IMO pretty close to cheating - it has 24" range, the armies deploy 24" away. That's all there is to it.

MOMUS
03-11-2014, 12:40
If an oponent deploys "sideways" stick your cannon in the corner to face down its length. Manage your deployment better or take the trade off.

Actually recently I came across a pair of sideways skull cannons, odd considering I play lizardmen and don't own any cannons to shoot his sorry excuse for a biker mice from Mars.
Just for fun I vanguarded a terradon chief and then swooped him 1 inch away from it's flank preventing it from pivoting and making it reverse with it's limited (chariot) movement.
needless to say the point was made.

This is a pretty niche subject and I don't expect it to get much traction with warseers regulars but I do find it unsporting, I usually just sigh and get on with the game. I would lump it together with other 'bad play' which is covered vaguely at the start of the BRB, a game of warhammer is like a contract between to people and the idea is to have fun, one will win but the aim is for both to enjoy.

Snake1311
03-11-2014, 12:49
Denying yourself a charge with backward ripperdactyls etc is at least having a drawback to the potentional gain. That's tactics, balancing risk and reward. Deploying sideways is all reward. No thought and no skill.

Its not though, it messes with your deployment as things start taking up more space than they should. A solitary HPA or Skillcannon may not care, but for example WoC chariot spam will have a hard time pulling this off.

The gain is also not that great. Its a counter-cannon tactic, and it means that rather than being hit on 6/8/10, its just the 8/10. It makes 1/12th of the hit results into misses.

Odin
03-11-2014, 13:49
Wow, people do this? I'm so glad I only play against people who aren't tools.

MiyamatoMusashi
03-11-2014, 14:08
Wellington wouldn't just deploy his men on reverse slopes; he'd get them to lie down until they needed to fight, too. But I guess he's a tool for not having them stand up in three-deep lines like soldiers should. Even if it means they'd die.

How you deploy and position your models is... like... well, that's what the game is. If we don't want games to be exclusively decided either in the army list phase (yaaaaaaaaaaaawn) or by dice rolls alone; then positioning of models - what we might call manoeuvre - is where the skill of playing the game needs to be. If positioning a unit in a tactically advantageous way is in some way considered cheap or unsporting, then I'm not really sure what game you think you're playing. (Consider that if it is facing sideways it can't see things, for example to charge them. And be sure the movement rules are followed properly - no approaching within 1" of another unit, even when rotating before advancing! So if it spins on the spot, it's unlikely to be able to actually move as it's longer along the diagonal than the orthogonal!)

I remember once, in the dim and distant past, my opponent needed to break through my lines and I only had one unit of 20 Flagellants to stop him. So I deployed them in a long line, 20 wide and 1 deep, so he couldn't just move past them in the space available (and of course they'd never run away). He accused me of being unsporting because they weren't in a standard 4x5 block... as if changing formation is in some way unfair, and not, say, what armies have done since groups of warriors were large enough to form armies. Bizarre.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that turning a model sideways to minimise the chances of it being hit is in some way a work of astonishing tactical genius; and I think it's very sad that the game rules encourage something so seemingly silly, and lacking in verisimilitude. But we can't order our toy soldiers to lie down when they're being targeted by cannons, reverse slopes are few and far between, and even what we might call "column" and "line" formations (to continue the Napoleonic analogy) are crudely approximated by the arrangement the models can be placed in, on the tabletop; so using the rules of the game to do something comparable is just... well... it's what the game is.

It's pretty sad that people get so upset that their opponent isn't mechanically following predictable, staid expectations that might (gasp!) upset their mathhammer that they calculated would allow their netlist to win 94.7% of the time. Play the game on the table-top, where it's supposed to be. If your opponent positions a model in a silly orientation, and you can't think of any way to exploit that, try playing with Excel spreadsheets instead. But toy soldiers are more fun, if you take the stick out of your ****.

StygianBeach
03-11-2014, 14:15
True, but remember that you had to also deploy your units RIGHT up on that 12" line to be in range after the helblaster pivots. So, you could simply always deploy 1" away from the edge of your zone when facing empire.

The thing is that in a game of bases, the basesless warmachine gets to move without actually moving.

When used in this manner the hell blaster itself is modeled for advantage.

Using the Hell blaster in this manner is akin to charging a warmachine with a monster and merely touching it with a corner and placing the frontage at any angle you want.

Nubl0
03-11-2014, 14:34
Calling people tools for trying to survive against cannons? Bet some of you guys get upset when people use chaff or redirect uber infantry deathstars? Who's really the tool here.

English 2000
03-11-2014, 15:48
The thing is that in a game of bases, the basesless warmachine gets to move without actually moving.

When used in this manner the hell blaster itself is modeled for advantage.

Using the Hell blaster in this manner is akin to charging a warmachine with a monster and merely touching it with a corner and placing the frontage at any angle you want.
No, they are not the same thing.

The Helblaster move is against the spirit of the rules (and should be against the actual rules).

What you describe with something charging a war machine and then changing its facing is actually against the rules.

The charging unit can wheel once DURING its charge. You don't close the door against war machines so once it makes contact it can't move any further. If you want to line yourself up for an overrun in a certain direction after killing a war machine you have to be able to line yourself up in the direction you want to go BEFORE you make contact.

Doing so requires a bit pre-planning and maneuvering yourself properly on the turns prior to charging. You can't just line up directly in front of a war machine and then turn to angle whatever way you want. You have to start slightly to the left or right of the war machine (or at least facing to the left or right) and wheel as you charge in. This means you must decide 1 turn before your charge which way you want to overrun. This limits your overrun angles to one side or the other of your opponents deployment zone.

Skywave
03-11-2014, 15:53
My Empire war machines are on 60mm round bases, problem solved!

It's not a tactic I would use myself, but it's not the worst you could see in-game, I would still prefer to see some models sideway than stuff like conga line with a champ in front.

StygianBeach
03-11-2014, 18:13
No, they are not the same thing.

The Helblaster move is against the spirit of the rules (and should be against the actual rules).

What you describe with something charging a war machine and then changing its facing is actually against the rules.

The charging unit can wheel once DURING its charge. You don't close the door against war machines so once it makes contact it can't move any further. If you want to line yourself up for an overrun in a certain direction after killing a war machine you have to be able to line yourself up in the direction you want to go BEFORE you make contact.

Doing so requires a bit pre-planning and maneuvering yourself properly on the turns prior to charging. You can't just line up directly in front of a war machine and then turn to angle whatever way you want. You have to start slightly to the left or right of the war machine (or at least facing to the left or right) and wheel as you charge in. This means you must decide 1 turn before your charge which way you want to overrun. This limits your overrun angles to one side or the other of your opponents deployment zone.

Sorry, I thought that is what I was describing. Mistake on my part.

The point is that it does not look pretty or natural when it happens, and that 90 degrees gives a lot of space for corner to wheel antics.

HurrDurr
03-11-2014, 20:08
My Empire war machines are on 60mm round bases, problem solved!

It's not a tactic I would use myself, but it's not the worst you could see in-game, I would still prefer to see some models sideway than stuff like conga line with a champ in front.

Although I understand your sincerety, but that is technically cheating because warmachines are not supplied a base and giving it one of an arbitrary size would make charges against it easier but also weaken overruns as the unit wasn't able to move as close as possible. I wouldn't complain but I would ask your opinion based on that fact.

Placing your warmachine sideways on the front line has a significant impact on your battleline's shape and formation, unless you're putting it on a flank in which case thanks for feeding my chaff and hunters for me! A sideways HBVG is probably 2-3 inches in length, add in the 1 inch rules to either side, and suddenly you have a big 4-5 inch gap in your line where you might have placed a unit, if not for the BRAIN TICKLING THOUGHT PROVOKING THOUGHTNESS of deciding where to put your warmachine.

Skywave
03-11-2014, 20:40
Although I understand your sincerety, but that is technically cheating because warmachines are not supplied a base and giving it one of an arbitrary size would make charges against it easier but also weaken overruns as the unit wasn't able to move as close as possible. I wouldn't complain but I would ask your opinion based on that fact.

Placing your warmachine sideways on the front line has a significant impact on your battleline's shape and formation, unless you're putting it on a flank in which case thanks for feeding my chaff and hunters for me! A sideways HBVG is probably 2-3 inches in length, add in the 1 inch rules to either side, and suddenly you have a big 4-5 inch gap in your line where you might have placed a unit, if not for the BRAIN TICKLING THOUGHT PROVOKING THOUGHTNESS of deciding where to put your warmachine.

Me and my friends have no problem with basing our war machines, it doesn't give anyone any advantage worth mentioning. What it gives us though is great modelling opportunity, so we can put some details on the base, make them look much better (personal opinion, stand-alone machine looks lame), and tie them with the rest of the army :)

If someone was so anal about it and called that cheating, it doesn't stop anyone to still mesure to the machine itself, and then never come back to play with us ;)

leopard
03-11-2014, 20:51
Doesn't bother me, don't have the models to do it myself but given why its generally done - i.e. the fact we have laser guided sniper cannons I'm not overly amazed to see it done. More bothers me in 40k, here the trade off on what the model itself can do is generally enough.

snyggejygge
03-11-2014, 21:46
If someone was so anal about it and called that cheating, it doesn't stop anyone to still mesure to the machine itself, and then never come back to play with us ;)

My guess is that he wouldnt want to anyway if youre so anal & try to take advantage of basing your warmachine which you first said you only did because it looks better.

Aranel
03-11-2014, 21:50
I think it's completely fair, I've observed competitive play for a number of years and it is regularly totted out on 'noobs' and the like by players who are good but not at the top. It's like they are scrabbling for every edge, they would ironically gain if they just played the game more.
while I may occasionally use a double flee they are in no way the same thing. Double takes skill, practice and preparation to pull off and isn't a garenteed solution even when done right.


There is nothing thought provoking about deploying a unit sideways.



Denying yourself a charge with backward ripperdactyls etc is at least having a drawback to the potentional gain. That's tactics, balancing risk and reward. Deploying sideways is all reward. No thought and no skill.

As have I; and I have seen good, bad and fantastic players use every tactic under the sun to varying effect. To say there is no drawback is simply untrue; it drastically cuts down on your potential charge arc, putting you on the back foot and at an immediate disadvantage against a canny player. I find it odd that of all the abused rules in the game, this one seems to irritate you the most; I can think of far worse!

Skywave
03-11-2014, 22:01
My guess is that he wouldnt want to anyway if youre so anal & try to take advantage of basing your warmachine which you first said you only did because it looks better.

Sorry that my taste hurt your feeling :cool:

Imperator64
03-11-2014, 23:02
This is the most interesting thread i've ever read on warseer. I reacted with a bit of disgust at the idea of the hbvg trick and sideways facing chariots but now i'm not sure. I get stick at my club for using redirectors and actually have opponents move their deathstars into contact with my chaff and then move my unit to their own units facing. Then they'll stare at me as though daring me to raise my own "cheesey" objection. This is because thats how a few of them have always played the game and I don't think they've ever realised that the counter-intuitive act of redirecting is the rules. Or maybe they just think it shouldn't be.
The two opposing thoughts here are between thinking the game should be an attempt at a mini wargames simulator-as realistic as possible-or that the game is a set of game mechanics the understanding and use of which constitute the proper playing of the game.
In this second view the"story" of the game exists a little above or beyond the physical reality on the tabletop. It requires a little doublethink or suspension of disbelief but I think it is what most of us do to some degree. The moment that one of us encounters something that goes against our expectations or something counter-intuitive is the moment that something inside of us shouts "cheese!!"
So, i'm a hippocrite. I'll gladly place an eagle at an odd angle in front of 18 irongut and yet I wince at the thought of a chariot beginning and ending its move 90 degrees from its direction of travel.
I guess i'm far more open to tactics that I would previously have thought of as a little dirty. Thst doesn't mean i'll try them with my particular gaming group though:)

Lord Dan
04-11-2014, 00:58
The two opposing thoughts here are between thinking the game should be an attempt at a mini wargames simulator-as realistic as possible-or that the game is a set of game mechanics the understanding and use of which constitute the proper playing of the game.

This is a nice summary of the discussion.

snyggejygge
04-11-2014, 05:43
Sorry that my taste hurt your feeling :cool:

Not really, I just found your reason to base contradictory to how you use it. You say you do it because of asthetics, then you abuse it & say sod off to someone who dont like it...
Our gaming group dont do this, but ive played tournaments & faced it, didnt bother me tbh, & if someone in our group does it, we wont mind, we will not be anal about it, we will not stop playing him but we would probably trashtalk him, I just dont understand why you would stop playing vs a guy who want to play the game as intended & I meant what I said, he would probably not wanna play against you anyway.

ArtificerArmour
04-11-2014, 07:06
I admit I turn my cannons and bloodthrone sideways to avoid cannons. I use flaming grapeshot and I redirect as well. The bloodthrone regrants frenzy to units that have lost combat.

also its a double edged sword, as skullcannons do not get magic resistance 1 from the rules either, despite having bloodletter crew. These are all little nuances in the game I've come to accept and they have made me into a better gamer for it.

But in my defence, I play daemons and never mix marks, I play thematic lists on monopowers, and I also play beastmen. My lists are considered non optimal. So every little trick helps me turn a thumping loss into a tight game. I've had far worse done to me. In a game of 3+ rerolling tz daemon princes who can win a battle on their lonesome - pivoting a warmachine isnt so bad

Snake1311
04-11-2014, 09:19
This is the most interesting thread i've ever read on warseer. I reacted with a bit of disgust at the idea of the hbvg trick and sideways facing chariots but now i'm not sure. I get stick at my club for using redirectors and actually have opponents move their deathstars into contact with my chaff and then move my unit to their own units facing. Then they'll stare at me as though daring me to raise my own "cheesey" objection. This is because thats how a few of them have always played the game and I don't think they've ever realised that the counter-intuitive act of redirecting is the rules. Or maybe they just think it shouldn't be.


You club sounds like an awful place to play anything.

Lord Dan
04-11-2014, 11:51
On another note, the results of this poll have to be the most neutral of any I've run so far. :p

MOMUS
04-11-2014, 12:45
This is a nice summary of the discussion.

Im not sure it is.

As a long term player I routinely use redirectors and chaff in my MSU lizards. But the act of deploying an Abomb or steam tank (already very powerful units) sideways to gain the extra 2ish inches to its random move, which counts as a charge, and can't have a reaction is a bit steep. What I find probably more irksome is the players thought that they NEED to do it. Again, it's an etiquette thing I've observed playing all over the UK.
Many players base their warmachines on circular bases, which prevents abuse by both players and is a good solution.

A thing I would find in the same vein would be if an opponent would start deployment with his army in carry case and then deploy each unit so the sum total of the army is hidden til deployment is finished.

Snake1311
04-11-2014, 13:04
As a long term player I routinely use redirectors and chaff in my MSU lizards. But the act of deploying an Abomb or steam tank (already very powerful units) sideways to gain the extra 2ish inches to its random move, which counts as a charge, and can't have a reaction is a bit steep. What I find probably more irksome is the players thought that they NEED to do it. Again, it's an etiquette thing I've observed playing all over the UK.
Many players base their warmachines on circular bases, which prevents abuse by both players and is a good solution.


I find it very, very odd that you feel so strongly about this, its hardly a stand-out single counterintuitive part of the game - and in relative terms to other oddities, its quite harmless, especially when you're aware of it.

As I posted before, the defence agasint cannon is negligable, and does come with some drawback. The extra distance gained in charge range threat is just 25mm / 1" where random movers are concerned; and they suffer a much more sever drawback under the rules out the rulebook when they risk railroading.

There is a "worst play" document that pretty much every tournament in the UK adheres to; the worst loopholes in the rules are covered there. This sideways-deployment thing is pretty close to a non-issue in comparison.

biccat
04-11-2014, 13:21
Using the Hell blaster in this manner is akin to charging a warmachine with a monster and merely touching it with a corner and placing the frontage at any angle you want.

Well I don't see anything wrong with this charging mechanic, so I guess I don't see a problem with pivoting a hellblaster.

MOMUS
04-11-2014, 13:25
I find it very, very odd that you feel so strongly about this, its hardly a stand-out single counterintuitive part of the game - and in relative terms to other oddities, its quite harmless, especially when you're aware of it.

As I posted before, the defence agasint cannon is negligable, and does come with some drawback. The extra distance gained in charge range threat is just 25mm / 1" where random movers are concerned; and they suffer a much more sever drawback under the rules out the rulebook when they risk railroading.

There is a "worst play" document that pretty much every tournament in the UK adheres to; the worst loopholes in the rules are covered there. This sideways-deployment thing is pretty close to a non-issue in comparison.

I just find irksome and wondered others opinions about it.
The majority of UK tournaments now allow virtual pivots preventing railroading.
im well aware of the ETC 'bad play' PDF and so is every other TO, the difference is that bad play such as double eagle pin, skirmish shrink etc is enforced in competitive circles and there are solutions offered.

Montegue
04-11-2014, 13:48
I get irked by it as well. Probably not intended by the rules, and an extra 2" can make a real difference in this game. But, it's legal.

Snake1311
04-11-2014, 14:03
Its 1" not 2". You gain half the difference between width and length of the base, so we are almost without exception talking chariot bases here.

Montegue
04-11-2014, 14:10
Terrorgheists and Stone Horns and what not can do the same thing. That being said, it doesn't actually change my argument. You can gain movement as an individual model (even without random movement) by lining up sideways on the deployment line. Any way you slice it, is kind of cheesy to do. Maybe I should model my Organ Guns with extra long barrels, deploy them on the line, and then rotate them out to gain some extra range? Same concept, just as silly.

Imperator64
04-11-2014, 14:47
A thing I would find in the same vein would be if an opponent would start deployment with his army in carry case and then deploy each unit so the sum total of the army is hidden til deployment is finished.[/QUOTE]
This is something else I hadn't thought anyone could object to. It seemed to me to be an obvious extension of the closed list idea; that you don't know what you're up against until its on the table.
As for the rest of your post-I think that supports my earlier idea. All of our views on what's acceptable fall within two poles and these issues are your red lines. Its perfectly fine to wonder where other peoples red lines are but its equally acceptable for others red lines to lie eyond your own. Hence the pole.
I voted for the middle road because i'd never thought of or experienced these tactics before. My immediately reaction was that it was cheesey but I also know that the whole concept of cheese is a subjective thing.

HurrDurr
04-11-2014, 14:54
A thing I would find in the same vein would be if an opponent would start deployment with his army in carry case and then deploy each unit so the sum total of the army is hidden til deployment is finished.
This is something else I hadn't thought anyone could object to. It seemed to me to be an obvious extension of the closed list idea; that you don't know what you're up against until its on the table.[/QUOTE]

I thought this was normal or there was a 50/50 split, so do people actually set all their scouts right down on the table and warn their opponents to deploy against them?

English 2000
04-11-2014, 15:54
A thing I would find in the same vein would be if an opponent would start deployment with his army in carry case and then deploy each unit so the sum total of the army is hidden til deployment is finished.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that as long as both people do it and agree beforehand.

It's problematic when one person does it. Most people I know take everything out of the case ahead of time and tell you what scouts, vanguards etc up front.

It reminds me of the old days when we used to errect a screen between the two sides and remove it once both players had deployed. That was a great way to set up. Took half the time and you could really pull some surprises off.



I just find irksome and wondered others opinions about it.
The majority of UK tournaments now allow virtual pivots preventing railroading.
im well aware of the ETC 'bad play' PDF and so is every other TO, the difference is that bad play such as double eagle flee, skirmish shrink etc is enforced in competitive circles and there are solutions offered.

What's wrong with double fleeing?

Are you referring to abusing the the 1" rule with eagles so that a unit can't move at all or is there another dirty tactic using the double flee?


I'm not a fan of allowing virtual pivots. People need to learn to defend the flanks of HPA's and Stanks (and yes I am a stank user).
Railroading means you can't just mindlessly drop those units to hold a flank singlehandedly.

MOMUS
04-11-2014, 17:05
What's wrong with double fleeing?

Are you referring to abusing the the 1" rule with eagles so that a unit can't move at all or is there another dirty tactic using the double flee?.

That should have read double eagle pin.
http://www.etc-events.com/about-etc/etc-rules/worst-play

Scribe of Khorne
04-11-2014, 18:38
Terrorgheists and Stone Horns and what not can do the same thing. That being said, it doesn't actually change my argument. You can gain movement as an individual model (even without random movement) by lining up sideways on the deployment line. Any way you slice it, is kind of cheesy to do. Maybe I should model my Organ Guns with extra long barrels, deploy them on the line, and then rotate them out to gain some extra range? Same concept, just as silly.

I would do this in 40K with my Dark Eldar Raiders. /shrug

Orzel_Dragon
04-11-2014, 19:39
I love it when people deploy the Hellblaster sideways to get the extra 1" of range. Then they realise that just because the rules say I can deploy 12" on, it doesn't mean I have.....and they are still out of range. It is amazing how many people won't measure that range because they assume I am the full distance on. It must come from guess range editions, but this was always useful for throwing guesses out.

boli
04-11-2014, 19:40
This is something else I hadn't thought anyone could object to. It seemed to me to be an obvious extension of the closed list idea; that you don't know what you're up against until its on the table.

I like to do this a lot, simply because it adds that extra bit of excitement to lists.

If you play games regularly against the same people so you pretty much know what's in their collection (in my gaming group we share what we own so sometimes I use their army against mine) So if you *know* or guess they only have ~3k worth of stuff and you are playing a 2.5k game you can pretty much work out what sort of list you are going to face and can work out counters.

In the most extreme example say you are fighting an empire army and know most of his models are knights and demigryphs you can take a pair of metal mages.

Now say you don't know what sort of army you are facing (due to unfamiliar opponent or they have a very large collection and can field pretty much any combination you can imagine) every time they place a unit from a hidden location its a surprise.

I love that, you think its all placed and BAMN did he just place that horde of bestigors there; that's going to be an issue to defend against, I thought he was a bit point shy.

40 night goblins, small unit but can deal with it... Wait has he just deployed 10 characters in it? ... I love those sorts of shocks.

HurrDurr
04-11-2014, 19:58
The first time I read on here somewhere that some people trade army lists BEFORE the battle and read them I was confused as all hell. Not only does that obviously give away the position of key items and hidden fanatics etc, but heavily narrows down your poking and prodding to figure out what is where. (like shooting some chaff units bowfire at a daemon prince to have him declare all armor and saves, declare if he has a save vs flaming etc.) The two that stuck out the most to me were the empire stat switching item and any army that relies on scouts like the WE, suddenly they know exactly how many models you scouted with and how to counter deploy.

Not to mention when I do start dropping petty chaff and my opponent thinks it's another annoying WE army, then suddenly his spread out deployment is looking at 3 trees and a horde of treekin, that's always a fun reaction to whitness.

English 2000
04-11-2014, 23:50
That should have read double eagle pin.
http://www.etc-events.com/about-etc/etc-rules/worst-play
Ah yes, that particular move is one of the worst things I've ever heard of. I remember reading through the worst play article last year and facepalming at some of them.


The first time I read on here somewhere that some people trade army lists BEFORE the battle and read them I was confused as all hell. Not only does that obviously give away the position of key items and hidden fanatics etc, but heavily narrows down your poking and prodding to figure out what is where. (like shooting some chaff units bowfire at a daemon prince to have him declare all armor and saves, declare if he has a save vs flaming etc.) The two that stuck out the most to me were the empire stat switching item and any army that relies on scouts like the WE, suddenly they know exactly how many models you scouted with and how to counter deploy.

Not to mention when I do start dropping petty chaff and my opponent thinks it's another annoying WE army, then suddenly his spread out deployment is looking at 3 trees and a horde of treekin, that's always a fun reaction to whitness.


As long as your opponent knows what you're doing before he pulls hi his army out it's fine to do that. It's something that should be discussed before the game begins not something you are surprised with after you've laid all your models out.

I was mildly annoyed in a tournament a few months ago when someone had 6 units of Horrors on his army display board and only deployed 4. Turns out the other 2 units were for summoning.

He was a really nice guy and I don't think he was trying to be gamey, it just didn't occur to him to tell me that they weren't part of his army.

My annoyance was lessened when I killed his Lord of Change in turn 1. From there the game got worse for him and he was wiped out in 3 turns. [emoji14]

I would have actually picked him as my best sports except the next game was one of the best I've had in years. Nice guy, very tactical game and it was back and forth until the 5th turn when I managed to start turning the tide in my favour and set thing up to get the win on turn 6

HurrDurr
05-11-2014, 00:33
That is true it is one of those parts of the game the books don't talk about, I'm curious about how a game would play if you disclose basics like all units that don't scout, not disclosing items or fanatics. It's obviously better for beginners. I like the idea of placing units you won't use in view, haha. I can't defend that play as good sportsmanship but the mind games are amusing (I have a mentalist magician friend that guesses 3 digit numbers correctly), when my brother and I play we have our whole collections in hand and pull from there, so it's basically closed lists, except for when a hand passes over a unit and pauses before deciding to keep going. Was he waiting to place that or is it not in his list, did he lose his train of thought or was that a mind game. People you don't have to play it this way every time but it's A LOT of fun! Suspense is great especially in a slow game like warhammer can be.

MOMUS
05-11-2014, 06:04
That is true it is one of those parts of the game the books don't talk about, I'm curious about how a game would play if you disclose basics like all units that don't scout, not disclosing items or fanatics. It's obviously better for beginners.

It's actually customary in UK tournaments to run through your entire army, stating general, BSB, lore, level, scouts and all mundane equipment/upgrades.

Urgat
05-11-2014, 06:14
I don't like that kind of things at all.
To me and my friends, Warhammer is a game that allows us to have armies battle armies. It's not primarily a set of rules with models as counters.
That kind of dodgy stuff completely breaks my enjoyement. Suspension of disbelief and all that.

Spiney Norman
05-11-2014, 09:10
That quote is a lot more PC than I remember it...



I didn't even have to state my case and somone has shown the exact mentality I was going to highlight.
it has no depth, people do it cuz someone did it to them. It's sloppy play.
Its a gimmick.
I play a lot of tournamnet games in the UK I practice regularly against players who are consistently ranked high in the country, they didn't get there cuz they deployed their cannon sideways.
The people that mainly do this I find are players who copy rather than create good play on the board.

I chose the neutral option, here's why
There are times when a sideways deployment is a perfectly legitimate tactic, such as a monster on a chariot base wanting to minimise his profile against cannonfire (which currently is grossly overpowered anyway), or a unit of fast cavalry/Skirmishers wanting to fit in a tight space.

However stuff like deploying Warmachines sideways so they can 'rotate into range' or reforming units to 'move' them closer to the enemy comes under the heading of 'dirty tricks' not tactical play.

I never understood why they didn't mount warmachines on a round base to stop that from happening...

Something you used to see a lot in 40k last edition was dark Eldar players deploying their raider transports sideways, then rotating them 90 degrees to gain an extra 3" of movement before driving forward, dropping the unit they were carrying (who would then continue to run forward) before dropping a webway portal. It's a using loopholes in the rules, pure and simple.


It's actually customary in UK tournaments to run through your entire army, stating general, BSB, lore, level, scouts and all mundane equipment/upgrades.

Isn't that just called 'being polite'? Surely it's a little hard to keep your lore/magic level secret, don't the rules require you to roll for your spells in the presence of your opponent?

We generally assume that every unit is what it looks like and is armed with what the models are armed with unless the owner draws attention to something that is inconsistent.

Snake1311
05-11-2014, 09:11
Worskhop is quite unclear on what is disclosed, but on the tournament/even scene, there are two options:

Open lists (rarer), where you exchange lists and everything is known
Closed lists (common), where hidden information isn't revealed - but you still tkae your opponent through the rest of the army. "closed" versions of the lists are often published.

Never heard of an army literally being revealed as drops happen. I suppose its quite likely not against the rules per se, but just feels....odd. If you play that way, at what point do you roll for spells for your mages?

Odin
05-11-2014, 09:29
Wellington wouldn't just deploy his men on reverse slopes; he'd get them to lie down until they needed to fight, too. But I guess he's a tool for not having them stand up in three-deep lines like soldiers should. Even if it means they'd die.

How you deploy and position your models is... like... well, that's what the game is. If we don't want games to be exclusively decided either in the army list phase (yaaaaaaaaaaaawn) or by dice rolls alone; then positioning of models - what we might call manoeuvre - is where the skill of playing the game needs to be. If positioning a unit in a tactically advantageous way is in some way considered cheap or unsporting, then I'm not really sure what game you think you're playing. (Consider that if it is facing sideways it can't see things, for example to charge them. And be sure the movement rules are followed properly - no approaching within 1" of another unit, even when rotating before advancing! So if it spins on the spot, it's unlikely to be able to actually move as it's longer along the diagonal than the orthogonal!)

I remember once, in the dim and distant past, my opponent needed to break through my lines and I only had one unit of 20 Flagellants to stop him. So I deployed them in a long line, 20 wide and 1 deep, so he couldn't just move past them in the space available (and of course they'd never run away). He accused me of being unsporting because they weren't in a standard 4x5 block... as if changing formation is in some way unfair, and not, say, what armies have done since groups of warriors were large enough to form armies. Bizarre.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that turning a model sideways to minimise the chances of it being hit is in some way a work of astonishing tactical genius; and I think it's very sad that the game rules encourage something so seemingly silly, and lacking in verisimilitude. But we can't order our toy soldiers to lie down when they're being targeted by cannons, reverse slopes are few and far between, and even what we might call "column" and "line" formations (to continue the Napoleonic analogy) are crudely approximated by the arrangement the models can be placed in, on the tabletop; so using the rules of the game to do something comparable is just... well... it's what the game is.

It's pretty sad that people get so upset that their opponent isn't mechanically following predictable, staid expectations that might (gasp!) upset their mathhammer that they calculated would allow their netlist to win 94.7% of the time. Play the game on the table-top, where it's supposed to be. If your opponent positions a model in a silly orientation, and you can't think of any way to exploit that, try playing with Excel spreadsheets instead. But toy soldiers are more fun, if you take the stick out of your ****.
I might not be an expert in 19th century warfare, but I could have sworn Wellington and Napoleon weren't playing a game of toy soldiers for their mutual enjoyment.

MiyamatoMusashi
05-11-2014, 10:05
I might not be an expert in 19th century warfare, but I could have sworn Wellington and Napoleon weren't playing a game of toy soldiers for their mutual enjoyment.

No, you're quite right, you didn't mishear something in your history lessons, that's correct.

On the other hand, playing with toy soldiers for mutual enjoyment doesn't preclude the possibility of using tactics, manoeuvre, or formations; nor does it require lining up facing one another in entirely predictable ways and mashing the two toy armies together, one unit facing against one unit in such a way that we could forget the whole table-top bit and just let mathhammer sort out the winner.

IOW, how you position and move your toy soldiers is the very essence of playing the game. If positioning and moving your models in an advantageous way is inherently unsporting, there isn't a game left. (That's not to say I think sportsmanship is unimportant. It's vital. But facing a model in one particular direction instead of another isn't unsporting... it's the game).

On open versus closed: I played a game many years ago, with my Bretonnians against an Orc and Goblin army. I was, of course, terrified of Fanatics (this was back when they ignored armour saves completely, meaning my Knights would be turned to mincemeat as easily as Peasants, but they're far fewer in number) so I kept my cavalry away from his three Night Goblin units, attempting to shoot them or cast spells on them or get near them with chaff to draw out the Fanatics; I was scared to charge with my most powerful units, and kept them unengaged to keep them safe. As it turns out... my opponent hadn't taken any Fanatics. At all. He'd saved the 270 points that nine Fanatics would have cost and spent the points on more Doom Divers and Rock Lobbers instead. Instead of dying to Fanatics, my Knights died to big rocks and mentally unhinged gobbos with leather wings strapped to their arms. I lost the game very heavily... and could not help but applaud my opponent. He'd completely deceived me, not in an underhand way (ie. by lying about what was in his list) but simply by allowing me to make assumptions that turned out to be wrong, and taking advantage of my mistake. If it were open list, I'd have just gone "hmm, no Fanatics", charged his Night Goblins and overrun into his Doom Divers and I might have won, but it would have been a very boring game I'd have forgotten about ages ago. Instead, it was a memorable battle that saw me lose because I made a mistake in my tactics, and he took advantage of that mistake with his tactics. Brilliant stuff. For that reason, among others... closed lists all the way, for me.

ewar
05-11-2014, 10:29
I chose the neutral option, here's why
There are times when a sideways deployment is a perfectly legitimate tactic, such as a monster on a chariot base wanting to minimise his profile against cannonfire (which currently is grossly overpowered anyway), or a unit of fast cavalry/Skirmishers wanting to fit in a tight space.

However stuff like deploying Warmachines sideways so they can 'rotate into range' or reforming units to 'move' them closer to the enemy comes under the heading of 'dirty tricks' not tactical play.

My thoughts on this exactly and the same way I voted too. Unusual formations, inside your own deployment zone, are completely legit. Bending the rules for your own advantage is tantamount to cheating.


Never heard of an army literally being revealed as drops happen. I suppose its quite likely not against the rules per se, but just feels....odd. If you play that way, at what point do you roll for spells for your mages?

I've never heard or seen this method of play before either, I just don't see how it would work as spells are specifically done before deployment, so at a minimum you must declare what your mages are. Also, other units which have optional deployment, for example anything with Entombed Beneath the Sands, must declare if they are deploying normally or tunnelling before deployment.

If people want to deploy like this, then in all honesty using a completely blind deployment using maps is a lot of fun. I played an 8k game on Saturday with blind deployment and trying to guess what your opponent would do is a lot of fun. Then groaning when you get it completely wrong... it means players have to improvise more as well, I'd highly recommend it.


It's actually customary in UK tournaments to run through your entire army, stating general, BSB, lore, level, scouts and all mundane equipment/upgrades.

Agreed, seems like the gentlemanly thing to do and also the only way to play against someone you've never met before without immediately raising suspicions that they're cheating you. I mean, I could have 3 different units in my case and just bring out the ones most relevant for that opponent. Without seeing the whole army how would your opponent know?


I might not be an expert in 19th century warfare, but I could have sworn Wellington and Napoleon weren't playing a game of toy soldiers for their mutual enjoyment.

This genuinely made me laugh out loud :)

Odin
05-11-2014, 10:35
Worskhop is quite unclear on what is disclosed, but on the tournament/even scene, there are two options:

Open lists (rarer), where you exchange lists and everything is known
Closed lists (common), where hidden information isn't revealed - but you still tkae your opponent through the rest of the army. "closed" versions of the lists are often published.

Never heard of an army literally being revealed as drops happen. I suppose its quite likely not against the rules per se, but just feels....odd. If you play that way, at what point do you roll for spells for your mages?
Really? That's the standard method in the rules surely? Anything else is a variant.

Snake1311
05-11-2014, 11:30
Why is that the standard method? There is nothing in the rulebook about either, but this one is counter-intuitive to at least one other rule, namely mages and spells.

The 'FAQ' is pretty vague, pretty much tells you to pre-agree it:

Q: Do I have to show my opponent my army roster at the start of
a battle, or can I wait until the end of the game, which means I
only need to reveal things like which magic items my characters
have taken when I first use them? (p132)
A: If you think this may be an issue, discuss it with your
opponent before the game starts. Some players prefer full
disclosure at the start of the battle, while others prefer to wait
until the battle has finished before revealing their roster. It is
for you and your opponent to decide which method you
prefer to use.

Odin
05-11-2014, 14:31
Why is that the standard method? There is nothing in the rulebook about either, but this one is counter-intuitive to at least one other rule, namely mages and spells.

The 'FAQ' is pretty vague, pretty much tells you to pre-agree it:

Q: Do I have to show my opponent my army roster at the start of
a battle, or can I wait until the end of the game, which means I
only need to reveal things like which magic items my characters
have taken when I first use them? (p132)
A: If you think this may be an issue, discuss it with your
opponent before the game starts. Some players prefer full
disclosure at the start of the battle, while others prefer to wait
until the battle has finished before revealing their roster. It is
for you and your opponent to decide which method you
prefer to use.
If the rulebook doesn't say you need to do something, surely the default is that you don't need to do it?

I mean, the rulebook doesn't say whether you have to wear a pink tutu while playing, but I think it's safe to say that the default is that it isn't necessary.

Of course, all that really matters is what the players agree. But going by the rules, which don't state that you show each other your lists, we don't. Obviously we have to state what levels of magic we have, and from which lores, and any special deployment units will be announced if necessary.

I can appreciate that for tournaments and for playing people you don't know, it might be necessary to show each other lists so that you know they're not just pulling out the best units to beat your army. But that's why you have tournament rules, in addition to the core rules, because they are not the default game type.

HurrDurr
06-11-2014, 15:29
As soon as you drop a unit you have to identify it I'm sure, even in a closed list if I drop Wildriders I have to declare command, shield, and a banner (but don't have to say if it's magical or not.) For mages you roll for spells at some point BEFORE deployment (I remember this specifically because we waited to roll until after and a chain lightning on turn one against MSU WE made it clear why I would want to know his spells befofe I deploy). That mean's levels, arcane items aren't really present or required on the model, so they don't require being declared like magic weapons(which you declare as vague mundane until they come into play.) You don't have to declare scouts until it's time, this means when I'm asked if I'm done deploying I say yes, then scouts come out if he is finished.

This thread just goes to show how complicated this game can be sometimes.

Edit: Ofcourse they will know your lores and lvls, that has to be done in plain sight of your opponent, although sometimes we roll in the open so the dice are visie but don't reveal lores until we have both finished choosing (came up in a game where if one of us took something like sword of ruin the other was going to skip the 4+ regen in Life.)

Theocracity
06-11-2014, 15:50
I chose the neutral option, here's why
There are times when a sideways deployment is a perfectly legitimate tactic, such as a monster on a chariot base wanting to minimise his profile against cannonfire (which currently is grossly overpowered anyway), or a unit of fast cavalry/Skirmishers wanting to fit in a tight space.

However stuff like deploying Warmachines sideways so they can 'rotate into range' or reforming units to 'move' them closer to the enemy comes under the heading of 'dirty tricks' not tactical play.

I never understood why they didn't mount warmachines on a round base to stop that from happening...

Something you used to see a lot in 40k last edition was dark Eldar players deploying their raider transports sideways, then rotating them 90 degrees to gain an extra 3" of movement before driving forward, dropping the unit they were carrying (who would then continue to run forward) before dropping a webway portal. It's a using loopholes in the rules, pure and simple.



Isn't that just called 'being polite'? Surely it's a little hard to keep your lore/magic level secret, don't the rules require you to roll for your spells in the presence of your opponent?

We generally assume that every unit is what it looks like and is armed with what the models are armed with unless the owner draws attention to something that is inconsistent.

That's precisely my view as well.


I might not be an expert in 19th century warfare, but I could have sworn Wellington and Napoleon weren't playing a game of toy soldiers for their mutual enjoyment.

That all depends on how charitably you view the actions and motivations of people in power. I'm sure to the common soldier it sometimes felt that the generals were playing games ;).

Montegue
06-11-2014, 15:53
I have no problem with sideways deployment if it isn't used to gain a turn one movement advantage.

TheMartyr451
06-11-2014, 16:26
I don't see a problem with it. Tactics are tactics after all. To me that's the fun of it, learning from mistakes and developing new strategies to counter what your opponents implement. I'll also agree with some of the other posters though in that "dirty tricks" so to speak are cheap and take the fun out of the game.

Kahadras
07-11-2014, 01:27
I have no problem with people deploying sideways but it indicates to me that the player wants to play the game at a certain level. Therefore he shouldn't expect any mercy when it comes to my tactics during the game. I'm going to be less inclined to give him the 'benefit of the doubt' because he wants to play a competitive game. If I'm playing a casual game and somebody 'fudges' the charge distance so they can make it in I'll be far more likely to let it slide if my opponant didn't set his stuff up sideways for a small advantage in the first turn.

Snake1311
07-11-2014, 08:46
Wait, so its OK to cheat in casual games? :eyebrows: that just makes no sense, cheating is bad times in all situations, but in a competitive environment I can at least see the motivation.

Oogie boogie boss
07-11-2014, 13:55
I think that it's fine if it's, say, part of a refused flank tactic or such. But just having a unit deployed sideways in the middle of your battle line so that you can fit something behind/in front of it or keep it out of range of something is cheesy and draws the game out of a recreation of a battle and into....well, a game. I wouldn't say an opponent couldn't or shouldn't do it. I just think it's a bit naff.

Kahadras
07-11-2014, 19:05
Wait, so its OK to cheat in casual games? that just makes no sense, cheating is bad times in all situations, but in a competitive environment I can at least see the motivation.

It's those calls that are 50/50. Those times where your opponant reckons a rule works a particular way. Where he rolls his dice without declaring what it's for. Where's he's moving and has a decent call for the 'give 'em an inch' rule (page 13 of the BRB).