Choosing deployment zone
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Is it still allowed to choose any of the four table edges of a 4x4 board as your deployment zone? It was definitely like that in N2, but now the description of the suggested terrain setup suggests otherwise.
- Prophet_of_Doom
- Posts: 404
- Joined: October 28th, 2014, 6:01 am
- Has liked: 32 times
- Been liked: 60 times
It was a line like that back in N2, but official scenarios tended to suggest a terrain / objective layout oriented in a particular way based on player's deployment zone (Prisoner 09, most of the Paradiso missions). So in these scenarios you were limited to choosing one of the two deployment zones allowed by a given scenario.
N3 scenarios Supremacy and Quadrant Control would play completely different if you'd shift the table by 90 degrees. Definitely not the author's intention.
Annihilation wouldn't change a bit.
Armory changes would be unnoticeable, and not affect the game.
Basically, it would suggest that only "close" and "far" table edges make eglible deployment zones, "left" and "right" do not.
Still, if there are no objectives on table placed before the deployment zones are chosen (as in YAMS - Civvie and Crate are placed once the DZs were declared), I'd allow choosing side edges as DZs. If there are Objectives on table before the DZs are chosen - sorry, nope.
However, as N3 intends to make the rules simpler and more streamlined, with less exclusions and special cases, I'd interpret this intention as "nope, you can not choose side edges as Deployment Zone end lines".
N3 scenarios Supremacy and Quadrant Control would play completely different if you'd shift the table by 90 degrees. Definitely not the author's intention.
Annihilation wouldn't change a bit.
Armory changes would be unnoticeable, and not affect the game.
Basically, it would suggest that only "close" and "far" table edges make eglible deployment zones, "left" and "right" do not.
Still, if there are no objectives on table placed before the deployment zones are chosen (as in YAMS - Civvie and Crate are placed once the DZs were declared), I'd allow choosing side edges as DZs. If there are Objectives on table before the DZs are chosen - sorry, nope.
However, as N3 intends to make the rules simpler and more streamlined, with less exclusions and special cases, I'd interpret this intention as "nope, you can not choose side edges as Deployment Zone end lines".
They say there will be Heaven and the Fount of Kausar,
That there, there will be pure wine and honey and sugar
Fill up the wine cup and place it in my hand
(For) ready cash is better than a thousand credits.
- Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam, but it is a shoddy translation
That there, there will be pure wine and honey and sugar
Fill up the wine cup and place it in my hand
(For) ready cash is better than a thousand credits.
- Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam, but it is a shoddy translation
If both players agree, you could just pick DZ first and then place objectives before deploying minis.
I read the book again and I feel this topic is really not properly addressed in the book. Especially because of this issue with the objective markers this seems to be a touchy issue. Placing objective markers in a random fashion after deployment zones have been picked is a bit cumbersome. I understand that placing the objectives beforehand becomes problematic when the player who picks the deployment zone can choose any side and can also take off 2 orders off his opponent. Something to be considered for version 2.0 of my mission system.
- Prophet_of_Doom
- Posts: 404
- Joined: October 28th, 2014, 6:01 am
- Has liked: 32 times
- Been liked: 60 times
In theory, I like the idea of setting up tables and deployment zones such that any of the 4 edges can be a deployment edge. It opens up the table, and so much of Infinity has stuff sitting behind walls or jumping across the table that having a sideways perspective on the game could help more than be awkward. It also makes choice of deployment even more important, helping offset the first turn advantage even more.
But it only works if players know that ahead of time when setting up the table and planning. You also have to limit what missions you play to those that support looser placement of objectives and terrain.
I particularly like how Flames of War handled objectives, there's a zone that you place objectives in instead of a fixed location, the player that places it depends on the scenario. They usually end up in about the same spots, but at least you can vary them based on terrain more than having to always put terrain in a place because an objective will be there.
But it only works if players know that ahead of time when setting up the table and planning. You also have to limit what missions you play to those that support looser placement of objectives and terrain.
I particularly like how Flames of War handled objectives, there's a zone that you place objectives in instead of a fixed location, the player that places it depends on the scenario. They usually end up in about the same spots, but at least you can vary them based on terrain more than having to always put terrain in a place because an objective will be there.
In practice, the biggest problem with allownig any table edge is to set up the terrain so it makes sense in any case. And people not being able to access the table from any side.
- Prophet_of_Doom
- Posts: 404
- Joined: October 28th, 2014, 6:01 am
- Has liked: 32 times
- Been liked: 60 times
While discussing the deployment zones for laying out the table, evidence that you're expected to layout the table for two deployment zones includes:
"both deployment zones" used in the same manner as the rules use "both players".
If you want to go through all of the extra work to construct tables with four deployment zones, that's great. But the rules don't address that because they don't expect you to.
If both Deployment Zones are symmetric, then choosing Initiative will always be the more interesting and favorable option, because none of the Deployment Zones provides a clear advantage.
"both deployment zones" used in the same manner as the rules use "both players".
If you want to go through all of the extra work to construct tables with four deployment zones, that's great. But the rules don't address that because they don't expect you to.
Solkan, it was certainly expected to have 4 possible dz in N3. I omce got scolded by players at a tournament because they felt the table I provided did not do that.
The rule text is ambivalent at best, and the part you are quoting is explicitly optional. But you are right that it gives a clear hint to what is intended. I think it should have been made clearer.
The rule text is ambivalent at best, and the part you are quoting is explicitly optional. But you are right that it gives a clear hint to what is intended. I think it should have been made clearer.
- Prophet_of_Doom
- Posts: 404
- Joined: October 28th, 2014, 6:01 am
- Has liked: 32 times
- Been liked: 60 times
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1