Do you have to deploy everything

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:18 am

Just to stoke a fire

Say you have a rubbish BG. You pay the points. Do you have to put it on the table or can you just sort of forget?

Same with field fortifications, pay for them, must you put them on?

I think the answer to the first is they must be but FF are a bit more ?????????????

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:21 am

You have to deploy the BG but if you ambush them behind a steep hill on your board edge it is likely you will never be forced to reveal them.

FF's I would say you have to dploy them but do not have to defend them.

Gino
SMAC

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:19 am

philqw78 wrote:Just to stoke a fire

Say you have a rubbish BG. You pay the points. Do you have to put it on the table or can you just sort of forget?

Same with field fortifications, pay for them, must you put them on?

I think the answer to the first is they must be but FF are a bit more ?????????????

You can noottt be seryiss! Page 146, start of first new para, "All battle groups except those in ambush or on an outflanking march are deployed in the order listed in the order of march." (my emphasis)

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:57 pm

But what about FF? Does it say all?

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:12 pm

philqw78 wrote:But what about FF? Does it say all?

Page 142, para 1, "The player with initiative deploys any field fortifications..."

I'd say this gives discretion to place some or all FF.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:47 pm

Disagree.

IMHO the use of "any" in that context is in recognition of the fact that there may not be any, so just saying "all" instead isn't quite correct. Unless it is further qualified something like "deploys any or all FFs" or "deploys any FFs he/she chooses" or even "may deploy any FFs".

As a comparison - if I was the owner of a china shop and you were a bull, I might say to you "wtf was that loud crashing noise? you there with the pointy things on your bonce, I require you to pay for any broken items immediately or I will call the police!", you would not be justified in assuming I meant that although you have actually broken 5 things I'm quite happy for you to choose to pay for only two of them.

Although it's obviously one of those many things in the rules where the wording could definitely be less ambiguous!

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:18 am

If I were to pay for any of them I would choose the cheapest and you would not be happy. I should have to pay for 'any and all'.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:06 pm

It might be simpler to just say "all". I'm not sure what the "any and" bit adds. Gets around potential concern of how you would deploy all of something if you actually have none, perhaps. Anf looking at the rules for deploying FF, perhaps that should say "any or all" if the intention is that you can choose not to deploy some of them.

How about this one?

"It is now mandatory for me to shoot any wargamers who don't (or choose to mis)understand meaning of common English usage". Assuming there are two who fit that description, you would be disappointed if you chose to assume that statement would mean that one of you is going to remain alive. Sorry, I hate to do it, but my hands are tied

There's a subtle difference in usage between just "any" and something like "any of the" or "may deploy any FFs" which changes the meaning. Again, IMHO. Different people from different backgrounds and/or in different regions may of course have different understandings. That has always been mine though.

Which all boils down to: be very careful when using a word like "any" which is intrinsically imprecise in your supposedly unambiguous but still written in nice friendly plain english ruleset. Unless you also provide a glossary defininng precisely what such terms mean. There is something along these lines near the start of the rules IIRC? defining what terms like "within 4 MU" mean precisely.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:11 pm

ShrubMiK wrote:"It is now mandatory for me to shoot any wargamers who don't (or choose to mis)understand meaning of common English usage". Assuming there are two who fit that description, you would be disappointed if you chose to assume that statement would mean that one of you is going to remain alive. Sorry, I hate to do it, but my hands are tied

Entering this sea of pedantry briefly* I feel it my duty to say that it is more difficult to shoot people when ones hands are tied...

* I mean really, who cares if Phil pays for fortifications and doesn't use them. since competitions are always "no more than xxx points" just don't use the full points allocation if you want to be daft.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:45 pm

Heh! Depends on what you are shooting them with!

I was wondering myself what the benefit would be. I assume Phil's just continuing to exercise his nose for finding weaknesses and loopholes in the rules.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:51 pm

There could be a number of minor benefits of subterfuge. If you didn't need them, due to good terrain, then didn't place them your army would be missing points. These could be in ambush or flank march. Or in a multi round comp you could surprise someone with them in later games.

Nothing brilliant. But all the little advantages you can make for yourself add up.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:11 am

ShrubMiK wrote:I was wondering myself what the benefit would be. I assume Phil's just continuing to exercise his nose for finding weaknesses and loopholes in the rules.

Phil does seem to be a chat with rather a lot of time on his hands. Seems rather sad during the festive season.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:26 am

I've been reading through the authors' comments in old posts on the forum. Seems pretty clear that the authors wrote a general set of rules to be fair and balanced and did not intend us to try to gain advantage by cheesy interpretations of the rules.

Here is a quote from RBS not specific to this discussion except in attitude. (viewtopic.php?t=6572):

Well it certainly isn't what we intended. OTOH it would be such a stupid thing to do that it probably isn't worth additional verbiage to close the loophole.

I find that the largest disadvantage of sending a flank march at all is having one less general on the table until it arrives rather than less BGs on the table.

Reducing youself from 4 generals to 2 until a flank march arrives is a very stupid ploy indeed.

Moreover, I think any umpire would be reasonable to rule against the FC effect counting - not being "in line of command" he cannot "lead" troops comprising the flank march. Sure, it's arguable, but would you want to rely on an umpire ruling in favour of your FC counting?

We could certainly clarify it thus in the FAQ, but I am tempted to give the cheese-mongers enough rope to hang themselves.

This is just one quote of many from all 3 of them. Leads me to one conclusion: Sure, it is arguable but not intended. We need to be honorable and fair and not rules lawyers. Pay your points and put them all on the table. Besides, why would you buy it if you didn't want to put it on the table? You don't have to spend every point available.

If someone in our group tried something like not putting everything on the table, we'd make him wear the cheese hat.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:00 am

bbotus wrote:If someone in our group tried something like not putting everything on the table, we'd make him wear the cheese hat.

So if I bought 30 points of FF and didn't deploy them as I considered I did not need them (but may need them in a later game in the tournament) you would call it cheesy? I'm gobsmacked.

Considering it is common practice for people to find previous opponents of those they are about to play in the next round of a competition and ask exactly what is in the army they are about to face I think its not cheesy at all. And it certainly doesn't hurt the person who doesn't have the FF deployed against them.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:52 pm

We give the cheese hat at every opportunity.

Now if the opponent says it is OK not to deploy them, then no problem. Just agree. This is a game for fun. Now if it is a tournament, tournament rules would apply.

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:45 pm

I can see an advantage in not putting troops on the table, but I can see no possible advantage in not putting FF on the table.

I'd therefore think it not correct (and therefore cheating) if a person was to not put troops on the table, but not care one iota if he didn't put his FF on the table.

Rationale: you could (technically) buy sufficient crap troops that you don't deploy so that it would be impossible to break your army, and you could (I think) place your FF against the very rear edge of the battlefield and therefore 'take them out of the game' so it's not that big a deal.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:12 am

The Q about not deploying troops was moot. They MUST be*. FF are different and was my main punt.

*unless flank marching or in ambush, or pedantically dismnounted/ing.

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 2:43 pm

One - possible - advantage is that by not placing them, you remove the opponent's option to dismount "The enemy have placed field fortifications".

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:29 pm

One - possible - advantage is that by not placing them, you remove the opponent's option to dismount "The enemy have placed field fortifications".

Oh, yeah. Then we'd definitely award the cheese hat. Thanks for pointing out page 147.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:46 am

Still gobsmacked

If I take PO instead, but never use them is that cheesy?

Do you have to deploy everything

Do you have to deploy everything

Re: Do you have to deploy everything