Deployment zones

[katadder]

In the CTA scenario everyone plays it as 12" away from your home board edge, however in a game i was watching today one person tried to argue its just 24" apart.
however this means you can force an opponent to have a 1" deployment zone in theory by setting up 1st.
vague wording doesnt stop a rules lawyer from suggesting this.

some real wording needed.
.

 

[Burger]

The diagram shows a symmetrical table with 24" between the deployment zones. So the width of each zone is the table width minus 24" divided by 2. If using a 4x4 table or a 6x4 playing width-ways, this means each player's zone is 12" wide.

The 24" is between the zones, not the ships.

 

[katadder]

show me where it states that. i know thats how i always play it, but a rules lawyer playing as written just says it shows 24" between deployment zones

 

[Burger]

The diagram is symmetrical. And the zones are pre-determined before any ships are deployed.

Your lawyer friend is marking his deployment zone after the opponent places his fleet, which is wrong.

 

[katadder]

just pointing out what some people can and will try if given the chance therefore need better wording. I know how it works and would have assumed the guy trying it knew how it works. at least he should do really

 

[Greg Smith]

The maps in SFoS are to scale. 'Rules lawyer' is too nice a desription for someone who would try that on.

By that logic,the converse would be true. If you set all of your ships up on the back edge, your opponent could set his up half way across the table. Heck you could be even worse and set your ships up 25" forward and say, you can't put your ships on the table, so I win!

I wouldn't have thought this needs changing in the rules, but I would also have thought players would use a degree of common sense and fairness.

 

[lastbesthope]

Remember, it states in the rules that it assumes games are played on a 6 by 4 foot table. Keep this in mind when viewing the deployment zone diagrams.

LBH