Initial Placement Question

[fuzzilogik]

I have always played that whoever wins the initiative chooses whether to setup their fleet first or second. Then whoever is going first puts all their ships out and then the second player puts all their ships out.

I recently started playing with a new group and they alternate placement of ships, similar to the way alternating movement is done.

Is that a house rule or is that the way the rules say to do it? If it's in the 2E rulebook, what page? I'm having trouble finding it at all.

Also, I’d be interested to hear how your group is handling initial setup in either case.

Thanks,
Admiral Fuzzi Logik

 

[Burger]

It would be a house rule, or a "legacy" from other games. The way you did it is correct, the losing initiative player places all their ships down first.

 

[Triggy]

It would be a house rule, or a "legacy" from other games. The way you did it is correct, the losing initiative player places all their ships down first.

in their choice of deployment zone (there is no deployment zone roll - this is also a "legacy" from other games).

 

[Ripple]

We did both at one point or another, and alternating placement did prevent some of the sillier matches we've seen.

Ripple

 

[angelus2000]

I could see working for some scenarios like Call to Arms, Annihilation, etc. Others like Blockade and Ambush it wouldn't

 

[Ripple]

True, definitely scenario specific.

Sometimes the current setup rules seem to determine the fight before you even start. That's not necessarily bad, it's a part of the game to be mastered, but it does add to some strange feelings for folks who don't play often.

I've often thought comment that all or nothing effects are problematic, and this can be one of those issues. A fleet distributed across a side can have the opponent simply stack on one side and defeat them in detail, before they can react, especially under second ed where the shooting seems to be effectively over on the third turn.

That said the current system works fine for folks who know what they are doing...as long as you remember when you sub in a G'Koth from Arm. ed, that the supposedly 'fast' transport is actually slower than it's base hull not faster.

Ripple

 

[Burger]

A fleet distributed across a side can have the opponent simply stack on one side and defeat them in detail, before they can react, especially under second ed where the shooting seems to be effectively over on the third turn.

I love it when my opponent does that
Just go along the line, blowing them up one by one. Divide and conquer? No need, he's done it for me!

G'Koth... just LOL

 

[Banichi]

I think I mentioned it in previous posts, but has anyone else tried the way were you set up the table and then each player draws a sketch map on which they draw their fleet set up in secret? We have done it for a few games, and yes, it does take a little longer, but boy does it make you think about were you put your ships, and what you want them to achieve. If you don't want to lose the advantage scouts bring to setting up you can alter things so the fleet with more scouts can reposition a ship/squadron after the fleets are shown.

 

[Right Hand of God]

We alternate setting up, squadron or ship at a time depending on the size of the game. Although in really big games one player sets up completely beforehand and covers his set up.

 

[fuzzilogik]

That's a great point about being scenario dependent. If we do adopt this house rule it would only be for Call to Arms, Annihilation, and Space Superiority most likely.

 

[Johnny D]

We've always done the alternating deployment for CTA since we started 1st Ed.
I have no idea where we got the idea from and I kinda assumed that was just how deployment worked.
Has to be said the other way does make facing off against emines that bit scarier if you lose initiative. They can refuse a flank and hit you heavily from a distance if you concentrate your ships to support each other or focus on just 1 part and take you down peice meal if you spread out.
I can see how in some situations it would mean that you could pretty much win/lose a game before it started the other way, Might make for some interesting battles though.

 

[Keith]

Personally I prefer it as the rules currently state.

Alternate placement of ships/squadrons devalues the whole set up initiate roll (and the suble advantage of fielding more scouts).The advantage then tends to be based on "initiative sinks".

The last game I played illustrates this. It was a 9 point battle, Narn Vs Minbari. The Minbari won the initiative (despite being out numbered by scouts) and gained an advantage they would otherwise not have had.

(We only got through 3 turns but it was just beginning to swing in favour of the Minbari) .

 

[Taran]

We've always done the alternating deployment for CTA since we started 1st Ed.
I have no idea where we got the idea from and I kinda assumed that was just how deployment worked.
Has to be said the other way does make facing off against emines that bit scarier if you lose initiative. They can refuse a flank and hit you heavily from a distance if you concentrate your ships to support each other or focus on just 1 part and take you down peice meal if you spread out.
I can see how in some situations it would mean that you could pretty much win/lose a game before it started the other way, Might make for some interesting battles though.

A lot of the older games (Warhammer, CBT, etc) have always done the alternating setup. That's probably where whoever in your group started it got it.

 

[Chernobyl]

the BEST way, if you can manage it, is what the old Space Marine (epic 2nd edition) did it - hidden set up. you have to have boxes set up over your minis or something, that way, the second person has his fleet set up with no knowledge of what the first person did.

Chern

 

[Banichi]

the BEST way, if you can manage it, is what the old Space Marine (epic 2nd edition) did it - hidden set up. you have to have boxes set up over your minis or something, that way, the second person has his fleet set up with no knowledge of what the first person did.

Chern

I love the secret set up, I'm suprised more people don't use this method. I've mentioned it a few times, in various threads,(including this one) and this is the first time I've seen some-one else mention it.

 

[daishi]

under first edition I dont believe it stated how you setup only that the player losing initiative starting placing first so we continued the legacy idea of alternating. I became clear early on though that some fleets favoured initiative sinks so we brought in the house rule of the losing player must have setup last ship before the winning player places their last one & ships were evened out over the placement eg. if loser had a 2 to 1 advantage in ships he placed 2 each time. I havent seen anything in 2e to change my mind on this.
We did try to place one fleet then the other but found games were regularly lost by placement rather than tactics used which was usually the player who lost initiative
The secret placement idea we also used but put up a screen to hid placements. This worked better but again not as well as alternating

 

[Triggy]

the BEST way, if you can manage it, is what the old Space Marine (epic 2nd edition) did it - hidden set up. you have to have boxes set up over your minis or something, that way, the second person has his fleet set up with no knowledge of what the first person did.

Chern

The big downside of this is that fleet initiative values (and scouts) are massively devalued as they play no role in deployment. It is good fun though

 

[lastbesthope]

the BEST way, if you can manage it, is what the old Space Marine (epic 2nd edition) did it - hidden set up. you have to have boxes set up over your minis or something, that way, the second person has his fleet set up with no knowledge of what the first person did.

Chern

The big downside of this is that fleet initiative values (and scouts) are massively devalued as they play no role in deployment. It is good fun though

Hhow about, both draw your setups in secret, as above, but the player who loses initiative (including scout rerolls) then has to stick to that setup and deploys first, then the initiative winner gets to deploy after the loser, any way they like.

???

LBH

 

[Sulfurdown]

I think I mentioned it in previous posts, but has anyone else tried the way were you set up the table and then each player draws a sketch map on which they draw their fleet set up in secret? We have done it for a few games, and yes, it does take a little longer, but boy does it make you think about were you put your ships, and what you want them to achieve. If you don't want to lose the advantage scouts bring to setting up you can alter things so the fleet with more scouts can reposition a ship/squadron after the fleets are shown.

the BEST way, if you can manage it, is what the old Space Marine (epic 2nd edition) did it - hidden set up. you have to have boxes set up over your minis or something, that way, the second person has his fleet set up with no knowledge of what the first person did.

Chern

I love the secret set up, I'm suprised more people don't use this method. I've mentioned it a few times, in various threads,(including this one) and this is the first time I've seen some-one else mention it.

The quick sketch is something I hadn't thought of (though I draw up enough in attempts to figure out best approaches and doodle during staff meetings). Probably a little more user friendly then boxes, but more time consuming.

At some point I'd like to try out Full Thrust's Black Globe placement. Not only does it provide some quality mystery with setup, but it can add a lot of excitement to a game when you can't tell what that ship is way on the left hand side that's skirting your fleet (is it a Delphi keeping out of the action for now or is it a Warlock maneuvering into position?)

 

[daishi]

I havent heard of the black globe idea - what is it ?