FAQs, Notes, and Discussion

[Lior'Lec]

     @KoganStyle, I’m wrong and @tom_gore has it correct by RAW. Personally we’ll continue to play it the way we have been here at home (we’ve been playing around with house rules and such) but if playing at the store I’ll need to remember this (I play vanilla there and for battleplan just let my opponents select everything anyway).

[tom_gore]

To be honest we also played it like you did in the beginning before we noticed you're supposed to both pick your deployment zone and deploy your troops before determining who is the attacker and who is the defender. We prefer it the "right" way, since it removes a lot of inherent advantage in asymmetric deployment zones vs. scenarios. You need to consider both scenarios when choosing the deployment zone and deploying your team.

 

[KoganStyle]

Thanks both. @tom_gore your explanation about point 3 has removed the largest concern I had around the set up: That the winner of one dice roll can warp the flow of the game due to the other player not being able to interact during the set up phase. That the attacker/defender is decided after deployment makes for a much more interesting proposition.

I haven't played the game yet as I'm building all the terrain and using that to entice my friends into giving it a go, but I wanted to make sure I understood the rules correctly so we all play the game as intended!

[twrightii]

Can a single model control multiple objectives? RAW I find nothing that says that a model can’t and maybe its just the AoS player in me assuming I’m missing a rule but wanted to put it out here. It seems a little odd playing that way.

[Lior'Lec]

     @twrightii, send this into the FAQ email for an official ruling. RAW I don’t see anything preventing it but it does kinda feel wrong to allow it. However if you consider the objective card where you get a VP for each quarter of the board you control (essentially making each quarter of the board a single objective) it specifically says that models splitting the quarters do not count as being in either and could be seen as justification to prevent one model from controlling two objectives.