Setting the Centerline - How do you play it?

[Icemyn]

In your play group is the Centerline determined before or after flipping to deploy crews?

 

What I mean by this is:

 

When you flip for standard deployment do you determine the centerline immediately or do you wait til deploying crews?

 

This matters because if you wait you are allowed 4 deployment options instead of 2. This mostly matters in corner deployment as people generally don't play standard deployment from the sides of the board. 

 

Personally, I think the rulebook is rather clear about this being that the steps for setup are enumerated, but I have seen it played both ways. Just wanted to see what the consensus was.(if any)

 

 

 

 

[Victoria]

We determine the centerline before we choose deployment in my location.

[sharpobjects]

Actually, we never set the Centerline unless the Strategy calls for it. 

 

 

This

[cursingbulldog]

First person to deploy picks their side and this determines the centerline. If my opponent makes me deploy first I'll usually pick one of the sides so say east or west mostly just to screw with their heads.

[Cats Laughing]

I've always done it after selecting deployment zones (thereby allowing all 4 corners/sides as valid deployment zones).  

 

I'll also put it out there that I don't really care what the rules as written say on this as this option is more interesting, more fun, more tactical, and less restrictive.

[Bengt]

We determine the centerline before we choose deployment in my location.

How and when do you decide which corners can be chosen if deployment was corner/flank?

[solkan]

That's odd.  I've always seen the center line as:

1.  Look at the two sides of the table that people are standing next to.

2.  The center line is from the middle of the other two sides.

 

Otherwise it's like you're setting up the table sideways.

 

[StuffedKiwi]

That's odd.  I've always seen the center line as:

1.  Look at the two sides of the table that people are standing next to.

2.  The center line is from the middle of the other two sides.

 

Otherwise it's like you're setting up the table sideways.

If the Deployment you've flipped is Flank or Corner, then the centerline will be corner-to-corner, so your intuitive-sounding practice will already not work in that situation.

In my group, we have always played that whoever is Deploying first can choose any of 4 available deployment zones to deploy in, rather than just 2.

The rules seem a bit vague about this, though: in the big rule book, p.64 describes "determine deployment" as "Players will first generate Deployment Zones," and "While players will know what the options for each deployment area are, they will not commit to one just yet" -- it seems unclear to me whether the "options" that are determined at this stage are supposed to narrow down the possible deployment zones to just 2, or whether there are still at this stage 4 potential deployment zones.

P. 73 of the big rule book describes the actual deployment: "Both players now flip for deployment. The higher value player may choose one of the Deployment Zones as her own and deploys.... Alternatively, the higher value player may decide to deploy second.... Once the First Player's Crew is deployed, the other player deploys her Crew completely within the opposite Deployment Zone." Again, it seems unclear to me whether the player who chooses is supposed to choose between two options, or four. The fact that the description specifies that the player deploying second must choose the "opposite" Deployment Zone might suggest that there were still 3 options remaining, at that stage, though only one that is legal -- but I think its hardly an overwhelming suggestion. Unless anyone can point to overwhelming evidence to the contrary, though, I suspect we will keep playing that there are 4 options.

[johnd37]

As the rules don't say who decides where the centre line is, north/south or east/west, I assumed the player deploying first could pick any of the 4 options.

 

Either an edge, or corner, depending on the type of deployment being used.

 

The other player getting the opposite one.

 

The advantage of picking where to start from, is balanced by the opponent seeing how you have deployed before deploying opposite.

 

Although I assume, some tables are designed to only be played north / south, allowing east / west can give more options to help with a limited layout of terrain.

 

You should be able to reach anywhere on the table, so playing at right angles to where you sit, or stand should not be a problem.

 

This way you can play the same layout, twice as many ways, with out having to move the terrain round.

 

Remember a lot of other war-games are not played on a squire table, 6 by 4 for example, so some players have never had the option of playing off any edge, and think if you pick the side to start from, you are breaking some rule. All sides are equal in malifaux so all are valid.

[zFiend]

We determine the centerline before we choose deployment in my location.

We usually do this too. So we are playing with two less options for deployment usually.

[Kogan Style]

Tournaments I've played in the UK allow all four options to be used, but usually players pick the side of the table they started on. However a few games we have turned the board if the person choosing wants a particular zone.

 

All options should be open for the player to pick from. 

[Adran]

In My opinion, the deployment flip is only really balanced if there is somethign for both people from it. If you have boards that are fairly equal in layout, and limited choice in your deployment zones, then you are makign the flip for deployment soemthign that woinning gives a huge advantage, as deploying second lets you counter tour opponets deployment.

If you have uneven deployment zones (prehaps there is a huge building in one, limiting placements in sight, or its harder to leave it because of severe terrain, then you make the person that won the flip actuially have a choice if they want to deploy first, because they need a certain deployment zone, or second to see how the opponent deploys.

 

We don't decide centre lines until the first person deploys. I'd liek to say thats becasue of my above reasons, but its probably we are too lazy to do so.

At the club we typically put our boards on circular tables, so its pretty easy to move them round if someone wants a particulat deployment zone.

[Ausplosions]

There are always 4 possible Deployment locations in a game of Malifaux. 

 

If you select the centreline before Deployment you are doing it wrong. 

[AverageGatsby]

Actually, we never set the Centerline unless the Strategy calls for it. 

But a line in the sand is always an option, so the schemes always call for it. 

[Icemyn]

There are always 4 possible Deployment locations in a game of Malifaux. 

 

If you select the centreline before Deployment you are doing it wrong. 

 

Quite Possibly. Though it is possible that you are and don't realize it. 

 

The rulebook page 59 lists the steps for setup. 

Step 3 is determine deployment type w/ the centerline. 

Step 4 is Strats Schemes. 

Step 8 is actualy deployment.

 

Lets say that you flip Squatters rights in step 4 how can you finish set up of step 4 without knowing the centerline. 

Unless you wait to finish step 4 until after step 8. 

 

I'm not saying that you are definitely wrong, but as I said initially I have seen it played both ways and was just looking to see what other people thought. Dismissing the other side with only your opinion is counter productive to the discussion. 

[sharpobjects]

I answered too quickly in my above reply.

 

 

Even though the steps as you referenced are listed in the book they are actually counter productive if followed in that order. If Flank or Corner deployment is selected you would need to wait for the first player to deploy in order to find out which diagnal the center line would be. If you choose the centerline before deployment then you limit the deployment options for the crew. 

 

Unless that was done on purpose. 

 

We like to allow the player deploying first to pick which corner they want to deploy there by forcing the other player to deploy in the opposite corner and that would then set the center line. 

 

When look at page 64-65 it explains how you flip for the deployment zone but doesnt explain how you determine the centerline, which angle will be used in other words. As mentioned above we use the winner of the deployment flip for deploy crews step to determine that. 

 

The reason I think the centerline is established on step 8 is explained on page 64

 

Deployment Zones

 

These are the areas in which each crew may place its models at the start of the game. While players will know what the options for each deployment area are, they will not commit to one just yet. That happens during the Deploy Crews Step.

 

So for example with Corner deployment, you do not commit to the left or right corner until the deploy crews step. After the first player commits to a corner during the deploy crews step then the center line would be established.

 

With standard and close deployment step 4 would be correct that these two deployment types do determine the center line. But with Flank and Corner the center line cannot be determined until step 8.  

[Ausplosions]

You can choose any side for close or normal. So you determine the centre line afterwards. 

n

[Philosfr]

I've never had any concerns about the fact that there are often only 2 possible deployment zones on a table. I've never encountered anyone who wanted to play at a 90 degree angle. I've never even had a player ask to switch sides or determine what side of the board they are on, even in tournaments like Adepticon.

 

Can one side of the table be beneficial? Yeah, but if it's that obvious that you can pick it at that stage of the game, the table shouldn't have been set up that way. If the tables are setup roughly fair, every game I've ever played, my opponent just sat down on the side they were on and we started flipping for deployment.

 

Now, that's not saying it has to be that way. If my opponent deployed first and deployed at a 90 degree angle from where we're sitting, I wouldn't even pause and would just setup. I think it's totally legal... just not all that practical.

[moxypoo]

You can choose any side for close or normal. So you determine the centre line afterwards. 

n

 

This is how my friends and I always play it.  The first player to deploy chooses which side/corner of the board s/he wants, and then player two takes the opposite side/corner.  We've been playing a lot of Vassal lately, and the ability to easily change the deployment zones is super handy.

[Bengt]

Can one side of the table be beneficial? Yeah, but if it's that obvious that you can pick it at that stage of the game, the table shouldn't have been set up that way. If the tables are setup roughly fair, every game I've ever played, my opponent just sat down on the side they were on and we started flipping for deployment.

Well choosing sides is supposed to mitigate having to set up first (which is a mild to large disadvantage depending on circumstances) so there really should be some difference to the sides.

[drafterman]

Well choosing sides is supposed to mitigate having to set up first (which is a mild to large disadvantage depending on circumstances) so there really should be some difference to the sides.

 

I disagree. I see the mechanism as a way of minimizing the differences between sides. Like two people that want to share a piece of cake. One person cuts, the other chooses the slice. This gives the cutter the incentive to make the pieces equal.

[moxypoo]

Well choosing sides is supposed to mitigate having to set up first (which is a mild to large disadvantage depending on circumstances) so there really should be some difference to the sides.

 

Agreed. My group always tries to make the table slightly asymmetrical with things such as adding a small piece of extra terrain or placing an extra bridge over some severe terrain on one side of the table.  Most Vassal maps are actually pretty good about this.

 

I disagree. I see the mechanism as a way of minimizing the differences between sides. Like two people that want to share a piece of cake. One person cuts, the other chooses the slice. This gives the cutter the incentive to make the pieces equal.

 

I'm not sure this analogy works.  Deploying first is always a disadvantage unless your deployment zone has an advantage over your opponent's.  If the deployment zones are slightly asymmetrical, then that can even out the disadvantage of deploying first versus deploying second.  If there are asymmetrical deployment zones, and the first player to deploy chooses the bad one, they made a mistake that compounds their current disadvantage. It adds another level of complexity and strategy to the game.

[Bengt]

I disagree. I see the mechanism as a way of minimizing the differences between sides. Like two people that want to share a piece of cake. One person cuts, the other chooses the slice. This gives the cutter the incentive to make the pieces equal.

This makes no sense to me. It would be similar to cake cutting if one player set up all the terrain and the other chose side (something we sometimes did with 40k/WHFB back in the olden days when game set up was less formalized).

 

But in Malifaux choosing side and setting up first is tied to the same flip, to me this can only mean they are supposed to compensate each other to some degree. 

[Adran]

I've never had any concerns about the fact that there are often only 2 possible deployment zones on a table. I've never encountered anyone who wanted to play at a 90 degree angle. I've never even had a player ask to switch sides or determine what side of the board they are on, even in tournaments like Adepticon.

 

Can one side of the table be beneficial? Yeah, but if it's that obvious that you can pick it at that stage of the game, the table shouldn't have been set up that way. If the tables are setup roughly fair, every game I've ever played, my opponent just sat down on the side they were on and we started flipping for deployment.

 

Now, that's not saying it has to be that way. If my opponent deployed first and deployed at a 90 degree angle from where we're sitting, I wouldn't even pause and would just setup. I think it's totally legal... just not all that practical.

 

I think the tables being created equal is due to the mindset that they should be fair. And It is actualy unfair for the table to be equal, as the only advantage to deploying first in Malifaux is being able to pick your deployment zone. where as there are many advantages to seeing how your opponent deployed and being able to deploy to counter (even just making sure your sniper has LOS to their models, whilst theirs can't see yours).

Other games balance deployment out in other ways, so table layout is much less an issue.

 

The cake analagy doesn't work at all in the malifaux rules set.

[Kadeton]

There's no particular requirement for 'fairness' in either the table setup or between going first and second. The person who decides has won a flip for that privilege, and should gain an advantage one way or the other.

 

I agree that making the table setup 'balanced' makes it a dull and predictable choice - if there's no advantage to choosing a side, the person who chooses will always deploy second.

 

The advantage enjoyed by the person winning the deployment flip will never be as great as the person winning the Initiative flip on turn 2 or 3, so it's rarely something that anyone gets heated about. It's a good rule of thumb to avoid putting any high vantage points in deployment zones, though.

[Math Mathonwy]

There's no particular requirement for 'fairness' in either the table setup or between going first and second. The person who decides has won a flip for that privilege, and should gain an advantage one way or the other.

 

I agree that making the table setup 'balanced' makes it a dull and predictable choice - if there's no advantage to choosing a side, the person who chooses will always deploy second.

 

The advantage enjoyed by the person winning the deployment flip will never be as great as the person winning the Initiative flip on turn 2 or 3, so it's rarely something that anyone gets heated about. It's a good rule of thumb to avoid putting any high vantage points in deployment zones, though.

To be fair, you can affect the Ini Flip with various abilities during the game (re-flipping with a SS is available to all but there's stuff like getting a positive twist or being allowed to outright cheat the flip) but nothing affects the deployment flip.

And you can build a table where, for example, the player who gets to choose their side wins outright - not that you would design such a table on purpose necessarily, but Flame and Ice Walls could, in a suitable table, keep you from advancing meaningfully if the table is too cluttered with impassable stuff.