Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This was alluded to by Gwar! and perhaps a few others in another thread, and has been asked by Teeef in the 5th sticky, but I was wondering what everyone else in theinternets thought.

Nowhere in the spearhead deployment is there anything saying that the player who deploys second must follow the 12" from the center rule that the first player must follow. It seems that it is possible to deploy right on top of the center of the map if you are deploying second. How do you play it?

(I think the RAW here is obvious, but if we can find something that will fix this problem, we may even win the game.)

I've never played that the 2nd player may deploy up like that, but the RAW does not mandate it.

I have always played it as both players deploy 12" from the center.

rednekgunner wrote:I have always played it as both players deploy 12" from the center.

Likewise. Never seen it played any other way. Somone want to quote the exact description?

The table is divided into four quarters, formed by drawing two imaginary perpendicular lines through the centre point. So a 6'x4' table would have four 3'x2' quarters.

The players roll-off, and the winner chooses to go first or second. The player that goes first then chooses one of the long table edges to be his own table edge. He then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his side the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table (this is his 'deployment zone'). His opponent then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter.

As you can see, "His Opponent" does not have any sort of restriction on where he can deploy his models other than "the diagonally opposite quarter". I'll redo the quote using "Player 1" and "Player 2" In Place of the Respective Pronouns.

The table is divided into four quarters, formed by drawing two imaginary perpendicular lines through the centre point. So a 6'x4' table would have four 3'x2' quarters.

The players roll-off, and the winner chooses to go first (Player 1) or second (Player 2). The player that goes first Player 1 then chooses one of the long table edges to be his own table edge. He Player 1 then deploys his force in one of the two table quarters on his Player 1's side the table, more than 12" away from the centre of the table (this is his Player 1's 'deployment zone'). His opponent Player 2 then deploys in the diagonally opposite quarter.

As you can see, Player 2 has exactly 1 Restriction on Deployment, that he must "deploy in the diagonally opposite quarter."
I am afraid that this is one of the common misconceptions with the missions in 5th edition, the same way how a lot of people thought you got all your Models on the 2nd turn of Dawn of War.

Maybe the diagram doesn't count as RaW, but it shows pretty clearly that the 12" radius 'can't deploy here' zone from the centre extends into both deployment zones.

Gully Foyle wrote:Maybe the diagram doesn't count as RaW, but it shows pretty clearly that the 12" radius 'can't deploy here' zone from the centre extends into both deployment zones.

No, it is a diagram with a 12" circle in it. Nothing in the Diagram hints to what that circle does, so you look to the full rules, which are clear that only Player 1 needs to deploy 12" from the Centre.

True, but the diagram does suggest that this is another case of GW's PissPoorRulesWriting (patent pending)

Scott-S6 wrote:True, but the diagram does suggest that this is another case of GW's PissPoorRulesWriting (patent pending)

Or it could be to explain the slightly more complicated Player 1 Deployment

Well spotted. I don't think I'll adopt that change, but it seems perfectly correct to me.

I have always played the 12" applied to only player 1, as that is the only player mentioned.

shrug

kirsanth wrote:I have always played the 12" applied to only player 1, as that is the only player mentioned.

shrug

As have I. I never realised this was an issue at all to be honest.

Wow, remind me never to play any of you haha

the diagrams are meant to be followed and are clear

I'm sticking to not allowing either player 1 or 2 to deploy within the 12 inch radius of the center board.

Play it however you like

Deuce11 wrote:Wow, remind me never to play any of you Evil Rule following meanies haha

the diagrams are meant to be followed and are clear But I will ignore them anyway

I'm sticking to not allowing either player 1 or 2 to deploy within the 12 inch radius of the center board because rules are for sissies..

Play it however you like because I don't like playing it by the rules.

Oh hai, I fixed your post!

Would you care to rationalise your view. Say, provide evidence and such. I was kind enough to do so, so I expect the same back.

For the people that have played games where the second player isn't pushed back, how does the game play? Does the second player have a big advantage?

I'd imagine this one isn't going to get a lot of traction. Having a divide between armies that prevents first turn charges is a big part of the 40k environment. These are the sort of RAW results that make me a bit nervous, simply because they both upset the balance of the game and they seem to run counter to how things have been played, without in any way making a big deal of it. I mean, 5th edition has been out for almost a year and this is the first I've heard of this. It's lead to the question: what's more likely, that GW made a fairly dramatic shift in how missions work, but so subtly so that hardly anybody noticed; or that GW simply was unclear in describing one of the missions. The worst part is? I don't know which one to believe.

Polonius wrote:For the people that have played games where the second player isn't pushed back, how does the game play? Does the second player have a big advantage?

I'd imagine this one isn't going to get a lot of traction. Having a divide between armies that prevents first turn charges is a big part of the 40k environment. These are the sort of RAW results that make me a bit nervous, simply because they both upset the balance of the game and they seem to run counter to how things have been played, without in any way making a big deal of it. I mean, 5th edition has been out for almost a year and this is the first I've heard of this. It's lead to the question: what's more likely, that GW made a fairly dramatic shift in how missions work, but so subtly so that hardly anybody noticed; or that GW simply was unclear in describing one of the missions. The worst part is? I don't know which one to believe.

But the thing is, the Second Player can Dictate how far away he starts. If he Starts right at the centre when there are enemies 12" away, more fool him. If he is going for a Seize the Initiative (not a good Strategy even with Sicarius) Player 1 Will know (because Player 2 has Sicarius) and not Deploy exactly 12" from the centre. Again, it is the Player going Second who Dictates how "fast" the charge will happen, and that's only if Player 1 Deploys Right at 12".

In Short, this does absolutely nothing to the metagame, unless the metagame is defined by extraordinarily inept tacticians.

Gwar! wrote:

Deuce11 wrote:Wow, remind me never to play any of you Evil Rule following meanies haha

the diagrams are meant to be followed and are clear But I will ignore them anyway

I'm sticking to not allowing either player 1 or 2 to deploy within the 12 inch radius of the center board because rules are for sissies..

Play it however you like because I don't like playing it by the rules.

Oh hai, I fixed your post!

Would you care to rationalise your view. Say, provide evidence and such. I was kind enough to do so, so I expect the same back.

Oh come on now Gwar. There is no reason to flame everybody that wanders in here. I think he did rationalize his view, which is that he doesn't care about the rules in this instance. When a person is a little bit insulting, and you're highly insulting back, you still end up being the more insulting one.

It has never been an issue.

Until I read this thread.

When we play, if player 1 is afraid of turn 1 assaults, he backs up into his deployment zone - like in every other scenario. If player 2 wants to get near his opponent, he deploys forward - like in every other scenario.

I may have to try a few games restricting player 2 as some say is needed, but explaining why may be weird.

Polonius wrote:Oh come on now Gwar. There is no reason to flame everybody that wanders in here. I think he did rationalize his view, which is that he doesn't care about the rules in this instance. When a person is a little bit insulting, and you're highly insulting back, you still end up being the more insulting one.

I was not being insulting. I parodied his post via the quote, clearly in jest. I then respectfully asked that he provide a rational and concise proof of why he feels the way he plays is correct. I deduced that he in fact thinks that both Players starting 12" away is RaW, from the language he used such as "the diagrams are meant to be followed and are clear" and "I'm sticking to not allowing either player 1 or 2 to deploy within the 12 inch radius of the centre board".

If that insulted you I apologise unreservedly and offer my first borne son as compensation.

kirsanth wrote:It has never been an issue.

Until I read this thread.

When we play, if player 1 is afraid of turn 1 assaults, he backs up into his deployment zone - like in every other scenario. If player 2 wants to get near his opponent, he deploys forward - like in every other scenario.

I may have to try a few games restricting player 2 as some say is needed, but explaining why may be weird.

Depending on the size of the board and the size of player 1's army, simply deploying further back can really limit his options. Admittedly, most armies now are mechanized or have a big alpha strike possible, but there might be some old gun lines rattling around that do get a big screwed by this. Maybe I'll try a few games like that to see how it works.

Yea the second player would have to be mad or have some ace up his sleeve to deploy right at the center. Either way that strategy seems dubious, and I would welcome my opponent to do that. In my gaming circle I guess we never read this close enough, cause we've always played it both players deploy more than 12" away from the center. The raw is clear though, as Gwar has shown.

The only variance for board sizes in our games are for larger scale (generally Apoc) or campaign games.

And even so, in those circumstances, it has never come up.

We do have one IG player that until recently (read: the new codex came out) was having some issues, but that scenario had NOTHING to do with it - even in his eyes.

The only problem I ever see with Spearhead are the newer Players who fail to realise that placing all 1500-2000 of your points in 1 corner is not a good idea and don't use reserves to bring things along the table edge.

No hard feelings.. its a game and i don't get that up-in-arms about it. I actually did not mean to insult anyone in the slightest bit and apologize if I did.

My evidence, that Gwar asked for, is the diagram meant to be referenced in the BGB.

I dare not go on a limb outside of that because i don't have any of the materials in front of me.

Thanks for getting my back, Polonius.

Deuce11 wrote:My evidence, that Gwar asked for, is the diagram meant to be referenced in the BGB.

You don't need the book, I already quoted the text verbatim (see my first post in this thread). It mentions nothing about player 2 having to deploy 12" from the centre. It certainly does for Player 1, which is why the Diagram is needed.

Gwar! wrote:In Short, this does absolutely nothing to the metagame, unless the metagame is defined by extraordinarily inept tacticians.

In fairness, that seems to be the case in most of the 40k world...

Good catch on this Gwar.

I think that there is evidence to back this RAW up as being RAI as well. It is the title, Spearhead.

And yes, this does have a bit of impact on the metagame if your playing 'Nids or Orks.

Two things:
First, I would avoid mentioning that the impact to the game (that would allow player 2 to get much closer to the enemy) only matters if someone is a bad player...

If player 2 builds an army that wants to get close to the enemy, then player 1 wont be also getting close for that turn 1 potential assault. Even if player 1 can deploy in the corner to maximize the distance between units, allowing player 2 to get right up on the board center can provide an overwhelming advantage for an agressive army. Essentially, player 2 gets more deployment zone 'area.' Thus the change from 12 inches out for player 2 to right at the table center for player 2 affects everyone, not just the 'tacticly inept.'

Second, while the rules as quoted does not say that the restriction for player 1 affects player 2, the diagram is not consistant with the view that player 2 can be right on the table center. The diagram, if it were to support that position, would be a quarter circle--since it would only affect one player. Couple this with the fact that most people tend to believe that player 2 follows the same deployment rules as player 1, and we see that (right or wrong) player 2 does not get to be in the table center in most games of this deployment type. For me this rule falls into a 'grey' area, as it seems more of an 'easter egg' type discovery about player 2 getting extra inches of deployment over player 1, that breaks tradition from the other deployment types.

I think there could be many instances of this kind of rule in the rule book, where they dont write the restriction explicit to both players but assume both players will be playing by the same rules. Regardless of opinion and intent and RAW, however, there is definately a precedent set by the numerous people that play where player 2 has to stay 12 inches from the center. So at this point, how feasable is it to get this rule interpretation past some stranger without him simply scooping or otherwise refusing to play?

I'd been playing it with both players restricted in friendly games (just based off of wanting to play and both of us assuming that we understood deployment after skimming through.)

However, the table quarter is clearly defined in the text, leaving no ambiguity about how the second player deploys (i.e. anywhere within the table quarter).

Yeah, it's hard to describe asymmetrical deployment zones as not giving an advantage. It might not be major, but there is one.

I don't see my group changing the way we play it, but I'm now prepared to play it another way.