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.

DevianID wrote: 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?

Until this thread I have never seen anyone assert that player 2 cannot deploy into the table quarter chosen, as this is what the rule says.

I think it would be harder for me to tell a player going second they MUST move back despite the rules not saying so.

This may just be me though.

The main problem is that the circle covers all four corners, when i first read it, i thought both players had to be 12" away, actually, at a tournament a couple weeks ago it was played that way, so it is a very common misconception. I'll be honest i didn't even think of it, but it doesn't say the 2nd player is restricted like the 1st, so i would play it like this. For friendly games however i wouldn't really care.

This is actually a hold over from a prior edition. The spearhead looks at first identical to the old table quartes deployment where both players where restricted. This is just a carry-over thought process or assumption from the last rule-set.

So, I agree with the RAW interpretation of the Spearhead deployment. Up to this discussion, I have played every game with both players have restricted deployment. I looked at the rulebook again, and read all the deployments again (probably the first time really reading them since the first and only read). Looking at Pitched Battle, I see

"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 his half of the table, with all models more than 12" away from the table's middle line (this is his 'deployment zone'). His opponent then deploys in the opposite half.""


Going by the same line of thinking, the player who goes second does not need to stay 12" back (he just needs to stay in the opposite half). Would that be accurate, by a strict RAW?

Thanks

As I read it, Dawn of War is the only one that restricts Player 2 more than player 1.

The idea that the player that deploys first has to really consider his deployment is not strange for me. Odds are that player will get the first turn as well, which can be an advantage as well.

The more I read this, the more I want to play the other way now, to see how it plays.

The RAW interpretation is correct that the 2nd player may deploy in his quarter and not be restricted by the 12" no man's land in the center of the table. Only by interpreting the rules that both deployment zones are the same (which can be inferred by the diagram) do we end up at the conclusion that the 2nd player may place units up to the center of the table. Using Rules as Drawn the white area is described as an area where the player may not place units. It should be inferred that the first player and the second player must follow the same rules for placing units.

The only problem is that Player 2 now faces a larger amount of firepower in the first turn from Player 1 or a possible first round assault unless a successful Seize the Initiative was rolled.

I myself would play by the RAI version where both players have the same deployment zone. Then again I play almost all friendly games as well.

Does no-one realise that the drawings have to be symetrical otherwise people will complain that player 1 always had to have the North facing edge?

I am with gwar on this one. My local shop plays 12" for both players, but it is pretty clear that player 2 is not restricted. It really makes no difference to me, worst case I have to deplay a bit further back than I had wished. We constantly alter our strategies to deal with complications that arise, and this is just another complication.

Damn...you mean all this time...

Gwar! wrote:Does no-one realise that the drawings have to be symetrical otherwise people will complain that player 1 always had to have the North facing edge?

No sir, player 1 would simply be force to always have the TOP facing edge. Orient the rulebook as required, suddenly your table looks precisely the same as on the diagram!

What I've gathered from this thread is the following:

ONE: few people refute that player 2 can, by RAW, deploy anywhere in his assigned quarter.

TWO: few people play it that way.

The Defenestrator wrote:

TWO: few people play it that way.

Indeed. I believe this is what is known as an "Easter egg"

I believe that is what is known as "overlooking the rules" or perhaps "being used to older rules".

Or just "missing something". Happens all the time.

kirsanth wrote:I believe that is what is known as "overlooking the rules" or perhaps "being used to older rules".

Or just "missing something". Happens all the time.

It happens with Dawn of War too. Hell, even I did it. Once. Before I bricked my Opponent for being a sneaky git.

Pitched Battle has the exact same wording and white (non-deployment) area in the diagram. It's 12" for both players, just like Pitched Battle is 12" for both.

Bad writing, and slowed interpretations.

this has got to be one of the most ludicrous RAW calls to go so far as to start ignoring the BRB and claim that a diagram that shows a full circle of the board that no one can deploy in should be ignored because it doesnt fit someones fanatical devotion to RAW no matter how stupid it may seem.....

Should we also claim that the two players need to fling themselves down a hill and see who rolls further to decide who gets to go first....... there is nothing in the Spearhead rules that sates that you use dice for the roll off..............

DJ Illuminati wrote:Should we also claim that the two players need to fling themselves down a hill and see who rolls further to decide who gets to go first....... there is nothing in the Spearhead rules that sates that you use dice for the roll off..............

No, that's covered on Page 2. Pay Attention.

Except it only mentions first player as needing to use the diagram.

Player two is deploying in "the diagonally opposite quarter" or "the opposite half".

It does not even say "opposite deployment zone" or you would have a case, and this discussion would not be happening.

To be fair, it's pg. 2. You, Pay Attention! lol

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Should we also claim that the two players need to fling themselves down a hill and see who rolls further to decide who gets to go first....... there is nothing in the Spearhead rules that sates that you use dice for the roll off..............

No, that's covered on Page 2. Pay Attention.

It doesnt say to look at page 2........ couldnt I just ignore that like you suggest that we should ignore the diagram....

Nurgleboy77 wrote:To be fair, it's pg. 2. You, Pay Attention! lol

That is what I said.

Break no rule.

Or was that trolling?

Gwar! wrote:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:To be fair, it's pg. 2. You, Pay Attention! lol

That is what I said.

its what you said after an edit

DJ Illuminati wrote:It doesnt say to look at page 2........ couldnt I just ignore that like you suggest that we should ignore the diagram....

It says to roll off. The rules for rolling off are found on Page 2. Nowhere does it say "LOOK AT T3H PRETTY PICTURE!" It lays out the full rules in Text plain as day.

It also doesn't tell you how to breathe. Do you ignore that too during a game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:To be fair, it's pg. 2. You, Pay Attention! lol

That is what I said.

its what you said after an edit

No, it isn't.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:It doesnt say to look at page 2........ couldnt I just ignore that like you suggest that we should ignore the diagram....

It says to roll off. The rules for rolling off are found on Page 2. Nowhere does it say "LOOK AT T3H PRETTY PICTURE!" It lays out the full rules in Text plain as day.

It also doesn't tell you how to breathe. Do you ignore that too during a game?

so if we can assume that when it says to roll off it mean with dice, and we can assume we know how to breathe......cant you assume that the diagram shows that the deployment is the same for player two, they just didnt have enough room to discribe the entire process to explain to people that you have to follow the same rules as player one....or maby a SIMPLE DIAGRAM would get the point across

DJ Illuminati wrote:so if we can assume that when it says to roll off it mean with dice, and we can assume we know how to breathe......cant you assume that the diagram shows that the deployment is the same for player two, they just didnt have enough room to discribe the entire process to explain to people that you have to follow the same rules as player one....or maby a SIMPLE DIAGRAM would get the point across

So adding the words "As Per the First player" were totally beyond them? It would have cost them a whole fraction of a [Insert whatever country they print these off now in's currency]? Look, you can whine and rant all you want, the fact of the matter is, I have proof. You do not.

at what point are we ignoring rules and following them to the letter...... if you are going to tell me that we ignore things in the book unless it is told to you like you are a 5 year old, then I demand that you uphold that same viewpoint to the entire book. You cannot ignore some things in the book and in the same breath say that everything in the book is written exactly as we should play them

Remember, DJ, Gwar's head would explode if he ever said "I'm wrong".

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:so if we can assume that when it says to roll off it mean with dice, and we can assume we know how to breathe......cant you assume that the diagram shows that the deployment is the same for player two, they just didnt have enough room to discribe the entire process to explain to people that you have to follow the same rules as player one....or maby a SIMPLE DIAGRAM would get the point across

So adding the words "As Per the First player" were totally beyond them? It would have cost them a whole fraction of a [Insert whatever country they print these off now in's currency]? Look, you can whine and rant all you want, the fact of the matter is, I have proof. You do not.

You have proof that they didnt write the book like a computer program, you dont have proof of what the deployment is as there is a diagram on the same page that contradicts your view.

DJ Illuminati wrote:at what point are we ignoring rules and following them to the letter...... if you are going to tell me that we ignore things in the book unless it is told to you like you are a 5 year old, then I demand that you uphold that same viewpoint to the entire book. You cannot ignore some things in the book and in the same breath say that everything in the book is written exactly as we should play them

I am not ignoring anything. If you could please point out in the RULES for Deployment where it says "Both Players use the Diagram opposite", I would be much obliged, as I cannot find it in any of my 3 Rulebooks.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Remember, DJ, Gwar's head would explode if he ever said "I'm wrong".

I have found that if you hold him to his own methods of proving something that he just gives up and makes snide comments.