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.

The store that I play at has announced that they will be holding a tournament using the Spearhead rules from the GW site. As everyone read the rules a big debate started about the Super-Heavy Spearhead. It states: One super-heavy vehicle chosen from any Apocalypse datasheet aligned with your race. Note that you need the Apocalypse Expansion in order to use this spearhead.
The question arises as to what that includes? More specifically can you take a super-heavy walkers and super-heavy flying vehicles? Thank you for your help.

You can take any superheavy vehicle, though flyers would probably not be allowed (since there are no rules for flyers in Spearhead; only superheavies are given an exception). So, superheavy tanks and walkers would be good to go.

In any case, check with the tournament organiser to be sure. He's the only one who can give a definitive answer.

Also, be sure to check the organisers policy on how to bring them on from reserve. For example, a baneblade can only move 6" yet is more than 6" long. This can mean that it hangs off the table, creating a situation where some can argue it it destroyed for not being fully on the table. Just something worth bringing to attention before it actually happens.

As to the original question, I would say any non-flyer too.

Trickstick wrote:This can mean that it hangs off the table, creating a situation where some can argue it it destroyed for not being fully on the table.

There's no argument - it would be destroyed. So yes, the TO needs to rule beforehand.

For what it's worth, the INAT faq addresses this specific issue.

"RB.94D.01 – Q: Some vehicles are so big they
cannot move on from the table edge without
moving faster than combat speed. Are such vehicles
forced to move faster than combat speed on the
turn they move onto the table?
A: Yes, a vehicle must be moved far enough to fit the
entire model onto the table the turn it arrives. If the
vehicle is so large that it is absolutely impossible to do so
(such as with some slow-moving Super-Heavy vehicles),
then players are allowed to leave the back end of such
models hanging off the edge of the table [rules change]. If
players are concerned about their model falling off the
table, mark the spot where the vehicle is supposed to be
and temporarily move the model fully onto the table.
Note: While a vehicle is partially ‘hanging off the table’,
any access points off the table may not be used and any
blast with the center hole over the vehicle will hit it, even if
the blast is technically off the table."

RAW with the GW 5th ed update 1.5 language, I would say that the 'hanging' super heavy is destroyed. The INAT faq is a commonly used compromise at events, but definitely not GW cannon.

foolishmortal wrote:For what it's worth, the INAT faq addresses this specific issue.

It is worth nothing in YMDC, and doubly so if the tournament in question doesn't use it.

Steelmage99 wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:For what it's worth, the INAT faq addresses this specific issue.

It is worth nothing in YMDC, and doubly so if the tournament in question doesn't use it.

But the GW FAQ holds weight(always here in YMDC, and generally in tourneys); and it says the same thing(with different actual verbiage).



And if the tournament doesn't use GW or INAT FAQs, then the TO is just completely making up his own rules and you can probably convince him/her to allow you to deep-strike your giant vehicle(or move it on so that the back edge is on table), and still be considered to move at combat speed(also via proper bribing you could get them to rule all sorts of strangeness since they are not going with any established FAQs).

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:For what it's worth, the INAT faq addresses this specific issue.

It is worth nothing in YMDC, and doubly so if the tournament in question doesn't use it.

But the GW FAQ holds weight(always here in YMDC, and generally in tourneys); and it says the same thing(with different actual verbiage).

I am not disputing that.

I am only addressing the reference to the INAT.

Which GW FAQ? Is it spearhead specific? Because I don't remember that from the brb FAQ.

Steelmage99 wrote:I am only addressing the reference to the INAT.

And I addressed the reference to the INAT in my OP before I referenced the INAT. I swear some people here think that referencing the INAT some sort of YMDC/internet sin. It's not. It is what it is, no more, no less. It's not GW cannon. It is widely used. Not uniformly used, not invariably used, just widely used.

The tenets of YMDC state "The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs."

I said "RAW with the GW 5th ed update 1.5 language, I would say that the 'hanging' super heavy is destroyed. The INAT faq is a commonly used compromise at events, but definitely not GW cannon."

Being nitpicked after per-emtively politely nitpicking myself feels oddly insulting. I cannot even express why my reaction is so strong. It's probably not rational. I am not saying you insulted me, but I feel insulted.

Please read http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/inat_faq.jsp for a better explanation of what the INAT faq is, and is not.

I posted the INAT language as a possible means to solve the OP's problem. If he knew that the tournament will be using INAT faq, problem solved. If he wanted a reference to back up his case to the TO, problem solved.

I think from now on I may have to preface any reference of the INAT with a boiler-plate disclaimer so that I can avoid getting splinters while pulling the stick out of people's ... responses.

foolishmortal wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:I am only addressing the reference to the INAT.

And I addressed the reference to the INAT in my OP before I referenced the INAT.

I did indeed notice that you underlined the "For what it is worth"-part.

Being nitpicked after per-emtively politely nitpicking myself feels oddly insulting. I cannot even express why my reaction is so strong. It's probably not rational. I am not saying you insulted me, but I feel insulted.

I am sorry you feel that way. No insult was intended.

In my experience the majority of readers of this forum is unable to distinguish INAT from official GW FAQs clearly enough.
Without a very clear distinction between the two INAT rulings risk being presented as "official".

It is kind of like when a rumour-thread becomes infected with wishlisting from mouth-breathers, and after a quick run around the bloggo-sphere, Warseer, Librarium Online, BoLS and back to Dakka....what was wish-listing suddenly becomes almost-certainly-kinda-confirmed rumours.

I think from now on I may have to preface any reference of the INAT with a boiler-plate disclaimer so that I can avoid getting splinters while pulling the stick out of people's ... responses.

And to think that even though you were doing so well up to now, you just couldn't help yourself throw in a little insult in the end.

Sigh.

Steelmage99 wrote:And to think that even though you were doing so well up to now, you just couldn't help yourself throw in a little insult in the end.

I am human, thus far from perfect. I will offer no excuses.... ok, I will offer one. It was funny. Perhaps inappropriate, on several levels, but it made me laugh and I wanted to share it. I am more a loofah than aloof. I apologize, in advance, for implying that anyone on this forum is in any way, shape or form comparable to back dirt.