Hi!
> Hi Peter!
>
> This brings up an interesting question.
>
> When the transports are part of the same detachment as the troops, the
> troops can unload during the same movement segment as the vehichles.
>
> But what about a situation like this: The Goff Clan buys Skullhammas
> for it's Boys and Nobs. Are the Superheavies independent detachments,
> since they have thier own Nobs on board, whould Battlewagons be
> independant?
By definition the skullhamma, as similar units like the tinbotz ARE
inidependent units and dont need a nob close to it for orders. If it wasn't
specified it was an oversight. According to he fluff nobz run these things,
although they may not order any other units.
Battlewagons, however, are NEVER independent and always need a nearby nob
for orders.
> We have ruled that because the Skullhammas are a seperate transport
> detachment, that all the Boys (or Nobs) must unload in a seperate future
> movement, after all the Shullhammas have moved. Unloaded Boys could
> then unload from all the Skullhammas, and must maintain unit coherency.
>
> Is this correct?
Since the skullhamma forms its own "detachment" and independent group you
need not keep them in coherency. However if boys are loaded and they
disembark they may find themselves with out orders next turn.
I have sometimes fancied giving these units limited command capabilities at
least for the unti they carry.
Peter
>
>
> Thanks Peter!
>
> Warprat;)
>
>
>
> Peter Ramos wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Crap! Sorry about that, I meant to response but I lost track of the
message.
> >
> > In case of marines since trasnports are an integral part all units
(troops
> > and APC) need to be in coherency where possible. Troops may enter
terrain
> > where transports can not move into, so in this case keep them as close
as
> > possible.
> >
> > Now the warhost and Exodus slann are somewhat different. they do form
one
> > company, but each from their own detachment, meaning that the infantry
and
> > transport MAY move indepenedently of each other.
> >
> > I would for the sake of completeness rule that the rhinos of marine
> > detachments also form their own detachment and thus too move
independently.
> > As the net epic rules stand yuo may give separate orders to both troops
and
> > APC anyway, why not treat them as independent detachments to begin with.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > Greetings,
> > I had asked this question a few days agao but got no response. Do the
APCs
> > contained in a company card have to remain in coherency with their
troops? I
> > know the answer is yes but when other players and I looked at the Eldar
> > Warhost card and the Slann exodus war band the APCs were not listed as
part
> > of the infantry detachment but as seperate detachments. This means that
> > those transports can carry support units too without worrying about the
> > coherency rule with their original company infantry units.
> > Should the cards be interpeted as above or as below?
> > 2x (6 stands exodus warriors + 3 APC)
> > 3x (6 eldar guard stands + 3 Falcons)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Darius
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Practice random acts of trivia
> > Visualize wedge pieces
> > All we are saying is give Trivial Pursuit� Online a chance!
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/2358/3/_/7255/_/953555159/
> >
> > -- Check out your group's private Chat room
> > -- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=netepic&m=1
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying _at_Backup
> > Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
> > Install today:
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/2344/3/_/7255/_/953591076/
> >
> > -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
> > -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=netepic&m=1
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
>
> eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/netepic
> www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 22 2000 - 00:08:18 UTC