RE: [Net Epic ML] Re: Slann victorious again?

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:41:09 -0400

Hi!


(UNLURK)
Hi, I rarely comment on this list
(& have 0.0001% interest in Slann/Nercon),
but a statement was made that I think is Wrong.

No problem, glad to see you out thought to comment on stuff.

Unit Coherency; Bloodletters. In my old EPIC
books it states explicitly that if a unit cannot
keep up with the rest of the units in its group,
it MUST BE LEFT BEHIND & MUST try to rejoin it's
group A.S.A.P.. The example given is a group of
infantry & vehicles entering impassable terrain.

Partly true, the statement regards units that have broken coherency through
not fault of their own such as through fire casualties, however you cannot
break coherency voluntarily if the models has NOT been eliminated. This was
the official interpretation by GW on most of the online Q&A that existed on
Space marine and the actual question was regarding the
bloodletter/regeneration issue. Its basically a safeguard against those who
field all bloodletter armies (believe me they exist) and put a nice stop to
their cheesiness.

Is this a great interpretation, probably not, given GW's clueless ness most
of the time, but it does curtail a number cheesy ploys.

I feel that being shot DEAD (& MAYBE regenerating
later) is more of an Incovenience than terrain is,
so the 'dead' unit would also be left behind. If &
when it is no longer Dead, it would have to rejoin
it's group A.S.A.P.

I agree as it stands its pretty crappy application but the coherency rules
strictly state you can't ignore coherency when a unit is not eliminated and
a regenerating creature is not considered dead until it fails its roll.

Peter
Received on Thu Oct 12 2000 - 23:41:09 UTC