Greetings!
Lots of good news here. First, After Jervis' earlier letter, Q&A 5
was answered after just a few days rather than a couple of weeks.
Even better, the questions were answered by Jervis himself with some
consultation from Andy. Most of the answers turned out how I thought they
probably would, though the infiltrate, disembarking, and Rough Rider support
answers surprised me. (Though I'd seen the cheesey Warwick Drop Pod/Infiltrate
tactic touted in WD, so I feared it might go that way.)
IG commanders probably still won't be happy with the latest entry in
the Guard discussion, but if we take up Andy's challenge and are clever
enough then maybe we can do something about that! Anyway, on with the
answers! I'm leaving town in the moring to spend Thanksgiving with
my family, so it will probably be a while before I get any of this up
on the Q&A web pages.
>==============================BEGIN Q&A===================================
>
>Here are the "old" ones:
>
>
>1) The rules state that Flak units may roll 1 die for each of their points
>of Firepower when firing at fliers, and score a hit if they roll equal to
>the flyer's armour or more. The Eldar Fire Prism, however, has one anti-tank
>shot rather than a Fire-Power rating. While it certainly rolls one die
>when shooting at flyers, players are unsure if it should score a hit
>if it rolls 4 or above (as Anti-Tank) or if it scores armour value or
>above (as 1 Super Heavy Weapon = 1 FirePower). Which is the case?
P: The Fire Prism hits on a 4+
>2) Orks seem to be the only army with a chain of command that does not
>end in "any other unit." Is this a typo, or are Ork detatchments
>intended to fall out-of-command more easily than other armies? Note that an
>Ork Warband will be out-of-command if reduced to only Battlewagons, Buggies,
>and Gretchin [Not that I could ever envision Gretchin or Squigoths taking
>charge of anything! -Ed.] while a Kult of Speed will be out of command even if
>it has Ork Boyz left.
>
> a) The Ork Chain(s) of command should end in "any other unit."
> b) The Ork Chain(s) of command is correct.
> c) The Ork Chain(s) of command is mostly correct, but needs a
> little tweaking... (please specify)
P: b
>3) When one War Engine (hereafter referred to as "WE") defeats another WE in
>close-combat, there is a chance that both will inflict hit(s) upon the other
>using the Close Combat Results Table. Should a damaged WE have a holo-field,
>then the rules indicate it is allowed to make a holo-save for each hit thus
>suffered.
>
>If the winning WE is equipped with a Close Combat Weapon, however, the
>Rules Book states (p. 32) that the loser automatically suffers Catastrophic
>Damage. No direct reference is made here to "hits", and it appears that
>the loser suffers Catastrophic Damage whether or not the winner would
>actually score any hits using the Close Combat Results table. What is
>the effect of a Holo-Field upon this "automatic" Catastrophic Damage?
>
> a) None. The loser automatically suffers Catastrophic Damage,
> regardless of whether any close combat hits are scored.
> b) The holo-field grants a 2+ chance to save from the Catastrophic
> Damage.
> c) The WE suffers Catastrophic Damage only if all the hits it
> suffers from are not saved. (Would WE's without a holofield
> suffer Catastrophic Damage if they suffer from no hits?)
P: a
>4) In the Imperial Guard infantry detatchment sheet (Armies Book, p. 33),
>Rough Rider units are listed in the Main Force section but not the Support
>Force section. The notes state: "Rough Riders may only be chosen as
>main force squads if the detatchment includes at least one Rough Rider
>Command squad, otherwise they are chosen as support units." If, however,
>the detatchment *does* include a Rough Rider Command squad, may Rough
>Rider squads still be purchased as support units?
>
> a) Yes. You may always choose them as support units.
> b) No, they may only be chosen as support units if you do not
> have the requisite commander.
P: a
>5) As the rules are written, Rough Rider HQs are excluded from being able
>to take a Captain or, more importantly, a Psyker. Is this correct? It
>seems strange to exclude from a dedicated close-combat force a unit
>whose primary purpose is to give +1 to the roll in a close-combat or
>firefight.
P: Yes, its correct.
>6) Infiltrators are allowed to add 30cm to their first move if they do
>not start the game on the tabletop. Several commanders have
>lately taken to using scouts in drop pods, or placing infiltrators
>into transports which begin the game in reserve. When their
>reserve units show up, they drop the pods or move the transports
>(on march or assault) then dump the infiltrators out and give them their
>initial move and the +30cm bonus (suffering -5cm for dismounting, of course).
>The letter of the law seems to show this being legal. Should it be?
>
> a) Yes.
> b) No. If infiltrators want to infiltrate, they must slog it out
> on foot.
P: a
>7) The EPIC 40K rules, on p. 16 of the Rules Book, now allow players
>to pass during the firing phase if they wish to wait for a better
>opportunity to shoot. [A change from the old rules that I like very
>much! -Ed.] What happens if both players want to pass in the shooting
>phase?
>
> a) The phase ends.
> b) The player who initially passed must fire a detatchment. Play
> then continues.
> c) The player who initially passed must fire a detatchment or
> declare that a detatchment will not fire this turn. Play
> then continues.
> d) Discuss it with your opponent. If you have reached a point
> where neither will fire unless the other fires first, then
> the firing phase ends.
P: a
>Here are the "new" ones:
>
>8) Thanks to your previous Q&A responses, we've mostly worked out the
>rules for Rampage units. Rampage units roll twice to score hits when
>in Close combat, but can't retreat and are captured if they lose. However,
>if they are in contact with all enemy units within 15 cm then it is possible
>they may lose the combat and have no one close enough to capture them.
>Are they still destroyed in such a case?
P: yes
>9) If a unit of infantry dismounts from its transport in the assault
>phase then it loses 5 cm. from its move when it charges into combat.
>Players are usure, however, if this 5 cm. is subtracted from the unit's
>move before or after it is doubled if such doubling will allow the infantry
>to get into Close Combat. Which case is correct?
> a) The infantry may charge up to (10-5)*2=10 cm if this will place
> the infantry into base-to-base contact.
> b) The infantry may charge up to 10*2-5=15 cm if this will place
> the infantry into base-to-base contact.
P: b
>10) An Eldar Pulsar fires as D6 Anti-Tank shots. In a previous Q&A you
>informed us that the Pulsar places blast markers as if it were a single
>Super Heavy Weapon, and NOT as if it were D6 Super Heavy Weapons. The
>D6 in its firepower column, however, leads us to ask the obvious follow-up
>question. How many blast markes shut down a Pulsar?
> a) A single blast marker will prevent a Pulsar from firing.
> b) Roll D6 for the number of shots the Pulsar gets. This is the number
> of blast markers required to completely shut down the Pulsar.
P: a
>11) What is the FirePower rating of a Pulsar in Close Combat? One,
>as it is a single Super-Heavy Weapon, or D6?
P: one
>12) Barrage is listed under the heading of Super-Heavy Weapon. By the
>sequence of play listed in the rules, Barrage also has added its FirePower
>to your total pool of FirePower before you begin calculating how your blast-
>markers diminish your fire. Should a blast marker prevent the entire
>amount of FirePower from a barrage unit, or should it merely subtract a
>point of FirePower from your total pool of FP (including that from the
>barrage)?
P: Each barrage marker stops one barrage weapon (i.e. it prevents the
entire amount of firepower).
>13) At the beginning of each turn after the first you roll on the reserve
>chart to determing how many (if any) of your reserve detachments show up.
>If a reserve detachment is determined to show up, are you permitted to
>wait and have it enter on a later turn? (This quesiton brought to you
>by those who use flyers and drop pods)
P: Reserves _must_ enter play on the turn the dice roll is made, you can't
wait for a later turn.
>========================== END Q&A ====================================
>
>=================== About that Imperial Guard.... =====================
>
>In your last letter, you stated that Andy and Gavin were surprised
>at the low regard in which Imperial Guard infantry was held, and did
>not feel them to be a waste of points. Their stats aren't much good,
>you agreed, but they are dirt cheap and their firepower can be
>very effective when they are used in large quantities.
>
>Stand for stand you are correct, and no one would have any problem
>with the Guard's stats if you could field them in quantity. However,
>it is their expensive (and required) HQ stands that break them.
>Purchasing the extra upgrades for the Guard HQ stands, as you suggested,
>only seems to exacerbate this problem.
>
>Many players ran the analysis between Marine and Guard Heavy Weapons
>detatchments comprising equal at-range firepower. 8 Guard heavy units
>with their three requisite HQs cost 208, while 8 Marine Devastators with
>a Captain only cost 210. That's only two points more for the vastly
>superior Marines (the marine's armor and strategy rating are twice as good,
>and they are all stubborn). Even if you give the the Guard their
>maximum of 9 Heavy units (to avoid round-off error with the HQ's) you've
>still lost a lot of ground.
>
>Chris Meyer ran an analysis of Guard Tacticals vs. Orks that I like even
>better:
>
> The IG are certainly NOT a waste of points, just as Jervis says,
> right up to the point where you pay for the second or third
> commander. Consider, an Ork Warboss and 20 boyz adds up to
> 40 + (20*9) = 220 points (I don't have my army book, but I think
> this is right). In order to get these 21 stands, but of guardsmen,
> you have to buy 3 HQ's, and 9 squads of tac troops : (3 * 32)
> + (9 * 14) = 222. While the points are similar, the orcs have better
> armor and double the assault factor, while the warboss, who is a hero,
> can eat the guard HQ's for lunch. A more reasonable cost would be to
> pay 32 for the first HQ, 7 for each of the other two, and 126 for the
> 9 tac squads : 32 + 7 + 7 + (9 * 14) = 172.
>
> Mainly, I want to know why my darling Imperial Guard has to pay
> multiple 25 point surcharges for larger infantry detachments. First
> off, larger armor or artillery detachments don't pay this. Second,
> while I know that the system is intended to mirror the purchasing
> as done in Warhammer 40K (though in your standard thousand point
> War 40K game, this is rarely an issue), that seems a poor reason in
> EPIC 40K. The reason is play balance. Other races
> don't pay it, why should the Guard? Note that I don't mind buying a
> second or third HQ for them, I just don't see the sense in paying
> 32 points apiece for them. The main point of my question is -
> how does this make sense - PLAY BALANCE WISE?
>
>Anyway, that is the way the discussion of Imperial Guard has been runnig
>on the list and among the people sending me queries. Many players seem
>to support Chris' modified HQ costs above, others state that the only
>way to get what you pay for with Guard Tacticals is to take them as
>support for tank detatchments (which don't have to buy multiple HQ's),
>while a depressingly large number of people simply hold to the line,
>"Never take any Imperial Guard infantry."
>
>I Just wanted to let you know where the player's problems with the
>Guard were. No one is trying to turn them into great warriors,
>or to cheese their opponent. If Andy and Gavin have found effective
>ways to employ Guard infantry as written, then I look forward to
>reading the upcoming tactics articles you mentioned!
>
Andy Chambers Says: The point here is that IG players are looking at
infantry without considering the tanks and other support. If you want to
invent an "Infantry Company" detachment with HQ costs as stated (32, 7, 7)
but only infantry and heavy weapons (no Rough Riders, Chimeras, etc), that
would be fine. In fact, if you wanted to invent such a company, play test
it, and then send it in to Jervis, I'd be more than happy to consider it
for publication in the CJ or even WD.
******************************************************************************
********************** End bits of Jervis' Letter ****************************
******************************************************************************
Well, there you have it. The guard command costs still make no sense to
me. I've a feeling that perhaps the point of my argument has been missed,
but I don't know how to state it any clearer. Units should be priced so that
equal points of one force (Guard) should perform on par with equal points
of another force trying to fulfill the same roll. In our current discussion,
I would argue that Cavalry and Mechanized Infantry (ie. those with Rough
Riders and Chimeras) are *exactly* the detachments that should be increased
in size without paying surcharges for extra commanders. (Though the answer
to question 4 helps the Rough Riders some.)
Oh well, put your thinking caps on. I for one, look forward to seeing the
WD which includes the IG battle report that is sure to follow the new IG sprue.
I'd like to see how the game designers envision the proper design of an IG
army.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allen (The Q&A guy)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the EPIC and EPIC 40K Q&A Pages at:
http://work1.utsi.edu:8000/~amccarle/default.html
If you have questions about EPIC 40K and can't find the answers
in the rule books, send them to:
allen_at_...
They will be passed on to Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tue Nov 25 1997 - 23:52:00 UTC