Re: [Epic] Q&A 5 (Answered!)

From: John Chapman <john_at_...>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:28:06 +1100 (EST)

> >1) The rules state that Flak units may roll 1 die for each of their points
>
> P: The Fire Prism hits on a 4+
>
        Ok then when rolling to see if its driven off or splatted does the AT
shot still treat the armour as 4+ or does it revert to the normal armour
value (ie just how scared should Thawks be of AT Flak)

> >=================== About that Imperial Guard.... =====================
> >
> >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.
        Around here (ok noone usues IG much - shock horror) we're happy to let
a guard player take his 10 main force stands if he buys the 3 leaders.With
the difference in abilities of similar units of the same price - thats pretty
standard GW stuff. More on my opinions on that later but its a pity this
continually happens in most of their games. I think one of their basic
design philosphies is just wrong.........
> >
> > 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,
        Well heck some armies have to pay a surcharge just for having extra
detatchments. Some dont . It makes about the same amount of sense. The argument
for it probably comes down to play balance - if it works out ok like that Im
not really fussed,but it does lead to some weird situations like Farseers
as det leaders being a:much worse and b:more expensive than marine librarians.

> > 32 points apiece for them. The main point of my question is -
> > how does this make sense - PLAY BALANCE WISE?

        You seem to have the same opinion as me - play balance should
override most other considerations - including compatability with WH40K....
> >
> >while a depressingly large number of people simply hold to the line,
> >"Never take any Imperial Guard infantry."
        Sounds like my 'why take guardians when you can have aspects' theory...
Sadly even with the new rules there are still some very average units out there.
> >
> 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)
        See my response to this just below........
>
> ******************************************************************************
> ********************** 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,
        Thats what Ive always been arguing for in the past. I dont like the
standard GW response 'but the rest of your list makes up for it' if say you
have overpriced CC troops and cheap tanks. Rather than it all balancing out
with a balanced army that contains some of each type often we see very lop
sided armies consisting only of the cheap unit. Having units that do their
particular job very well for their price encourages unbalanced or cheesy armies.
We would see much more variety and fewer cries of 'cheese' if everything was
price reasonably fairly (ok mistakes are going to happen but couldnt we
try?). If 2 units are the same they should cost the same (ie Eldar/Marine
support platforms being an easy example here).

> 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.)
>
> I'd like to see how the game designers envision the proper design of an IG
> army.
         Id guess they all have different ideas. I may even be cynical enough
to suggest that occasionally some of them who are less than tactical geniuses
push for improvements to their favorite army if they think they dont win often
enough (Ok if an army is weak by all means improve it but if you think say a
90% winning percentage isnt high enough maybe that isnt so good. Ok I may be
paranoid but I remember the SM2 faq answered by Mark Watts back in about WD175
or so that was VERY generous to chaos. Amazingly in the battles book MW was the
chaos player...a coincidence?........).
        Also the environemnt the testers play in usually seems to be very
generous - like they dont even consider trying to abuse the lists as they are
written (which they should so they can see the problems and then fix them).
This reminds me of Blood Bowl. A new staff member turned up one day and started
fouling all the time and was racking up heaps of kills. In JJ's own letter to
a BBowl list he said hey none of us had ever played like that before and they
were surprised to see how effective it was (Our BBowl group was well aware of this....). At this point they created a new rule to limit fouls (IGMEOY). This
really needs to happen more often around GW.......
                                                just some ranting
                                                                JAC
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC