Greetings:
Jervis has gotten back to me with answers to our latest batch of questions.
He has also mentioned that the WD crew are keen to do a published Q&A for
EPIC and wants permission to use our questions in the Dwarf. It goes without
saying that I have granted full permission! I only bring this up to quell
those nasty rumors that EPIC is already discontinued......
Anyway, on to the Q&A!
Not formatted yet; I'll try and get it up on the web sometime this
weekend.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------- BEGIN Q&A -------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1) The rules for the Vortex Missle state that all units under the
> template suffer "1d6 death ray hits". I have interpreted this to mean
> that the unit suffers 1d6 hits, not 1d6 chances to be hit. In WD,
> however, Andy Chambers discusses his displeasure with the way
> Deathstrikes have proven to work in games and suggests that you either
> limit them to 1 per detachment, or change their rules so that units only
> suffer 1d6 Anti-Tank hits. Once you remove the auto critical that WE's
> suffer from death rays, a hit would seem to be a hit. Why say 1d6 AT
> hits rather than just 1d6 hits? OR!! should the rules state that units
> under the template suffer "1d6 [weapon] *shots*"? Thus, the AT "hits"
> would only happen on 4-6 (each) rather than 2-6 (each), and a unit under
> the tamplate has a chance to not be hit at all?
> a) As stated in the rules, 1d6 hits of the appropriate type.
> b) You should roll for success for each "hit" using the
> apppropriate odds.
>
P: a) is the correct answer, and you are quite right, 'shots' would have
been a better term than 'hits'.
[Editor's note: If you are like me, it might seem that Jervis has just
given us both answers. I'll fire off a quick follow-up and get the
wrinkles ironed out.]
> 2) Many army lists allow you to pay +25 points and nominate one of your
> main force units as your HQ rather than forcing you to buy an HQ unit.
> When you do this, does the main force unit move up to the command slot
> on your detachment sheet and thus free up a main force slot?
> a) No. Paying the +25 merely pays the HQ cost for the
> detachment. You cannot, for example, move one of your IG
> artillary pieces up to the command slot and thus have eleven
> Main Force artillary pieces.
> b) Yes, it does. To cite the example given in part (a), you could
> thus have 11 Heavy Artillary units in an IG Artillary
> detachment.
>
P: a)
> 3) In a previous Q&A you informed us that an army could only have one
> supreme commander, with the exception of the Tyranids whose number of
> Dominatrices was limited by their overall army points. Several players
> wnat to know if the Eldar also form an exception to this ruling, since
> their Commander list says they may have up to two commanders. [I keep
> stating that this obviously refers to two commanders *within the same
> detachment* -- one Farseer and one Avatar -- but several seem to doubt
> me.....]
> a) The Eldar, like most armies, can have only one Supreme Commander
> detachment on the table. Both a Farseer and an Avatar can be
> within this detachment.
> b) The Eldar may have two Supreme Commander detachments on the
> table. Choose a Farseer to lead one and an Avatar to lead the
> other.
> c) The Eldar may have two Supreme Commander detachments. Each may
> have both commanders.
>
P: a)
> 4) In the Designer's notes for EPIC 40,000 you gave us hints
> at how to convert Titan models built under the old rules over to the new
> system. In the midst of these hints and suggestions, you make the
> statement that titans with two CC weapons will just have to have some
> surgery. The clear indication here is that no titan may mount two CC
> weapons. However, there seems to be nothing in the Army lists that
> restrict a titan from taking two CC weapons. Unless, of course, we are
> misreading the Titan options in the army books, and where they say
> "choose from the following weapons" they actually meant "choose up to
> one of each of the following weapons, up to the maximum number your
> titan can mount." To put a long question short, can you mount two CC
> weapons on the same titan?
>
P: It is legal for a Titan to have more than one CC weapon, but as it
receives no extra benefit for having it there is no real point in taking one
(i.e. having two CC weapons does not quadruple its assault value). As an
aside, your question started a debate as to if it would be OK to allow
Titans to have multiple CC weapons at an increased assault value, and the
general concensus was that it would probably work out just fine, though this
is *not* the way we've ever played it. However, if anybody wants to try out
the option as a house rule, we'd be interested to know if it is unbalancing
or not.
> 5) [I've supported the "obvious" answer to this one for a while, but it
> pops up from newbies so often that I thought I'd better pass it on for
> confirmation]
>
> Orks may hitch a lift on battlewagons. This seems clear enough.
> Look at your units list and if the unit is entitled "battlewagon" then
> your infantry may hitch a lift upon it. Look on page 47 of the Armies
> Book, however, and read the last paragraph of the section entitled "Da
> Wagonz." This paragraph gives the definite idea that Dreadnoughts,
> Stompas, Squiggoths, Speedstas, and Flakwagons are considered
> battlewagons. Which "battlewagons" may Orks use to hitch a lift.
> a) Only units specifically entitled Battlewagons have this
> feature.
> b) Battlewagons, for the purpose of hitching a lift, include everything
> listed on page 47 of the armies book under the "Da Waggonz"
> section.
> c) Some subset of the units listed on page 47 allow you to hitch a
> lift.
> Please define what.
>
P: a)
> 6) In the last Q&A, you stated:
>
> > Q: The Slaanesh Questor titan seems much more useful than the
> > Subjugator, yet it is the Subjugator that costs more. Is it
> > possible that these two scout titans have their costs reversed in the
> Armies
> > book?
> >
> > P: No - the Subjugator has a Titan CC weapon
>
> We will, of course, accept your answer as always. However, I feel I may
> have phrased the original question poorly. The Subjagator has a CC
> weapon, yes, and this was the point of the question. The CC weapon does
> not seem as useful as lots of firepower on a fragile WE wtih a low AF.
> Another player notes that every other CC weapon, be it on a Tyrannid
> BioTitan,
> and Ork Gargant, or an Imperial Titan, has an FP of 4 and a range of 30.
> If the Subjagor CC weapon had this as well, it would trade a 4 FP
> 45cm range weapon for a 4 FP 30cm + CC ability. Which would seem worth the
> points difference.
>
> Just to be sure we are asking the question we meant to ask, could it be
> possible that either the two scout titans have their costs reversed, or
> that the Firepower rating was left off of the Subjagator's CC weapon?
>
P: We did understand the question, it's just that we value the CC weapon
higher than the firepower in this case. Gav says "try going up against three
of them!". Point values are very subjective things, and can vary quite a lot
depending on style of play as much as anything else.
> 7) Another follow-up question. (Don't you hate those?) In a previous
> Q&A you confirmed that Rought Rider HQ squads could not include either a
> Captain or a Psyker. (This is what the detachment list seems to
> indicate. We just thought it odd and wondered if the text might be
> misleading.) Fair enough. However, in the sample battle in White Dwarf
> 216
> we find that Warwick has indeed included a captain in his Rough Rider HQ
> stand. Since WD is supposed to be the official word for rules in the GW
> universe, we just want to double check. Was Warwick using some sort of
> house rule, or should this be legal?
>
P: Nope, Warwick just made a mistake, and the WD editors didn't pick it up.
BTW, the 'official rules' things really only applies to Q&A and rules
articles; battle reports shouldn't be used in the same way.
That's all for now, and we hope the answers help rather than just starting
renewed debate (yes, I know, fat chance of that!)
Jervis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that's all for now. As always, send any further questions you might
have to allen_at_.... I try to watch the list for quesitions too,
but with the volume of mail it tends to generate there is always the
chance I might miss one. If you send it to the address above I am guaranteed
to read it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allen (The Q&A guy)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the EPIC and EPIC 40K Q&A Pages
Mirrored by J. Michael Looney at:
http://www.spellbooksoftware.com/allen-mirror/default.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sat May 30 1998 - 01:41:22 UTC