Interesting - Didi you know that until a few weeks ago the GW US staff didnt
know about your Q&A site??
They posted a Q&A update on the 40k list covereing 40k, Necro, BB and Epic -
with exactly one Epic question.
I told them of your site - they were ... completely surprised.
If the stuff goes inthe Dwarf insist they credit you and your site!
Kevin Kelley
kevin.kelley_at_...
My employer knows nothing about it.
> ----------
> From: A. Allen McCarley[SMTP:allen_at_...]
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 1998 9:41 PM
> To: space-marine_at_...
> Subject: [Epic] Q&A 7 *ANSWERED*
>
> 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 Mon Jun 01 1998 - 11:17:12 UTC