Re: [Epic] [E40k] Walking the hits down a detachment

From: M. Edward Davis <mediii_at_...>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 20:16:33 -0600 (MDT)

On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, The Ogre wrote:

> Alan Brain wrote:
> >
> > Richard Dewsbery wrote:
> >
> > > Look at p16 of the rules. If you split your fire, total up your overall
> > > firepower. Split it between the two targets (but allocate no more than
> > > 3 vs the second).
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > > > Example 2:
> > > > As Example 1, but there's only one target, at 20cm. Firepower is 3-3 =
> > > > 0....er.... How come the subtraction of the nearer target suddenly
> > > > reduced the firepower at long range?
> > >
> > > Look at example 1 - you said you were FP 4 vs this - what has changed?
> >
> > No, the target's at 20 cm, not 12, so it's the one with 3 FP, not 4.
> >
> > > > PROPOSAL:
> > > > In the firing phase, determine the total Firepower available, counting
> > > > every unit in the detachment, if it could fire (whether it has a valid
> > > > target or not).
> >
> > > That's pretty much how I've always seen it.
> >
> > Excellent, we have agreement. The important point is "counting every
> > unit in
> > the detachment" whether it has a valid target or not.
> >
> > > So if the Eldar were to make a pop-up attack, that gives the land
> > > raiders a chance to target them first. (Again, although not mentioned in
> > > the rulebook, I think you have to assume that you pop up at the start of
> > > shooting.)
> >
> > This is the Crux of the matter: When IS a pop-up? One for Jervis I
> > think. We should point out to him how this would make EofVs very, very
> > powerful if the PopUp ocurred only at time of fire, and not at start of
> > firing phase. I wish it were not so, but
> > based on past rulings, I think he meant at Time of Firing. Even though I
> > think this
> > should NOT repeat NOT be so.
> >
> > > Because BMs show unit cohesion, minor casualties, infantry "ducking" and
> > > vehicles maneuvring. There is now a bigger, more vulnerable formation,
> > > with a total FP of 10 + 20AT. But it's also more flexible.
> > > Effectively you are saying the termies are taking the brunt of the
> > > incoming supressive fire, screening the raiders if you like, allowing
> > > the raiders to fire at full effect. You could have chosen to apply the
> > > BMs so the raiders have 8 AT and the termies 10FP.
> >
> > OK, you've convinced me. However, it would be SIMPLER if you could just
> > total up the FPs of the units in the detachment, not worrying about
> > whether they can fire or not. Still, maybe this is not _too_ much of a
> > complication.
> >
> > > > OTOH..... maybe the opponent should allocate blast markers.
> > >
> > > That could get very complicated, very quick. Should I be able to
> > > supress my opponents warboss, instead of his gretchin? Should I be able
> > > to choose raider no.1, in range to shoot back, rather than raider no.4,
> > > which is out of range? This could get v. Silly V. Quickly for no
> > > immediately apparent benefit.
> >
> > A matter of some debate. Frankly, the incoming fire would be on the
> > Warboss,
> > the LR in range etc rather than on the gretchin. OTOH a single lasgun
> > shot
> > in the general area would not cause much change in an LR's abilities,
> > but
> > would drastically increase the Gretchin's laundry bill.
> >
> > Conclusion: Dunno. Arguments either way. I'd say stick with the Victim
> > allocation
> > as implied by the rules, due to simplicity if nothing else.
> >
> > > > After one turn of firing, no non-Titan Psyker unit will be on the board
> > > > within 45cm of any Land Raiders, unless it's cowering behind cover.
> > >
> > > If there are that many raiders about that this can be guaranteed, why
> > > should they leave the psykers in play??
> >
> > My point is that 2x AT weapons + High mobility + 45cm range = something
> > rather powerful. A detachment of 10 LRs would be able to move to 11cm
> > away
> > from the screening units, then fire 20 shots with an average kill rate
> > of
> > 10 units. At a cost of about 600 pts. And unlike the normal FP tank, it
> > can
> > pick and choose its targets to take out the good ones.
> >
> > Compare an (old) Epic Bonebreaker with an (old) Epic Land raider. Cost
> > is
> > the same. Ability is 1 shot at 4 and -2 vs 2 shots at 5 and -2, ie
> > similar.
> >
> > Now compare the 2xAnti-Tank ability of the LR vs pretty much any non
> > SHV.
> >
> > In addition, in Epic, at maximum you could fire 3-4 LRs ( a squad )
> > before
> > your oppenent could fire. In E40K you fire basically anything up to a
> > Company+,
> > which can wipe out all opponents before they get a chance to fire back.
> > With
> > the normal FP shots, you have to go for the screen, and cover helps. But
> > with
> > AT abilities, you just take out the command, the psykers, the shooty
> > stuff, and
> > leave the dross. This was also true in Epic, but because you only fired
> > a squad
> > at a time, you couldn't wipe out the lot before taking casualties.
>
> You have to shoot the nearest thing you can affect .... Which will be a
> screen if you have one...Its like for normal shooting, you have to
> incomparison walk down your dice through the detachment...
> Like shooting Battlewagons with Orks on them....
> First shoot the battlewagon with any 6's or 5's you have, as they are
> the first things to shoot, and the troops hop off, and get shot with
> anything with a 4+.... If there were troops unboarded behind the
> battlewagons, and you could shoot them, but not using 5's or 6's until
> you destroy all the battlewagons in the way. BUT if you fail to do
> that. I am not sure, the rule books fell short of achieving that
> verification (silly lack of foresight if you ask me, but what the hey,
> thats what e-mailing Jervis and WD Q&A's are for.
> At the moment in my GW store , and the games we have played, you have
> not been able to affect the troops behind the nearest thing if their
> armour was lower than the things in front.... (I.e. not being able to
> shoot at boys behind battlewagons). IMO this only makes sense,
> otherwise there is no point in using a screen... Admittted these are
> not gretchin or whatever, but then that is historical tactics if I
> remember, that tanks are in close support of troops. And it would kinda
> be liking to shooting the troops with a pop-gun, whilst the tank is in
> the way (i.e using it for cover)... (i.e you cant really get at them).
> If you can then walk your fire to troops behind the tanks, it would
> essentially negate the factor of the tank being able to cover troops
> from (for the troops) harmful fire while the tanks waltz on regardless
> as they have armour for protection.... (that is until the next turn when
> more 5's and 6's roll there way! :-) )
>
> What do you lot think?

Well, p19 say's to "4. Find out target's lowest armour value", so we know
what CAN hit. Then, on p20 it says, "Dice are allocated to the closest
target first then the second cloest and the third closest and so on,
skipping targets that the dice can't effect." I think this means that if
you fire on a IG unit with two Chimera in front of 4 stands of troopers,
you roll 5 dice and get 1,2,3,3,5 that one Chimera will get hit as will
two trooper stands.

                                        Ed "Overload" Davis
                                        med4386_at_...
                                        mediii_at_...
Received on Mon Apr 14 1997 - 02:16:33 UTC