You may remember I posted JJ's official response to 4 questions
recently. Well, just to be capricious I sent the same questions to GWUS
customer services - and got some very different answers!!
It's DEFINATELY time for an official FAQ.
Richard
>
> > I'd like to try some rule questions out on you. We've been argueing
> > the toss on the mailing list.
>
> Sure thing!
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 4 main areas of contention have arisen.
> >
> > 1) What is the effect during the shhoting phase of blast markers
> > placed
> > on detachments with superheavy weapons, particularly if the detachment
> > contains ONLY superheavy weapons, such as a warlord with only death
> > rays
> > or a detachment containing only land raiders?
>
> Note much, only their firepower when aiding in firefights/etc will be
> effected.
> >
> > On the one hand the arguement is that each superheavy weapon should be
> > treated as having a firepower of one; each blast marker causes the
> > loss
> > of one firepower, so it would therefore cause the loss of one
> > death-ray
> > or anti tank shots in the above detachments.
> >
> > The contra argument is that superheavy weapons are only firepower=1
> > during firefights. Accordingly, there is no mechanism by which blast
> > markers affect their shooting, so the titan or land raiders could just
> > sit there accumulating blast markers while still firing at full
> > effect.
> > The penalty is that it would have difficulties in any assaults or
> > firefights, and won't pass any leadership tests in a hurry.
>
> The latter
>
> >
> > Which interpretation is correct? Both could lead to strange
> > situations
> > in some circumstances. Is there some third option that we have
> > missed?
> >
> > 2) How many stands of terminators can a land raider or rhino carry?
> > The
> > rules give them a transport (2), therefore 2 units, even of
> > terminators
> > (as there are no special exceptions for them) whereas in 40k there is
> > only enough room for 5 models of terminators in either.
>
> 2 units, even though it's "wrong" from a 40K standpoint. But in epic, aside
> from very large critters like Hive Tyrants/Avatars/etc, all infantry are
> classed as the same size.
>
> >
> > 3) When must the +25 cost for a detachment HQ be paid? In the Space
> > marine list, is the +25 added on if the detachment is lead by a
> > captain
> > at a cost of 25pts? In the Eldar list, is the +25 paid if the
> > detachment is lead by a Farseer at a cost of 50pts? It appears that
> > the
> > list for marines and chaos marines has been compiled in a different
> > manner to the Eldar list. From the examples given in the armies book,
> > it would appear that the marines must pay the +25 in addition to the
> > captain, but the farseer cost already includes the +25.
>
> Here's how it works: you pick a commander for your detachment. It can be one
> of the pre-set ones (like a captain, or librarian for marines), or add 25 pts
> to a unit below to create a detachment HQ. So you don't have to pay an extra
> 25 pts on top of the captain/farseer/librarian to make them detachment HQ's,
> it's built into their points.
> This may read kind of confusion, you might want to call us up - it would be
> easier to explain on the phone!
>
> And can you
> > confirm that the cost of Tarzak grimsteel, the chaos lord example on
> > pge
> > 94, is a typo, the correct cost being 57 (chaos lord 25 + rhino 7 + 25
> > detachment HQ)?
> I think it should be 32, actually.
>
> >
> > 4) The rules for Eldar Exarchs are also causing confusion. Can they
> > only be added to basic Aspect Warrior stands, confering the assault
> > skill, or can they be added to a stand of Swooping Hawks?
> The latter
>
> What is the
> > effect of adding an Exarch to a Dark Reaper squad? Is the unit's
> > range
> > 15cm or 45cm, assault value 3 (4 divided by 2, plus 1; or 4 plus 1
> > divided by 2), firepower 2?
> We're awaiting an answer from Jervis & Andy on that topic, actually. Right
> now I'd use your choice, as long as all sides agree to it.
>
> >
> > (Also, pge 66 is missing the stat line for Harlequins, having labelled
> > it as a second stat lie for Aspect Warriors. Another typo?)
> Yes, looks that way.
>
> >
> > We eagerly await an official ruling on these points; it won't reduce
> > the
> > number of petty insults, but at least we'll all be playing by the same
> > rules :-)
> >
> > Thanking you in advance on behalf of myself and others,
> >
> > Richard
> Hope these help!
>
> Tim Huckelbery
> Games Workshop USA Customer Service
> Give us a call! 1-800-492-8820
> And visit the Games Workshop Web Site:
> http://www.games-workshop.com
Received on Wed Apr 16 1997 - 18:38:06 UTC