Re: [Epic] got my Epic 40K

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 15:05:12 -0400

Andrew Skinner wrote:
>
> Here are some thoughts:
> * Although they are changing the size of some vehicles to be the "correct"
> scale, they sure don't seemed to be concerned with infantry scale. The
> characters are much bigger than the grunts. The stormboys' heads (err,
> sorry, da stormboyz' hedz) are 4 times as big as most of da boyz.

        That's been screwed for some time now. Compare any
tyranid beastie (especially the small ones like termagants or
gargoyles) to a Space Marine: the 'nids are huge, totally out
of proportion.

> * I was hoping that the assault movement rules had been misread by huge
> numbers of people,

        C'mon, we're not THAT dumb. Although I realized after
reading the E40k battle report in WD that I misread the
supporting fire rule - on my first read through I thought you
added 1 to your DIE ROLL for every unit within 15cm (as opposed
to your total Assault value). Ooops... (made vindicators seem
REALLY damn good)

> and that you only move a total of twice your normal
> move (one normal move in movement phase, one in assault). But I saw
> the sentence about infantry moving a double move into contact. Oh, well.

        Yeah, it's pretty annoying. GW loves that close combat.

> * Do you end up measuring range in the shooting phase twice, once to determine
> who can shoot, the other to determine who can be shot? Sounds like both
> are based on the nearest unit.
>
> A A A A
> Detachment B is shooting at detachment A.
> A1 If A1 is in range of all Bs, all Bs can shoot.
> If all As are in range of B1, all As can be shot.
> B1
> Is this correct?
> B B B

        That's what the rules say. *shrug*

Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Wed May 14 1997 - 19:05:12 UTC