Greetings all:
I'm back from vacation. Here is the latest Q&A from Jervis as I promised.
Jervis was also kind enough to forward us some additional mail that was
sent to him. Happy reading!
I've just plowed through about 1200 e-mails, and am feeling a little burned
out, so I won't be putting these up on the web page tonight. Look for them
there at the start of next week.
**************************************************************************
****************************** BEGIN Q&A *********************************
**************************************************************************
>BLAST MARKERS
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1) An Eldar pulsar fires 1d6 AT shots. For the purposes of placing
>blast markers, does this count as 1 or 1d6 Super Heavy Weapons?
P: It counts as 1 Super Heavy Weapon
>2) Question - how many blast markers are placed when a mega cannon is
>fired? Rules state (p34) "each mega cannon _*attack*_ places one Blast
>marker on the target detachment in addition to any other blast markers
>that would normally be placed."
>
>[Editor's Note: Emphasis mine; because this is the word that bugs us]
>
>Example - a Warlord is armed with four mega cannon. It is shooting at a
>detachment of twelve ork Boyz. It can fit three stands under a barrage
>template, can do this four separate times, and can hit a different group of
>three with each template. The Warlord fires all four mega cannon at the orks.
>The first two cannon kill one ork each, and the second two kill two orks each.
>Does the Warlord place:
>
> a) 2 BMs - 1 because there are 4 SHWs firing, plus 1 addtional
> marker because a mega cannon(s) was fired.
> b) 5 BMs - 1 because there are 4 SHWs firing, plus 1 addtional marker
> for each mega cannon that fired.
> c) 7 BMs - 1 because there are 4 SHWs firing, plus 1 addtional marker
> for each hit on the orks (with a total of 6 hits);
> d) 13 BMs - 1 because there are 4 SHWs firing, plus 1 addtional marker
> for each attack die rolled (and each megacannon rolled to hit
3
> targets for a total of 12 rolls);
> e) something else?
P: The correct answer is b)
>ASSAULT PHASE
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>4) When one detatchment engages another in an assault or a firefight, it is
>quite possible for one of these two detatchments to have a toal assault
>or firepower value of zero. (Consider a detatchment that has nothing left
>but rhinos.) For the puposes of determining the die roll modifiers,
>should the superior side automatically be considered to have 4 or more times
>the assult/firepower of the side with zero (and thus get +4 to the die roll),
>or should some minimum value be assigned to the inferior side?
P: It automatically gets a +4 modifier. Theoretically (sp?) this can lead
to some strange situations, i.e. one stand of Gretchin getting into a
firefight with 25 Rhinos and ending up with a +4 modifier!, but in practice
the rule works just fine. Players that have a problem with this should come
up with their own house rules, for example assuming that a detachment
always has a value of at least 1 for firefights or close assaults, even if
all the units involved have a factor of '0'.
>5) During shooting, the rules specifically state thet a unit needs a line
>of sight to at least part of the target detachment in order to participate.
>There is no such statement in the rules for lending assistance in an
>assault or firefight.
>
> a)Does a unit need to have LOS in order to participate in a
> firefight, or does it only need to be within 15cm of the enemy
> detatchement?
>
> b)Does a unit need LOS in order to lend support to an assault, or just
> satisfy the 15cm criteria?
P: NO LOS is required in either case. For firefights and assaults we assume
that there is considerable movement going on which is not represented on
the tabletop, and that if a unit wants a shot, it will get one!
>6) If an infantry can get into CC but is not allowed to (ie the enemy unit in
>question is already being attacked by two units) can the infantry unit still
>double its movement to get into range to help with surporting fire?
P: No
>FLYERS
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>7) If you first place your flyers on the board within range of your own
>flak units, and then your opponent places his interceptors on the board
>next to your flyers, may your flak units fire at the interceptors?
> a) Yes
> b) No. Complete all intercept actions before considering your
> flyers to be "on the board."
P: The correct answer is b)
>8) When an interceptor squadron is placed on the table next to its target
>detatchment, must each flyer shoot at the closest enemy unit or may it
>choose to fire at any unit in the target detatchement? (my opponent always
>always goes straight for my Harridan [in the center of my flyer detatchment],
>and unsurprisingly drives it off)
> a)Resolve casualties by removing the nearest enemy flyers first,
> just like in ground combat.
> b)Each interceptor may shoot at whichever flyer it likes.
P: The correct answer is b)
>9) Consider a detatchement of three fliers. On their first ground
>attack mission, one of them is damaged but the others escape unharmed.
>Two turns later, the undamaged fliers are ready for another ground
>attack, but their damaged comrade needs another turn to rearm. May the
>two undamaged flyers undertake a mission without their wounded comrade?
>
> a) Yes. The detatchment may fly a mission as if it were a two
> unit detatchment.
> b) No. All units in a flyer detatchment must be repaired and
> rearmed before the detatchment may fly any more missions.
P: The correct answer is a)
>10) If the answer to the above was yes, may the lone flyer perform a
>mission by itself on the next turn, or must it wait for its brethren?
P: No, it must wait for the rest of the detachment
>NOT EXACTLY RULES QUESTIONS, BUT THE QUESTIONS I GET ASKED MOST OFTEN
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>11) Have you ever considered/will you ever consider a maximum pop-up height
>for skimmers?
P: No, but players that want to make their own house rules should feel free
to do so (just don't ask us to use them!)
>12) Was the Eldar Farseer used as a detatchment HQ designed to cost 75
>points, or was this price an unforseen consequence of last minute changes
>in the structure of the army lists? He seems to cost only 50 points when
>purchased as a supreme commander.
P: Inititially all Eldar War Hosts were led by a Farseer that cost 50
points (you had no choice, you had to take him). In the end, however, we
decided this was a bit silly as there simply aren't that many Farseers
around, so we made using a Farseer an option at a cost of 50 points. (We
know that nearly all 40K Eldar armies are led by a Farseer - we hope to be
able to remedy this at some point in the future...) Then we found that at
50 points all detachments ended up being led by a Farseer anyway, so we
added in the +25 point mark-up. On the other hand using a Farseer as a
Supreme Commander seemed highly appropriate, so we left him at 50 points in
this case.
(Hope that makes sense!)
>JUST A NOTE
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Rough Riders are not mentioned as having the Assault ability in the
>charts within the Imperial Guard section of the armies book (p. 15), or
>in the Imperial Guard Summary Chart on p. 30. They are shown in both
>these places as having only the Cavalry ability. In the detatchment
>chart on p. 33, hoever, Rough Riders are shown as having both the
>Assault and Cavalry abilities. Can you confirm that p. 33 is correct,
>and that Rough Riders should have the assault ability?
P: Page 33 is correct, Rough Riders should have the assault ability.
Finally, attached is a question that i thought might be of interest.
>Jervis,
>
> I might start by apologising for contacting you in this manner,
> however, I do not subscribe to the Space Marine mailing list so I
> couldn't put my points up their.
>
> I recently read some clarifications which were attributed to you -
> these were on 'Allens Page' (HTTP://work1.utsi.edu:8000/_amccarle/).
> One clarification in particular caused me some concern, it related to
> the effect of blast markers on super heavy weapons. Whilst I have no
> problems per se with the interpretation that blast markers reduce
> super heavy weapon fire by one weapon for each blast marker, I am
> concerned by the extention of that to War Engines.
>
> Using a warlord titan as an example it is possible to reduce its
> firing to zero with four blast markers if it has four super heavy
> weapons. The same four blast markers would only reduce a detachment
> of infantry's firepower by four. In looking at the relative costs and
> effectiveness of units it is clear that if blast markers effective war
> engines' super heavy weapons in the same manners as they would say a
> landraiders then war machines are grossly overpriced.
>
> Jervis, please sit down and look at the EPIC 40K Armies book and check
> how many blast markers it takes to neuter the different War Engines -
> particularly if they take only super heavy weapons. Look specifically
> at the Tyranid Dominatrix - 3 super heavy weapons only (no choice) for
> 490pts.
>
> The only conclusion that the group of people I game with could come to
> was that war engines firing should NOT be effected by blast markers -
> their fire is withered through the effects of critical damage. Blast
> markers should retain their effect on movement, firefights and close
> assault.
>
> Please make a clarification regarding the effect of blast markers on
> war engines as well as their effect on super heavy weapons.
P: Sorry Hugh, but this isn't the way we've _ever_ played at the Studio.
Through-out playtesting blast markers effected War Engines in the same way
as any other unit, and they all performed just fine in the games we played
(and we played *hundreds* of games). My advice is to never field a War
Engine unless its armed with at least one weapon battery that can 'soak up'
blast markers. If you've no choice in the matter (like the Dominatrix you
mention), engage the enemy at long range or on the flank to minimise the
number of blast markers you'll build up.
One final point with regard the Dominatrix, please note that the 'Energy
Pulse' counts as _three_ super heavy weapons (three anti-tank shots, to be
precise), and you'll therefore need to build up 5 blast markers to stop the
Dominatrix from shooting at all. In game terms this means hitting it with a
firepower of at least 40 points or so!
> On another note I heard that some Squat List are going to be in
> Citadel Journal No. 20, hooray - but are there going to be imperial
> knight lists soon?
There will be a Knight list in the very same issue!
Hope that helps.
Jervis
******************************************************************************
******************************* END Q&A **************************************
******************************************************************************
Received on Sun May 25 1997 - 04:21:14 UTC