Re: [Epic] Q&A 2 (and notes)

From: David Dresser <lemming_at_...>
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 11:58:50 -0700

Hello,

These answers have raised several questions of their own.


> >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

At a range of 60cm, how many BMs will prevent a pulse laser armed
phantom from firing?

 
> >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

What if the damaged flyer is the HQ? May the other two still fly the
next mission in two turns?

What if two flyers were damaged, may the remaining undamaged flyer
perform a solo mission?

What if one flyer is damaged on the second mission? You will have one
flyer in each of the status areas (repairs/rearming/ready). How long
until you can fly another mission with the detachment?

I'd appreciate it if the next batch of Q&A suggested general rules for
defining unit coherency with respect to flyers, instead of providing
specific examples.
ie: members of a single flyer detachment may fly no more often than
every other turn.
or: a detachment of flyers is led by it's HQ unit, and may fly as often
as the HQ is able to fly.

> >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.

They've been jerking the players around since titanicus trying to make
the game system fit the fluff instead of trying to make the game system
coherent, balanced, and playable. Anyone who gets suckered in by this
explanation is welcome to pay 75 per farseer. In my group the eldar pay
the same for their commanders as anyone else.

-Lemm
Received on Sun May 25 1997 - 18:58:50 UTC