A. Allen McCarley wrote:
> Has anyone's opinion of the guard changed with playtesting? A while back
> everyone seemed to think that they were simply inferior to the marines
> and yet did not save you any real points. Thus, it was pointless to take
> guard infantry. As I've begun painting my Guard infantry, however, I've
> noticed something about the army organization.
> You must buy a commander for every three (or portion thereof) squads
> in your detatchment. At first this seems like a points disadvantage.
> However, note that this purchase requirement allows you to split your
> detatchment into three autonomous pieces and still keep all your stands
Re-reading the rules for HQ units (p.10 rules)
"All detachments have a HQ (headquarters) unit, which must be the most
'senior' unit in the detachment, as shown in the Chain of Command
section of the detachment army list. If a HQ unit is eliminated then
the next unit in the chain of command for the detachment takes over.
The chain of command is shown in each detachment list. You must choose
the most senior possible unit to take over, but you can choose which to
use if several units are of equal rank. The unit that takes over must
be either noted with a suitable marker, or recorded on a piece of
I think it's reasonable to argue that only one unit among the three
possible command stands is the actual HQ, and that splitting your forces
in the way you suggest would leave two of them out of command from the
Assuming this is not the case, I think the little "detachments" would
rapidly leave command anyhow, due to AT and DR fire.
And finally, a split such as this would put some "detachments" in the
odd position of having to deal with BMs collected by other segments of
the larger whole. Suppress 3 for the price of 1 is a pretty good deal
for your enemy.
Received on Tue Jun 03 1997 - 22:34:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:32 UTC