Re: [Epic] Guard tactics

From: Ken Taborek <oberon_at_...>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 06:11:53 -0400 (EDT)

On the other hand, it would also allow the Imperial player to "cheese" by
leaving a unit behind as, say, artillery guard, and apply all blast
markers to them, and fire the forward unit at full effect. My, what a
run-on sentance that was! Of course, the rear unit would need a target to
soak the blast markers against.

--Ken Taborek oberon_at_...
"Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change."- random fortune



On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, David Dresser wrote:

> 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
>
> <snip>
>
> 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
> paper."
>
> 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
> start.
>
> 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.
>
> -Lemm
>
Received on Wed Jun 04 1997 - 10:11:53 UTC