>> 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)
> [snip quote]
>
> 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.
>
You make a valid arguement, supported by a relevant quote. You may be
right. This makes the IG and Tyranid organization charts a little silly,
though.
I wonder if GW might have been guilty of "Astartes-ization" when writing their
chain of command rules. (Kind of like being guilty of anthropomorphizing
when discussing animal behavior.) That is, thinking of the marines when
writing the rules, and thus writing rules that work perfectly for the marines.
I was guilty of this when I wrote up my first set of campaign rules.
Maybe not. Maybe the IG organization chart was meant to be silly. Too bad.
The fluff I've read makes the guard seem like the most organized and regimented
fighting force in the game. In contrast, the marines seem like little
collections of individual supermen and the eldar seem fragmented. It would be
nice to see this treated as an advantage for the Guard for once rather than a
disadvantage. All that organization should count for something.
> Assuming this is not the case, I think the little "detachments" would
> rapidly leave command anyhow, due to AT and DR fire.
AT could be a problem. The guard are used to this, however.
> 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
What I wrote sounded like I was going to seperate the "detatchments" by more
distance than I intended to. I wasn't going to put two pieces on opposite
flanks. Often, I find I can't get all of my infantry into cover because the
next building, woods, etc. is just outside of command distance of the HQ.
I envisioned the Guard being able to take more advantage of sparser cover
while still being able to get the "bigger than 15" leadership bonus. You
wouldn't absorb much more fire than if you hadn't spread out (maybe less
since you'd all be in cover) and hopefully the leadership bonus will make
up for what you do take.
Could be moot if your vision of the HQ rules is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allen (The Q&A guy)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the EPIC and EPIC 40K Q&A Pages at:
http://work1.utsi.edu:8000/~amccarle/default.html
If you have questions about EPIC 40K and can't find the answers
in the rule books, send them to:
allen_at_...
They will be passed on to Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Jun 04 1997 - 22:55:19 UTC