Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Ork General Strategy and Unit Commentary - 5-21-10 repost

 Post subject: Re: Ork General Strategy and Unit Commentary - 5-21-10 repos
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:41 pm
Posts: 468
Location: Austria
Onyx while I agree with you in some respect, I have to say one has to be very careful with allowing the FAQ on scouts to be valid for ALL units/formations.

The usual ZOC of 5cm should IMO be always respected, so when assaulting you must not enter another units ZOC unless you want to assault it.

Scouts are an exception to this because their ZOC is 10cm. So you could use them to shield other units from attack with a much cheaper unit - and that's the cheesy part to me.

Doesn't really matter if the FAQ says anything about behind/front/left/right/above (u get the point) on this. This is just academics, I can always find a way to arrange things that a scout base is 0.01mm behind my target. Stupid, really, imo.

To sum up, to me heaping lots of "standard" units (ZOC 5cm) in one place so that you can only attack them intermingled or not at all (because you'd have to enter several units' ZOC) is perfectly fine.
With scouts it's different, so as long as you can't make an intermingled assault on the whole bunch I'd say "hang your head in shame"; if they are close enough to get them both (a.k.a intermingled), be my guest.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ork General Strategy and Unit Commentary - 5-21-10 repos
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:19 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20691
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Onyx:

The FAQ allows the charger to enter the Scouts' ZoC after they have already entered the real target's ZoC.

By my reading, that doesn't address entering a Scout formation's ZoC simultaniously with the real target's ZoC (Generally via an air assault) at all, and using the existing FAQ as justification for arguing it is possible is not a 100% solid argument.

The background text in the rules for Scouts in the rulebook mentions nothing about "screening" another formation from the attacks of the enemy at all...

Ultimately you'd just have to ask whether it feels like it falls in-line with the designer's intent.

So, do we think it falls within the intent of the rules that a formation of Sentinels (Broken or not) can screen an artillery company from a Thunderhawk assault?


I can see justifications either way in this case. Scouts certainly bring more to the manouever game of Epic if they are allowed to "screen" other formations from air assaults, and my general instinct would be to err with the interpretation that provides the most interesting / tactical game experience (Ginger's interpretation).

_________________
6mm scale Scifi Plastic Sprues available here!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ork General Strategy and Unit Commentary - 5-21-10 repos
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:41 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Ginger wrote:
So in your opinion, the FAQ overrides the rule - as you say, there is nothing more to say - DWWFY
Ginger, it's not my opinion... the FAQ actually states that it overrides the rule. My opinion has nothing to do with it.

mspaetauf - The FAQ actually says "then let’s say that the rule for moving into base contact with the enemy takes precedence over the rule for not entering another unit’s ZOC" .
It doesn't state a Scout's ZoC but another unit's ZOC.The intent of the FAQ seems quite obvious. It doesn't matter if it's a Scout or any other type of unit behind the target formation. According to the FAQ it can be assaulted.

E&C - The intent of the FAQ is clear and anyone "who has attempted to use this tactic to stop a charge should hang their head in shame!" Using the rules and the FAQ certainly cannot provide a 100% solid argument for Ginger's (and Your) interpretation either. I believe the intent of the FAQ was always to allow assaulting into multiple Zones of Control but clumsy wording has lead to lots of unproductive debate. :(

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ork General Strategy and Unit Commentary - 5-21-10 repos
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20691
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
E&C - The intent of the FAQ is clear

I agree it's very clear about "screening from behind" being an un-gentlemanly tactic, but it's not clear about whether an air assault then considers all scouts from whatever direction to be "screening from behind".

It's worthy of note that "screening" another formation is never referenced in the rules themselves; they are more than likely intended to be a functioning part of the rules as that is how most people assume "scouts" should work, but "screening tactics" are never actually addressed in the rules to my knowlege, and it is possible that it is a tactic that has developed organically rather than one that was intended by Jervis from the start.

Quote:
anyone "who has attempted to use this tactic*** to stop a charge should hang their head in shame!"


***"Screening from behind, during a charge move made presumably by ground based units" is the question at hand. Extending that to mean screening from aircraft assault might well be logical, but I'd like a FAQ answer just to be clear.

I've no great feeling either way, though as I said my natural tendency would probably be to pick the option that rewards intelligent placement of troops (Ginger's interpretation).


It was for a similar reason that I supported the majority interpretation in the case of asking how barrages are supposed to work ("Life is harsh" made placement of units more important), though of course careful reading of the rules made a complete nonesense of the minority viewpoint long before Jervis confirmed how the rule was supposed to work.

_________________
6mm scale Scifi Plastic Sprues available here!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ork General Strategy and Unit Commentary - 5-21-10 repos
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
Evil and Chaos wrote:
I've no great feeling either way, though as I said my natural tendency would probably be to pick the option that rewards intelligent placement of troops (Ginger's interpretation).


Whereas I'd go for the interpretation that reduces "fiddlyness"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ork General Strategy and Unit Commentary - 5-21-10 repos
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:10 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm
Posts: 3305
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
The first page of this thread was most useful. Thanks.
The next 5 pages of arguing about scouts ZOC and Landas was less relevant.

Does anyone have any Ork General Strategy and Unit Commentary?

I am splitting my Ork army into 2 separate forces- mobile Evil Sunz (will eventually use Speed Freeks list) and footslogging Goffs (will eventually use Stompy Onslaught list). After my game last weekend I have played grand total of 3 times using Orks since EA came out, so would welcome any insight into either mobile or footslogging Ork strategy and tactics.

Thanks

James


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net