Re: [Epic] Net Epic - Multiple template barrages

From: nethol <nethol_at_...>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:55:32 +0200

----------
> From: duckrvr_at_...
> To: space-marine_at_...
> Subject: Re: [Epic] Net Epic - Multiple template barrages
> Date: 11 �ubat 1997 18:17
>
> At 11:56 AM 2/11/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >At 12:42 PM 7/2/97 +0200, you wrote:
> >>Multiple template barrages, like that of Barrage Missile of titans, can
> >>cover any area starting from the initial template so long as each
template
> >>touches the one before that, and none of the templates overlap.
> >
> >
> >With most multiple barrages this is true, but I do not think that this
is
> >stated for the Multiple Barrage Launcher and the fluff suggests that "it
is
> >a fine weapon for stripping void shields" - and how can you do that
without
> >being able to overlap the templates?
>
> You can still hit a titan with about 4 templates if you place them
properly.
> I don't see any need ot make barrages missile launchers any more powerful
> than they already are. In fact, I favor the restrictions on placing
> templates out of line of sight. However, how should this affect
Deathstrike
> missiles? They explode out of line of sight anyway.
>
A "barrage" is a bunch of projectiles or rockets exploding on or around a
target area. There is always a unique intended target point. The
Deathstrike Missile might be an "intelligent" weapon, but the multiple
warheads it carries are not. Thus the barrage must scatter more or less
randomly.

I am restating a house rule of ours on the subject, that served well for
many games:
"Extra templates in multiple-template barrages are placed in such a way
that, the number of templates at one side of the line-of-sight from the
weapon to the initial template cannot exceed the number of templates at the
other side by more than one". True, in the case of Deathstrike there is no
LOS as such, but the intent of the phrase is to define the flight path of
the missile or projectile. So, use the final direction that the missile hit
the ground instead. Perhaps we should rephrase the rule using "line of
flight" instead of LOS.
Received on Wed Feb 12 1997 - 10:55:32 UTC