Kalle Marjola wrote:
>
> Ok, after a few battles it has come quite obvious that standard morale
> rules
> for blast markers are unsable.
Good thing you're asking--a lot of people are using them, maybe
something will turn up. I haven't played recently, and don't have
my books, so won't try to come up with rules answers. I did think
that there was some rule limiting morale losses for blast markers,
though. I know there is a rule that kicks in when the number of
blast markers is > (>= ?) the number of units in a detachment, but
I don't remember what it is about. Fat lot of help I am. :-)
> PS: And the problem is not with only disrupt-weapons, but with blast
> markers
> and morale in overall, sometimes. We had a daemon detachment with 5
> blast
> markers, retreated into a cover. Each turn 5 morale was lost to it (kept
>
> rolling 1 in the rally phase) - so overall morale loss for these 2
> flamers
> were more than from the rest of the army...
Multiple rolls of 1 are definitely an exception. Although they do
happen, the odds are against it. I don't have a problem with the
number of blast markers that can be applied, but I have complained
about the roll for removing blast markers. It seems to me like it
varies an awful lot. I have proposed rolling 2d6 and using the
smaller value, so you always remove 1 marker and can remove 6 if
you roll 2 sixes. This still gives a wide range, but groups them
together a bit. The minimum of 1 and the max of 6 are offset by
the numbers tending to smaller. But I've been told that the problem
may be perceptual, seeming more apparent with smaller battles, and
that with larger numbers of detachments, it would even out. I am
going to hope this is true and stick with the rules for now, but
I do kind of like my proposal.
The standard rules _do_ make it easier to remove all blast markers
if you have 1 than if you had 5, but on the other hand it is as
easy to remove 0 on one particular try as it is to remove 5. Let
me rephrase that. It is easier to remove at least X blast marker
than to remove at least Y, where X < Y. But it is as easy to remove
exactly M as it is to remove exactly N, where M and N are both between
0 and 5, inclusive. But this may not really be a problem. I don't
like seeing someone (me or my opponent) roll several 1s or 6s. But
as I said, those really are unlikely, anyway.
--
Andy Skinner
askinner_at_...
Received on Mon Jan 05 1998 - 17:13:11 UTC