RE: [Epic] SHW's & BlastMarkers - kinda long

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:54:36 -0600

> > Who thinks titans are too big to be affected by blast markers when
> > firing?
>
> Not I
-------> I have mixed feelings on this but it doesn't seem broken
yet.See below.

> > The rules lawyers won't care and may cry a bit, but having a
> > shadowsword shut down by one BM,
>
> Umm... he was in a squadron with at least one Baneblade, right?
>
--------> That may be the point: Using the current rules he has to be.
Should "Super Heavy Tanks" have to travel in groups to be safe?

> > a reaver by 3,
>
> Where was your Heavy Weapons Batteries?
>
--------> Again, this may be the point: 3 weapons are 3 weapons, so why
are we required to take a HW battery?


> When you use a strategy of combined arms (as has been forced by
> reality
> on real-world commanders time and time again) you will find that
> Blast Markers hurt your firing much less.
>
--------> I'm jumping off the bus here:
        Real-world commanders don't use combined arms because of the
things BM's represent. They use them because it's a more flexible and
effective force. Infantry firing at a tank causes it to button up (close
the hatches), but does not prevent it from firing it's main gun, which
is what BM's do to Shadowswords and Land Raiders and any titan not using
a Heavy Weapons battery. Is it reasonable(notice _reasonable_ and not
"logical" or "realistic") that it takes 1 BM to shut down a Super Heavy
Tank's main gun, but it takes 2 to shut down many infantry heavy weapon
stands or a Predator tank? This makes predators and Leman Russ tanks
_more resistant to hostile fire_ than a Shadowsword. Sure, it takes 4
hits to kill one vs 1 for a normal tank, but if you factor in the
"single blast marker effect" vs the multiple BM's to stop multiple FP,
the hits to kill is not quite so important. And if you compare equal
point values, it gets really ugly.
        Early in the life of SM/TL one big issue was how a normal
infantry stand could take out a void shield, so an infantry unit was
unexpectedly dangerous to titans - theoretically 35 guys with bolters (7
stands) could take down a Warlord class titan. When your talking 900
points of titan offed by 100 points of troops (approximately) that's an
issue. This was later amended (in TL, though much earlier by some of us)
to say they had to have at least a -1 save mod to affect void shields.
This instantly corrected the problem, as it was mainly heavy weapon
troops or some kind of special troops at least who had these mods. And
no, points values were not changed because of this.
        Now, I see something similar. BM's are supposed to largely
represent fire suppression - the concept that even if you don't hit the
enemy, if you pump enough fire in his direction, he starts to worry more
about keeping his head down than shooting back at you - a good thing if
your on the ground nearby. Maybe it also covers smoke and blast effects
screwing up your targeting ability for vehicles - great, I like the way
it works for them. I even like it's effect on normal artillery, as
artillery in the real world is fairly easy to disrupt - mostly open
vehicles, guys are scurrying around in the open, and the equipment isn't
too mobile compared to other units - fine. But what on earth is
happening to a titan when blast markers start interfering with it? Are
the gun crews retreating deeper into the titan? What the hell is it
supposed to represent _then_? Is the titan ducking behind cover, thus
blocking some weapon barerels? If these are the case, FP batteries
should be blocked also. I guess my problem is that I see what BM's are
supposed to be and why they affect other units the way they do, but
those same thoughts do not apply to titans and super heavies and
certainly shouldn't depend on what kind of energy comes out of the
barrel of the gun.

        OK, now that I've gone off on BM's, let's be posititve: What do
I suggest as an alternative?

This:
BM's should affect a Superheavy weapon's chance to hit if it has one: -1
per BM. This way it's not an all or nothing proposition. Death Ray
normally hits on a 2+, but if you have 2 BM's it hits on a 4+. It takes
3 BM's to shut down an AT shot completely, but even with 2 , it still
has a chance. Now a Shadowsword with 1 BM can still fire, it's just a
little less likely to hit...
For Blast Marker Weapons, they lose 1 fp per marker just like any other
fp weapon
MegaCannons are a little sticky, but I still think the -1 to hit better
represents what a BM is supposed to represent, rather than , say, not
rolling vs one target under the Blast template.
        Now here's the rationale: For the roll to hit weapons, BM's
represent smoke, bouncing off terrain as they take evasive manuvers,
things smacking the hull, and gouts of earth thrown up by larger
weapons, so it's harder to effectively target things, and you're more
likely to miss. For template weapons, again, you're bouncing around and
dodging things, so your shell (or whatever) isn't placed as accurately,
so it does less damage.
        The only hole here is disrupt weapons. Not sure what to do with
these - could just keep the same "1 BM shuts them down" policy as we
have now, but that seems a little unfair. Adding an effective to hit
roll of 1+ could solve it (i.e. normally they hit on a 1+ so it's not
even rolled unless they have a BM on them when firing) but I'm open to
other suggestions.
        Again, I like Blast Markers and what they do, on everything
except SHW's. I didn't like the initial ruling, and I didn't like the
alternative (which the uninformed often play, I find locally) where BM's
do _nothing_ to SHW's, so I'm throwing out an alternative.
        
        Chris Miller
Received on Thu Feb 05 1998 - 17:54:36 UTC