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

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:45:02 -0600

> > Now, I see something similar. BM's are supposed to largely
> > represent fire suppression -
> [snip]
> > Maybe it also covers smoke and blast effects
> > screwing up your targeting ability for vehicles - great, I like the
> way
> > it works for them.
>
> Wouldn't the above justification for BMs affecting
> vehicles also cover their ability to affect WEs?
>
---------> To a point, but 2 Blast Markers nuke a Phantom titan's 2
SHW's, while a Leman Russ is just down 2 fp...

> > 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.
>
> Well... FP-based weapons spew out a higher volume of
> fire than the others (frex, Mega Bolter vs Volcano Cannon), so
> if BMs represent increased inaccuracy (for whatever reason),
> it ALMOST makes sense that it would take more BMs to shut down
> those sorts of weapons
----------> Well since they've gotten away from the definitions of what
a SHW does I'm not sure you can say that...and what about Pulsars?
Anyway, the point I was making is that BM's reduce effectiveness of
normal FP, while being a simple on/off for SHW's, which is just a weird
"hiccup" in effect to me.

> > 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.
>
> Gah! You make a case on why WEs should not be affect
> by BMs, and as a solution you propose to reduce BMs'
> effectiveness against all super heavy weapons?!? Yeah, those
> LRs weren't underpriced enough as it was...
---------> So because LR's are underpriced we always have to put weapon
batteries in one of our titan slots?
: )

LR's are a problem _now_ to most people - if that breaks my idea doesn't
it break the current rules?

Seriously, LR's are really the only vehicle which has a big problem
(going from 2 BM's to shut down to 6 to shut down). Artillery units
work out pretty similar unless you always find 2-3 targets per template,
and even then it's losing 1 fp (new) instead of 2-3fp (old). The death
ray speedstas get a little more potent, but they're usually a target for
AT shots anyway so I don't think the net effect changes much there.
        I did think about this, but the alternative is a special set of
rules for BM's on War Engines, and the normal system on regular
vehicles. I could live with it, but I'm trying to simplify...also, I
don't like - even on vehicles - that one tank can be rendered useless by
a single BM while another is just degraded a bit simply because one has
fp and one has an AT shot.
        Also, if anyone cares, since this is sprung from WH40K, you can
get modifiers to hit for vehicular weapons in that game, based on speed,
smoke, etc, there's really not a way to make a vehicle unable to fire
short of destroying the weapon or vehicle itself.


> It's an interesting idea, otherwise.
        Springs from my annoyance at being forced by _game mechanics_ to
put a HWB on every titan whether I want it or not and to hide my
shadowsword in with a baneblade. I like the idea of Superheavy Teams
composed of pairs of these tanks, but I resent being forced to do it. I
ought to be able to take a Shadowsword company (3 tanks) if I want to
without having it shut down by firepower equivalent to that needed to
shut down a Leman Russ! If I suffer appropriate tactical penalties, so
be it, but to be smacked by a wrinkle in the game system is just stupid.
Same with the titans. If I _want_ to take a Warlord with 4 death rays, I
think it should be a little harder to disrupt its' firing than it is to
stop 2 devastator stands. Under the current rules, it takes the same #
of BM's to stop 4 infantry heavy weapons (that would be based on what is
in a WH40K dev squad, where marines get 4 heavy weps) as it does to stop
4 _titan_ heavy weapons. Does that make sense? Not to me...
        And if I need another reason, I could take 4 volcano cannons in
SM/TL without weird things happening (other than the looks, of course)
so why not now? The other weapon combos still work, as long as they use
FP.

> > 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.
>
> ??? Disrupts 'hit' on a 4+. Why couldn't you reduce
> their accuracy by per BM like you proposed for the other SHWs?
>
--------> Yeah, just a mental "skip" on my part. Not too many disrupt
weapons in our games and I went blank when trying to remember the
mechanics. I AM at work... : ) The +1 to hit will work fine on them.

> > 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,
>
> Wow. Lemme guess - lots of Land Raiders and arty on the
> board?
>
-------> Let's just say the marines are pretty tough under those
conditions, and the old LR company from SM/TL ports over _real_ well.

Chris Miller
Received on Thu Feb 05 1998 - 20:45:02 UTC