Miller, Chris wrote:
>
> > 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?
I'd chalk that up to a mistake on the designer's part, and
state that they take D6 BMs to suppress.
> 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.
> > 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?
> : )
Of course! Seems logical to me... =)
> LR's are a problem _now_ to most people - if that breaks my idea
> doesn't it break the current rules?
I wouldn't say LRs *break* the current rules, otherwise
people would have outlawed them right off the bat (like a lot of
folks did with deathstrikes - and I wouldn't say deathstrikes
break the rules either, but they're certainly more annoying than
LRs... anyway). But they are certainly too good for the price,
and making them more difficult to suppress only makes the problem
worse (much worse in this case).
> I did think about this, but the alternative is a special set of
> rules for BM's on War Engines,
Well that would make more sense to me... WEs already
have a number of special cases attatched to them, what's one
more? Your original argument seemed to be along the lines of
"there's no way that WEs should be so vulnerable to BMs," so
really, any solution should revolve around the carrier of the
weapons, not the weapons themselves. Plus I think there's
already room to add some more rules for WEs, such as allowing
them to move past non-WEs in the movement phase...
> 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.
What normal tanks (aside from the few eldar ones) can
be rendered useless by 1 BM?
> 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.
But there's no real concept of suppression in WH40k.
There's no way to make a squad of infantry unable to fire,
either, aside from killing them all or making them run away.
> > 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.
It is annoying, but the best solution (IMHO) would
only apply to WEs (which are generally weak for the points
anyway, again IMHO).
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"Stupid f**king words!" - Fugazi
Received on Thu Feb 05 1998 - 21:48:43 UTC