RE: [Epic] "FIREPOWER" and Blast Markers

From: Andy Skinner <askinner_at_...>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:28:20 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-space-marine_at_...
> [mailto:owner-space-marine_at_...]On Behalf Of Aaron Day
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 10:01 AM
> To: space-marine_at_...
> Subject: Re: [Epic] "FIREPOWER" and Blast Markers
>
>
> Galleo_at_... wrote:
> >
> > But mainly they represent suppression fire of those weapons
> that can fire, ie
> > that are in range.
> >
>
> So now our suppression fire affects individual weapons on specific
> targets. Thats pretty accurate "suppression" fire. Besides, if my
> Shadowsword want to fire at a Gargant, why should he only be able to
> fire if some Stormboy is running around within 45cm or not. And what if
> that guy dies during WE Shooting before my Shadowsword fire, can he
> suddenly not shoot.
>
> See, my way makes more sense.

Sorry, I don't think that (assuming "that" is allowing out of range fp to
"soak" blast markers") helps. This just means that the SHW won't be
affected at all. Why should a unit with 1 SHW and 4 fp of short range guns
be unaffected, while a unit with only 1 SHW is shut down?

There are strange effects with either approach, though I think the official
way is a little better. I'd love to see this done differently, where the
total effectiveness of SHWs and FP degrade smoothly. I've thought of having
to roll over the number of BMs for SHWs, but that still handles them
separately.

andy
Received on Thu Sep 10 1998 - 14:28:20 UTC