Re: [Epic] "FIREPOWER" and Blast Markers

From: J Andrew Evans <m00ebg00_at_...>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 20:10:49 +0100

Andy Skinner wrote:

> Josh said:
> > Think of it this way: In a combined arms group (armor and infantry), which
> > comes under fire, who's gonna duck first? The tank jockeys or the grunts
> > slogging it on foot? Who's gonna be more disrupted by the
> > incoming shells?
> > And people wonder why there is such arguments over BMs and morale in E40K.
>
> Let the out of range FP be reduced by BMs:
> Some devastators with BMs alone shooting at targets 40cm away are
> ineffective. But if we changed the detachment and added some tacticals, or
> even 15cm range assault marines, the same devastators would be effective.
>

I have not been responding to this thread because I did not, frankly,
understand why it was important. This email however clarifies things
for me. If one allows out of range firepower to be dropped by BMs then
some cheesy opponents choose those units to be affected that weren't
able to fire anyway. Thus removing the point of placing the BMs in the
first place.

Naturally some smooth system of applying BMs to all the firepower in the
detachment would be nice this is probably going to get overcomplicated.
I think I would therefore favour a house rule that did not apply BMs to
out of range firepower and having used up all "in range" firepower
passed to the SHWs before one would lose the "out of range" firepower.

Justification? Frankly if you were in a war and the was a longer
distance firefight going on then your trusty sidearm could cope with
joining in. What would you do? Go and hide behind some large rock and
wait for the "big guys" to sort it out.

The "Big guys" would therefore be the ones more likely to suffer
distress from being shot back at.

A#
Received on Thu Sep 10 1998 - 19:10:49 UTC