Re: [Epic] "FIREPOWER" and Blast Markers

From: J Andrew Evans <J_Andrew_Evans_at_...>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:03:54 +0100

Whoa!!. Now this idea that a disrupt weapons places 2 BMs on a successful roll
is news to me! I can however see how you are arguing it. It gets one as it is
SHWs from the "Blast Marker" table on the main E40K card and another for having
done the disruption. Making two. This, I suspect, could be behind the
enigmatic phrase in the rules (which has always puzzled me):

p33 RULES: "on a roll of 4,5, or 6 place one blast marker on the target in
addition to any other Blast markers that would normally be placed."

This would go a long way to explaining why people think Disrupt weapons are
**so** good. Double BMs over what I have played thus far would change the
ground rules dramatically. Disrupt weapons could finally mean something for
me!!

Confusion over this (# of BMs) could also explain why they are so cheap - should
my new interpretation be wrong. (i.e. they were never intended to be this
effective.)

A#

Andy Skinner wrote:

> > Secondly, why are disrupt weapons so good? When any one weapon
> > fires there is
> > only a 50% chance (4+) of it placing 1 BMs.
>
> I agree with another comment that you have a 50% chance of doing 2 for a
> single disrupt weapon. You get one for the "hit" (successful disrupt roll,
> though this has been debated here), one for the disrupt itself. Adding a
> second disrupt gives you a chance of 3, and a better chance at 2. This
> isn't bad, when it takes 24 fp to add 3 BM. Though I agree with your
> comment about SHWs: using both SHWs and FP is a good way to add BM.
>
> andy
Received on Mon Sep 14 1998 - 15:03:54 UTC