Re: [Epic] [E40k] - answers to our questions

From: Richard Dewsbery <dewsbery_at_...>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 07:49:26 +0100

Alan Brain wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Let's explore the matter of Blast Markers and weaponry. Consider a
> simple situation. All stands have a FP of 1 in the examples.
>
> Example 1:
> A detachment with 4 Assault stands, and 3 Normals. It also has 3 Blast
> markers.
> Assuming it has two targets, one at range 20cm, One at 12 cm.
> Its firepower is 7 vs the first, 3 vs the second, or 4 vs the first and
> 3 vs the second (or 5 and 2 or 6 and 1) less the blast marker penalty.
>
> Question: Is the blast marker penalty applied to each firing? I think
> not! Only to the total firepower. So 3 is subtracted. But how is this
> allocated? Equally - 2 on 1 and one on another? This is rather complex.
> Maybe it should be. Let's Just Say No, because otherwise more complex
> situations can arise. Total at all ranges is 7, less 3 = 4, of which no
> more than 3 can be fired at the more distant target.

Look at p16 of the rules. If you split your fire, total up your overall
firepower. Split it between the two targets (but allocate no more than
3 vs the second). Place blast markers (isn't it time to call these BMs
- its becoming tiresome to type it out in full every time). Deduct a
total of three for your own BMs, either all from the first shooting, all
from the second, or 1 from one and 2 from the other - eg total fp =7. I
choose to shoot 5 at the furthesttarget, and 2 at the closest.
Dedecting for BMs, I'll take 2 off the first, one from the second.
Which leaves FP 3 and 1 respectively. Now I cross reference for hit
dice, remembering i get to place a bm on each enemy detachment if I
score a hit.

>
> Example 2:
> As Example 1, but there's only one target, at 20cm. Firepower is 3-3 =
> 0....er.... How come the subtraction of the nearer target suddenly
> reduced the firepower at long range?

Look at example 1 - you said you were FP 4 vs this - what has changed?

> PROPOSAL:
> In the firing phase, determine the total Firepower available, counting
> every unit in the detachment, if it could fire (whether it has a valid
> target or not). Super Heavy Weapons count as 1 FP {or more - the figure
> in () if there is one - so a Dominatrix's Beam of Power counts as 3}.
> NOW deduct the Barrage markers, allocating them wherever you wish. Thus
> a War Engine with a weapon with an FP of 8, and a single Death Ray (1)
> would usually allocate the first 8 BPs to the heavy weapon, leaving the
> Death Ray intact.

That's pretty much how I've always seen it.
>
> Result:
>
> Example 3:
> Consider a detachment of 3 Engines of Vaul vs 10 Land Raiders. Eldar
> move behind a ridge. In the shooting phase, the LRs, being vehicles,
> have no target. The EofVs, being War Engines and so shooting after all
> vehicles, AND ALSO skimmers then pop-up, and obliterate the LRs....
> oops. That's another problem.
> Start again.

No it isn't. If a unit pops up to shoot, it can also be shot at - p38.
So if the Eldar were to make a pop-up attack, that gives the land
raiders a chance to target them first. (Again, although not mentioned in
the rulebook, I think you have to assume that you pop up at the start of
shooting.)

> Example 4:
> Consider a detachment of 10 Land Raiders carrying 10 Terminators. The
> Termies have an FP of 10, but are inside, so cannot fire, whether a
> target is presentable or not. Assuming the detachment has a massive 12
> Blast Markers, that means only (!) 8 shots, an average of 4 kills on
> anything.

Correct.

> Example 5:
> As example 4, but the Termies are outside. This means the LRs have 18
> shots, the termies zip. EH? How come moving the termies outside suddenly
> nearly doubled performance of the LR's Lascannons? OK, so lets assume
> the termies count anyway, even if inside.

Because BMs show unit cohesion, minor casualties, infantry "ducking" and
vehicles maneuvring. There is now a bigger, more vulnerable formation,
with a total FP of 10 + 20AT. But it's also more flexible.
Effectively you are saying the termies are taking the brunt of the
incoming supressive fire, screening the raiders if you like, allowing
the raiders to fire at full effect. You could have chosen to apply the
BMs so the raiders have 8 AT and the termies 10FP.
>
> I'm beginning to think that allocation of BMs should be evened out
> somehow. But then that would make most Titans fairly useless, as 4 BMs
> means no AT, Death Rays etc.
>
> No, the simplest is to total all the FPs of all the units in the
> detachment at all ranges, add the () factors or 1 (whichever is higher)
> for SHWs, and that is the budget of FPs + SHW shots that can be expended
> in toto vs all targets. Normal range and LOS limitations then apply.
>
> This means that those sponsons on the Shadowswords become very useful. A
> single detachment of 3SSs requires 7 BMs before firepower is decreased
> appreciably instead of 1.
>
> OTOH..... maybe the opponent should allocate blast markers.

That could get very complicated, very quick. Should I be able to
supress my opponents warboss, instead of his gretchin? Should I be able
to choose raider no.1, in range to shoot back, rather than raider no.4,
which is out of range? This could get v. Silly V. Quickly for no
immediately apparent benefit.

Yes, I take your point that Shadow Swords are powerful and difficult to
suppress. They're a tank the size of a building, with armour metres
thick - how scared by a few small arms shots do you think they would
be? Even artillery won't scare them if they're hull-down and
concentrating on a particularly juicy target. Should you be able to
stop 110 pts of war engine with 1 or 2 BMs??

> Thus SHWs
> become far less useful, unless the detachment is not upset by flying
> splinters (or gretchin). They become specialists, vulnerable to
> Counter-Battery fire. And Titans etc will have a reason NOT to have an
> all Death-Ray warload, but some form of mixture.
I think that under the current rules, this incentive is already
present. Sure, you can use a 4 deathray titan, but each BM will be one
lost deathray.
> This will also militate
> against the all-powerful Land Raider, which is now (with the exception
> of the Eldar Engines of Vaul) threatening to become distinctly .... well
> let's say the Dairy Industry is involved.
>
> After one turn of firing, no non-Titan Psyker unit will be on the board
> within 45cm of any Land Raiders, unless it's cowering behind cover.

If there are that many raiders about that this can be guaranteed, why
should they leave the psykers in play??

Richard
Received on Sun Apr 13 1997 - 06:49:26 UTC