duckrvr_at_... wrote:
>
> >The question is, are Heavy Barrages SHWs when it comes to apportioning
> >blast markers? The text says they are "similar in most ways" to
> >barrages. I've interpreted this to mean similar, but not identical,
>
> I disagree. I believe it should be strictly based on FP. I believe the
> "very similar" comment means "identical except as noted in the description."
> Contextually, this is supported because it is the very first statement in
> the dexcription. Not that linguistic structure has meant much to GW in the
> past, but it still has that context, whether intentional or not.
One for the Primarchs, I feel. If the intention was that Heavy Barrages
did not count as SHWs for BMs, they should have specifically said so.
They didn't. That's not to say your interpretation may not be the
correct one! It's because of this ambiguity that I asked the question in
the first place. My preferred interpretation is that Hvy Barrages do
count as SHWs. Yours is that Hvy Barrages are but Barrages is all
respects bar one, the doubling of FPs. My argument is based on not
reading anything into the rules they don't explicitly state, and because
I feel that if any consideration of "Realism" or Rationality comes into
it, Hvy Barrages are the _most_ likely things to cause disruption. But
"Realism" is a weak argument indeed. Your argument is based more upon
the exact wording and linguistic structure, and I happen to agree that
your point is strong. Again, one for the Primarchs.
--
aebrain_at_... <> <> How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain| xxxxx Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia | xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
100026.2014 compuserve o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo oo oo oo
By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
See http://www.z-world.com/graphics/z/master/8856.gif for picture
Received on Thu Apr 17 1997 - 09:42:35 UTC
