Re: [Epic] blast markers vs super-heavies

From: Stephen Sheldon <sheldona_at_...>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:52:14 -0700 (PDT)

>
> 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.
>
As I see it, For firing Barrage and Heavy Barrage are SHW for firing (ie.
If you have BMs on that unit they lose that many barrages) But when
totalling up FP they are treated like regular weapons BECAUSE they have a
FP.
Steve
Received on Wed Apr 16 1997 - 15:52:14 UTC