Re: Re[2]: [Epic] Those Super Heavy weapons - long (winded)

From: <duckrvr_at_...>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:38:34 -0500

At 04:15 PM 4/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Well, I can't point to where it says they aren't affected, because they are.
>But I CAN point that out to you. Page 31, in the box "SHWs and Blast
>markers," paragraph 1, last sentence - "The number of SHWs fired . . . before
>modification for Assaulting, _BLAST MARKERS_, etc."

> Phew! thanks for actually quoting (although the sentence runs "The
> number of blast markers placed..." in my manual).

So I should have quoted ". . . the number of SHWs fired . . . before
modification for Assaulting, _BLAST MARKERS_, etc."

> It seems, with
> reference to 'the detachment' that the point is still slightly
> ambiguous where you have a mix of Land Raiders and infantry - after
> all, do you then play that a SHWeapon is affected by Assault orders

SHWs on assault have to roll 4+ to lock on, i.e. get to fire effectively.
Page 31, second paragraph, second sentence. Note that they still produce
BMs on the target, whether they get to roll to inflict casualties or not.

> And what then gets preference when
> blast markers reduce the FP of the detachment - FP or SHWeapons?

The consensus on the list seems to be that you choose for your own
detachments. So you tag the infantry's FP, and fire the Land Raiders' SHWs.

> I'll drop out here as the thread seems to be stalemate (i.e. i'm still
> not convinced) and the rest of the list will be getting bored.

Well, I don't know what other evidence I can offer. Do you have any
evidence from the rules, or are you just going off the
"reaver-titan-w/3-death-rays/it-doesn't-seem-right" thing?

Temp
Received on Thu Apr 17 1997 - 04:38:34 UTC