Re: [Epic] [Epic 40K]

From: David Lado <lado_at_...>
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 16:33:01 -0400 (EDT)

>"LINE OF FIRE. As long as a unit can see one unit of an enemy
>detachment it can fire. Friendly troops do not block lines of
>fire, and if troops are in cover, like buildings, then they can
>always fire out." (p.108)
>
>The specific phrase I wanted to point out is that they said
>_friendly_ troops do not block lines of fire. I think this
>means that _enemy_ troops do (or at least should) block lines
>of fire. That way screening troops are still useful, even if
>they do not belong to the same detachment that they are screening.
>
>So for example:
>
>Unit A--------Unit B---------Unit C
>
>Units B and C are both on one side, Unit A is an enemy detachment.
>Unit A cannot shoot at Unit C because it cannot see over Unit B
>(although hills could get tricky). So, effectively, Unit B acts
>as a screen for Unit C.
>
>Sound reasonable?

I don't think so. I don't see a reason, in terms of game balance or
"realism", why a friendly unit should block LOS while an ememy unit does
not. In the above example, the only reason unit A could not shoot at
unit C is because it is either unwilling or unable to shoot through B.

If unit A cannot target C because it's view is blocked by unit B, then
the reverse should also be true (just because a tank is in the same army
as you doesn't make it easier to see through or shoot around).

If unit A cannot target C because it is unwilling to, perhaps because
unit B presents a "more immediate threat", then the rules would simply
read that you must target the closest unit. i.e. if this reasoning is
true, then you would have to target B weather it was between A and C or
off to the side.

The only reason supporting the "one way" nature of friendly units is a
very legalistic interpritation of the rules. I'm not saying you are
necessarily wrong, since you can never be sure of anything with GW
(I would have bet my best gargant that Farseers only cost 50 pts...).
I do think that ignoring units for purposes of LOS is simpler, fairer,
and, IMO, more reasonable and logical.

David
Received on Thu May 01 1997 - 20:33:01 UTC