----------
From: Sutherland[SMTP:charles_at_...]
Sent: Sunday, May=
25, 1997 10:17 PM
To: space-marine_at_...
Subject: Re: [Epic] Q&A 2 (=
and notes)
At 03:35 AM 5/25/97 -0500, you wrote:
> Whoa! Stop right there!=
!!
> Please see the following two Q&A 'answers'.
>
>
>>>BLAST MARKERS
>>>--=
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
=
>>>1) An Eldar pulsar fires 1d6 AT shots. For the purposes of placing
>>>b=
last markers, does this count as 1 or 1d6 Super Heavy Weapons?
>>
>>P: It c=
ounts as 1 Super Heavy Weapon
>>
>
Uh... if you check the list of SHW in t=
he summary chart it lists the
pulsar. It does not mention any of the other=
wpns that you did above. The
pulsar counts as a single SHW. The others a=
re just several SHW grouped
together. I hate to admit it but it seemed pre=
tty consistent to me.
One interesting ramification of this ruiling=
is that you can stop eldar titals from firing with 2 blast markers. It has=
already been stated that only weapons that are in range count for BM's ect=
. (this makes sense.) The problem is that most SHW's have a much greater ra=
nge. This means a Eldar titan with 2 BM's cannot fire unless there is a tar=
get within 45 cm(Secondary weapon range.) It's even worse if you consider a=
Shadow sword, which has a 60m Dethray and 30 cm piddly guns. Actually, Eng=
ines of Vaul have the same problem. If anyone can think a way around this s=
peak up. I though of saying the secondary weapons could soak up the BM. Als=
o this would be a good reason to put normal infantry with your super heavy =
weapons. However this appears to make land raiders to powerful. Then there =
would be no way to stop them from firing. Howabout war-machines consider th=
e total firepower of the model when removeing FP for blastmarkers. What doe=
s everyone think of this? I'e it fires everything, weatehr or not the targe=
t is in range.
-James
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Mon May 26 1997 - 03:36:41 UTC