RE: [Epic] Q&A 2 (and notes)

From: David Lado <lado_at_...>
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 18:37:27 -0400 (EDT)

>>>>BLAST MARKERS
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>1) An Eldar pulsar fires 1d6 AT shots. For the purposes of placing
>>>>blast markers, does this count as 1 or 1d6 Super Heavy Weapons?
>>>
>>>P: It counts as 1 Super Heavy Weapon
>
>Uh... if you check the list of SHW in the 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 are just several SHW grouped
>together. I hate to admit it but it seemed pretty 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 range.
>This means a Eldar titan with 2 BM's cannot fire unless there is a
>target 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, Engines of Vaul have the same problem. If anyone can think a
>way around this speak up.

I actually like this rule. It basically creates a "range penalty" without
creating different range catagories. The effect of the rule is that a
small amount of suppression (represented by 1 or 2 blast markers) can
severly inhibit a units ability to fight at long range without having
much of an impact at short range. It's not perfect, since shooting at
a close-by target allows the main weapon to fire at long range again,
but it's pretty good considering it's an emergent property rather than
explicitly written into the rules.

>I though of saying the secondary weapons could soak up the BM. Also this would be a good reason to put normal infantry with your super heavy weapons. However this appears to make land raiders to(o) powerful. Then there would be no way to stop them from firing.

Eeek! I think most people would agree that land raiders are already
plenty powerful ;)

David
Received on Mon May 26 1997 - 22:37:27 UTC