Re: [Epic] Barrages

From: Andy Skinner <askinner_at_...>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:31:27 -0500

Turgul wrote:
>
> I had a question come up about barrages in Epic 40K come up. It concerns
> removing the models under the template. Since barrages and heavy barrages
> are super heavy weapons (SHW) and SHW get to pick specific units, I said
> that they get to remove the models under the template, my opponent said
> no. Does the rule book say one way or the other (they are at home and I
> am not ).

The rule book says, page 32, "The Firepower of a barrage is added
to the attacking detachment's Firepower; the barrage does not count
as a super heavy weapon for placing Blast markers."

The Battles Book, page 110, says barrages raise more questions than
other parts. They say the barrage represents shelling over time,
and that's the motivation for it only affecting one detachment,
even if the barrage template covers models from more than one
detachment. They say you can improvise your own methods for
determining hits.

I personally think it is weird that you could put a barrage marker
over a dense area of troops and have it affect units dispersed over
a large area, possibly not affecting any of the units that were
under the barrage template. I think those are the actual rules,
though. I think you could take a guess at the ratio of barrage FP
to total FP and take some appropriate number of units out from the
barrage template, or you could do the barrages separately. You should
probably do the blast markers for total FP, though.

I'm not sure the current rules don't let you put several blast
markers over a tight group of units in cover, add the FP to the
total for the detachment, and then claim to be shooting at the
units from the target detachment that are not in cover. But that
would kinda stink. So although it adds some ability to pick out
targets that I don't think was intended, I think I prefer figuring
the barrage FP separately and applying it it to targets under the
template, and figuring blast markers as if the FP had been merely
totaled.

andy
askinner_at_...
Received on Thu Jul 17 1997 - 14:31:27 UTC