1 ) I have a detachment of 3 landraiders and 3 vindicators with 3 blast
markers on it.
a) 40 cm away is an enemy detachment I wish to shoot at. My 6 AT shots
are in range, but are reduced by the blast markers to 3 AT shots
b) an enemy det. is 40 cm away, and another is 10 cm away. I apply my
blast markers to the vindicators and shoot at the closer det. with FP 6 and
the further with 6 AT shots - effectively getting doing more damage to the
further det. just because a there is one that is closer.
c) an enemy det. is 40 cm away, and a friendly det. is 10 cm away. What
if one vindicator shoots at the friendly det. with (3 - 3) 0 FP, just so
all 6 AT shots can be applied to the enemy? (Cheesy yes, but it is just an
extension of (b).
I started thinking about this when I considered Shadowsword SHV's and how 1
BM stops the death ray gunner from shooting until the sponson gunners are
in range.
It seems to be more logical to have BM's reduce maximum FP, but then it
would be to cheap to take vehicles like hellhounds just to soak BM's...
We've had this one before. My gaming group just decied to have Bm's reduce
avalable, firepower, ie. what is in range. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but
consider. Your unit of tanks is being approached by enemy shadowswords.
Rather than be hit by big nasty lasers, you supress the heck out of them. As the tanks
get closer their secondary armament opens up, thus the suppresson is less effective.
I.e. as troops get closer to you, they get harder to suppress. also it harder to suppress
something firing back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your incorrect assumptions are threefold."
"You assume law still reigns in the Five Galaxies"
"You assume that we would be bound by precedents and precepts from the last 10 million years."
"But your most incorrect assumption of all is to assume that we care."
-David Brin, Infinity's Shore
-----------------------------------------------------James Nugent----------------------------------------
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Tue Jul 29 1997 - 12:10:45 UTC