Re: [Epic] SM/TL Chaos units

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 23:42:43 +0200 (MET DST)

At 09:42 AM 30/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>>Scott mentioned in another thread how he likes Horrors.
>>>Those things drive me bonkers with that damn "split"
>>>rule. Doomweavers? Close Combat? Vortexes?
>>>Death Rollers? How did people resolve the interactions
>>>of these goofy daemons with the effect that killed them?
>>>The only clear situation I see is:
>>> I shoot them at .01cm or more - they split.
>>>
>>>How about the rest of them?
>>>(Regenerators can do some weird things too-
>>>feel free to throw them in also)
>>>
>>>Also, void shields give units a psychic save when
>>>they're up. Some units have a built-in Psychic
>>>save. Is there any difference in them?
>>>
>>>What about Shokk attack guns?
>>>
>>>Unit w/psychic save hit by SAG -
>>>Save applicable? or not?
>
>>Do you want answers to these or are they rhetoric?
>>
>>I ask because the whole "conflicting rules" thing about Epic 2nd Edition is
>>a beat up in my opinion.
>
>>In my opinion there are huge sections of the rules that ARE NOT SENSIBLE,
>>but there are actualy no "conflicting rules" whatsoever...
>>
>>Agro
>
>If this were coming from anyone but Argo,


Um, that's aGro :-)
(And are you suggesting that I'm some kind of fanatic???? ;-|)


>I have to think it was a
>joke. I think that either you have a much more rigid definition of
>"conflicting" (which I define as 2 rules interacting in such a way
>as to produce a result which is not covered in the rules), or you're
>simply playing a completely different game.


Perhaps I am living in another universe, but maybe not...

My group resolves any potential rules "conflict" by reading the rules. If
they say one thing somewhere and don't mentionn that something else that
really should be an exception to that actually IS an exception to whatever,
we go with what is written in the rules and shrug and say to each other
"Hey, it's a GW product. Why do you expect it to make sense?"

Case in point the holofield/SAG question below...



>
>I agree, there are many sections of the rules which are not sensible.
>There are also many rules which simply conflict. Also, many things
>that are rules conflicts to others, you have already adressed in
>your group and therefore have a "perfectly sensible" answer for.
>However, it is very often the case that different people can have
>perfectly sensible and completely different answers to the same
>question.
>
>A perfect example was the Shokk Attakk Gun vs holofield question I
>posted during the last debate. Both you and Aaron (I think) posted
>"it's completely obvious what the answer is..." responses, but both
>"completely obvious" answers were also completely different. Just
>because your group has hammered out a set of rules that functions
>well (my group did it too, after time), doesn't mean the rules
>didn't have conflicts to begin with.


The rules expressly state that a holofield is effective against any non
template weapon. The SAG is not a template weapon and nor is it an
exception to the holofield rules. IF the titan makes its holofield save,
the snotlings run over and chew on its holographic ankle (this isn't even
particularly nonsensicle, the fluff does mention that they're not
particularly bright...)

Agro

>
>David
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC