Re: [Epic] SM/TL Chaos units

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 23:51:21 +0200 (MET DST)

At 10:32 AM 30/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>David Lado <lado_at_...> writes:
>(actually, he didn't, Agro did)
>> >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...
>
> What, before or after the horrible mess that was the SM/TL
>Q&A? (It's well done Allen, but it shouldn't have to be that large in
>the first place)
> If you say after, I might almost agree with you. I think
>there may be one or two more conflicts to dig up, but we may have
>managed to find all of them.


Actually, I don't think it matters. Some of the QA answers directly
contradict the written rules but I really believe that all of the answers
were in the rules before hand, it's just that they are not sensible...

If anyone can find a rule "conflict" that isn't explained by the published
rules - I'll be very surprised.

Surprise me...

Agro


>
> Before, I remember the argument of "Is a unit that cannot move
>for the rest of the turn due to a Wave Serpent hit immobilized?" I
>personally felt that the two were synonymous, but apparently they're
>just a bit confused, not actually paralyzed.


PS This is one of those QA answers that contradicts the published rules
(which is to say that almost any rules lawyer would agree that "cannot move"
and "immobilised" are the same thing. What I think we see here is the
Primarchs realising that they messed up when they designed the Cheese
Serpent and they are trying to minimise the damage.)


> Each of us who were
>around then can probably bring up some "conflicting rules". There
>were so many ultimate powers and immovable objects in the game to
>figure out interactions for, as both of them just can't function at
>the same time.
>
>Mark
>
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC