Brett Hollindale wrote:
>
> At 05:25 PM 5/5/98 EDT, you wrote:
> >In a message dated 98-05-05 11:23:14 EDT, you write:
> >
> ><< age old example: Doom Weavers vs void shields). >>
> >They ever resolve this little bit of quagmire?
>
> This "little quagmire" keeps rearing its insignificant head whenever someone
> wants to point out the supposed "inconsistnacies" in SM/TL.
>
> I don't see the problem.
That's because you're a SM/TL apologist. =)
> (I'll go so far as to suggest that there are NO inconsistancies in SM/TL...)
I didn't say there were. "...what happens when one
special rule comes into conflict with another is rarely
explained." The rules are vague and ill-defined. I love
SM/TL, I think it's a great game, but it is by no means
perfect and I've had plenty of games break out into arguments
because of this kind of crap.
Wave Serpent runs over a unit and paralyzes it. Said
unit is engaged in close combat. Does the unit roll 2 dice?
Just get its straight CAF? What?
Striking Scorpian vs lesser daemon. 3D6+6 in close
combat or 1D6+6? Striking Scorpian vs greater daemon. Same
questions.
> Void shields state that whenever the shielded model takes a hit it loses a
> void shield.
In SM. In TL, the hit must be from a weapon that has
a -1 save mod or better.
> Doomweavers state clearly under what conditions they inflict a "hit".
>
> Nowhere do the rules state that Doomweavers ignore void shields, so why is
> there a debate?
You know why there's a debate - because GW loves to
throw its fluff in with the real rules.
Does the web drop a void shield in SM? In TL?
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"But my dreams, they aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be" - the
Who
Received on Wed May 06 1998 - 12:34:46 UTC