RE: [Epic] RE: [Epic] Re:

From: Andy Skinner <askinner_at_...>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:45:38 -0400

> >Now, here is an interesting rules lawyer loophole. Even if the
> results of
> a weapon's fire are interpreted as having the effect of the fire of more
> than one of a Super Heavy Weapons type, it is still not a SHW
> because it is
> not specifically listed on the SHW pages.<
>
> Good point. Are we really going to be this beardy??
>
> This rule about 1 BM per weapon (1 pulsar) as opposed to each effect (x
> times AT, for example) either applies to everything or to nothing - and
> Jervis needs to be picked up on his logic.

You don't think there is a difference between 1 SHW defined to have the
effect of a couple of other SHWs, and several SHWs listed in one line?
Aren't the 2 AT shots on a Land Raider listed on a single line? I'd say
3xAT (for example) is 3 SHWs, while 1 Pulsar is 1 SHW, just because it is
defined as such. I don't see that as a contradiction.

I'm sure there are weapons that make this less clear, but I think the Land
Raider is at least an example of multiple SHWs listed together, so I don't
think all have to be one or all have to be the other.

andy
Received on Tue Sep 08 1998 - 18:45:38 UTC