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

From: Greg Lane <greg_at_...>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 15:26:22 -0500

Andy Skinner wrote:

> > >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

Well, since as I read the answer it referred to "weapon" and not "unit", we
may actually have to refer to the weapons as modelled on the unit itself ...
yikes! The Land Raider has two AT weapons, ergo two BM's to shut it down.
Pulsar = 1 weapon = 1 BM. Vortex missle = 1 weapon = 1 BM ... so far it
appears consistent. Apply this to the Dominatrix and your other cases for a
consistent approach.
Received on Tue Sep 08 1998 - 20:26:22 UTC