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

From: Dirk Vormann <DVormann_at_...-duisburg.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:13:17 +0200 (MESZ)

> > >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.

That's what the rules say.



DV


Post office does not deliver mail without postage. And sometimes, even
with.
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC