Re: [Epic] Rampage (was: got my Epic 40K)

From: Andreas Richert <aic_at_...>
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 01:15:19 +0200 (MET DST)

On Thu, 15 May 1997, W. Gregory Klett wrote:

> >> I still think that this makes Rampaging units more of a liability than
> >> an asset. The Bugs may usually win in CC but the following fire fight will
> >> clear out all of those nasty Carnifex's and Assault Spawn with ease.
> >
> > There's no mention of firefights in any of the rampage
> >descriptions, so I see no reason why they would be auto-eliminated
> >in one. Also, the sentence before the one you quoted implicitly
> >defines a 'close combat' as when the rampager is in base-to-base
> >contact. And there is nothing explicit about rampagers not being
> >able to make retreat moves, so by the rules a rampager lending
> >support could fall back.
> >
> > Personally I like the interpretation that the rampager
> >cannot make a retreat move, period.
> >
> >Scott
> >shupes_at_...
>
> I was infering this because both Close Combats and Firefights have
> the same/similiar retreat rules, so in what may have been a mistake
> I considered the retreat rules to apply to both CC and FF.

Now I'm going to do something dangerous: I'm going to make some "Fluff"
resoning :-)

Rampager go breserk when they enter close combat and have then no
self regard, they simply don't care if they get wonded as long as they
still can fight. Even if their , more sensible, comrades make a retreat
they stay and fight on, and naturally get swarmed and killed. This is the
reason behind the rmapage rule, as I see it.

In my opinion they wouldn't go berserk while lying behind a ruin abd
blasting away at the enemy, even if it is at close range (ie a fire
fight). Therfor they can retreat to safety with teir comrades.
 
Well as said this is just "fluff" reasoning.......

> Yes, yes, I know... making assumptions like this with GW is a very bad
> thing to do. ..sigh... It is just so hard to not try and use logic
> to fill in the blanks where GW is concerned. I should remember by
> now that the apparent logical answer is typically the wrong one.

Well we have seen taht all to often...:-(

A.I.C. rules for CHAOS
Andreas Richert
E-mail: aic_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC