Re: [Epic] Q&A 2 (and notes)

From: David Lado <lado_at_...>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 16:16:06 -0400 (EDT)

>>> All snap fire hits the same, not as a SHW, so I think it would hit at (armor
>>> value)+, and kill with the same rule. However, Fire Prisms have AT and
>>> flak, and I agree that they would hit on 4+ and then kill on 4+.
>>>
>>> Temp
>>
>>Okay, I'll bite. Why do you say this? Quote a rule that supports you.
>>I've justified my position - the rules on page 32 and 33 regarding how
>>these particular SHWs treat the target's armour.
>
>I don't have a rulebook handy, but IIRC the snap-fire rules make no
>distinction based on fp, or even whether or not you are firing a SHW. You
>just roll one die against the opponent's armor value. I'll try to remember
>to look a page number up tonight.

I would have to agree with Temp on both interpretations (gag! what a
thought ;).

Page 15 of the rule book (SNAP-FIRE)

Second Paragraph:

"The unit can move no further - the sudden burst of enemy fire cause it
to halt. In addition the attacker rolls a D6 to see whether they get a
hit. Note, you always roll 1D6, no matter what the Firepower of the
attacker. If the D6 roll equals or beats the moving unit's Armour value
it takes a hit in addition to being halted. The effect of hits is
explained in the Shooting Phase."

So my take is that snap-fire is a special attack independent of what
weapon (or even if a weapon) is being used. I see how it makes
sense to say that since SHWs "reduce the enemy's armour value", the
modified armour value should be used. However, none of the other
rules for normal shooting apply (such as LOS, cover, and target
selection), I see no reason to apply the SHW special rulez either.
I guess the point is that snap-firing is not "shooting your weapon"
at an enemy. After all, units without any ranged weapons at all
(like genestealers and beastmen) can still snap-fire, so the exact
nature of the weapon being used doesn't seem to be a consideration.
Still, I think it's a good one for the next Q&A (and add to that
the question of whether an infantry unit gets the armour bonus for
being in cover).

David
Received on Tue May 27 1997 - 20:16:06 UTC