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

From: David Dresser <lemming_at_...>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 15:33:53 -0700

David Lado wrote:
>
> >>> 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

I think this would definitely make good Q&A, I've read the same rules
and I've reached the opposite conclusion. My take on it is that all of
the rules about AT and DR shots are irrelevant until the point where it
goes "Each dice that equals or beats the target's armor value.." and you
are forced to decide what the armor value of the target is. At that
point the SHW rules become relevant and the armor value is either 2+ or
4+.

-Lemm
Received on Tue May 27 1997 - 22:33:53 UTC