Re: [Epic] Re: No Subject

From: Ken Taborek <oberon_at_...>
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 06:13:10 -0400 (EDT)

Word.

--Ken Taborek oberon_at_...
"Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change."- random fortune



On Wed, 28 May 1997, David Dresser wrote:

> Ken Taborek wrote:
> >
> > I don't agree with this at all. It is ridiculous to assume that, for
> > instance, a Imperator Titan reduced to 1 DC is actually lighter at that
> > point than a Shadowsword. Damage is damage, it doesn't reduce mass, just
> > re-arranges it a little :)
> >
> > --Ken Taborek oberon_at_...
> > "Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change."- random fortune
>
> I refuse to defend games workshop on the issue of making logical sense.
> I would however, note that the premise of titans (and lifta-droppas) is
> fairly ridiculous to begin with.
>
> I do however think that the rules on p.34, p.41 are pretty clear and
> that a damaged war machine can be dropped; the lifta droppa rolls higher
> than a targets DC and DC is reduced by damage.
>
> Someone else noted that the damage capacity in question isn't clearly
> defined as being either starting damage capacity or reduced damage
> capacity. In some cases it is, as in the number of units that can
> assault a war machine. I think, however, it would be reading things
> into the rules in this case to assume they meant other than what was
> printed. As we all know, the rules in general would benefit from a more
> rigid structure and clearer syntax.
>
> -Lemm
>
Received on Thu May 29 1997 - 10:13:10 UTC