Francois Bruntz wrote:
>
> Eugene wrote :
> >No offense to the roolzboyz, but the roolz clearly state that if a
> >war
> >engine with a close assault weapon wins a close combat against
> >another war
> >machine, that losing war machine suffers catastrophic damage. It
> >isn't as
> >if this rule needed clarification to begin with. The holofield saves
> >against hits, not rolls on the catastrophic damage table, so it
> >won't save
> >your precious titan against the CLEANSING POWER of the IMPERIAL
> >CHAINFIST.
> >In my opinion, at least.
> >
>
> I'm sorry Eugene but I think you're wrong. I understand your
> frustration (I usually play against an Eldar player) but I've read in
> the rule book that the holofield worked as the SAVE capacity, ie on a
> 2+ any hit (even in Close Combat) can be ignored. And the
>
> catastrophic damage is the result of a hit... :(
>
> I hope you will find some good arguments to prove that this is not
> right, I'm looking for a solution do destroy these eldar titans since
> the new version is out...
>
> Francois Bruntz
> Apprenti MIAGE (Universite Paris XII - IBM France)
I think the relevant rule (p.32) reads "If a war engine armed with a
close combat weapon wins a close combat against an enemy war engine it
automatically inflicts catastrophic damage on it". Since there is no
mention of hits being scored, and since the holo-field only saves
against hits, I believe that the catastrophic damage will be inflicted
without a holo-field saving throw.
Now, some of the saner list memebers have reasoned that in order to
cause damage you must first score a hit. They have suggested that it
would probably be a good idea to go ahead and roll for number of hits
(dice = half current DC etc..) and only accept catastrophic damage if at
least one hit was scored and not saved. This would, however, be an
optional rule, not something for the eldar player to rely on.
-Lemm
Received on Fri Jul 25 1997 - 15:55:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:40 UTC