Re: [Epic] roolzboyz: close combat weapons and holofields

From: Eugene E.W. <eug_at_...>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:26:10 -0400

----------

>
> 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.
> >
> Then Francois said:
> 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...

Well, the question is, does the catastrophic damage inflicted by the close
combat weapon a "hit"? (Is it just me, or am I bringing up questions along
these lines far too often?). The reason I ask this, of course, is that in
the stuff about holo-fields it says that they save on a 2+ against any and
all hits inflicted.

The reason I don't think that holofields protect against close combat
weapons is that the rules for close combat weapons don't say anything
except that the weapon "automatically inflicts catastrophic damage on it.
Make one roll on the losing war engine's catastrophic damage table to find
out what happens to it." Contrary to what the roolzboyz said, there's no
indication that you have to inflict at least one hit on the losing war
engine for this to occur; I mean as the rules stand now, even if your titan
misses all it's close combat attacks, it will still inflict catastrophic
damage on, say, a losing gargant. Since holo-fields don't normally save
against rolls on the catastrophic damage table, I see no reason they should
act differently in this particular case.

Regards, Eugene
Received on Fri Jul 25 1997 - 15:26:10 UTC