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

From: David Lado <lado_at_...>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:18:12 -0400 (EDT)

>> Yeah, but think about it. When a war engine without a CC weapon
>> engages another WE in CC, it is effectively blasting away with its
>> weapons at (very) short range, so it would seem fair to allow
>> holofield saves against hits caused in CC by WE's without a CC weapon.
>> However, a WE _with_ a CC weapon slashes and hacks the air with it
>> (eg. an Imperial Titan makes a huge sweeping horizontal arc with its
>> chainfist at about waist height.
>> Christian.

>OK, let's not get down to the nitty-gritty of exactly how far the
>holofield projects its image. You could just as easily argue that

This is a very trapful line of reasoning. You can effectively argue
almost anything and be just as correct as anyone else arguing the
exact opposite. I like fluff, and I like rules that are consistent
with the fluff. But in this case, the fluff can be, and has been,
used to argue both sides of the issue.

>The holofield saves against everything.

Not precisely true. Holofield impart a "a 2+ saving throw against
any and all HITS they take, rather like a unit with a save." (page
65 of the Battles book, my emphasis). The point that is being
debated is that the auto-destroy is not a hit. As a matter of fact,
a titan does not need to score a hit at all to destroy with a CC
weapon; it only needs to win the CC. Inversely, a loosing titan
which does score a hit does not get to destroy its' opponent. The
question is much more akin to a unit with a save that fails to
retreat more than 15cm from an enemy after losing a CC/FF.

I can see it both ways, but under a literal interpretation of the
rules (which is all we have to go on right now), I don't feel the
holofields would protect a titan from a CC weapon (from the hits
inflicted in CC, yes).

David
Received on Mon Jul 28 1997 - 17:18:12 UTC