> Someone told me that GW put out a rulse confirmation saying that
gargoy=
les
> got to fly every turn, i.e. they never had to re-arm. He also said
th=
at if
> they were damaged, but not shot down, they missed only one turn,
in=
stead of
> 2. Has anyone else heard this?
Nope. First I've heard. Tell h=
im to produce the evidence.
> It didn't turn out to matter much. He was u=
sing a Harridan as a Hq
and it
> always got damaged. He thought he couldn't=
go without the Hq, so it
didn't
> matter much.
Amusing that the result of=
two bad rules = one good rule?
I wouldn't say that, but it makes an am=
using house rule. Damaging a gargoyle is silly. Personally, they should't b=
e flyers. I play 40K nids. Something along the line of
termagant + skimmer =
would be correct. By the same logic Swooping hawks should
be flyers.
---=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------------
"Your incorrect assumptions are threefold.=
"
"You assume law still reigns in the Five Galaxies"
"You assume that we wo=
uld be bound by precedents and precepts from the last 10 million years."
"B=
ut your most incorrect assumption of all is to assume that we care."
=
-David Brin, Infinity's Shore
--------------------------------------------=
---------James Nugent----------------------------------------
- application/ms-tnef attachment: stored
Received on Tue Jul 29 1997 - 12:01:12 UTC