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

From: Scott Shupe <shupes_at_...>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:29:26 -0400

Francois Bruntz wrote:
>
> > The point that is being
> >debated is that the auto-destroy is not a hit.
>
> Of course but you need a HIT to cause the auto-destroy.

        But you don't. Re-read the entry for close combat
weapons in the rule book - if a titan with a CC weapon wins
a close combat, catastrophic damage is inflicted on the
losing war engine. The winner could roll all 1's to inflict
hits as a result of the combat and the loser would still
be destroyed because of the CC weapon.

        Holo-fields protect against hits, and (as the
rules are written) CC weapons do not need a hit in order
to work. Of course, you can always make a house rule
that requires a hit for the CC weapon to work.

> Sorry but I can't see how you can destroy a titan with a CC weapon
> without striking him...

        I learned some time ago that trying to apply
'common sense' to GW games is an exercise in futility.
Game balance is more important in my mind, even if it
requires silly or arbitrary rules. Close combat
weapons are not (IMHO) all that useful, and taking one
means giving up a death ray, heavy barrage, HWB, etc
for 4 FP at 30cm and the ability to auto-destroy other
WEs if you win a round of CC. Actually getting into
CC with another war engine does not look at all easy
and even if you do, there's no assurance that you'll
win. It all balances out.

        Close combat in E40k is abstracted to the point
that you really have no idea what's going on during the
fight anyway, merely the outcome - I won, he lost. You
really don't know that just because the losing titan
was not 'hit' (in a game sense) that it was not struck
by the winning titan.

> I see where's the problem, we don't have the same definition for a
> HIT.

        We all do. Your examples are all good illustrations
of what a hit is.

Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Tue Jul 29 1997 - 14:29:26 UTC