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

From: Miller, Chris <CMiller_at_...>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:56:56 -0500

>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.
>
>
>Scott
>shupes_at_...

-----> I think Scott has this one. The rule under Holo Fields
(army book pg 65) even mentions "...receive a 2+ save against
any and all hits they take, rather like a unit with the save special
ability does. Note that this save applies to all attacks, even ones
that normally ignore void shields and power fields and it applies to
hits suffered in close combat.

Notice that "_hits_ suffered in close combat"

Now under close combat weapons on all the War engine sheets,
it says "doubles assault value. against war engines. Always causes
catastrophic damage on opposing war engine if you win."

These 2 rules do not conflict.
Holo fields save against the hits you may suffer in close combat.
 Good.
You also have a "winner" and a "loser", irrespective of "hits."

If a titan with a powerfist is the winner, the opponent suffers
catastrophic damage and croaks.

People are blurring the "hits" and the "winner" together, and
trying to use the holofield in a way that's incorrect - they are 2
seperate conditions.One device refes to one , and the other device
refers
to the other. As much as you might like it to be different, at this
point
it's not.
(And don't start that whole "realism/fluff" thread. It's a giant walking
robot thing with rayguns. Realism's kinda out the window, and this
thread's already thrashed the fluff argument pretty hard...

Chris Miller
(guess who has his armybook
at work today...?)
  
Received on Tue Jul 29 1997 - 16:56:56 UTC