|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AWAD
Draconis Combine
Chu-sa
Joined: 06-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 766
|
 Posted: 04-Jun-2004 18:35 Post subject: RE: Does this ruling sound as stupid to you as it does to me? |
  |
|
Why?
I mean the crits in a vehicle are nasty. It is game over for the mech. The only non-death ones are crew stunned, or main weapon out. None say anything about no ammo, or ammo explosion figure out damage. The Ammo explosion is vehicle is dead. So why can it not carry other ammo? Your FASA logic does hold some water, but it has holes. Becuase all the different ammo types, LRM, SRM, AC are considered to be in the "same" location. So by your ruling, if it is in the "same" location it has to be indentical ammo. As long as the tommage is paid for, it should make no difference.
AWAD- But I allow 1/2 ton lots per critical, means more special ammo is used.
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
Pinhead
The Bloody Clans
Joined: 25-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1258
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 05-Jun-2004 13:32 Post subject: RE: Does this ruling sound as stupid to you as it does to me? |
|
|
Much as I hate to say it, Chihawk and Mordel are correct. Since there is only a single 'bin' connected to a weapon in a FASA designed vehicle, then you have no way to differentiate if you have multiple loads.
It is simply another reason built into the game that defines vehicles are less than mechs. Those of you arguing real world examples are completely correct, but rfeal world examples do not support walking, running two story robots capable of carrying significant weapons either...
Pin
_________________
"My Blood is not mine to give, it belongs to my Brothers"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
AWAD
Draconis Combine
Chu-sa
Joined: 06-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 766
|
| Posted: 05-Jun-2004 19:11 Post subject: RE: Does this ruling sound as stupid to you as it does to me? |
|
|
Please quote the rule. If I remember correctly it says single location only, not bin. I may be wrong, and maybe latest version may have changed that.
AWAD- line and verse, that was the military when it came to procedures
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Motown Scrapper
Clan Ice Hellions
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 24-Jul-2003 00:00
Posts: 2074
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 06-Jun-2004 00:57 Post subject: RE: Does this ruling sound as stupid to you as it does to me? |
|
|
If you look up the rule that chihawk likes to cite it is on page 118 of the BMR and it does not say ANYTHING about limiting the types of ammo in that bay. I am not sure where chihawk gets his idea from but it is not stated there, read it your self and see for your self that he is incorrect, and that is why an errata is being issued because that information is absent and people like chihawk are misinterpreting what is there. His idea is base on a flawed extrapolation of mech crits... in effect mixing apples and oranges
_________________
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have-Rush Limbaugh www.rushlimbaugh.com
Force of nature
Still crazy after all these years
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8052
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 06-Jun-2004 07:31 Post subject: RE: Does this ruling sound as stupid to you as it does to me? |
|
|
You have to know how to read the rulebook to know why the ruling was made. Part of the problem that people are having is they think Randall made a mistake with his ruling.
He did not make a mistake.
He read the rules as they are written about vehicle equipment and ammo and make the correct decision based on those rules.
How do we know that? Because as other have reported Randall thought the rule was so stupid he's going to change the rule which will allow vehicle to carry multiple ammo types.
Lots of people showed their inability to read and understand the rules in all of this. The classic line is "it doesn't say in the rules that vehicles can't carry multiple ammo loads so they must be able to", which totally ignores the fact the reason the question was asked and the ruling made was because it doesn't say anything about it in the book at all.
Should vehicles be allowed to carry multiple ammo loads? Logically, yes. But the rules as currently written and interpreted do not allow it. Anyone that debates that fact is showing an inability to understand the concept behind the rules as written.
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-04:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
