Prodos Games LTD Forum
http://forum.prodosgames.com/

Problem with "An Eye for an eye" TACTICAL CARD
http://forum.prodosgames.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1614
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Liissu [ Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Problem with "An Eye for an eye" TACTICAL CARD

Guys, I had a big problem with:

(F) - means flamer?

And now we have for example: Flamer mode from Razide (Piercing (F)), and I used En Eye... Tactical card on my enemy.
"Every Model in the target Squad has an Armour Value of 0 against Flamer type Attacks and gains Impenetrable Armour (12) against Piercing and Blast type Attacks"
So my enemy have now 0 A against my attack, or Impenetrable Armour (12), against this attack?

Author:  Lone Mishaman [ Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Problem with "An Eye for an eye" TACTICAL CARD

Liissu wrote:
(F) - means flamer?


All instances of (F) are mistakes and should be (B) (from memory, check the FAQ to be sure)

Flamers are weapons with FT or SFT as the range.

Liissu wrote:
And now we have for example: Flamer mode from Razide (Piercing (F)), and I used En Eye... Tactical card on my enemy.
"Every Model in the target Squad has an Armour Value of 0 against Flamer type Attacks and gains Impenetrable Armour (12) against Piercing and Blast type Attacks"
So my enemy have now 0 A against my attack, or Impenetrable Armour (12), against this attack?


Yup nasty, nasty card that one.

Author:  bax644 [ Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Problem with "An Eye for an eye" TACTICAL CARD

LM, I think the confusion Liissu has is with the Flamer and Piercing title both being in the Flamer for the razide, which might suggest an opponent has 0 armor vs piercing bug 12 IA for Piercing, meaning that the opponent still has the 12 IA despite having 0 for flamers.

I personally think this card could be great for your own troops against an opponent with a lot of Piercing and Blast weapons.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/