Goldfinger: Oddjob (Harold Sakata)

Comments for death : Goldfinger: Oddjob (Harold Sakata).

wouldn't it also count as "own weapon"?

Again i can see where you are coming from, but i think in order for it to count as "own weapon" he would need to get hit by his own bowler hat.

Mouseburger

Is it possible it may be a Grab Bag entry? I definetly know it qualifies for a One on One, as it's the conclusion of a fight between Bond and Oddjob.

Not "Grab Bag" see my argument on the Rosa Klebb forum to clarify. "One on One" however, would definitely work.

I suppose I still stand by my "Own Weapon" argument, as the fight would have turned out differently without it, isn't there a rule that henchmen must be killed by their own gimmick?

Mr. Briggs Incorporated Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose I still stand by my "Own Weapon"
> argument, as the fight would have turned out
> differently without it, isn't there a rule that
> henchmen must be killed by their own gimmick?

It says...
"When someone suffers the ignominy of being slain by their own weapon. This is an especially embarassing death if the weapon is a "signature" one, used by the character for many killings."
I guess it means that the character has to be directly killed by the weapon. I'm not sure how direct this one is. The electricity was the direct cause, but that hat not been lined with metal... You get the idea.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2006 11:59PM by Matt.

"Breaking their necks..."? Seeing as how the bowler cut through a thick cable, shouldn't that be "decapitate them"?