[NetEpic ML] Re: Gargants and their Balls

From: Thomas Lawson <kurmark_at_...>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:24:11 -0600

> Maybe it's just me, but I LIKE the fact that Titans are vulnerable. I
> would say Gargants are too though, rather than warlords are too
> fragile.

This would be more in line with my problems actually.

> Ok, given the point cost of your average warlord (or phantom), they
> come down a little too easily. But... if and when the matter will be
> addressed, please keep in mind the way WH40K and WFB went
> through the various editions.. with dumber and dumber rules which
> allowed ridiculously powerful characters/heroes/monsters to win a
> game by themselves.

I agree here. That's one of the reasons I was pissed off about the
introduction of the Mega-Gargant and the Imperator, even though it turns out
the Great Gargant is better than a Mega for the points. A Titan should still
be relatively immune to infantry fire IMO. It should take heavy anti-tank
weapons and other titans to take them out.

> A titan going through an enemy company alone and unsupported
> SHOULD die. Tactically, it's one of the most idiotic moves anyone
> could devise. The fact that the rules allow for such a move to
> succeed, and thus make it a viable option, does NOT make for a
> better game, IMHO.

I always thought that Titans should be tough enough to make a single,
successful overrun type attack if properly supported. That would be in
keeping with armored units.
Received on Sat Dec 11 1999 - 05:24:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:48 UTC