[NetEpic ML] Re: Gargants and their Balls

From: Luca Lettieri <l.lettieri_at_...>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:30:58 +0100

On 13 Dec 99, at 9:18, jyrki.saari_at_... wrote:

> > > >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.
> > > 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.

> > 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.


> Then what would be the justification for such a giant investment in
> resources? If regular tanks can do everything a titan can? I am not a
> fan of superheroes of any kind but I seem to have a soft spot in my
> heart for giant war machines. Personally I like the AT era titans
> which caused a morale check to infantry. They were not invulnerable
> but really tough and not tank and infantry fodder by any means.

I LOVE titans (how can you play Eldar without them, Lorenzo?? :-)
They're sooooooo sexy, and fielding an Eldar army it's all about
style anyway, who cares about winning), but the fact remains that
any excessively though piece detracts the game of some tactical
possibility. If a Titan can safely (let's say 8-9 times out of 10) make
an overrun attack against an enemy infantry company, it doesn't
take a genius to use titans for overrun.
OTOH, if a titan, ALONE AND UNSUPPORTED, dies while trying
to tackle an enemy company, that should give the player some
lessons about deployment, movement, relative position of army
elements, and mutual support strategies...


Luca Lettieri
Received on Mon Dec 13 1999 - 21:30:58 UTC