Re: [Epic] Problems with the old system

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:16:02 GMT

At 11:45 AM 22/1/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At 10:09 01/22/1997 -0500, you wrote:
>>> When did the powers that be remove the distinction between SHV's and
>>> titan-sized vehicles?
>> AFAIK there never was a distinction to remove. Not in 2ed
>>Epic, anyway. SHVs are SHVs, despite fluff text (sure, the big Squat
>>ones are supposed to be as big as some titans, but even the IG SH
>>tanks are meant to be the size of city blocks, which sounds pretty
>>damn big to me). Some have void shield generators, some don't. Some
>>have mini plasma reactors (stormblades), some don't.
>>> Personally I would have to say that is a galactically
>>> stupid move. there should be a difference between a Shadow sword and a
>>> Leviathan. Anything that carries void shield and is undergoing debate as to
>>> whether it should have a construction template should DEFINITELY be treated
>>> as a titan. I play chaos, and I would have been screaming about that one.
>I'm sure that the Leviathan chassis and the giant Imperial termite-thingie
>were classified as titan-sized vehicles. It's possible this was a house
>rule, but I specifically remember a mini-painting category that included
>them with titans. It's unlike GW to do so unless it's in line with the rules.
>I guess I could be flaking.
>> Well in order to use the TK chaos card on a Leviathan,
>>Colussus, or what not you have to get a chaos troop within 15cm
>>of the thing, presumably survive FF! (maybe... I really hate how
>>all those chaos cards say they're used "in the combat phase" -
>>considering the combat phase is made up of FF, CC, & AdvF - could
>>we be a little more vague here?) and still get past the void
>>shields if any are still up. Never tried it myself, but it seems
>>to me that taking out a shadow sword or tempest is a hell of a lot
>What's vague? "in the combat phase" means any time during the combat phase.
>I've played with people who played cards automatically whenever you wanted,
>and those that declared that playing a card was a firing action. By firing
>action I mean it could be counted as your turn in the "I fire, you fire"
>rotation or that the detachment using the power needed a firing action
>(before I get slagged, this obviously applied to things like TK and the
>vortex power of the Thousand Sons, not to +1 CAF or other cc powers).
>Personally, I can deal with losing my turn in rotation, but the unit using
>its action is a bit too much.
>Apparently lost and/or clueless

Actually, that sounds pretty reasonable (not the lost/clueless part...)

Received on Wed Jan 22 1997 - 22:16:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:02 UTC