Re: [Epic] Titan Legion rules vs. Epic 40k

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 10:43:01 +0200 (MET DST)

At 12:02 PM 7/5/98 +1000, you wrote:
>> I don't see the problem.
>>
>> (I'll go so far as to suggest that there are NO inconsistancies in SM/TL...)
> Ok lets try these for a start - a Wave Serpent shield is impenetrable -
> Warp Missiles and Shokk AGs dont actually go through the shields (they go
>around them in a manner). Ok you cant SEE the WS but relative to the shield
>you know where it is. Can these shoot the WS.


Of course not. (Which part of "totally impenetrable" are you in doubt
about? Warp misiles and SAG's cannot penetrate a vortex template either, so
isn't it obvious that these things form a barrier in the warp too?)



>If a WS runs down a unit does
>it get to roll dice in CC (the faq says yes but going by the rules the only
>other effect that is worded such that ' a unit may do nothing else this turn'
>(Warlocks paralyze power) says it doesnt so a fair assumption based on that
>info alone.....).


MAYBE, it's a fair assumption, but the wording is so vastly different and so
much stronger in the case of the warlock's psychic lock power that it
doesn't seem "fair" to me... In this case, the rules are clear that a
warlock can stop you from rolling 2d6 but since it isn't stated in the wave
serpent effects, why is there a debate?


>What happens when something 'destroys' a model with regen.


Offhand, and with no backup, I would suggest that the unit is "destroyed"...


>If this effect is a doomweaver template does a model which is destroyed and
>then regenerates (under the faq ruling) move or get stuck under the template
>again?


For me the rules are clear that the unfortunate creature regenenerates and
is cut to pieces again. (Unfortunately the FAQ states differently, but what
do you expect from the Primarchs who won't actually formalise the rules
clarifications by printing them in White Dwarf?)



>Shields - namely the sticking together and locking up deal. In a
>number of cases void shields are noted as being different to other types of
>shields. Are they in this case?


You mean can a warp wave penetrate a void shield? This is coverred in TL
under void shields giving a saving throw vs warp based attacks. Thus the
answer is yes/no, 50/50.




>If you target a barrage missile at the nearest
>non-command unit to a command unit does the command rule prevent you from
>running a line of barrage templates right over the command unit ignoring other,
>perhaps even better, targets?


The rules on targetting command units ARE a bit of a pain. I would say that
you should play them as written. You may not target a command unit unless
it is the closest unit of its type. (We play that if you can drop a
multiple barrage and get more troops by baraging the commander than you
would by not barraging him/her, then you are entitled to barrage the
commander. This is a house ruloe that appears completely consistant with
the spirit of the command rule, AND is consistant with the FAQs.)




>Heck theres a lot of dodgy ground in SM/TL-


Dodgy ground, yes. But no inconsistancies as I said...


>even more without the Q&A. Heck just the DW and WS generate reams in
themselves.
>Other rules (such as Weirdboys not having power for turn 1 - what did they
>just popinto existance at the start of the first turn - heck when the game
>starts theyre surrounded by angry orks why no power/head pop roll


And I HAVE always wondered why the Impirator doesn't have a full load of
plasma in its reactor...


>or flyers
>not being able to shoot THawks because they cant go on first fire (heck the
>different shooting penalties btw other flyers and THawks always sucked)) abound
>such that interpretations are needed. Any counter argument that 'common sense'
>can resolve them may be factual but it doesnt take away the fact that the rules
>are often ambiguous enough to need interpretation.
>>
>> Void shields state that whenever the shielded model takes a hit it loses a
>> void shield.
>>
>> Doomweavers state clearly under what conditions they inflict a "hit".
>>
> Ummmmm Ill try and remember to go reread renegades tonight but.....
>arent the rules for DWs written such that if an immobilised model gets
>caught under a template it is automatically destroyed. And it was never a real
>problem immobilising a titan. Wave serpents (depending on how you read the
rules
>), Warlocks and leg hits (read vibro cannon......)could all do it.
>I dont think it
>actually mentions anything about hits. If you enter the dangerous realm of
>reading fluff then you can make an argument that the threads move slowly
>enough to float through the shields (just like CCers can run through them).
>DOnt the DW rules merely get modified by 1+ armour and make no mention of
>shields (I think that led to a problem at one stage - ok this titan has 1+
>head and body - what about the arms.....Or WAS that covered in the rules.
>*sigh*).
>> Nowhere do the rules state that Doomweavers ignore void shields, so why is
>> there a debate?
> Cos the way I remember the rules were written - void shields negated
>hits and DWs 'destroyed' rather than 'inflicted hits' on their targets in the
>case of immobilisation....
> JAC
>>
>> Agro
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC