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

From: John Chapman <john_at_...>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:04:31 +1000 (EST)

> 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?)
        The argument wasnt that the shield wasnt impenetrable but rather what
actually went around (as opposed to through it). In this case since the WM /SAG
is actually in another dimention at the time it passes through the shield it
isnt going through but rather around the shield. Its basically the sort of
problem encountered through ye olde mixing of fluff and rules. Similar arguments
 were generated by barrage templates fired AT the wave. You can see the wave
therefore you can place the template on it therefore part of the template is
going to be covering the WS therefore its going to be hit (again the fire is
assumed to go around the shield). We never played like that (if you want to go
over go over with indirect - if youre firing direct the shield should catch and
in effect anull part of the template.Ummm where DOES it mention WMs etc dont
go through a vortex (like it blocking LOS kind of made that question null and
void around here - sure it can go through but what ARE you shooting at ? ).
I proposed the idea of the shield extending into the warp but all the non
eldar players hated that idea for some reason :)......
> 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?
        Yup its stronger but its the only thing even remotely similar. Theres
a debate because it says models affected cant do anything else thqat turn
and it doesnt define just what is included in the 'anything else'. The only
other thing that prevents anything being done IS the warlock.....And no it
doesnt seem fair but then again given some effects like some of the chaos
rewards , tyranid cards weirdboyz etc etc etc fairness has never really seemed
to be part of the game unfortunately so its open to interpretation what the
designers meant. Removing cheese is good - but removing one army's cheese
while leqaving all others merely hamstrings one army (of course if my
opponents want to talk cheese reduction Im all for it......).
> 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?)
        Well yes thats how I interpretted it too. The 'takes all remaining hits'
 effectively means a doomweaver cant possibly kill something with more than
2-3 hits (maybe a good thing though). The fact that I NEED to interpret stuff
like that though means the rules arent as clear as they could have been.
> 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.
        No not quite - we're talking about the shields locking together stuff
(dont ask me where it is from (am hoping it wasnt a house thing but Im sure
I saw it somewhere probably in rules). LIke when a dragsta and WS collide they
lock together. Also note that saving throw doesnt apply to physical attacks -
eg Weirdboyz and Deathstalkers - why isnt the shield a physical attack too
(yup this was a rule intended to use fluff - urrrk).
> 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.)
        Its consistant IF you interpret it that way. Im not saying youve got a
BAD interpretation there (heck its how we play it) Im just saying the rules
require interpretation and there is often more than one reasonable
> >Heck theres a lot of dodgy ground in SM/TL-
> Dodgy ground, yes. But no inconsistancies as I said...
        OK you want to argue that dodgy rules arent inconsistancies. Ok-an
inconsistancy is in flyer's defensive bonuses (OK its more a common sense
inconsistancy than a rules inconsistancy - but its possible to argue that
most sets of rules - even bad ones are consistant). Why do thunderhawks
move so quickly that only units on FF can shoot them. Nightwings move faster
yet advance firers can hit them. Even funnier-nightwings can match THawks in
speed but since NWs cant FF,they cant shoot a THawk not on the ground.........
THATS inconsistant (same reason for bonus , different bonus.).
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:10:37 UTC