[Epic] Titan Killers

From: Crocker, Cyril <ccrocker_at_...>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:07:20 -0400

I think it was also brought up that there enough anti-titan weapons in
the game already. Barrage is not one of those, it is anti-infantry.

Along this thought, I did blow up a Mega-Gargant with a single D-Cannon
shot last weekend before my friend ever fired a single weapon from it.
He rolled, double sixes for the critical, and 6 for catastrophic. He
was pissed.

Cyril

> ----------
> From: Stephen Sheldon[SMTP:stephes_at_...]
> Reply To: space-marine_at_...
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 12:20 PM
> To: space-marine_at_...
> Subject: Re: [Epic] Barrage templates and titans
>
> >
> > Tu as �crit :
> >
> > > I think we should keep in mind that the barrage is liberally
>
> > >spraying the target with ammo, i think this is not enough to hurt a
>
> > >titan...
> >
> > Well, I think that if a barrage can damage a LR (armour = 6+) then
> it
> > should damage a titan, shouldn't it?
>
> I have been following this post waiting for the big point to come up.
> It
> didn't. The barrage shells are typically large fragmentary devices, or
> a
> liberal spraying of smaller shells, excellent for taking out infantry,
>
> not so good at taking out vehicles, therefore, I think that the titans
>
> are not going to get more than a single hit, because with a frag
> device,
> or HE, it is a single non-armour piercing shell, and the smaller
> bombardments (Basilisk for eg) are going to have a relatively low
> probability of damaging a titan, made more likely by the mass
> quantity.
> In other words, it works fine now, so don't mess with it.
>
> Steve
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> When you dream there are no rules, people can fly, anything can
> happen.
> Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, that you become aware of
> the real world around you, but you're still dreaming.
> You may think you can fly, but you better not try it...
> -------------------------------------------------stephes_at_...-------
> -
>
Received on Fri Jun 12 1998 - 19:07:20 UTC