Re: [Epic] Titans and CC (a new theory...)

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 07:55:09 GMT

At 04:37 PM 3/3/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>Well Mike, I know what you mean about GW's cruddy rules writing
>>capabilities, but...
>>
>>This stuff comes from TL - the product designed to sell more titans - and it
>>is fairly obvious that they are trying to address one of the "problems" with
>>titans (that makes the so unappealing, hence inprofitable...)
>>
>>I would suggest that the intention of the section on titans and gargants in
>>CC is to make them less vulnerable to CC, and why mention the bit about
>>being able to sweep the base at all? (unless they did remember about
>>"pinning"...)
>>
>>Remember the "fluff" about titans being giants of the EPIC battle field and
>>having nothing nothing to worry about except other titans? (I would add
>>jump troops top the list of things to worry about, but with the changes to
>>the pinning rules on skimmers and the (potential) change to the way you CC a
>>titan, it would be almost true...)
>>
>>Still "undecided"?
>
>If that's what they intended, how come they didn't spell it out any clearer?


Just "cruddy rules writing I expect"...


>I mean, if the troops are pinned by the base, they're in CC, but in order to
>reach CC they must reach the feet. What the heck is that supposed to mean!?


I think it means you should pin the titan first...


>So what does happen to the pinned but not in CC troops anyways, nothing is
>there to support that they fight but just without multiple attacker bonuses,
>they're just stuck in a sort of limbo.


It seems to me that if the titan chooses to sweep its base clean, they would
fight (and be entitled to multiple attacker bonuses). If the titan does not
choose to attack them, they are "cowed"or "suppressed" or whatever the new
E40K calls being "forced to keep your head down due to overwhelming firepower".
 

> If you can find any explanations for
>this please feel free to prove me wrong, I would just be too delighted. :)
>


No, I can't PROVE anything. All I can do is suggest this (admittedly
radical) interpretation and see if anyone else agrees...



>>Agro
>
>Michael the Liu
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 04 1997 - 07:55:09 UTC