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

From: Dan Lobb <danlobb_at_...>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 15:06:26 -0800

Michael the Liu 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?
> 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!?
> 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. If you can find any explanations for
> this please feel free to prove me wrong, I would just be too delighted. :)
>
> >Agro
>
> Michael the Liu
I think you can look at it this way:

1)Titan moves into base to base contact with
stand/vehicle/knight/shv/whatever.
  Result: stand/vehicle/knight/shv/whatever is pinned because the titan
can reach down with its weapons and strike at the fleas as far out as
its base.
2)stand/vehicle/knight/shv/whatever has to move into contact with the
legs to get the same CC effect.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, but that is how
I would apply it.

danlobb_at_...
Received on Tue Mar 04 1997 - 23:06:26 UTC