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

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 21:36:57 GMT

At 10:35 AM 5/3/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
>>
>> I don't know Chad, I issued the challenge "you don't need to defend titans",
>> and what I have so far is four (count 'em - 4!) replies suggesting that
>> while it is a valid interpretation, "we're sure that's not what GW meant",
>> one reply of "no I haven't checked the rules 'cause whether it says that or
>> not I'll continue to insist that we do it MY way" and a suggestion that I
>> "drop the subject for pity's sake"...
>
> Well you were gettin kinda pushy about it... =)

It's only 'cause I wanted answers...


> It seems pretty clear
>to me that your proposed interpretation is not what GW intended, especially
>considering it doesn't make much sense logically. Non-skimmers can only
>hurt the titan if they touch it's feet... but they can never get there since
>they'll be pinned at the base... so why even say the bit about the feet
>if they can never get there?
>


You can get there IF THE TITAN IS PINNED...

(Which part doesn't make sense logically?)



>> You CAN get sound tactical advice from this list, but I am disapointed by
>> the lack of rules clarification. When I found the list (six month's ago?) I
>> thought "great - now I can find out other people interpret whatever my
>> gaming crowd is argueing about at the moment".
>
> But of course our interpretations are no more valid than anyone else's...


I was hoping that they would be more numerous. As you say, the six of us at
my end can form an equally valid interpretation to any six of us on the list...


>
>> When NetEPIC started I thought "great, now we can fix all of those glaring
>> problems with EPIC..."
>>
>> Sadly, only a tiny few of us are prepared to help out folks who know less
>> about the rules than we do.
>
> There are people who know less than we do??? I don't believe it. =)
>
>Scott
>shupes_at_...
>
Received on Wed Mar 05 1997 - 21:36:57 UTC