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

From: Cameron Bentsen <stu7i95_at_...>
Date: 06 Mar 1997 13:05 EST

In message "[Epic] Titans and CC (a new theory...)", you write:

> > >> 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...
>
> More numerous or more varied? There are about 140 people on
> the list, although for whatever reasons only about a dozen of us post
> regularly. Presumably the silent majority agrees for the most part
> with members of the vocal minority, and thus feel no need to post
> themselves - so more numerous does not neccessarily mean more varied.
> (or at least, they don't disagree enough to post arguments)
>
> Scott
> shupes_at_...
>

Speaking for myself, I never thought your idea (about infantry being pinned
by base-to-base contact with a Titan without being in CC) held any water.
Seeing as there were a number of people voicing this opinion at the time, and
since there have been several good reasons posted why this interpretation of
the rules is invalid, I haven't bothered to add my 2 cents in. If I spent all
my time posting to the list, I'd never get any work done. ;-)

Cameron Bentsen, Ottawa.
Received on Thu Mar 06 1997 - 18:05:00 UTC