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

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 13:37:45 GMT

At 02:54 PM 7/3/97 -0500, you (Chad) wrote:
>Tell you what, IF you and I played in the same group I probably would give
>in just for the heck of it right about now. We are talking about a 20
>minute type scuffle over Epic, and while that is fine in 40k (actually
>this would only be a minor skirmish), it is something I prefer to avoid in
>Epic. But I would probably want to point out the below.


Chad, I've already said about how _I_ would have given up before now, but
I've just had another read of your post below and you have slightly
misquoted a couple of key statements in your next paragraph. (Leading,
naturally, to an erroneous conclusion...)


>
>The rules state that you are pinned when you move into CC with an enemy.

Actually the rules state that you are pinned as soon as you "touch an enemy"
NOT "when you move into CC with an enemy". (A subtle difference, but the
crux of this whole discussion...) The whole point of this is that "touching
the enemy" WILL NOT NECESSARILY PUT YOU IN CC WITH A TITAN!


>Fine, the only way a ground unit goes into CC with a Titan at its base is
>if the Titan chooses to engage it.


This is true.


>The only way a Titan can choose to engage anything in CC is to be on Charge
orders.


This is NOT true. Suppose that some troops charged the titan, reached the
base, but fell short of the feet. The titan COULD choose to engage the
troops irrespective of its orders. (The rules prohibit a titan from
"entering CC" unless it is on Charge orders, but clearly state that a titan
can "always choose to engage models in contact with its base")


>
>So this is the result. A Titan may choose IF it is on Charge orders to
>pin and engage ground (non-flyer/skimmer) units at its base.


Well, no, that would be the result of the erroneous statements above.
But... Do I take it correctly that you actually agree that the base is
"part of the model"? (Because isn't that the only real issue here?)

Agro
Received on Sat Mar 08 1997 - 13:37:45 UTC