Re: [Epic] Another contentious issue

From: Dan Lobb <danlobb_at_...>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 05:35:52 -0800

Aaron P Teske wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Epic: 9-Mar-97 Re: [Epic] Another contenti.. by Jason
> Robinson_at_...
> > On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Brett Hollindale wrote:
> > > Titan leg damage (6) states: "The leg is blown apart and the titan
> > > collapses to the ground. Decide which way the titan falls and place it on
> > > its side lying in that direction. Any vehicles or troop stands fallen on
> > > are destroyed."
> > > It doesn't actually state that the titan is destroyed.
> >
> > When a warmachine of that size falls over, I think it is safe to say
> > that it is out of the battle. It might not be destroyed, but after
> > the fall, I doubt the titan would be in any condition to fight. For
> > one, the crew will be bashed around and most of the systems propably
> > wouldn't work well turned sideways (weapon arms, etc).
>
> Yah... Adeptus Titanicus has the comment that "the crew must eject or be
> killed" if the Titan falls over, so I'd say that the Titan can't do
> anything for the rest of the game even if some of the weapons & reactors
> are functional....
>
> > Immobilized counts as destroyed in a normal game, but in campaign
> > games this might be interesting. It would be cheaper to repair a
> > titan with only a leg gone (plus the fall) and the winner of the battle
> > would capture any immobilized titans from the field.
>
> I have to agree here... I remember the bit of text that GW threw in
> front of their Titan Legions celebratory White Dwarf battle report
> (issue 188), about the Clavigera. Not *that* was a nice bit o' flavor
> text. ^_^
>
> Aaron Teske
> Mithramuse+_at_...
I would say it takes one auto hit for each location on the side it falls
on. That is, if it isn't an autokill.

danlobb_at_...
Received on Sun Mar 09 1997 - 13:35:52 UTC