Re: [Epic] Titans and Eldar (was: Titans and CC)

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 21:23:10 GMT

At 08:56 AM 20/3/97 -0600, you wrote:
>At 12:51 PM 3/20/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>>I think I would be tempted to ignore the titans. Deployed on the back line,
>>they will fire their multiple barrage weapons on turn one and practically
>>nothing you can do will stop them. (It would take some pretty amazing luck
>>with doomweavers or some pretty exposed warlocks.)
>
>And your better use for those warlocks would be what?

Well, that IS a valid point! It might well be worth exposing the warlocks
in order to stop one (or more?:-) titans. I like the ability to place
orders counters after you see your opponents' but it might not be worth as
much as a titan...

> It's along shot (1 in
>4) to psychic lock a titan, but you may get lucky and pin 2 of the buggers.
>Anyway, it's not like he has the means to stop the warlocks before they at
>least get a shot.
>
>>After turn one, (and the
>>barrage missiles) I'm not sure that titans on the back line are much of a
>>threat...
>
>True.
>
>BTW, if a warlock were to try to maintain a psy-lock on a titan with void
>shields on the second turn, would he have to roll again to penetrate the
>shield, or would he just have to make the maintenance roll?


I'd say "Yes" he has to penetrate void shields again, but as usual this is
only an opinion, and we will probably never know for sure...



>
>>I would say that your easy victory points come from the assault troops and
>>scouts. A bunch of falcons FF'ing from behind cover at the deployment line
>>are quite safe from retaliation (very few [Imperial] commanders have weapons
>>ranged greater than 25cm) and will inflict quite awesome casualties.
>
>I don't know about awesome. 6 detachments will average 9 hits. And that's
>assuming that since his force is so large, he won't be able to get cover.


I suppose "awesome" MIGHT be a bit strong, although inflicting casualties
without the possibility of taking any sounds pretty good to me!

Agro


>
>Temp
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 20 1997 - 21:23:10 UTC