Re: [Epic] Doomweavers vs Titans

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 08:45:27 +0200 (MET DST)

At 01:39 PM 8/7/97 +0100, you wrote:
>At 09:30 07/07/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>David Knowles wrote:
>>>
>>> When a Doomweaver template hits a titan, the location on the titan is
>destroyed
>>> unless it has a 1+ save, and shields have no effect. Is this all correct?
>>
>> The rules never state that shields have no effect.
>>
>
>To be honest I didn't think that it ignored shields but as the eldar player
was
>losing I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
>
>So if it hits an unshielded titan the titan is destroyed if it doesn't have
a 1+
>save somewhere, but otherwise it is forced to move.
>I've heard people say that if a unit is on first fire it counts as being unable
>to move and so is auto destroyed, is this correct?


No, units on FF that are Doomweavered are forced to move and thus is forced
to Advance Fire...


>I see a big difference between something that cannot possibly move eg.
something
>affected by psychic lock, and something that is simply choosing not to move.
>We've always played that if something is on first fire and is forced to move
>then unless it is explicitly stated otherwise it still fires in the FF phase.
>>
>> Isn't the effect of Doomweavers, Wave Serpents, etc
>>on the Imp covered in the TL rulebook? Or maybe in a WD?
>>
>It doesn't include anything about Doomweavers, but I suppose those rules could
>be used. Someone else said it does a hit with a -6 save modifier on the
top of
>the Imperator, but I don`t see why the Imperator should take that kind of
damage
>when a battle titan gets off scot free due to a 1+ save somewhere.
>
>
>What then happens if a titan is hit by a D-cannon, if it has active shields it
>is displaced, but what if it doesn't, we simply played that it takes automatic
>damage on one location under the template, (rolling for deviation as normal).
>
>I know it's probably a bad idea to take titans against eldar, but they look so
>cool, and anyway our eldar player is not all that good.
>
>What would other people take instead of a Warlord battlegroup?
>I was thinking of;
> Shadow Sword Company 500 pts
> Storm Hammer 200 pts
> Artillary Company 600 pts
> Deathstrike Battery 250 pts
> ----------
> 1550 pts
>Does this seem like a good alternative, bearing in mind that the Warlords are
>usually used as fire support for Marines.


Tsk Tsk... Another unclean (mixed IG and SM) army... If it was me, I'd
take Land Raiders as fire support or Vindicator (support cards) or Predator
(support cards).

Agro


>
> DSK
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC