IG/TG/SoB and all things Imperial

From: Joshua W Raup <deaconblue3_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 15:22:28 -0400

Well, this is back inthe debate again >g<...been waitin for this. And
now for my comments on things...
1. The Tech gurad, IMO, aren't really a seprate army. They are the
support arm of the IG, and do not conduct offensive operations on their
own. The exception would be the Titan Legions, and even then, they are
primarily for support. Thus, they should be merged into the IG list.
2. I don't see the Sisters as a seprate army either (sorry guys). Why?
They a) don't have the numbers; b)are part of the ecclesiarchy; and c)
are only SM-Lites. I have the 2E 40K codex for them, and this is
definitely the impression I got from it. While they may be a viable
"army" for 40K, they are best suited to a support role, or a company card
for IG. You would have the usual support card types for them (based on
the SM's), Assault, devastator, tactical, plus their specific vehicles
like the immolator. It would be possible to create an army list for the
Ecclesiarchy, but it would be rather weak, needing lots of IG support, so
we come back to...
3. Allies. Well, I don't see Imperial forces really being allies.
Imperial doctrine is based on combined arms, and cross-branch cooperation
is rather common. It is not uncommon (fluff wise), for SM's and IG to
operate together, with Titan and AM support. That, and the "rule" is
inconsistant. If this is to be strictly applied, under the current set
up, only the TG should be eligible to take Titans in their army. Titans
are from the Titan Legions, and are part of the Adeptus Mechanicus, thus
part of the Tech-Guard. Neither the IG or the Sm chapters have Titans of
their own. But there is a simple way of handling this. 1-Combine the IG
and TG army lists (I started doing that). This brings that aspect back
into line. 2-Add into the list specific SM units available as support
cards. If there is a company type card listed under this, it would be
restricted to IG support cards, and not SM cards (specials or support).
3-Do the same for the SM list, adding in IG support cards for them. This
should take care of the "cheese factor" that seems to be a worry around
here. Personally I don't get it. Sorry, but it sounds like a bit of a
whine to me. It's a "I can't beat this army on my own, so I'll change
the rules so I can," deal, and it just seems wrong to me. The army lists
aren't unbalanced, and have their weaknesses, just like any other. I
lose on a regular basis with a "combined" IG-SM army, so I just don't see
the problem.
4. All the recent proposals, while very good in and of themselves, end
up doing a a creative dodge around the "no allies rule." We end up
creating a new list, and giving it units from other lists, saying "well
they need this, so they can have this from the IG/SM/TG list." It's a
dodge around the "rule," where instead, what should be done is changing
the rule to fit the army, as the rule is broken IMO. No offense to those
who have been working on the SoB list, it's rather good, and I like it,
just not as a new Army is all.
5. This is for Peter- If I take out all references to Praetorians and
titans from the TG book, it's gonna be awful thin. Should I just
"officially" combine the IG and TG into one list? Without the
praetorian/Titan parts of teh TG book, there isn't much more really...


Josh R
Minister for General Mayhem
"Don't let the bastards grind you down." Gen. Joseph Stilwell
Received on Wed May 24 2000 - 19:22:28 UTC