Erik K. Rutins wrote:
>
> > Or we could tell them, "Allow the big IG infantry army, and people
> > will buy more infantry. They'll get the tanks, anyway." :-)
>
> <grin> My understanding of Andy's comments was that IG get a break on
> tanks to offset the cost of their command structure for infantry. By
> extrapolation, that means that the strength of any IG army should be in
> its tanks/support vehicles/artillery. I've found this to be true on the
> battlefield. While I enjoy putting down a lot of infantry, I wonder why
> the High Lords would ever want to create an infantry-only regiment when
> a combined infantry/armor/artillery force would be much more
> survivable. The Imperium's industrial capacity is certainly not an
> issue, so I personally am investing in Leman Russes and Hellhounds.
The Imperium is capable of churning out the armor, true, but
people are even cheaper (and there's certainly no shortage of warm
bodies in the Imperium, just give em a flak vest and a lasgun and
there you go). Cheap massed infantry formations are neccessary
because the Imperial Guard aren't always on the defense and there
certainly aren't enough marines to go around. If you need to assault
something with infantry and all you have available is IG tac
troops... well, you better be able to field a ton of them cheaply.
Also note that AC & JJ didn't have a problem with large
cheap infantry detachments on foot (ala the old tac companies). But
I'm not exactly sure why that's somehow acceptable and the current
detachment list without the excessive HQ costs is not.
Either there was a mistake, or we're getting back into the
realm of rules-for-fluffs-sake, like the cost of the eldar farseer.
Do the IG get a price break on tanks to compensate for the hosed
infantry detachments? If so, then that's pretty stupid.
Scott Shupe
shupes_at_... shupes@...
http://www.rpi.edu/~shupes
***********************************************************************
"Avoid everything!" - Lard
Received on Thu Dec 04 1997 - 21:56:36 UTC