Re: [Epic] Modified Infantry Comparsion

From: Erik K. Rutins <snowdo1_at_...>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 18:50:27 -0500

> The Imperium is capable of churning out the armor, true, but
> people are even cheaper (and there's certainly no shortage of warm

I understand what you're saying, Scott, but I just can't think of the
majority of an army being infantry-only. I mean detachment-wise. It
only took about 15 years after the invention of the tank for leading
edge tactics to realize that both infantry and tanks were more powerful
when used together. I know this is old news to everyone, but maybe
that's what the army list is intended to reflect?

Heck, maybe I'm just trying to rationalize the irrational. I think I'd
better watch Starship Troopers again, not a single tank in the whole
movie. ;-)

> I'm not exactly sure why that's somehow acceptable and the current
> detachment list without the excessive HQ costs is not.

I'm not sure either, just reporting the impressions I had of the
response.


> 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.

Well, I could see it if they really provided some explanation for tank
formations having more independence, etc. Paying for command structure
can be a valid cost, but I also don't like the way they implemented it.
As you know, in our last game my version of the rules was to buy three
HQs at full price but treat each one as an HQ (i.e. exerting a 30cm
radius).

By my comments I didn't mean to say that I wouldn't be fielding tons of
infantry. However, I've definitely decided that mine will be a
tank-heavy division, so to speak.

Regards,

- Erik
Received on Thu Dec 04 1997 - 23:50:27 UTC