Re: [Epic] Modified Infantry Comparsion

From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+_at_...>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:02:01 -0500 (EST)

"Erik K. Rutins" <snowdo1_at_...> writes:
> > 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?

        I see what you're talking about, but I disagree that
detachments should have to pay extra because they're infantry only
because of this. If this were the reason, why would IG be the only
army with this sort of obligation to avoid infantry detachments? Or
why would an all-tank army not be paying extra? I would think that
Space Marines and Eldar, in particular, would be paying the price of
all-infantry detachments (the Eldar already do, in a way), not the IG,
who were once capable of outnumbering almost any army.
        I agree that an army should be a balanced force, with infantry
protecting tanks, and vice versa. However, this should not be true on
a detachment basis. To take the Eldar as an example again, I don't
really want any vehicles in my Swooping Hawk detachment, since they'd
slow it down. I'd want two separate detachments, one of vehicles to
provide fire support, or do the cheesy transport thing for the extra
20cm of movement.

Mark
Received on Fri Dec 05 1997 - 00:02:01 UTC