Re: [Epic] Modified Infantry Comparsion

From: Erik K. Rutins <snowdo1_at_...>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 19:36:59 -0500

Mark,

> I see what you're talking about, but I disagree that
> detachments should have to pay extra because they're infantry only

Fair enough. My personal view as far as playing with the rules is that
if IG have to shell out that much, either every command stand should act
as an HQ or only one should cost the extra 25 points. Or put IG
infantry in the support slots. I'm really just trying to figure out
what Andy and Jervis think, and why they might have reached that
conclusion.

> 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.

Well, I think Space Marines _should_ be infantry mainly so they
shouldn't pay extra. My philosophy on Space Marine armies is oriented
around infantry - it's great infantry, after all. Eldar armies
shouldn't be looking too much at infantry for the 'dying race' reason.
When I put together an Eldar army I think about the fluff. I think "If
I lose more than 25%, I've lost even if I win". So whether or not I
achieve that goal I at least try to design the army to put as few Eldar
as possible at risk.

Problem there is that I also believe people don't take enough
Guardians. By definition, an Eldar in a Guardian suit is an Eldar at
serious risk of hastening the extinction of the race. Nevertheless, I
always include these guys just to see what new way I can come up with to
have them survive and contribute.

> 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

It actually works fairly well with IG. I mean taking an Infantry
detachment and liberally mixing in Leman Russ and Hellhound/Demolisher
tanks. When that Infantry detachment advances across the board, it's a
serious threat. With Artillery to back it up it becomes a crisis.

> 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.

In these cases I agree completely. Swooping Hawks are a great example,
as are most Assault troops. But when it comes to foot IG infantry, why
not throw in some tanks. Even if the tanks are slowed down by the
infantry, they do provide a real nice long range sting or short range
combat support. I think the IG are designed with the doctrine of
infantry + tanks as the primary crucial point. At least, the way the
army lists work and what Andy was saying really makes me think that
their IG detachments are neither pure tank nor pure infantry and that's
how they priced 'em.

Regards,

- Erik
Received on Fri Dec 05 1997 - 00:36:59 UTC