Re: [Epic] 40K/IG infantry Detachments

From: M. Edward Davis <mediii_at_...>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:14:55 -0600 (MDT)

On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Thomas Bloom wrote:

> >On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Thomas Bloom wrote:
> >
> >> Anybody else think that the IG infantry Detachments are overpriced? You
> >> can usually get space Marines for about the same cost. Examples:
> >>
> >> IG Heavy Co. SM Devastator Co.
> >> 3 X Command squads 96 points 5 Devastator Squads 200 points
> >> 9 X Heavy squads 126 points Make one an HQ 25 points
> >> total points 222 total points 225
> >> FP at range 45: 18 FP at range 45: 20
> >> FP at range 30: 21
> >>
> >
> >Well, the IG DO get 12 stands, which means they have to loose a lot more
> >stands. They still have more stands even if you double the # of SM stands
> >via armour difference. Also, clogging the board comes in handy.
> >
>
> Not really. The above IG detachment has 12 stands vs. 11 SM Stands. Wow
> one extra stand, yippy.

True. But compare normal (non specialized) troops. Then, the IG get two
stands for 14 points, four for 28pts while the marines get two stands for
30points.

>
>
> (assault comparasons snipped)
>
> >True. However, not everyone is going to do everything well. This isn't
> >true. The IG have better firepower than the bugs.
> >
>
> Most armies have better firepower than the bugs. Thats not the point my
> point is why would you take IG infantry when you could take Marines? The
> only reason to take IG infantry is for "flavor". You could take SM troops
> that can do the same job (assault, FP, whatever) better for the same price.
> And get a higher stratagy rating to boot.

And their selection of tanks, and superheavy tanks, and titans, other war
machines, and the Deathstrike.

Remember they take hits worse, but fire the same. I'd rather have 6 IG
stands and a command stand (74pts) fireing in overwatch from ruins than 4
SM stands and a captain stand (85pts) fireing from those same ruins. It
woudl be more important to fire first and avoid loosing troops before
fireing, but you cant help that.
  Personally, I can't see ANY reason to run a straight IG army, I also
can't see running a straight Chaos army.

>
> >While GW did make the armies closer to each other with this version, each
> >still have their own personality. Why don't the Eldar get cav? the IG
> >assault? Or allmost everyone Rampage? Couldn't the IG have a mortar team
> >that does disrupt? Stormtroopers? I can't give many other examples as I
> >only have the IG army book from 40K, but you get the idea.
> >
> > Ed "Overload" Davis
> >
>
> In the old Edition, and in all the "fluff", the IG is a LARGE force of
> mediocre troops. While they are still mediocre they cost as much as an SM
> force would.

they are large if you use non specialized troops. The IG don't do hvy
weapons or rough riders as well as the marines.

>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> "...'cause when its time to collect its only heros who pay..."
> Hero, Ministry
> Thomas
>
>
                                        Ed "Overload" Davis
                                        mediii_at_...
                                        med4386_at_...
Received on Fri Apr 25 1997 - 21:14:55 UTC