Re: [Epic] New to Epic

From: P.C.Green <pcgreen_at_...>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 14:56:42 +0800

snip
>
>> > ----> Well the IG lost those in the 40K codex, so I wasn't surprised,
>> > but I will be intersted to see how the IG infantry come out - lots of
>> > different types in 40K as far as looks.
>
>Oh, joys. You mean something like, Mordian Iron Guard get shaken for +1
>point, and Catachans get, oh, +1 AF in forest, and.... Bleah. What the
>hell happened to the plain old IG trooper?
>
snip

I think GW stuffed the IG up when they did the codex. IG are
no longer a unified force. If you look at WH40k IG armies
they're all higgley piggley(sp?) - one squad of Catachan
two Cadian etc. It looks crap. I'll admit that an all
Catachan or all Mordian etc look good but the examples
in WD don't promote this kind of thing.

GW have put in aesthetic variation and taken away mechanical
(gaming) variation. I think IG assualt squads are cool, even
if they suck compared to other assault troops. If GW don't
want "cheese" then supporting lower quality troops with variation
would be a good start. If there is 3 listings for basic troops
(IG, Gaurdians etc) then people are more likely to incorporate
them into their army. "Hmm, my army lacks any HtH ability. Well
they are called an assualt squadm, and they do have jump packs,
I suppose they're what I need."

Is it true that IG could once take beastmen? Although this is
a bit weird, it aptly demonstrates the way GW is stripping away
all the variation. Another example is the Chaos codex - "Here's
a cultist army list but it's unofficial so don't try playing
anything but chaos space marines in a tournament."

Five years from now there'll only be space marines, generic orks (no more clans,
just Goff orks), no more aspect warrior apsects just generic aspect
warriors, ork artillery will be lumped into one weapon that doesn't
even need an artillery dice, no more harliquins, no more ...

Well you get my point. How about IG assualt squads in E40k, say
same as normal but with jump packs and assault?
Received on Sat Jul 19 1997 - 06:56:42 UTC