Re: FW: [Epic] deathstrikes

From: Philip Troy Routley <ptr320_at_...>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:51:37 -0600 (CST)

I certainly agree with most of what you ranted about, but I think there are
further considerations to what is being fielded. For example, on a desert
planet you can expect the IG to have a much higher proportion of tanks to
infantry then in an agro world or death world where the infantry have cover
- compare desert storm to vietnam. Likewise, a forge world would likely be
armour-heavy, while a hive world with its teeming multitudes would have a
lot more infantry then tanks.

In my Tallarn army, I intend on having infantry, but they will all be
bought as support for IG armour dets. - the reason for this is that if you
are building an 'infantry' detachment with a lot of armour, it is cheaper
to do it that way because you don't need all those command groups.

Troy


>>
>>> may seem to the E40K guys, I think they're toned down from what they
>>> were. Still unpleasant, but not a win-the-game-in-one-turn type thing
>>
>>> anymore.
>>
>>After reading your descriptions and feeling rather nauseous, I think
>>I'll be grateful that I never played my occasional IG opponent under
>>SM/TL. This guy hardly owns anything other than artillery,
>>deathstrikes and the occasional leman russ. I have to kid him
>>constantly to get him to bring out any infantry and then it's an
>>inquisitor lord... <bleagh> Anyway, my battles against him are becoming
>>more occasional as time goes on.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>- Erik
>
>Note the mentioned correction to the arty co #'s - it was still nasty
>though. The deathstrikes worked as advertised though.
> The IG aren't neccessarily unbalanced (in either version)
>but they certainly can be, and it seems like many people want to
>play them that way - "Troopers suck - I like tanks" etc. It happens
>some with eldar too, especially in SM/TL with "guardians suck -
>why would anyone ever take them?". It's not as bad with eldar, but
>it still bugs me. You take grunt troopers because they're the core
>of your army, the majority, and personally I think an IG force
>without troopers is under immediate suspicion, especially in
>your larger battles. This often comes up as the mark of a
>powergamer - "I want to win, pushing the limits of the rules,
>without regards to the fluff/background text". It would never even
>occur to me to take 60 Deathstrikes. That's just moronic. Even for
>a special scenario, it's ridiculous. Games, especially with a point
>system for buying troops, are based on the assumption of a
>"typical" army. Game balance goes out the window with a force
>like was mentioned before. If the only infantry in an IG force is
>the commander, I'd say they have a problem. If you're using
>500 pts and it's supposed to be an all tank force, OK. If you're
>playing 2000 points, I think it's abusive. Star Fleet Battles has
>had this discussion numerous times over the years, and I will
>point out the same things:
>1) If all you ever play with are the "best" units, then you are
>missing a lot of the game.
>2) Sometimes what you think is the "best" may not really
>turn out that way in a particular game or against a certain
>opponent.
>3) It's unrealistic to think that there are special, unique,
>or elite units in every battle. Sometimes it's grunts vs grunts.
>Special ought to be special.
>4) If you push a points system far enough, it will break down.
>Sure, 10 bloodthirsters in a unit will probably stomp anything
>it meets in HTH. What if you opponent takes all ranged attacks
>and shoots it before it gets into HTH? Same points, but the
>demons never had a chance. Are the two forces equal in
>effectiveness? No. You could spend all of your points on
>troops with no ranged attack, I spend mine on units with all
>ranged attacks. These are not balanced forces, even though
>they cost the same.
>
>Rant over (for now)
>
>
>
>Chris Miller
Received on Thu Jul 24 1997 - 23:51:37 UTC