I know, it is obvious that I've just re-found Epic 40K, and am interested in it. Oooh, shiny! My normal interest lately has been Chain of Command with Quar, but I'm excited to be looking back at Epic again.

One of the things I remember struggling with was the detachment organization. Sometimes I wish I could make something that the army list did not allow. Is it cheesy? Is it non-thematic? I do think detachments can have a bit too much forced variety. I think it comes from the idea of a detachment as a 40K army. I'm sensitive to wanting to use units in ways that make sense. I'm not sensitive to preserving "detachment as 40K army" idea.

Examples with Eldar:
I like the way War Walkers look. I think a small to medium detachment of those guys coming around the edge would look terrific! But they are in the support column, so you have to put them with infantry, or possibly with falcons. Is there any reason why we shouldn't be able to make a detachment of war walkers?

I'd like to have a detachment of night spinners, sitting in the back, as Eldar artillery. I can do it now by giving them an escort, but I feel like I'm stretching things. At 41 points each, are restrictions necessary? If I wanted a group of 4 spinners, I could assign them 4 guardians as escort. Cheap (8 points each), but movement will be limited. Upgrading the guardians to bikes (15 points) or making them hawks (aspect + jump) for 14 points works, but neither of those seem like a reasonable use of those units. I'd probably settle for the guardian escort, which are a bit faster than other infantry. But is the whole desire to do this cheesy? I don't think it is power gaming, because you're paying a lot for them. A single spinner isn't worth that much unless you are piling on other blast markers from elsewhere. You don't want spinners running into battle with falcon escorts--that seems like an inappropriate use of them (though I did it the other day). Having some in the back makes sense to me, and maybe a guardian escort is reasonable. But the list makes me feel like I'm misusing them.

I was going to look for Marine examples, but they got armor detachments and infantry detachments, which are largely just mirror images of each other. Why would Eldar, who are supposed to be short on "men", not have that?

Thoughts?

Better go get lunch--I've used up most of my time writing this.

andy

Yeah I don't think its a big deal if you and your opponent agree on it. I think the Epic 40k Army Lists just sort of represent how your typical detachments would be organized, but sort of using what was going on in 40k at the time. Of course, a lot has changed in the 40k universe since then too. But I can't see anyone making the argument that it wouldnt be balanced or something.

I did something similar with Squats (Firepower 1) some time ago I think. Can't remember, but something was off to me in one of their detachment lists, and I just moved a vehicle from one side to the other. Can't remember the specifics.

In truth, as long as the point cost does a good job representing the units worth, then who cares.