Hm, I'll double check, but you're probably right.  I'll have to think of something else.

Wouldn't a siege list be an appropriate "ground pounder" force?

_________________
Neal

I don't think it needs a lot of work, we all have a feeling about which units are "weaker" like Tacticals, Predators and Vindicators. So something like the following may be sufficient

1) Reduced costs on some ground units (Comparing Land Raiders to Eldar Falcons who get a 25% discount for not being able to use their transport capacity)
2) The decreased costs put onto the Air Transport options (It probably only warrants a 25-50pt surcharge). Look at what is usually transported in Thunderhawks and shift 25-50pts off the transported formation and put it on the Thunderhawk. It will probably amount to 25pts off an Assault formation.

Splitting into Bomber/Transport variants can also be done.

You can then just call this new list the NetEA SM list like EpicUK have done but a bit more radical. It would almost certainly come out cheaper to build a list than the GW list though even with significant air assets.

Depends how 'siegey' you go... an army of entrenched infantry and Thunderfires does not represent the kind of mobile armoured warfare that we've been talking about.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

How about Tactical Detachments of 4 units instead of 6? Would make them much more flexible.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Commonwealth armies in Burma. Horrific attrition for frontline formations.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Well the Yanks are doing their best to get their special forces to be able to do that, but thats with massive air and intel superiority. Maybe the secret to marines is a shed load of micro spy satilities

But anyway as you say warfare would be completely different when large fixed formations are just sitting ducks from orbit, from that angle all of the 40k battles are rubbish Why try and destroy a spaceport why you can drop rocks on it from the moon? Even if you can deflect them with defensive weaponry you have a nuclear winter coming on. And so on.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Oddly there is actually an answer to this one in the case of Vraks.

Weaponry was in place to hit any space ship that tried a direct bombardment of the area, and the Imperium wanted to recapture and re-use the central fortress / arms storage, so making it uninhabitable through the use of nuclear-grade weaponry was out of the question...

...that the planet was eventually made uninhabitable by Nurgle forces, Daemonic weakening of the walls of reality around the central fortress, and unrestricted use of chemical and biological weapons, is irrelevant.  

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yes, but also consider the scale. Brutal attrition over a few years (same if you consider WWI).

Then try to scale that to decades and sometimes centuries (for crusades). It's not sustainable, armies would quickly become combat ineffective (i.e. a few years) if war were conducted as in the 40K universe. Also keep in mind that the idea of attacking with overwhelming odds to minimalize your casualties and maximize your opponents is a foreign concept for GW.

Everything has to start out on a level playing field...which is how you lose wars.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

I would note that a horde of land raiders can be quite effective - close to unbreakable unless you concentrate fire from multiple formations on them (or one very powerful one), reasonably fast and shooty. Garrisoned devs (with dreadnaughts ) are good too, threatening a good portion of the board with their overwatch.

I fought an army with 4 LR formations yesterday, and they gutted my orks!

I am also fond of the 'devastator detachment in 4 land raiders' but I think it's too expensive to be practical (just a lot of fun).

This is correct ... of the Fire Tm/5 troops on the stand only 1-3 may actually be killed or incap'ed ... the others' wounds may be enough that they can't fight effectively.   Or 3 may be a combination of KIAs, Incaps/WIA and the other are 2 fine, but that's not enough combat power on "Epic Scale" to be combat effective.

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Normally a unit is considered Combat Ineffective at 30% ... and should be withdrawn/refited. Of course there are many cases historically where units suffered well over that and stayed "in the line".   And again, Losses are basically in 3 catagories - KIA - WIA - Captured/Missing.  And again for gaming purposes WIAs could/would be severe enough to be Combat Ineffective ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

I hope not ... that sounds to me like a force that lacks mobility.   I'm a student and advocate of Maneuver Warfare ...  "Siege" reminds me too much of the killing fields of WWI ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

That pretty much sums up most of the G/W 40K fluff, hence most of the Epic fluff ...  Dumb !!!

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."