59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
leopard wrote:2d6 gives a bell curve, it also allows for more modifiers using a wider range
I think you'll find 2D6 gives you a triangular distribution rather than a bell curve.
But in any case, is it really worth the extra effort to have 2D6 and having to add them together for each and every 1v1?
128124
Post by: Billicus
The 2D6 roll-off and add modifier, loser is dead no saves combat resolution does not seem onerous to me at all. Maybe if *all* your army's infantry bases hit combat with *all* your opponent's in the same turn it might take a few minutes, but even then that seems unlikely with all the big guns around.
61850
Post by: Apple fox
AllSeeingSkink wrote:leopard wrote:2d6 gives a bell curve, it also allows for more modifiers using a wider range
I think you'll find 2D6 gives you a triangular distribution rather than a bell curve.
But in any case, is it really worth the extra effort to have 2D6 and having to add them together for each and every 1v1?
Yes, it’s so worth it.
The extra effort is basically nothing in a good system, and shouldn’t be an issue at all over a game.
In similar games, it takes like a min to work it out and then a couple of seconds to roll dice for each unit/model as you go though each set.
Unless GW blindside us with something crazy next, I really do not think it will take much extra time over a game.
Of course GW could stuff it up, it is GW.. But positive!
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Apple fox wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:leopard wrote:2d6 gives a bell curve, it also allows for more modifiers using a wider range
I think you'll find 2D6 gives you a triangular distribution rather than a bell curve.
But in any case, is it really worth the extra effort to have 2D6 and having to add them together for each and every 1v1?
Yes, it’s so worth it.
Doesn't seem worth it to me in a game like Epic, but to each their own.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Meanwhile they eliminated opposed rolls from actual one on one games like Necromunda.
People need to face the possibility that GW don't actually have any particularly clever method of rules design besides sticking a bunch of random mechanics on a wall and throwing darts.
49827
Post by: MajorWesJanson
 lord_blackfang wrote:Meanwhile they eliminated opposed rolls from actual one on one games like Necromunda.
People need to face the possibility that GW don't actually have any particularly clever method of rules design besides sticking a bunch of random mechanics on a wall and throwing darts.
Mechanics tend to drift between systems and get refined or dropped as a result. AOS has a fixed to hit and to wound roll? 40k gets the fixed to hit in the next edition while keeping variable to wound. Move stat is introduced to 40k, previously in fantasy, and then appears in HHv2.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Interesting post Xttz - if your calculations are correct there it could actually see a significant increase in overall volume once we know the basic game points size. So in the latter case, I hope there aren't too many traits, granular special rules etc so that larger games become 1.5 evenings plus to play. It will be a difficult balancing act and will be interesting to see where it falls exactly.
Also please stop using the term chaff lol, those little no-saving-throw, hit on 5+ infantry guys have probably got siblings or friends who care about them too! 
Apple Fox - that is a good point about the calculations for melee being the same. I guess it depends what the modifiers are and if you need to work out for each base, or do it on a majority basis (i.e. this guy is in the treeline, this one is on higher ground, this one is a Death Guard and gets +1 for defending a charge by another infantry unit, the admech base next to him doesn't get this however but can re-roll due to the presence of a war engine nearby - perhaps a bit extreme, but that's my worst-case imagining here)
61850
Post by: Apple fox
 Pacific wrote:Interesting post Xttz - if your calculations are correct there it could actually see a significant increase in overall volume once we know the basic game points size. So in the latter case, I hope there aren't too many traits, granular special rules etc so that larger games become 1.5 evenings plus to play. It will be a difficult balancing act and will be interesting to see where it falls exactly.
Also please stop using the term chaff lol, those little no-saving-throw, hit on 5+ infantry guys have probably got siblings or friends who care about them too!
Apple Fox - that is a good point about the calculations for melee being the same. I guess it depends what the modifiers are and if you need to work out for each base, or do it on a majority basis (i.e. this guy is in the treeline, this one is on higher ground, this one is a Death Guard and gets +1 for defending a charge by another infantry unit, the admech base next to him doesn't get this however but can re-roll due to the presence of a war engine nearby - perhaps a bit extreme, but that's my worst-case imagining here)
Yup, even then that’s not to bad as long as you’re not working out a lot all at once.
If you have all your deathguard are +2 trees get a +1 and the cookies buff gives them +1 you can do each one as you go easy, roll dice and ad. Opposing player rolls.
Can fast roll as well placing dice next to base and letting opposing player roll as you go through after unless something pops up.
The reason 40K is ever a issue is a huge burden on each roll, as well as modifying it as you go though sequence and remembering things that go off and things like strats and powers that could further be used and reacting of the other player constantly.
40K is a great template they got for how not to do it!
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
If you really wanted to fast roll?
Let’s say I have 6 stands in combat, and they all have CAF +3. There, I just need six differently coloured pairs of dice. And admittedly some trust from my opponent ŵhen it comes to pairing them up.
This could work quite nicely if I have a fairly static core to my army, as I can fairly easily ensure I have sufficient uniquely colour pairs of dice for any combat should every stand of a given unit pile in at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and a hand made chart assigning the colours Left to Right as my opponent sees the board, pre-assigning a pair, so no “this stand am blue, that one are red” etc.
26519
Post by: xttz
With a little bit of detective work I was able to track down the original source of the pastebin leaks... 4chan of all places. A series of posts were made before and after the game was officially unveiled.
May 18th: " Anyway they’re doing Solar Aux for their new Epic game. It’s called Legions Imperialis by the way."
June 4th: " Legions Imperialis is going to be a remake of Epic Spacemarine. It’s marine on marine but also will use Titans from AT and they’ll be adding Solar Auxilia in the core rules. "
Then from July 1st the poster begins answering specific questions from people, resulting in the contents of the two pastebin links that someone else assembled and shared.
Example: https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/89481992/#89494695 (4chan warning)
However one post from July 4th was accidently missed from this summary.
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/89440733/#q89450948 (4chan warning)
>Inviolate Armour: Iron Hands models with the Feel No Pain special rule benefit from its effects when they suffer a Wound from a weapon with the Light or Light AT trait, instead of just the Light trait. In addition, any Hits scored against an Iron Hands Vehicle or Super-heavy Vehicle issued with a First Fire Order worsen their AP by 1, to a minimum of 0, e.g., a weapon with an AP of -2 would become -1.
>The First Fire Order must still be in effect (i.e., it cannot have Overwatched or fired yet this round) for this rule to take effect. This does not affect the AP if Hits are allocated to Void Shields
This specifically mentions Light & Light AT traits from yesterdays article, all but confirming that the leaks are genuine.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
That last box looks entirely too involved for an army-on-army game...
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Could still be a mix of chain yanking and truth.
100848
Post by: tneva82
 Gimgamgoo wrote:leopard wrote:2d6 gives a bell curve, it also allows for more modifiers using a wider range
It also means you can't mass roll handfulls of dice at once, one pair at a time (unless you have a load of dice in different colours, doubled up)
Well you couldn't do all 1d6 ones together either. Or how you determine which dice goes to what stand against what dice from opponent?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
That’s a fair point.
I can only assure folks, for its limited worth, that I really don’t recall this bogging things down during HTH.
Indeed, where one side has a significant CAF, such as Terminators have +6, I recall their player rolling their dice first, as there were often rolls the opponent would never equal let alone beat.
Of course keep in mind this was literal Garage Hammer, where time meant nothing because we were kids, and thus had Nothing Better To Do. Especially at the age of 16, where I’m an adult yeah. I could join the armed forces yeah, or have intercourse with the partner of my choice, but I could not drink in pubs.
66936
Post by: Vorian
The system seems quick and simple to me.
Not sure how people are coming up with a handful of opposed dice rolls being a hugely time consuming endeavour.
95318
Post by: SU-152
 xttz wrote: Pacific wrote:Well, there are different ways of selling it I guess Xttz! For me, Epic is mass (and I mean mass!) combat of tanks, infantry and war machines and a ruleset that facilitates the wargaming without it taking 6 hours if you try and play a larger game.
From what we have seen, there is a lot more granularity here, which means more detail yes (and perhaps more Heresy-era flavour) and a smaller miniature count. Combat in Epic was fast with 2d6 v 2d6 roll-offs. But, if I am calculating plus and minus factors for each (as looks might be the case) then it won't be.
From the info we have so far I'm not convinced it'll mean significantly less on the board. Here are some basic comparisons using the leaks, assuming a standard 3k pt game of LI versus a typical 4k pts most frequently used in early SMv2 battle reports:
A SMv2 marine tactical company (19 infantry+10 rhinos) was 750pts, and used 19% of your list points.
The minimum Legion command plus two tactical detachments (9 infantry) is 95pts in LI, and uses 3% of your points.
An near-equivalent Legion command, four tactical detachments, and transports (17 infantry & 9 rhinos) is 255pts in LI, and uses under 9% of your points.
Meanwhile:
Four Contemptor dreads are 2.2% of a list in LI, and 2.5% of a list in SMv2
A single Leman Russ is 0.14% of a list in LI, and 0.15% of a list in SMv2
A single Baneblade is 3% of a list in LI, and 4% of a list in SMv2
A single Warlord titan is 16% of a list in LI, and 19% of a list in SMv2
Basically model counts should be very similar if not slightly higher in favour of LI. You're just not forced to build armies around monolithic blocks of 30-60 basic chaff infantry if you don't want to.
I think your calculations are not quite right? Following that, a 3000 point army for Epic: LI would have like 700 Leman Russes. Maybe it is 10 times lower or somthing...
In the Pastebin leaks, Leman Russ is more or less 45+weapons, right? Automatically Appended Next Post: Billicus wrote:The 2D6 roll-off and add modifier, loser is dead no saves combat resolution does not seem onerous to me at all. Maybe if *all* your army's infantry bases hit combat with *all* your opponent's in the same turn it might take a few minutes, but even then that seems unlikely with all the big guns around.
Big guns + it seems lethality in this game is way way higher than in Epic: Armageddon for example. So only a few will reach close combat unless flying.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Epic really relies on terrain for blocking LoS, so that’s another factor to consider, and a particularly tricky one.
For instance, on a heavily urbanised board? Rhinos and other fast transports really come into their own, as they can typically scoot from cover to cover remaining mostly out of line of sight.
Does make me wonder if not hope Overwatch is in from day one.
26519
Post by: xttz
SU-152 wrote:
I think your calculations are not quite right? Following that, a 3000 point army for Epic: LI would have like 700 Leman Russes. Maybe it is 10 times lower or somthing...
Well spotted! Yes both Russ figures were off by one decimal place. I've fixed the original post to say 1.4% and 1.5%.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Vorian wrote:The system seems quick and simple to me.
Not sure how people are coming up with a handful of opposed dice rolls being a hugely time consuming endeavour.
From having played such games, for example MESBG
128124
Post by: Billicus
MESBG's way more onerous. You pair people off, and first you have a choice! Does my model shield, perhaps parry, perhaps stab? I have a support! So I roll two dice. I have a pike! So I roll three. Then we roll off. I have the higher dice, who has the higher fight value? Normally me but you used such and such so now it's you! Do I have might? I do? I use my might! I win! Nudge your model back. Now, roll to strike. Consult the str vs defence table for target number. Wait! You're trapped, I make double strikes. Sadly I didn't wound you. Nothing happens. Next turn we get to do this again!
VS we each roll two dice, add modifier, loser's dead
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Also HTH is just far more common in MESBG than 2nd Ed Epic.
Yes it is near inevitable in Epic, but it’s far from the best or only way to do hefty damage to the foe.
100848
Post by: tneva82
lord_blackfang wrote:Vorian wrote:The system seems quick and simple to me.
Not sure how people are coming up with a handful of opposed dice rolls being a hugely time consuming endeavour.
From having played such games, for example MESBG
Not exactly same though. For one values arent always same so can't just quick roll. Every fight also has decisions to make before roll. Loser is also moved. And then rolled damage which most of the time results in no damage. Vs LI loser dies in general(super heavies etc might not)
66936
Post by: Vorian
Yeah, MESBG comparisons are a good way to show how quick close combat will be.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Thanks for work on that Xttz - that does make it definitely sound like the leaks are genuine, as they have been correct up until now
Agree with Albertorius about the complexity. A faction-specific special rules that updates the effects of an existing special rule text for certain units only? Goodness me.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
‘Ere, it’s GenCon this weekend. And no a sosig about GW hosting anything?
85057
Post by: vadersson
I really hope they demo LI. I’ll be there Sunday and hope to play. Hope, hope, hope.
(How not grimdark!)
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
If they do, and you don’t give it a try?
There’ll be a shunning.
123250
Post by: Sotahullu
I wonder if you can take entire detachment of Assault Marines, load them in Thunderhawk(s) and drop them behind enemy lines to mess them up or, better yet, on top of an Warlord Titan?
Well last part is probably very stupid idea but coolness factor makes it worth it. 
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Warlords seemingly can be taken down that way. Sort of. Ish.
If you mob it, it’s predictably high CAF can be overwhelmed through sheer numbers, as for every fight beyond the first, each stand I control gets +1D6.
Article wrote: When faced with uneven numbers, you’ll have to “pair off” your models with more than one enemy each. Your outnumbered models will still fight each of their foes individually, but your opponent gets to roll an extra D6 for every time you’ve already fought. This means that the most elite fighters can still be worn down if you’re not careful to support them…
Of course, this makes giving your Titan an escort of even super cheapo “nobody is ever going to miss them” infantry of whatever stripe you fancy, as you may* be able to force your opponent to engage both units, preventing an old fashioned mobbing.
*We’re yet to see the full rules, so how charging against mingled/close proximity units works remains to be seen/
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
 Sotahullu wrote:I wonder if you can take entire detachment of Assault Marines, load them in Thunderhawk(s) and drop them behind enemy lines to mess them up or, better yet, on top of an Warlord Titan?
Well last part is probably very stupid idea but coolness factor makes it worth it.
One would assume so due to historical precedent with other Epics and common sense, but from the look of the leaks, who knows. Assault marines and terminators might very well be tacked-on upgrades to tactical detachments, limiting their usage.
If not, you can certainly do that with the previous editions, to which these models will fit right in (even if an unsupported assault jump on a Warlord will remain just as stupid there) 
70056
Post by: NewTruthNeomaxim
So with how prolific and passionate they are, what are people's guesses for how long it will take for the NetEpic/NetEA communities to get the army lists of the past to be broadly compatible? We've got four really large armies, and I would love an excuse to bring them to the game store. :-)
Man... these rules seem so promising... I am going to buy sooooooo much LI stuff so long as GW doesn't do anything catastrophically stupid.
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
Sotahullu wrote:I wonder if you can take entire detachment of Assault Marines, load them in Thunderhawk(s) and drop them behind enemy lines to mess them up or, better yet, on top of an Warlord Titan?
Well last part is probably very stupid idea but coolness factor makes it worth it.
You used to! It's hard to imagine that you can't do that in this edition. It may be a detachment in it's own right or part of an 'Air Assault' detachment. It's probably a suicide run*, but definately, it's a cool image.
*The Thunderhawk has to survive any anti-air weaponry and maybe defensive aircraft. Then, the last few marine stands may have enough dice to beat the Warlord, they may not do enough damage to kill it, and even if they do, they're standing next to a falling titan.
65284
Post by: Stormonu
Forget the Thunderhawk, just drop a dozen drop pods on its back. Especially if their deathwind, so all the missiles explode when they connect...
80586
Post by: Zewrath
I'm just constantly pressing refresh on different pages to get prices.
The rules, so far, looks good and I like the concept of the new epic scale but the price alone is what will break/make the game for me.
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
 Zewrath wrote:I'm just constantly pressing refresh on different pages to get prices.
The rules, so far, looks good and I like the concept of the new epic scale but the price alone is what will break/make the game for me.
you won't gat a hint of prices until the day after the "Next Week's Preorder" announcement on who-knows-which Sunday evening (in the UK). Traders will have their prices lists emailed to them on Monday morning and they're soon out in the wild. That is the time to start looking for prices....
34906
Post by: Pacific
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:So with how prolific and passionate they are, what are people's guesses for how long it will take for the NetEpic/NetEA communities to get the army lists of the past to be broadly compatible? We've got four really large armies, and I would love an excuse to bring them to the game store. :-)
Man... these rules seem so promising... I am going to buy sooooooo much LI stuff so long as GW doesn't do anything catastrophically stupid.
Do you mean make compatible with the Xenos armies for those games and things like that? One of the NetEA guys has said they are going to just use the new minis. I did ask if the Epic tournaments (which are a good way of playing Epic if you are in the UK) are going to continue and in which format, but didn't receive a reply.
I will ask Peter Ramos & Co. (Of NetEpic and Imperialis Dominatus fame) if they are going to adapt Xenos for the new game, I am sure though that someone will do something when the dust settles. The question is though then, like so many of these things, if any of the new Epic player influx will be interested in thoae rules because they are community written and were not official.
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
I'm sure, that given the apparent closeness of Legions Imperialis to 2nd edition that it won't be too long before there is a 'NetEpic5' or 'NetLI' or 'NetEpic23' with converted lists of old armies for the new system.... but if you're going 'off piste' then you can probably cobble something close enough yourself anyway.
81283
Post by: stonehorse
I suspect that Titans might always have an additional Fire First order baked into them. That way they can blast the assault units before they can strike.
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
 stonehorse wrote:I suspect that Titans might always have an additional Fire First order baked into them. That way they can blast the assault units before they can strike.
Certainly in the old 'Titan Legions' era, command stands didn't receive orders, they were considered to by on all the orders, all the time (not fall back though - which was really more of a condition, rather than an order).
To stop titans being swamped by mooks there might a limit on how many stands can gang up on a larger model - in Epic Armageddon it twice the number of wounds...
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
Sotahullu wrote:I wonder if you can take entire detachment of Assault Marines, load them in Thunderhawk(s) and drop them behind enemy lines to mess them up or, better yet, on top of an Warlord Titan?
Well last part is probably very stupid idea but coolness factor makes it worth it.
It would be more prudent to assault artillery in that way. Titans are really strong in melee AND you can´t pin it in close combat with assault marines. So if the Titan has Orders which involve movement the Titan can just step out of close combat with your marines and proceed as planned. Only Titans can pin Titans in melee. Same applies to superheavy tanks. They can only be pinned in place by the same size category of models or bigger.
86262
Post by: MaxT
 Strg Alt wrote: Sotahullu wrote:I wonder if you can take entire detachment of Assault Marines, load them in Thunderhawk(s) and drop them behind enemy lines to mess them up or, better yet, on top of an Warlord Titan?
Well last part is probably very stupid idea but coolness factor makes it worth it.
It would be more prudent to assault artillery in that way. Titans are really strong in melee AND you can´t pin it in close combat with assault marines. So if the Titan has Orders which involve movement the Titan can just step out of close combat with your marines and proceed as planned. Only Titans can pin Titans in melee. Same applies to superheavy tanks. They can only be pinned in place by the same size category of models or bigger.
Maybe, we don’t know yet how that works.
100848
Post by: tneva82
MarkNorfolk wrote: Zewrath wrote:I'm just constantly pressing refresh on different pages to get prices.
The rules, so far, looks good and I like the concept of the new epic scale but the price alone is what will break/make the game for me.
you won't gat a hint of prices until the day after the "Next Week's Preorder" announcement on who-knows-which Sunday evening (in the UK). Traders will have their prices lists emailed to them on Monday morning and they're soon out in the wild. That is the time to start looking for prices....
Even better.you can at same time go to gw site andcheck prices. Flgs won't bother leaking prices when anybody can check on owx.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
stonehorse wrote:I suspect that Titans might always have an additional Fire First order baked into them. That way they can blast the assault units before they can strike.
I suppose stuff like the Ardex Defensor cannons, arrays and whatnot will be on perma-overwatch. From the Warbringer Nemesis-class upwards, Titans pack about a light tank squadrons worth of point-defense and tertiary armaments, that ought be enough to fend off at least unsupported chaff units.
95318
Post by: SU-152
Pacific wrote:NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:So with how prolific and passionate they are, what are people's guesses for how long it will take for the NetEpic/NetEA communities to get the army lists of the past to be broadly compatible? We've got four really large armies, and I would love an excuse to bring them to the game store. :-)
Man... these rules seem so promising... I am going to buy sooooooo much LI stuff so long as GW doesn't do anything catastrophically stupid.
Do you mean make compatible with the Xenos armies for those games and things like that? One of the NetEA guys has said they are going to just use the new minis. I did ask if the Epic tournaments (which are a good way of playing Epic if you are in the UK) are going to continue and in which format, but didn't receive a reply.
I will ask Peter Ramos & Co. (Of NetEpic and Imperialis Dominatus fame) if they are going to adapt Xenos for the new game, I am sure though that someone will do something when the dust settles. The question is though then, like so many of these things, if any of the new Epic player influx will be interested in thoae rules because they are community written and were not official.
You asked in TacCom, a practically dead forum.
If someone adapts Xenos for Epic: LI, it is likely to be Epic: LI players. So I would wait and see what kind of renewed community is formed.
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
MaxT wrote: Strg Alt wrote: Sotahullu wrote:I wonder if you can take entire detachment of Assault Marines, load them in Thunderhawk(s) and drop them behind enemy lines to mess them up or, better yet, on top of an Warlord Titan?
Well last part is probably very stupid idea but coolness factor makes it worth it.
It would be more prudent to assault artillery in that way. Titans are really strong in melee AND you can´t pin it in close combat with assault marines. So if the Titan has Orders which involve movement the Titan can just step out of close combat with your marines and proceed as planned. Only Titans can pin Titans in melee. Same applies to superheavy tanks. They can only be pinned in place by the same size category of models or bigger.
Maybe, we don’t know yet how that works.
That´s the way it worked in the 90s. Bringing back CAF is an indicator that the other melee rules will be in place too.
1001
Post by: schoon
Sotahullu wrote:I wonder if you can take entire detachment of Assault Marines, load them in Thunderhawk(s) and drop them behind enemy lines to mess them up or, better yet, on top of an Warlord Titan?
From the WarCom article (emphasis mine):
The Legion Demi-Company is the most flexible Formation available to the Legiones Astartes, though there are many Formations to choose from, including the specialised Legion Armoured Company and Legion Aerial Assault.
87012
Post by: Toofast
 MajorWesJanson wrote: lord_blackfang wrote:Meanwhile they eliminated opposed rolls from actual one on one games like Necromunda.
People need to face the possibility that GW don't actually have any particularly clever method of rules design besides sticking a bunch of random mechanics on a wall and throwing darts.
Mechanics tend to drift between systems and get refined or dropped as a result. AOS has a fixed to hit and to wound roll? 40k gets the fixed to hit in the next edition while keeping variable to wound. Move stat is introduced to 40k, previously in fantasy, and then appears in HHv2.
They're trying to make it easier for people who play multiple games but aren't huge gamers. My wife never really played board games or video games before meeting me. She tried necromunda and liked it, then read some of my codexes and wanted to play 40k. Then she dug into my closet and found my 30k and titanicus stuff and got interested in those. She sees AoS models at the FLGS that she would enjoy painting. It's sooo much easier for me to teach her several games when they all have similar aspects. She can look at a unit or weapon profile from almost any GW game and at least have a basic grasp of what that thing does and what all the stats mean. If I tried to teach her Warmachine or Infinity, it would be a much longer process because they really don't share any mechanics with the GW games other than rolling dice to hit and kill stuff.
98762
Post by: RazorEdge
I would expect an "Assault Demi-Company" for those Close Combat Legions like World Eaters or Blood Angels. Space Marine Line Troops with Chainswords & Bolt pistols (but without Jump Packs).
133503
Post by: hams
I am looking at trying to understand creating a list based on the WarCom "Demi Company" preview and the launch box. From the pastbin leak, it has a "Detachment Size" column that I assume is the number of stands in a detachment. Astartes looks to have typically 4 stands for each infantry attachment. The launch box appears to only have 2 stands of plasma support and 2 stands of missile launcher support. This doesn't appear to be a legal set of stands for a formation, especially based on this Demi Company which requires 1 support detachment. Or "Detachment Size" is something else and the detachments are actually 2 stands each?
Hoping someone more familiar with SM2 might be able to comment on how this works.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
The old, place drop pod markers on blast marker and turn over could be an effective method in 2nd ed for taking out vehicles but if I remember, each pod that landed on a titan base only removed one shield, what happened unshielded I dont remember. Close assaulting titans with infantry was pretty hard as you had to hope the Titan moved first so you could engage them in close combat as you could not pin them, plus they always had the effect of first fire orders. I remember I had some hopped up chaos juggers that through one of the chaos card I gave some insane bonus to caf....got greedy charged them at a warhound....who just walked away before the combat could take place.
If you allow a company of assault marines in three thunderhawks to get to your warlord unmolested....you kind of deserve to lose that warlord. If I remember the old flying brick thunderhawks only had a 4+ save. Definately a risk to transport a whole detachment in for very long.
Is this turn sequence the same as second.....it look s different? I haven't had a chance to look it up. First Fire being effectively overwatch needs to be a thing for sure.
34899
Post by: Eumerin
hams wrote:
I am looking at trying to understand creating a list based on the WarCom "Demi Company" preview and the launch box. From the pastbin leak, it has a "Detachment Size" column that I assume is the number of stands in a detachment. Astartes looks to have typically 4 stands for each infantry attachment. The launch box appears to only have 2 stands of plasma support and 2 stands of missile launcher support. This doesn't appear to be a legal set of stands for a formation, especially based on this Demi Company which requires 1 support detachment. Or "Detachment Size" is something else and the detachments are actually 2 stands each?
Hoping someone more familiar with SM2 might be able to comment on how this works.
Not going to be much help here. IIRC, SM2 had a generic "Devastator Detachment", and all of the stands had identical stats. Also, I seem to recall that the tactical detachment was half stands with pure boltguns, and half stands with support weapons (but not the same as a Devastator stand). Pairing one of each together represented the standard loadout in a tactical squad of ten marines.
As far as the missiles and plasma weapons stands go in the preview pic, it makes me wonder if you can mix and match which stands are in your Support Detachment. Maybe the paste bin leak unit list is largely correct, but still incomplete? Or maybe you can take variable numbers of infantry in a detachment, and two is just as legal as four? I'm skeptical that they would only include a partial detachment in the starter, particularly since it appears that blisters and boxes sold for the new game are supposed to include at least the minimum number of figures in a particular unit.
34906
Post by: Pacific
SU-152 wrote: Pacific wrote:NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:So with how prolific and passionate they are, what are people's guesses for how long it will take for the NetEpic/NetEA communities to get the army lists of the past to be broadly compatible? We've got four really large armies, and I would love an excuse to bring them to the game store. :-)
Man... these rules seem so promising... I am going to buy sooooooo much LI stuff so long as GW doesn't do anything catastrophically stupid.
Do you mean make compatible with the Xenos armies for those games and things like that? One of the NetEA guys has said they are going to just use the new minis. I did ask if the Epic tournaments (which are a good way of playing Epic if you are in the UK) are going to continue and in which format, but didn't receive a reply.
I will ask Peter Ramos & Co. (Of NetEpic and Imperialis Dominatus fame) if they are going to adapt Xenos for the new game, I am sure though that someone will do something when the dust settles. The question is though then, like so many of these things, if any of the new Epic player influx will be interested in thoae rules because they are community written and were not official.
You asked in TacCom, a practically dead forum.
If someone adapts Xenos for Epic: LI, it is likely to be Epic: LI players. So I would wait and see what kind of renewed community is formed.
Practically dead yes, but the guys that write the community rules still post on there.
Going on what happened with the Necromunda updates, Yaktribe continued as the hub of the community rules development and discussion, so it will be interesting what happens with Epic.
26519
Post by: xttz
hams wrote:
I am looking at trying to understand creating a list based on the WarCom "Demi Company" preview and the launch box. From the pastbin leak, it has a "Detachment Size" column that I assume is the number of stands in a detachment. Astartes looks to have typically 4 stands for each infantry attachment. The launch box appears to only have 2 stands of plasma support and 2 stands of missile launcher support. This doesn't appear to be a legal set of stands for a formation, especially based on this Demi Company which requires 1 support detachment. Or "Detachment Size" is something else and the detachments are actually 2 stands each?
Hoping someone more familiar with SM2 might be able to comment on how this works.
The leak has assault marines, terminators, and leviathans listed twice with detachment sizes of "4" and "+2". If you take 4 stands they count as a detachment by themselves, but the +2 option allows them to be added to another detachment.
Presumably the leaks are incomplete, and the same add-on system will apply to support squads and other units too.
86045
Post by: leopard
its perfectly possible the stuff in the box isn't technically a game legal army, but is designed for "starter scenarios" also in the box
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Wouldn't that be great >_>
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Their social media reps on the Forge World FB-page have already confirmed that the contents of the box can make up a special formation even if they'd be hard pressed to allow you much freedom otherwise. Nothing a couple more purchases couldn't fix, wink.
So as one might expect, the box is a taster platter of varied stuff that you need to expand in order to make proper armies from.
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
RazorEdge wrote:I would expect an "Assault Demi-Company" for those Close Combat Legions like World Eaters or Blood Angels. Space Marine Line Troops with Chainswords & Bolt pistols (but without Jump Packs).
This may be the way to disappointment. Epic doesn´t indulge players in such details. There is even a high chance that the core game won´t include rules for specific Legions.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Nice. Once again I’m somehow unable to find the pastebin, but I think it’s looking all but confirmed?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also confirms the boxed set isn’t a regular force, as you only get two bases of Terminators.
49827
Post by: MajorWesJanson
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Nice. Once again I’m somehow unable to find the pastebin, but I think it’s looking all but confirmed?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also confirms the boxed set isn’t a regular force, as you only get two bases of Terminators.
Maybe a half force of marines and half of SA (2 sprues of each), with separate infantry boxes later being 4 sprues?
3309
Post by: Flinty
The points system rewards larger units. Now to see if the rules reward MSUs
On the other hand, the Kratos each have about 8 different weapon profiles with substantially varying ranges. Not great for fast play. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also for terminators at least, there isn’t enough in the box for a basic detachment.
126443
Post by: Matrindur
Since the two leaks are now basically confirmed here are the links again:
Statlines
https://pastebin.com/GJfHMNzY
Subfaction rules
https://pastebin.com/BbJzuE06
And this bit thats missing from the pastebin
>Inviolate Armour: Iron Hands models with the Feel No Pain special rule benefit from its effects when they suffer a Wound from a weapon with the Light or Light AT trait, instead of just the Light trait. In addition, any Hits scored against an Iron Hands Vehicle or Super-heavy Vehicle issued with a First Fire Order worsen their AP by 1, to a minimum of 0, e.g., a weapon with an AP of -2 would become -1.
>The First Fire Order must still be in effect (i.e., it cannot have Overwatched or fired yet this round) for this rule to take effect. This does not affect the AP if Hits are allocated to Void Shields
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Detachment cards confirmed...
...that'll go out of print rapidly
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Only iffy “I don’t think we can rely on those entirely” bit of the pastebin is unit sizes, as the Terminators can go larger than the info shows.
But the rest we definitely need to be treating as kosher.
126443
Post by: Matrindur
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Only iffy “I don’t think we can rely on those entirely” bit of the pastebin is unit sizes, as the Terminators can go larger than the info shows.
But the rest we definitely need to be treating as kosher.
The pastebin only shows minimal sizes so thats as expected. The only detachments it shows as upgrades is if you can add a different detachment like Assault squads to Tactical squads
34906
Post by: Pacific
So for a *single* infantry unit stat line, I need to remember *eight* (almost ran out of fingers and had to start counting on toes) special rules.
And this is on top of what look to be Legion-specific special rules.
Mother of God.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Please to see a fair number of facing specific weapons, adding another level of consideration.
Pretty sure the Special Rules will become second nature quite swiftly.
I cannat wait, man, I cannat wait!
26519
Post by: xttz
I'm liking how they discourage building for lots of activations by making full size detachments significantly cheaper to build.
Most of the traits & special rules are going to be very obvious to people who've played previous incarnations of warhammer games. Things like Bulky and Deep Strike have been used often enough before.
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
The points seen so far are quite a bit lower than the points/rules out there being used now.
So the armies in LI will be a fair amount larger.
Example: the Thunderhawk is 50 to 100 points less in LI than rules being used now.
So one thing is for sure, battles will have more models on the tables.
34906
Post by: Pacific
My concern here is that they have taken a game (in Epic Space Marine) for which one of it's greatest strength was it's streamling and speed of play, and easy to remember rules, and made it immediately less accessible.
Yes if I play tons I will remember the rules but how exactly are you meant to bring new players or casuals in? Or my mate who has two hours every fortnight to play when he is away from work, finally managed to get the kid to bed and wants a quick game?
This feels again like it is going to be another case of Necromunda, "for us, not for them" and casuals can wait outside. Completely going against the general trend of how game design within the industry is seeking to streamline, cognisant that gaming is competing with 100 other leisure activities and people have less free time than ever.
Do the people that design these games never play *anything* else from outside the circles that they operate in? Realise I may be going a bit OTT here, but I'd the rest of this game follows this trend into a granularity U-bend, you don't need to point out where those end up.
49827
Post by: MajorWesJanson
 TalonZahn wrote:The points seen so far are quite a bit lower than the points/rules out there being used now.
So the armies in LI will be a fair amount larger.
Example: the Thunderhawk is 50 to 100 points less in LI than rules being used now.
So one thing is for sure, battles will have more models on the tables.
Doesn't that depend on game size though?
26519
Post by: xttz
TalonZahn wrote:The points seen so far are quite a bit lower than the points/rules out there being used now.
By "used now" do you mean games like NetEpic?
If so are those typically played at 3000pts too?
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
MajorWesJanson wrote: TalonZahn wrote:The points seen so far are quite a bit lower than the points/rules out there being used now.
So the armies in LI will be a fair amount larger.
Example: the Thunderhawk is 50 to 100 points less in LI than rules being used now.
So one thing is for sure, battles will have more models on the tables.
Doesn't that depend on game size though?
If 300 points used to get me 1 Thunderhawk and now it gets me 2..... the size of the game would be irrelevant.
If you played at 2k and got X models, in the current Net rules, and play at 2k in LI...you now have 2X models.
[Edit] Yes xttz, at least my lists are 3k in NetEpic.
85057
Post by: vadersson
I am thrilled to see so many weapons options. It may not be as streamlined, but I think it makes it feel more warhammery with lots of guns. I just wish some of the weapon ranges were further.
100848
Post by: tneva82
TalonZahn wrote: MajorWesJanson wrote: TalonZahn wrote:The points seen so far are quite a bit lower than the points/rules out there being used now.
So the armies in LI will be a fair amount larger.
Example: the Thunderhawk is 50 to 100 points less in LI than rules being used now.
So one thing is for sure, battles will have more models on the tables.
Doesn't that depend on game size though?
If 300 points used to get me 1 Thunderhawk and now it gets me 2..... the size of the game would be irrelevant.
If you played at 2k and got X models, in the current Net rules, and play at 2k in LI...you now have 2X models.
[Edit] Yes xttz, at least my lists are 3k in NetEpic.
And what if you play 1500?
Where does it say you have to play 2k?
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Pacific wrote:So for a *single* infantry unit stat line, I need to remember *eight* (almost ran out of fingers and had to start counting on toes) special rules.
And this is on top of what look to be Legion-specific special rules.
Mother of God.
Well. This seems to be shaping up as exactly the opposite of what I want from an army-level game.
Ah well, not that it matters. I'll just keep doing my thing. Still nice to see models.
100848
Post by: tneva82
So legions can be mixed. So white scar used only with jinx guys, melee guys will be world eateis etc.
34906
Post by: Pacific
 vadersson wrote:I am thrilled to see so many weapons options. It may not be as streamlined, but I think it makes it feel more warhammery with lots of guns. I just wish some of the weapon ranges were further.
About the streamlining.. sure there is a joke in the Porsche of wargaming companies making a game that resembles the aerodynamic profile of my long-dead great uncle's 1970 Trabant.
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
I'm guessing you can play at what ever level you wish. 50 or 50000.
It still remains that if you are currently playing with NetEpic style rules, you will have more models in the LI rules due to the cheaper units in LI.
I'm all for more stuff on the table. Just means more stuff to blow up.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Only if you fall for misconception you have to keep point size of game same.
Gw marketing team loves those who think so
126443
Post by: Matrindur
tneva82 wrote:Only if you fall for misconception you have to keep point size of game same.
Gw marketing team loves those who think so
Of course you can play at whatever point size you want but as GW already said 3000 points is recommended and it seems the same is the case for NetEpic so I don't see a problem with comparing them?
And the comparison is that in both games at their recommended points you will have more models in LI
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
tneva82 wrote:Only if you fall for misconception you have to keep point size of game same.
Gw marketing team loves those who think so
Not sure how I can be more clear.....
If 1 system says a Kratos is 100 points and another says it's 50...
You can take 2 (instead of 1) at 1500 points, 3000 points, or 10000 points.
181
Post by: gorgon
Pacific wrote:My concern here is that they have taken a game (in Epic Space Marine) for which one of it's greatest strength was it's streamling and speed of play, and easy to remember rules, and made it immediately less accessible.
Yes if I play tons I will remember the rules but how exactly are you meant to bring new players or casuals in? Or my mate who has two hours every fortnight to play when he is away from work, finally managed to get the kid to bed and wants a quick game?
This feels again like it is going to be another case of Necromunda, "for us, not for them" and casuals can wait outside. Completely going against the general trend of how game design within the industry is seeking to streamline, cognisant that gaming is competing with 100 other leisure activities and people have less free time than ever.
Do the people that design these games never play *anything* else from outside the circles that they operate in? Realise I may be going a bit OTT here, but I'd the rest of this game follows this trend into a granularity U-bend, you don't need to point out where those end up.
All good points, but I think it's very clear that this game's intended audience are Heresy heads and those with some kind of attachment or familiarity with past Epic games. If they wanted LI to be the next big thing, it'd likely be a little more streamlined and include a more diversified menu of 40K factions that general audiences might be more familiar with/attracted to.
Anyway, it had to be on their minds that the last time they majorly streamlined an Epic game, it bombed. And that when they revamped the system to include more granularity, it was better received.
95318
Post by: SU-152
 Albertorius wrote: Pacific wrote:So for a *single* infantry unit stat line, I need to remember *eight* (almost ran out of fingers and had to start counting on toes) special rules.
And this is on top of what look to be Legion-specific special rules.
Mother of God.
Well. This seems to be shaping up as exactly the opposite of what I want from an army-level game.
Ah well, not that it matters. I'll just keep doing my thing. Still nice to see models.
I knew it was going to be like this more than month ago, just when they made the joke about the "CAF".
For this high quantity of minis, 3rd is the way to go IMHO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 gorgon wrote: Pacific wrote:My concern here is that they have taken a game (in Epic Space Marine) for which one of it's greatest strength was it's streamling and speed of play, and easy to remember rules, and made it immediately less accessible.
Yes if I play tons I will remember the rules but how exactly are you meant to bring new players or casuals in? Or my mate who has two hours every fortnight to play when he is away from work, finally managed to get the kid to bed and wants a quick game?
This feels again like it is going to be another case of Necromunda, "for us, not for them" and casuals can wait outside. Completely going against the general trend of how game design within the industry is seeking to streamline, cognisant that gaming is competing with 100 other leisure activities and people have less free time than ever.
Do the people that design these games never play *anything* else from outside the circles that they operate in? Realise I may be going a bit OTT here, but I'd the rest of this game follows this trend into a granularity U-bend, you don't need to point out where those end up.
All good points, but I think it's very clear that this game's intended audience are Heresy heads and those with some kind of attachment or familiarity with past Epic games. If they wanted LI to be the next big thing, it'd likely be a little more streamlined and include a more diversified menu of 40K factions that general audiences might be more familiar with/attracted to.
Anyway, it had to be on their minds that the last time they majorly streamlined an Epic game, it bombed. And that when they revamped the system to include more granularity, it was better received.
Exactly this.
It seems more like a reboot than a new edition, in order to please nostalgics.
It is on the opposite side of the spectrum compared with 3rd edition (the streamlined edition that "bombed").
31456
Post by: Bolognesus
So that's the two turret weapons to choose from, plus a coax autocannon, plus two hull heavy bolters, plus a pair of sponsons, with two options to choose from again.
...That much I can see on the model so fair enough. But where do the (bottom) two "Kratos" weapons fit in? Substitutions for the hull mount heavy bolters? only option I can see that fits with either the LI or HH model but that makes for a rather confusing list, ordered almost at random like that.
Maybe I'm just being slow, but geesh.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Can someone explain the terminator card? They show twenty terminators in a box, with 4 boxes underneath it. In 2nd each silhouette represented 1 unit. I assume this is now one silhouette per model, so twenty silhouettes is 4 stands of five, (I think there is a little smidge extra separation by fives if you look closely) why are there 4 more cards under the main card with the silhouettes? Why not just make the card with 4 silhouettes and be done?
Yes you can add up to 4 stands, but that makes it look like you could add 4x20 models not 4x5 models. Just looks like a poorly thought out layout to me.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Who knows! Automatically Appended Next Post:  Bolognesus wrote:
So that's the two turret weapons to choose from, plus a coax autocannon, plus two hull heavy bolters, plus a pair of sponsons, with two options to choose from again.
...That much I can see on the model so fair enough. But where do the (bottom) two "Kratos" weapons fit in? Substitutions for the hull mount heavy bolters? only option I can see that fits with either the LI or HH model but that makes for a rather confusing list, ordered almost at random like that.
Maybe I'm just being slow, but geesh.
Yeah, essentially the “deck” guns, mounted on the hull.
Wondering if Point Defence will be guns you shoot during combats.
67795
Post by: RexHavoc
"Detachment cards"
Well...good luck to those that are interested in these new rules. Cards will be on sale for less than 7 minutes on pre-order day, then on ebay for €50+ come lunch time.
I had a funny feeling that Legions was going to ape new-necromundas release.
Well, I like the minis anyway. I'm not going to keep complaining its just clear the game is not made for me. But thankfully Epic minis work for all versions of the game. I'll be happy as long as my FLGS can get in my 10+ boxes of rhinos!
82928
Post by: Albertorius
So... you shoot with 4 different weapons with each of the tanks, in detachments of up to six, that can have different loadouts?
That sounds streamlined as all feth.
26519
Post by: xttz
 RexHavoc wrote:Cards will be on sale for less than 7 minutes on pre-order day, then on ebay for €50+ come lunch time.
So? The same info is printed in the rulebook too. They're optional.
I'm expecting someone to make an app for list building pretty quickly too.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yeah, essentially the “deck” guns, mounted on the hull.
Wondering if Point Defence will be guns you shoot during combats.
That is interesting... because the only things different on the Coax autocannon (a single one) from the Kratos Autocannons (two, on sponsons) are the special rules.
Or would that mean that the stats are for each individual sponson instead of both?
100722
Post by: Ohman
 Andrew1975 wrote:Can someone explain the terminator card? They show twenty terminators in a box, with 4 boxes underneath it. In 2nd each silhouette represented 1 unit. I assume this is now one silhouette per model, so twenty silhouettes is 4 stands of five, (I think there is a little smidge extra separation by fives if you look closely) why are there 4 more cards under the main card with the silhouettes? Why not just make the card with 4 silhouettes and be done?
Yes you can add up to 4 stands, but that makes it look like you could add 4x20 models not 4x5 models. Just looks like a poorly thought out layout to me.
Appears to be one extra card for every unit/stand you can add. The Terminator and Kratos card has four extra cards and can add 4 extra units. The Thunderhawk card has two cards and can add two units.
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
 Ohman wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:Can someone explain the terminator card? They show twenty terminators in a box, with 4 boxes underneath it. In 2nd each silhouette represented 1 unit. I assume this is now one silhouette per model, so twenty silhouettes is 4 stands of five, (I think there is a little smidge extra separation by fives if you look closely) why are there 4 more cards under the main card with the silhouettes? Why not just make the card with 4 silhouettes and be done?
Yes you can add up to 4 stands, but that makes it look like you could add 4x20 models not 4x5 models. Just looks like a poorly thought out layout to me.
Appears to be one extra card for every unit/stand you can add. The Terminator and Kratos card has four extra cards and can add 4 extra units. The Thunderhawk card has two cards and can add two units.
It has to be 4 more stands of 5 and not 4 more stands of 20.
No one in their right mind wouldn't take 4 more stands of 20 (80) for 30 points when the original 20 costs 50 points.....
He's right, the card graphics are wonky.
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
They go full 2nd Epic! Love it!  Automatically Appended Next Post: Pacific wrote:My concern here is that they have taken a game (in Epic Space Marine) for which one of it's greatest strength was it's streamling and speed of play, and easy to remember rules, and made it immediately less accessible.
Yes if I play tons I will remember the rules but how exactly are you meant to bring new players or casuals in? Or my mate who has two hours every fortnight to play when he is away from work, finally managed to get the kid to bed and wants a quick game?
This feels again like it is going to be another case of Necromunda, "for us, not for them" and casuals can wait outside. Completely going against the general trend of how game design within the industry is seeking to streamline, cognisant that gaming is competing with 100 other leisure activities and people have less free time than ever.
Do the people that design these games never play *anything* else from outside the circles that they operate in? Realise I may be going a bit OTT here, but I'd the rest of this game follows this trend into a granularity U-bend, you don't need to point out where those end up.
GW offers already 40K for casual play. Let the specialist games be for veterans of the 90s as it should be.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
TalonZahn wrote: Ohman wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:Can someone explain the terminator card? They show twenty terminators in a box, with 4 boxes underneath it. In 2nd each silhouette represented 1 unit. I assume this is now one silhouette per model, so twenty silhouettes is 4 stands of five, (I think there is a little smidge extra separation by fives if you look closely) why are there 4 more cards under the main card with the silhouettes? Why not just make the card with 4 silhouettes and be done?
Yes you can add up to 4 stands, but that makes it look like you could add 4x20 models not 4x5 models. Just looks like a poorly thought out layout to me.
Appears to be one extra card for every unit/stand you can add. The Terminator and Kratos card has four extra cards and can add 4 extra units. The Thunderhawk card has two cards and can add two units.
It has to be 4 more stands of 5 and not 4 more stands of 20.
No one in their right mind wouldn't take 4 more stands of 20 (80) for 30 points when the original 20 costs 50 points.....
He's right, the card graphics are wonky.
I can sketch out a a better layout in like a minute.....its horrible UI. Card with 4 silhouettes, plus sign, card with two silhouettes with another card placed back underneath. Much clearer.
Also anyone notice that there is no Break Point on these cards? In 2nd Ed once you killed so many stands from a card that card was considered broken and gave victory points.....doesn't look like that system is here anymore.
Had a quick look at the Manitc Warpath rules Alissio Cavatore is one of the designers, looks a lot like epic, but has pinning (Blast Markers) used D8's instead of sixes, has some interesting command mechanics for spending command points. Looks like it could be solid.
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
Andrew1975 wrote: TalonZahn wrote: Ohman wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:Can someone explain the terminator card? They show twenty terminators in a box, with 4 boxes underneath it. In 2nd each silhouette represented 1 unit. I assume this is now one silhouette per model, so twenty silhouettes is 4 stands of five, (I think there is a little smidge extra separation by fives if you look closely) why are there 4 more cards under the main card with the silhouettes? Why not just make the card with 4 silhouettes and be done?
Yes you can add up to 4 stands, but that makes it look like you could add 4x20 models not 4x5 models. Just looks like a poorly thought out layout to me.
Appears to be one extra card for every unit/stand you can add. The Terminator and Kratos card has four extra cards and can add 4 extra units. The Thunderhawk card has two cards and can add two units.
It has to be 4 more stands of 5 and not 4 more stands of 20.
No one in their right mind wouldn't take 4 more stands of 20 (80) for 30 points when the original 20 costs 50 points.....
He's right, the card graphics are wonky.
I can sketch out a a better layout in like a minute.....its horrible UI. Card with 4 silhouettes, plus sign, card with two silhouettes with another card placed back underneath. Much clearer.
Also anyone notice that there is no Break Point on these cards? In 2nd Ed once you killed so many stands from a card that card was considered broken and gave victory points.....doesn't look like that system is here anymore.
Some Legion rules address the Broken condition so morale is going to be fairly similar to what we had back in the day.
126192
Post by: TheGoodGerman
So, one side of the cards is for army building and one side is for play. Why do the Terminator and Thunderhawk cards say on the „play“ side how many models are in a detachment/squad etc, while only the Kratos card has that info, correctly, on the „build“ side?
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Yea this gak is too fiddly. Coaxial autocannon has its own profile? Dead to me. Massive step back from E:A and even 8th edition Apocalypse.
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
Will the game be released this month or later?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
They said available August, so presumably pre-orders in the next couple of weeks.
45669
Post by: MalusCalibur
With all the senseless complexity (*how* many weapons on a single Kratos?!), this game strikes me as less 'Epic 40(30)k' and more 'Horus Heresy, just with smaller models'. Surely the whole point of games at this scale is to represent significantly larger armies than at the 28mm scale, and to simplify individual models/units down in order to accomodate that without needing a week to play the game? From everything shown today, this game is doing the opposite of that.
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
Thanks. Automatically Appended Next Post:  MalusCalibur wrote:With all the senseless complexity (*how* many weapons on a single Kratos?!), this game strikes me as less 'Epic 40(30)k' and more 'Horus Heresy, just with smaller models'. Surely the whole point of games at this scale is to represent significantly larger armies than at the 28mm scale, and to simplify individual models/units down in order to accomodate that without needing a week to play the game? From everything shown today, this game is doing the opposite of that.
Tanks had several guns too in 2nd Epic.
100848
Post by: tneva82
RexHavoc wrote:"Detachment cards"
Well...good luck to those that are interested in these new rules. Cards will be on sale for less than 7 minutes on pre-order day, then on ebay for €50+ come lunch time.
I had a funny feeling that Legions was going to ape new-necromundas release.
Well, I like the minis anyway. I'm not going to keep complaining its just clear the game is not made for me. But thankfully Epic minis work for all versions of the game. I'll be happy as long as my FLGS can get in my 10+ boxes of rhinos!
That assumes card required to play and not just play aid like in 40k.
So far seen nothing that requires card.
128124
Post by: Billicus
Giving a large gun platform tank a couple of weapons is "senseless complexity"? Wtf is the matter with people
98217
Post by: Skinflint Games
Yeah, there were plenty of superheavies - Leviathan, Colossus, Capitol Imperialis - that had plenty of guns in 2nd.. it doesn't slow things down as much as you'd think when you're dealing with likely a few small detachments of 2/3 big tanks.
Psyched for this personally, even though I haven't the slightest intention of buying as I won't be able to afford it X-D but lovely to see Epic back
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Billicus wrote:Giving a large gun platform tank a couple of weapons is "senseless complexity"? Wtf is the matter with people
Im not even sure it gets to use all those weapons, aren't some of those alternative options? If its like its HH model you have to pick which loadout it carries, it doesn't get both the Battlecannon and the Meltal blast gun, its one or the other, same with the sponson options, its either Lascannons or Heavy bolters, I think you have to chose between the lascannon or the Auto canon also. So really only 4 weapons systems on each not 8. Again the card is confusing, poorly laid out and needs work.
People need to relax, but GW needs to do a much better job with these cards.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Four. The Kratos has four weapons.
Turret
Co-Axial Autocannon
Hull
Sponsons.
That’s it. If you’re overwhelmed by that, I don’t know what to say. Spesh as that’s a Heavy Tank, so most others are going to have Turret and Sponson only.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
 Skinflint Games wrote:Yeah, there were plenty of superheavies - Leviathan, Colossus, Capitol Imperialis - that had plenty of guns in 2nd.. it doesn't slow things down as much as you'd think when you're dealing with likely a few small detachments of 2/3 big tanks.
Psyched for this personally, even though I haven't the slightest intention of buying as I won't be able to afford it X-D but lovely to see Epic back
Yeah but those were much larger super heavies, most of the Baneblade chassis large tanks only had a few weapons systems....but I think its really people misreading the horribly written card as having 8 weapons all the time. This card is like if you put all the Baneblade chassis options on one card and people thought you got to use all the weapons on one.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
Andrew1975 wrote: Skinflint Games wrote:Yeah, there were plenty of superheavies - Leviathan, Colossus, Capitol Imperialis - that had plenty of guns in 2nd.. it doesn't slow things down as much as you'd think when you're dealing with likely a few small detachments of 2/3 big tanks.
Psyched for this personally, even though I haven't the slightest intention of buying as I won't be able to afford it X-D but lovely to see Epic back
Yeah but those were much larger super heavies, most of the Baneblade chassis large tanks only had a few weapons systems....but I think its really people misreading the horribly written card.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Four. The Kratos has four weapons.
Turret
Co-Axial Autocannon
Hull
Sponsons.
That’s it. If you’re overwhelmed by that, I don’t know what to say. Spesh as that’s a Heavy Tank, so most others are going to have Turret and Sponson only.
Yeah, it's pretty much intended to lock in some flavour by arc-limiting many of the weapons: the Kratos is a supporting linebreaker, so it's good against targets it's facing and vulnerable to flanking operations to a degree. The card is stuffed, but the actual selection from it considerably less so.
MalusCalibur wrote:With all the senseless complexity (*how* many weapons on a single Kratos?!), this game strikes me as less 'Epic 40(30)k' and more 'Horus Heresy, just with smaller models'. Surely the whole point of games at this scale is to represent significantly larger armies than at the 28mm scale, and to simplify individual models/units down in order to accomodate that without needing a week to play the game? From everything shown today, this game is doing the opposite of that.
It's a bit more 'zoomed out' than 30k/28mm in that it simplifies a lot of the complexiy in Close Combat and model positioning away, but is less zoomed out than e.g. Epic40k or even Epic:Armageddon, in that it keeps more distinctions between weapons and loadouts. IMHO that's a wise choice for a game that will be mostly populated by marines with a variety of support elements, as you need some more ways to distinguish between things for as long as the range of units is limited like this. I also have a suspicion that they start this foray into small scale deliberately more zoomed in, to give people an opportunity to buy in with smaller forces, before zooming out some more in a second edition in a few years time.
123250
Post by: Sotahullu
Bigger the model is, more guns it shall have.
26519
Post by: xttz
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Four. The Kratos has four weapons.
Turret
Co-Axial Autocannon
Hull
Sponsons.
That’s it. If you’re overwhelmed by that, I don’t know what to say.
There's also the option for the hull & sponson weapons to share an identical profile and combine the dice. So possibly just 3 weapons.
133503
Post by: hams
hams wrote:
I am looking at trying to understand creating a list based on the WarCom "Demi Company" preview and the launch box. From the pastbin leak, it has a "Detachment Size" column that I assume is the number of stands in a detachment. Astartes looks to have typically 4 stands for each infantry attachment. The launch box appears to only have 2 stands of plasma support and 2 stands of missile launcher support. This doesn't appear to be a legal set of stands for a formation, especially based on this Demi Company which requires 1 support detachment. Or "Detachment Size" is something else and the detachments are actually 2 stands each?
Hoping someone more familiar with SM2 might be able to comment on how this works.
Responding to my own post probably breaks some rule, but here goes anyway.
I looked at the previewed Legion Terminator Detachment card. It says "A Legion Terminator Detachment consists of 4 Legion Terminator models".
In the launch box, we have 10 Terminators, which pictured are put 5 models on a base with 2 bases. Nowhere here do I find the number 4. I know that Formations contain Detachments, but that's it... GW seems to freely use terms like model(s) and unit(s) which is totally unclear what that means in the LI context.
Furthermore, on the list building side of the card, the image shows 20 terminator silhouettes... So.. do we have 4 bases of 5 terminators, or 5 bases of 4 terminators. I would assume 5 bases of 4 Terminators based on the wording "A Legion Terminator Detachment consists of 4 Legion Terminator models", but all of the pictures of models show 5 models per base.
Thanks Ohman for pointing out what the meaning of the stacks on the silhouette images meant. You have found logic where I could find none.
Why is it so hard to understand what a detachment is? Seems like that should be dead simple. I hope the rules clearly define the meanings of terms like detachment, unit, model, etc.. otherwise it's going to be tough.
61286
Post by: drbored
Because GW have a bad habit of re-using terminology.
Detachment in 40k is the special rule you apply to your army. Detachment in Epic is a mini FOC, but don't confuse Formation Organization Chart (FOC) with Force Organization Chart (FOC) from older 40k.
And also leave it to Warcom not being able to post full rules and context. There will be one simple rule line in the book that will make it easy to understand, but until we see it we have to go off of whatever warcom posts.
I find more and more that despite how much they try to hype rules and such, I end up throwing my hands up in frustration and going "Alright, just gunna wait for the full release to make sense of this instead of arguing ad nauseum about how to read the ouija board of warcom articles."
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
hams wrote:hams wrote:
I am looking at trying to understand creating a list based on the WarCom "Demi Company" preview and the launch box. From the pastbin leak, it has a "Detachment Size" column that I assume is the number of stands in a detachment. Astartes looks to have typically 4 stands for each infantry attachment. The launch box appears to only have 2 stands of plasma support and 2 stands of missile launcher support. This doesn't appear to be a legal set of stands for a formation, especially based on this Demi Company which requires 1 support detachment. Or "Detachment Size" is something else and the detachments are actually 2 stands each?
Hoping someone more familiar with SM2 might be able to comment on how this works.
Responding to my own post probably breaks some rule, but here goes anyway.
I looked at the previewed Legion Terminator Detachment card. It says "A Legion Terminator Detachment consists of 4 Legion Terminator models".
In the launch box, we have 10 Terminators, which pictured are put 5 models on a base with 2 bases. Nowhere here do I find the number 4. I know that Formations contain Detachments, but that's it... GW seems to freely use terms like model(s) and unit(s) which is totally unclear what that means in the LI context.
Furthermore, on the list building side of the card, the image shows 20 terminator silhouettes... So.. do we have 4 bases of 5 terminators, or 5 bases of 4 terminators. I would assume 5 bases of 4 Terminators based on the wording "A Legion Terminator Detachment consists of 4 Legion Terminator models", but all of the pictures of models show 5 models per base.
Thanks Ohman for pointing out what the meaning of the stacks on the silhouette images meant. You have found logic where I could find none.
Why is it so hard to understand what a detachment is? Seems like that should be dead simple. I hope the rules clearly define the meanings of terms like detachment, unit, model, etc.. otherwise it's going to be tough.
If the cards are any indication on how much thought they put into the rules, we are in for a mess.
As for the limit of two stands of Terminators in the box, I'm going to guess you can somehow add them to a tactical detachment? Doesn't sound right.....I don't know, the box contents are making less sense now. You only get two stands of each of the non tactical stands, so not enough for their own detachments.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Launch boxes not having valid matched play composition isn't novel in gw games though.
85326
Post by: Arbitrator
Andrew1975 wrote:[
As for the limit of two stands of Terminators in the box, I'm going to guess you can somehow add them to a tactical detachment?.....I don't know, the box contents are making less sense now. You only get two stands of each of the non tactical stands, so not enough for their own detachments.
According to the leaked docs floating around, you can indeed add them to tactical detachments.
Definitely looking like most people will want to buy two boxes. Sucks if you don't want the solar auxilia though.
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
drbored wrote:Because GW have a bad habit of re-using terminology.
Detachment in 40k is the special rule you apply to your army. Detachment in Epic is a mini FOC, but don't confuse Formation Organization Chart ( FOC) with Force Organization Chart ( FOC) from older 40k.
And also leave it to Warcom not being able to post full rules and context. There will be one simple rule line in the book that will make it easy to understand, but until we see it we have to go off of whatever warcom posts.
I find more and more that despite how much they try to hype rules and such, I end up throwing my hands up in frustration and going "Alright, just gunna wait for the full release to make sense of this instead of arguing ad nauseum about how to read the ouija board of warcom articles."
This. WarCom is never a reliable interpretation of any game rules even at the best of days. In today's example, I would be pretty surprised if they didn't already botch the numbers on terminators and Thunderhawks (I will fully expect Bulky to mean these models take two spaces in transports and thus Thunderhawks and eventually Land Raiders will only carry half as much chunky boys as they would tacticals).
159
Post by: feugan
The second edition Stormblade (misidentified as a Shadowsword in the recent Warcom article) had at least 3 weapon systems: the plasma blastgun, hunter killer missile rack and one-shot Hellion (?) missile on top. I don't recall if the left sponson with a (heavy) bolter on got stats or not. I loved them, and had to have the box set of three because I had a full company of every other IG tank type. Vs my mate's Orky armoured columns or the massed Eldar Tempests and Warp Hunters: EPIC!!!
Point is, multiple weapon systems on a tank aren't without precedent in Epic. Rolling to hit was easy and there are fewer steps than shooting in 40k, where a Tactical squad can readily have 4 different types of shooting after all.
14004
Post by: Bubbalicious
Point Defence is probably guns that can shoot on overwatch even if your not on first fire orders
128093
Post by: twentypence
So a Legion Terminator model / unit is one base / stand with five miniatures on it.
A Legion Terminator Detachment has 4, 6, or 8 Legion Terminator models.
The Legion Terminator Detachment takes up a Vanguard Battlefield Role (complete guess).
And a Vanguard Battlefield Role is one of the optional choices in a Legion Demi-Company Formation.
And there needs to be at least one Formation for each full 1,500 points in an Army.
Have I got that right?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I believe so, yes.
123250
Post by: Sotahullu
So then here is a picture of an Demi -Company. Lonesome HQ, 2 Cores with one having Transports and mandatory Support being Dreadnoughts and then added Sicarian Battle tanks.
Yet the other Core has mixed unit of Assault Marines and Terminators so my gues is that some units can upgrade to include some other troops rather then just weaponry.
81283
Post by: stonehorse
I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale.
Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Four. The Kratos has four weapons.
Turret
Co-Axial Autocannon
Hull
Sponsons.
That’s it. If you’re overwhelmed by that, I don’t know what to say. Spesh as that’s a Heavy Tank, so most others are going to have Turret and Sponson only.
Six, if the hull and sponson weapons are actually stats for a single of them. And yes, it's a Heavy Tank... So? So is the Land Raider. And you could have oodles of those.
But the thing is that a detachment of those, even if they all shoot the same enemy detachment, will need four separate rolls to resolve, because each gun has a different to hit, a different armor penalty and different special rules.
To resolve shooting for a single detachment, out of how many? Each round?
Feels like way too fiddle for a game where I want to be the general commanding sweep movements and gak.
But to each their own. I'll keep playing other games, it's still cool to see new minis.
Also, I think portraying people that think that's excessive detail as being "overwhelmed" is purposefully misrepresenting the issue, here.
133503
Post by: hams
twentypence wrote:So a Legion Terminator model / unit is one base / stand with five miniatures on it.
A Legion Terminator Detachment has 4, 6, or 8 Legion Terminator models.
The Legion Terminator Detachment takes up a Vanguard Battlefield Role (complete guess).
And a Vanguard Battlefield Role is one of the optional choices in a Legion Demi-Company Formation.
And there needs to be at least one Formation for each full 1,500 points in an Army.
Have I got that right?
So Formation > Detachment > Model | Unit | Base | Stand > Miniature
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
 Arbitrator wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:[
As for the limit of two stands of Terminators in the box, I'm going to guess you can somehow add them to a tactical detachment?.....I don't know, the box contents are making less sense now. You only get two stands of each of the non tactical stands, so not enough for their own detachments.
According to the leaked docs floating around, you can indeed add them to tactical detachments.
Definitely looking like most people will want to buy two boxes. Sucks if you don't want the solar auxilia though.
Oh, Im sure you will eventually just be able to buy the Space marine side in a separate box, but then you will have some half detachments of Solar Auxilia, best to just get two launch boxes....... GW being crazy like a fox as always.
Now if you want that big detachment of eight terminator stands....thats 4 launch boxes. Just like the old days, how many boxes did I have to buy to get a complete detachments of Terminators? I don't remember exactly but I think it was like 3.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albertorius wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Four. The Kratos has four weapons.
Turret
Co-Axial Autocannon
Hull
Sponsons.
That’s it. If you’re overwhelmed by that, I don’t know what to say. Spesh as that’s a Heavy Tank, so most others are going to have Turret and Sponson only.
Six, if the hull and sponson weapons are actually stats for a single of them. And yes, it's a Heavy Tank... So? So is the Land Raider. And you could have oodles of those.
But the thing is that a detachment of those, even if they all shoot the same enemy detachment, will need four separate rolls to resolve, because each gun has a different to hit, a different armor penalty and different special rules.
To resolve shooting for a single detachment, out of how many? Each round?
Feels like way too fiddle for a game where I want to be the general commanding sweep movements and gak.
But to each their own. I'll keep playing other games, it's still cool to see new minis.
Also, I think portraying people that think that's excessive detail as being "overwhelmed" is purposefully misrepresenting the issue, here.
I can see it getting fiddely especially if they allow you to take different options on different vehicles in the same detachment, but I still don't see it being any kind of huge insurmountable burden. I don't remember seeing people taking multiple Superheavy Tank companies in 2nd ed, at least not very often. It looks like most stands and vehicles have only a couple of weapons slots.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Andrew1975 wrote:I can see it getting fiddely especially if they allow you to take different options on different vehicles in the same detachment, but I still don't see it being any kind of huge insurmountable burden. I don't remember seeing people taking multiple Superheavy Tank companies in 2nd ed, at least not very often. It looks like most stands and vehicles have only a couple of weapons slots.
Again, nobody said anything about insurmountable.
It's simply not a direction I want to go for my army level game fix. I simply see too many things to take account for for every single unit, what with one or more weapons, each with special rules, plus special rules of the units, plus special rules of the faction...
And at least in Epic 40k Superheavy tank companies were a dime a dozen.
66936
Post by: Vorian
stonehorse wrote:I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale.
Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
But these are just USR and really not that complicated.
81283
Post by: stonehorse
Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale.
Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
But these are just USR and really not that complicated.
Never said it was, just that 8 USR's for Terminators seems a bit much. This is Epic, those Terminators shouldn't need that many at this scale.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
stonehorse wrote:Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale.
Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
But these are just USR and really not that complicated.
Never said it was, just that 8 USR's for Terminators seems a bit much. This is Epic, those Terminators shouldn't need that many at this scale.
Depends if many are unique.
Bulky for example? It’s either a Keyword, or “each stand counts as two for transports” on every unit it applies to, making a guess as to the actual rules.
66936
Post by: Vorian
stonehorse wrote:Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale.
Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
But these are just USR and really not that complicated.
Never said it was, just that 8 USR's for Terminators seems a bit much. This is Epic, those Terminators shouldn't need that many at this scale.
Should they not? Why is that?
If they are simple and give Terminators their flavour why does it matter if there are 8 rules there?
One is just saying they can't damage tanks, one is a 6++, one is deep strike.
I only came in at Epic 40k and then E:A but this all seems pretty standard to me.
Edit: Would imagine bulky is something to stop Terminator equivalents from using Rhino level transports, but allow them to b be transported in LRs / THs etc
81283
Post by: stonehorse
Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale.
Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
But these are just USR and really not that complicated.
Never said it was, just that 8 USR's for Terminators seems a bit much. This is Epic, those Terminators shouldn't need that many at this scale.
Should they not? Why is that?
If they are simple and give Terminators their flavour why does it matter if there are 8 rules there?
One is just saying they can't damage tanks, one is a 6++, one is deep strike.
I only came in at Epic 40k and then E:A but this all seems pretty standard to me.
Edit: Would imagine bulky is something to stop Terminator equivalents from using Rhino level transports, but allow them to b be transported in LRs / THs etc
Because at this scale Terminators shouldn't be much more than slightly better heavy Infantry. All those 8 USR make them a bit more special.
Yes, in HH and 40k they are great, but those are 28mm games that capture a very small glimpse of a far wider battle. Epic is zoomed out by quite a few magnitudes, so units need to lessen in accordance.
The USR's may be simple to remember (more than likely), and as everyone will have access to fielding Terminators, it will mean that everyone knows their rules and thus will be easy to keep track of. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: stonehorse wrote:Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale.
Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
But these are just USR and really not that complicated.
Never said it was, just that 8 USR's for Terminators seems a bit much. This is Epic, those Terminators shouldn't need that many at this scale.
Depends if many are unique.
Bulky for example? It’s either a Keyword, or “each stand counts as two for transports” on every unit it applies to, making a guess as to the actual rules.
I doubt any of those are unique. Again it isn't an issue about rule abilities, but rather more about scale focus. This is Epic, Terminators even in Epic are just better heavy Infantry.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Pacific wrote:My concern here is that they have taken a game (in Epic Space Marine) for which one of it's greatest strength was it's streamling and speed of play, and easy to remember rules, and made it immediately less accessible.
Yes if I play tons I will remember the rules but how exactly are you meant to bring new players or casuals in? Or my mate who has two hours every fortnight to play when he is away from work, finally managed to get the kid to bed and wants a quick game?
This feels again like it is going to be another case of Necromunda, "for us, not for them" and casuals can wait outside. Completely going against the general trend of how game design within the industry is seeking to streamline, cognisant that gaming is competing with 100 other leisure activities and people have less free time than ever.
Do the people that design these games never play *anything* else from outside the circles that they operate in? Realise I may be going a bit OTT here, but I'd the rest of this game follows this trend into a granularity U-bend, you don't need to point out where those end up.
This is where Titanicus does deserves praise because not only does it provide basic and advanced rules, but also two different ways to play with either the detailed titans or the streamlined knights. Its good for novice and casual players, and more so if one keeps in mind that open play is a thing; the ruleset is no longer a manifesto but now an array of options to choose from.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
stonehorse wrote:Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale.
Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
But these are just USR and really not that complicated.
Never said it was, just that 8 USR's for Terminators seems a bit much. This is Epic, those Terminators shouldn't need that many at this scale.
Should they not? Why is that?
If they are simple and give Terminators their flavour why does it matter if there are 8 rules there?
One is just saying they can't damage tanks, one is a 6++, one is deep strike.
I only came in at Epic 40k and then E:A but this all seems pretty standard to me.
Edit: Would imagine bulky is something to stop Terminator equivalents from using Rhino level transports, but allow them to b be transported in LRs / THs etc
Because at this scale Terminators shouldn't be much more than slightly better heavy Infantry. All those 8 USR make them a bit more special.
Yes, in HH and 40k they are great, but those are 28mm games that capture a very small glimpse of a far wider battle. Epic is zoomed out by quite a few magnitudes, so units need to lessen in accordance.
The USR's may be simple to remember (more than likely), and as everyone will have access to fielding Terminators, it will mean that everyone knows their rules and thus will be easy to keep track of.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: stonehorse wrote:Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale.
Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
But these are just USR and really not that complicated.
Never said it was, just that 8 USR's for Terminators seems a bit much. This is Epic, those Terminators shouldn't need that many at this scale.
Depends if many are unique.
Bulky for example? It’s either a Keyword, or “each stand counts as two for transports” on every unit it applies to, making a guess as to the actual rules.
I doubt any of those are unique. Again it isn't an issue about rule abilities, but rather more about scale focus. This is Epic, Terminators even in Epic are just better heavy Infantry.
In 2nd ed Terminators were basically just slightly better infantry and they had very little flavor, didn't feel like terminators really. They fixed that in later versions. 4 stands of Termonators in two Spartans was a detachment to be feared in Epic Armageddon. Terminators should be noticeably tougher I think they may have gotten it just right actually this time, in my opinion anyway.
3309
Post by: Flinty
The thunderhawk spiel on warcomm says it has large assault transport that lets it carry bulky infantry.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
 Flinty wrote:The thunderhawk spiel on warcomm says it has large assault transport that lets it carry bulky infantry.
They sure beefed up the Thunderhawk from its 2nd ed origins.
26519
Post by: xttz
From the five special rules listed on terminators, two of them are really only relevant for initial deployment and are likely mutually exclusive. You'll either teleport in or use a transport.
From the way the article is phrased I expect Bulky models can simply only go into Large Transports, and regular transports take any other infantry.
I do think that maybe invuln saves should have been part of the unit statline (such as giving them a "4+/6+" save) instead of a special rule, but they may not be common enough for that to be worthwhile.
66936
Post by: Vorian
stonehorse wrote:
Never said it was, just that 8 USR's for Terminators seems a bit much. This is Epic, those Terminators shouldn't need that many at this scale.
But they do remain slightly better inf?
Assault & light are both rules shared by bolters.
Bulky & deep strike will relate to what they are allowed to be transported in and how they can deploy (and are basically mandatory to reflect how everyone would expect Terminators to function).
So they really only have a 4+/6++ to reflect Terminator armour
Whatever accurate is to differentiate storm bolters vs bolters.
Steadfast & Implacable as morale boosts to represent elite status.
This is not vastly different from previous Epic versions of them.
133503
Post by: hams
Here is an attempt at some list building based on the launch box plus filling in the gaps as well as transports.
Assumptions
Using the Demi Company Formation preview
- used it as a template for SA as well
- Detachments are 1 per symbol (since some symbols listed twice)
- Guesses on which things fulfill which roles
- The vehicle choices are not required (unclear from text since they do not say compulsory or optional in their box)
The Detachment Size column in the pastebin leak indicates the number of bases in a detachment.
Rhino
- 10 points per
- carries 2 bases
- doesn't transport Bulky units
Arvus
- 12 points per
- carries 2 bases
- doesn't transport Bulky units
(See attached Image)
Legion Astartes is 655 points
Titans are 660 points
Solar Auxilla is 714 points
Using the preview rule of 70% from main and 30% from allies, you can have the following:
Legion Astartes 655 points + 900 points (Assuming you can fits a formation of SA with 1 Titan or 2 Titans with small formation of SA)
= Means you need 1445 more points of Legion Astartes...
Solar Auxilla 714 + 900 (Assuming LA with 1 Titan or 2 Titans and small formation of LA)
= Means you need 1386 more points of Solar Auxilla
Really hope there will be some Formation/Company boxes that can fill out these points at a reasonable cost.
1
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
stonehorse wrote:Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale. Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
But these are just USR and really not that complicated.
Never said it was, just that 8 USR's for Terminators seems a bit much. This is Epic, those Terminators shouldn't need that many at this scale.
Should they not? Why is that? If they are simple and give Terminators their flavour why does it matter if there are 8 rules there? One is just saying they can't damage tanks, one is a 6++, one is deep strike. I only came in at Epic 40k and then E:A but this all seems pretty standard to me. Edit: Would imagine bulky is something to stop Terminator equivalents from using Rhino level transports, but allow them to b be transported in LRs / THs etc
Because at this scale Terminators shouldn't be much more than slightly better heavy Infantry. All those 8 USR make them a bit more special. Yes, in HH and 40k they are great, but those are 28mm games that capture a very small glimpse of a far wider battle. Epic is zoomed out by quite a few magnitudes, so units need to lessen in accordance. The USR's may be simple to remember (more than likely), and as everyone will have access to fielding Terminators, it will mean that everyone knows their rules and thus will be easy to keep track of. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: stonehorse wrote:Vorian wrote: stonehorse wrote:I'm a bit concerned about the Terminators having 8 special rules... before Legion specific traits. Seems a bit much, especially for Epic scale. Still not enough to put me off the game, as I suspect that this won't be an issue during play, due to the limited nature of the HH setting.
But these are just USR and really not that complicated.
Never said it was, just that 8 USR's for Terminators seems a bit much. This is Epic, those Terminators shouldn't need that many at this scale.
Depends if many are unique. Bulky for example? It’s either a Keyword, or “each stand counts as two for transports” on every unit it applies to, making a guess as to the actual rules.
I doubt any of those are unique. Again it isn't an issue about rule abilities, but rather more about scale focus. This is Epic, Terminators even in Epic are just better heavy Infantry.
There's definitely differing opinions on what a game like Epic should be, but I absolutely agree with you. IMO, in a game like Epic, the "flavour" of individual units needn't be represented in rules, it should be represented in the imagination and narrative of the players. Special rules, even if they are "Universal" Special Rules***, should be kept to a bare minimum and used to represent things that can have a special effect on the scale of the whole battle. ***As an aside, I've always hated when games have too many "Universal" special rules, hated them in 40k but especially in a game like Epic they should be kept to a minimum and only as a fall back for things that can't be represented well in the baseline rules.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
People that have problems with the Terminators rules......which would you get rid of? Bulky, Deep Strike, their invol save, these are all very appropriate for Terminators to have. They don't get extra flamer, assault canon or cyclone missle launcher attacks (which I argue they should, they did in some editions). They basically had all the same rules in 2nd ed, they were just not USRs and boy did 2nd Ed desperately need USRs.
In 2nd ed a warhound was -1 to hit because it was a small and fast target.....but smaller and faster than what? Things like....well most anything else that was smaller and faster didn't get -1 to hit, eldar Jetbikes were much smaller and much faster didn't get -1 to hit because they didn't have USRs. Every vehicle and unit had its own special rules that were very hard to keep track of and became a jumbled mess that even GW couldn't untangle. There was no standardization and it was up to whoever was writing rules that week. USRs are much better in my opinion.
Some flyers got lucky and had -1 to hit while others didn't, there was no rationale to it. At least with USRs we have standards.
45669
Post by: MalusCalibur
Billicus wrote:Giving a large gun platform tank a couple of weapons is "senseless complexity"? Wtf is the matter with people
The Kratos was just one example. See also the many special rules on a single unit, which feels like too much detail for a game at this scale.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Four. The Kratos has four weapons.
Turret
Co-Axial Autocannon
Hull
Sponsons.
That’s it. If you’re overwhelmed by that, I don’t know what to say. Spesh as that’s a Heavy Tank, so most others are going to have Turret and Sponson only.
I'm not overwhelmed; it's simply that I feel it should be more consolidated than that for the scale - does the co-axial gun really need to be its own thing? Perhaps something like the main turret, and then 'support weapons' covering the smaller arms? Again, this is supposed to be a game where whole squads of tanks are firing at once, and breaking down their weapons into even just four different profiles feels excessive.
Andrew1975 wrote:...but I think its really people misreading the horribly written card as having 8 weapons all the time. This card is like if you put all the Baneblade chassis options on one card and people thought you got to use all the weapons on one.
That's fair. It having them all is what I assumed, as there was no clear indicator what was an optional choice and what was default equipment. I'm not overly familiar with the chassis and its weapons layout.
feugan wrote:Point is, multiple weapon systems on a tank aren't without precedent in Epic. Rolling to hit was easy and there are fewer steps than shooting in 40k, where a Tactical squad can readily have 4 different types of shooting after all.
To be fair, it's not yet known exactly how the shooting will work so could well have similar steps to 40k. And if a Tactical Squad having four different weapon profiles is a problem, why is the same not a problem here when the army size is supposed to be bigger? Three profiles (as in your example, one of which was a one-shot weapon) would be manageable on a standalone superheavy, but not across an entire squadron of vehicles.
Sotahullu wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/QPejQ5Bi1biZoBhc.jpg
I think this image illustrates my concern quite well - granted, this is only part of an army rather than a whole one, but for Epic scale it feels a little small, even if you double it. If it's only going to be a little more 'zoomed out' than Horus Heresy itself is, I don't feel it's catering to the game type that, arguably, it is supposed to.
Albertorius wrote:
Six, if the hull and sponson weapons are actually stats for a single of them. And yes, it's a Heavy Tank... So? So is the Land Raider. And you could have oodles of those.
But the thing is that a detachment of those, even if they all shoot the same enemy detachment, will need four separate rolls to resolve, because each gun has a different to hit, a different armor penalty and different special rules.
To resolve shooting for a single detachment, out of how many? Each round?
Feels like way too fiddle for a game where I want to be the general commanding sweep movements and what have you.
It's simply not a direction I want to go for my army level game fix. I simply see too many things to take account for for every single unit, what with one or more weapons, each with special rules, plus special rules of the units, plus special rules of the faction...
Essentially, all of this. My view of Epic was always of a grand scale, the kinds of battles that 40k has never been able to depict (and attempts to do so by including superheavies etc have warped it) and where grand strategy and combined firepower matters far more than an individual co-axial gun on a single tank. So far, LI does not appear to live up to that, and that's disappointing.
126443
Post by: Matrindur
MalusCalibur wrote: Sotahullu wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/QPejQ5Bi1biZoBhc.jpg
I think this image illustrates my concern quite well - granted, this is only part of an army rather than a whole one, but for Epic scale it feels a little small, even if you double it. If it's only going to be a little more 'zoomed out' than Horus Heresy itself is, I don't feel it's catering to the game type that, arguably, it is supposed to.
This is only around 370 points based on the leaks so not even close to the 3000pts they recommended
34906
Post by: Pacific
I guess that ultimately the design team for this game were going to make a choice about what kind of game they were going to make. Epic itself varies massively (from the very granular 1st edition, to the streamlined and fast 2nd, to the even more streamlined 3rd, back to a more granular game in 4th). It feels like, with this, that they are going for the 1st and 4th edition approach, even though the base structure of the game is based on 2nd, and that will either be more or less popular for you depending on your view of those games.
Someone made a point that I agree with that this is a game for 'Heresyheads', not casuals getting into wargaming or just wanting to throw down a few dice, and so it is designed to appeal on that basis. I personally think its a missed opportunity as one of the strengths of Epic was always its accessibility and, combined with cost, is a big reason that lots of us (and probably a good few reading this comment) first got into wargaming with Epic Space Marine. I am not sure. had I needed to keep page markers to refer to extra rules and go to that level of granularity, that would be the case again now.
We will see, in time, if GW's approach is the correct one based on the success of the game and its endurance.
86045
Post by: leopard
having played 1st edition at some 10k points a few times and found it didn't bog down in rules detail I don't think this will be half the issue people think.
tanks having multiple weapon profiles, when operating in units, resolved with a single d6, sorry not seeing the problem - 4x Kratos firing at a few different things means rolling a few batches of dice into each. I'll take that over "this box has firepower rating x" anyday, means it can pull anti infantry and anti armour at the same time with different weapons doing different things.
Terminators having a few special rules, again not really a problem, if you have them foot slogging they are a waste, they will drop in (or be carried in), do their job clearing a bunch of infantry out, then hold or die - they always were good at their job if they got to the target
and note infantry seem to generally so far have one attack profile for ranged weapons, if anything they should generally have two but is what it is.
its a game that once you've played it a few times will significantly speed up, and yes there is a point that for people who only play occasionally it will be slower as you never get really past the initial learning curve, while this is a point I also suspect it is a bit of a red coloured fishy thing as I know I, and suspect I am not alone, would prefer a game with a bit more depth to it instead of something streamlined to the point its so generic its not worth playing it
as it stands it looks like the different types of infantry for example are different and do different things, a more generic streamlined game would in effect end up with "infantry", "light armour", "heavy armour" and maybe "super heavy armour" and probably a single stat, maybe two for each, at which point I'd go find a card counters game to be honest
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also a note on the level of detail in 1st edition
you had unit reference cards initially, though didn't really need them as the stat profile wasn't hard (type, move, CAF, what weapons and any special notes essentially) then two weapon tables (for firing at infantry and other soft targets and then for armour and hard targets - the unit profile telling you which it was)
and since typically you didn't have all that many weapons it wasn't hard to remember them - it helped they were very similar to 40k as well, e.g. bolters being 12/24cm with a +1 to hit at close range
the new profiles look even simpler given they have rolled the to hit number into the profile
I highly suspect there either will be, or will be easy to make, unit reference cards for everything you have, and that a single card would easily cover most of the infantry types
66936
Post by: Vorian
The thing is, people are trying to suggest it's complicated when it really doesn't seem to be.
Why would you be needing to have page markers? There's going to be a handful of USRs that you'll know by the end of your first game.
Have the page in the rulebook with the unit card info open and you're set for the entire game.
26519
Post by: xttz
Vorian wrote:The thing is, people are trying to suggest it's complicated when it really doesn't seem to be.
Why would you be needing to have page markers? There's going to be a handful of USRs that you'll know by the end of your first game.
Have the page with the unit card info in the rulebook open and you're set for the entire game.
" OMG terminators have 8 special rules?!" is such a weird take to me when the Epic Armageddon incarnation of their rules had 3 weapon profiles, 2 weapon traits, and 3 USRs to do basically the same thing.
Meanwhile the Kratos with 3-4 weapon profiles at a time is entirely on par with E:A rules for a Leman Russ (3) or Baneblades (5).
79481
Post by: Sarouan
Yeah, the rules showed so far it's a turn-off to me. I'm not really interested into detailed Net-epic 2.0...and since they confirmed it won't be translated ("for now" is definitely the Necromunda / Adeptus Titanicus way - meaning "never"), I'll drop that ball.
I don't like the fact there is a morale stat in a unit's profile as well.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Take in mind that anyone commenting on this forum is, by default, really into their wargames and not a cross section of the broader wargaming demographic. So I'm attempting to view it in a wider context.
Putting a few page markers in a rulebook is fine for me, but I've had Necromunda campaigns fail because the guys playing, who only have a few hours free every few weeks, just couldn't get comfortable with the depth and complexity of the rules. We have ended up switching to One Page Rules, which employs USRs, but generally a max of one or two per unit and certainly not 8. You can fire a unit without having to refer to a weapons chart and check a loadout. I'm not saying that by any means Epic is as complex as Necromunda and we won't know for sure until it's released, but it sniffs of that design route rather than something like AoS which was (at least originally) designed as an easily accessible game.
Leopard - it's interesting you say that about 1st edition. I didn't play it myself but speaking to others they seem split on loving the granularity of 1st, hating the simplification that 2nd edition introduced, and visa-versa. I suppose ultimately there are different ways to skin a cat, and you'll come down on one side or another.
14004
Post by: Bubbalicious
I for one like the level of detail there is currently and the rules direction. They al make sence so far and seem intuitive.
Would have liked to se a litte bit more legion specific rules than what i have seen so far to make them a bit more differnet, but the legion specific units might make that a non issue for me.
Dont se a problem with some units having more than two guns either. Just roll the things in batches or if you whant to speed things upp, roll everything at once with dirrent colored dice for each weapon
79481
Post by: Sarouan
Bubbalicious wrote:
Dont se a problem with some units having more than two guns either. Just roll the things in batches or if you whant to speed things upp, roll everything at once with dirrent colored dice for each weapon
It is a problem when you play a massive scale game with 100+ units that aren't the same.
For people dedicated to one game only and don't have a free-time issue, it's fine. But it's hard to sell the game to newcomers who don't fit the same boxes. Less players = less games, less games = less incentment to the producer to keep investing into it, and have it the AT / Necromunda way (that is, having new products with such a huge time gap with nothing to the point people lose interest in it).
Having a complex game system doesn't make it better or more fun to play. It just makes it harder to learn and take more time consuming to play. I for myself have already plenty of those in my library, most of them I never play with now, and I don't have time for another one. I'm pretty sure I'm far from being the only one in this situation.
66936
Post by: Vorian
Pacific wrote:
We have ended up switching to One Page Rules, which employs USRs, but generally a max of one or two per unit and certainly not 8. You can fire a unit without having to refer to a weapons chart and check a loadout. I'm not saying that by any means Epic is as complex as Necromunda and we won't know for sure until it's released, but it sniffs of that design route rather than something like AoS which was (at least originally) designed as an easily accessible game.
But 8 USRs is an odd way to try and characterise the Terminator profile. It's trying to make something relatively simple sound complicated.
128124
Post by: Billicus
It's always possible to build armies that are time-consuming to roll out their attacks or more identikit armies with simpler rolls / less to remember in any wargame with dice. That's clearly the case here if you decide to kit out your more versatile vehicles with the same loadouts.
The special rules thing is a bit of an overreaction, when a lot of them are things like bulky on terminators that you only need to hear once to know what it is and likely don't even need to read it.
I don't know why you'd want the official GW rules to be a one-page-rules style effort given how easy it is to just remove stuff you don't want to play with yourself and how quickly someone (probably OPR themselves) will come out with a simple version anyway.
79481
Post by: Sarouan
Billicus wrote:
I don't know why you'd want the official GW rules to be a one-page-rules style effort given how easy it is to just remove stuff you don't want to play with yourself and how quickly someone (probably OPR themselves) will come out with a simple version anyway.
We don't want that. In term of game systems, there's not just these extremes. It's also possible to have a middle ground.
After all, GW did produce games like Epic 40k in the past. Here for LI, they chose an older version as base that was already known as complex and bloated, instead of posterior versions that were "lighter" in comparison.
We'll have the same Horus heresy issue : the game appeals to veterans (most of them having all what they need to play, anyway), but struggles to have new players because of well the game system being old and bloated, and thus doesn't sell that well in comparison to others - leading to a prophetized end with "it doesn't sell enough" as self-fulfilled justification.
Oh well. If it's fun for those passionnate enough to jump on the wagon, at least they'll have a good time for as long as it lasts.
86045
Post by: leopard
Sarouan wrote:Billicus wrote:
I don't know why you'd want the official GW rules to be a one-page-rules style effort given how easy it is to just remove stuff you don't want to play with yourself and how quickly someone (probably OPR themselves) will come out with a simple version anyway.
We don't want that. In term of game systems, there's not just these extremes. It's also possible to have a middle ground.
After all, GW did produce games like Epic 40k in the past. Here for LI, they chose an older version as base that was already known as complex and bloated, instead of posterior versions that were "lighter" in comparison.
We'll have the same Horus heresy issue : the game appeals to veterans (most of them having all what they need to play, anyway), but struggles to have new players because of well the game system being old and bloated, and thus doesn't sell that well in comparison to others - leading to a prophetized end with "it doesn't sell enough" as self-fulfilled justification.
Oh well. If it's fun for those passionnate enough to jump on the wagon, at least they'll have a good time for as long as it lasts.
"as long as it lasts"
well people still play the older editions and there is enough of a market to sustain several organisations providing alternative models so I guess that lasted.
GW appear to have gone back to older versions, largely for the nostalgia factor I suspect but also those versions did well enough to get an edition that followed, the more streamlined version essentially didn't
give it a year or two and will see where it all ends up
61850
Post by: Apple fox
I am really just not seeing that much complexity yet.
The only scare is the possibility for GW bloat. But at least now, I think it’s fairly reasonable and I don’t think it will take that long to go through a turn.
Off corse it’s also just a positive not to like the game itself, but that I do think is different from the design issues itself as of yet.
I also think they probably pick the heresy as it is a niche setting, so as not to take sales from 40K.
Not splitting the setting players to much, something that other 40K products tend to have is heavy cross compatibility.
86045
Post by: leopard
Pacific wrote:Take in mind that anyone commenting on this forum is, by default, really into their wargames and not a cross section of the broader wargaming demographic. So I'm attempting to view it in a wider context.
Putting a few page markers in a rulebook is fine for me, but I've had Necromunda campaigns fail because the guys playing, who only have a few hours free every few weeks, just couldn't get comfortable with the depth and complexity of the rules. We have ended up switching to One Page Rules, which employs USRs, but generally a max of one or two per unit and certainly not 8. You can fire a unit without having to refer to a weapons chart and check a loadout. I'm not saying that by any means Epic is as complex as Necromunda and we won't know for sure until it's released, but it sniffs of that design route rather than something like AoS which was (at least originally) designed as an easily accessible game.
Leopard - it's interesting you say that about 1st edition. I didn't play it myself but speaking to others they seem split on loving the granularity of 1st, hating the simplification that 2nd edition introduced, and visa-versa. I suppose ultimately there are different ways to skin a cat, and you'll come down on one side or another.
I preferred 1st edition as a game, however I can see why they did what they did with second - army building was easier as in 1st that started out as "take what you want, here are the detachments and here are the point costs" - later replaced by stuff you would only ever see if you had that specific WD issue. Though with 2nd lose a unit card and sucks to be you.
but then I also have a Flames of War Strelkovy force, the idea of moving lots of stuff about and fighting with them isn't a problem, especially as with infantry for most of the time they are not close enough to shoot anyway
and it is very much down to preference, 1st was slow if you had to keep looking stuff up, but as with most games when you didn't it was faster. while you had a lot of units you seldom had massive units ( IIRC Imperial Guard Tactical detachments were ten stands, and orks could have larger mobs, but most were smaller). quickly became "this tactical unit shoots at that, 4+ to a 3+ for range" (rolls six dice), "ok 2 hits, that sucks" (opponent rolls two saves) "yup passed both".
the idea that the to hit roll varied not only by weapon but by what you shot at was nice and something I liked, e.g. a laser cannon hit tanks on IIRC a 4+, but unarmoured targets on a 6+ (and hit rolls could go to 7+, 8+ or 9+ before 'sorry can't hit now' applied)
2nd was faster to play, e.g. removing infantry saves, but 1st wasn't slow, stuff died reasonably quickly still so what started as a lot of models quickly dropped.
IIRC I had 5k of Imperial Guard, largely infantry as it was cheaper and in plastic, and usually ran with 5k of Titans in larger games, again they were cheap and in plastic
I suspect "they were cheap" is sadly a thing of the past
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Lots of people here acting like games of 40k don't take 2 hours per turn specifically because each unit has 7 different weapon profiles to resolve.
26519
Post by: xttz
New updates from the leaker with playtest rules:
Accurate means you get to reroll failed hits.
AT means hits against infantry/cav are AP 0
Light AT means hits against Vehicles/SHV/Knights/Titans are AP 0 and can’t be allocated to Void Shields
Engine Killer only affects SHV/Knights/Titans and no you can’t assign excess wounds to other units in the detachment.
The Warlord Vulcan Megabolter Array gets 20 dice. However, it’s 5+ to hit and won’t have AP against Vehicles/SHV/Knights/Titans.
Implacable: A Detachment which contains one or more models with the Implacable special rule does not take Morale checks when they lose a Combat. Instead, the controlling player may choose if the Detachment Withdraws or not. An Engaged Implacable Detachment that does not Withdraw remains Engaged; if no models in the Detachment are in base to base contact with an enemy model, the Detachment does not move and is no longer Engaged.
Jink (X): Models with the Jink special rule gain an additional Save characteristic equal to the number shown in brackets, referred to as a Jink Save. Jink Saves are not modified by a weapon's AP characteristic, and cannot be taken if the target model has been issued a First Fire Order.
Steadfast: A model with the Steadfast special rule counts its Tactical Strength as one higher than normal (e.g., an Infantry model with the Steadfast special rule would have a Tactical Strength of 6). This rule is cumulative with other special rules (i.e., an Iron Warriors Legion Terminator model would have a Tactical Strength of 8 in certain circumstances thanks to the ‘The Bitter End' Legion special rule (see page 156)).
Flyer: Models with the Flyer special rule operate differently to other Detachments on the battlefield and are subject to the unique set of rules described below.
Unless instructed otherwise, Flyers are not deployed on the battlefield at the start of the battle and are instead placed in Reserve. Unless instructed otherwise, a model with the Flyer special rule that is in Reserve can only be issued with an Advance Order or a March Order. Any weapons with the Point Defence trait that the Flyer has count as having the Skyfire trait when firing upon an enemy model with the Flyer special rule.
When activated during the Movement phase, the controlling player places the Flyer so the rear of its base is touching a point on the controlling player's board edge or touching any board edge at a point within 8" of the controlling player's board edge. The Flyer then moves and can only move in a straight line. A Flyer can make a single turn of up to 90° during its movement. Flyers can move over any model or area of terrain during their movement. A Flyer can end its movement overlapping Impassable terrain.
Flyers fire as normal during the Combat phase. Due to their altitude, a Flyer is considered to have line of sight to all models on the battlefield, unless instructed otherwise. Similarly, all Detachments are considered to have line of sight to a Flyer. A Flyer suffers no penalties to Hit rolls for targeting obscured models, though they do suffer penalties for firing upon Detachments within an area of terrain as normal.
In the Remove Flyers stage of the End phase, all Flyers on the battlefield are removed and placed back in Reserve – they do not count as being destroyed and may return to the battlefield in the following round. Any Wounds a Flyer has suffered remain; for example, if it leaves the battlefield having suffered 2 Wounds, when it next returns it still has suffered 2 Wounds.
Due to the altitude a Flyer operates at, Flyers are ignored for the purposes of calculating who controls an Objective. Flyers do not have an Engagement Zone, cannot be Engaged and/or Pinned and do not block line of sight. As Flyers do not have an Engagement Zone, other models, friendly or enemy, can move through a Flyer's base and finish their move in base contact with it – while a model can end its move overlapping a Flyer's base, it is best to avoid this where possible.
Unless otherwise instructed, any model firing at a model with the Flyer special rule can only Hit on a natural roll of a 6, regardless of modifiers. If a weapon uses a template, such as the Flame template or the Blast template, a model with the Flyer special rule is ignored when calculating Hits unless the weapon also has the Skyfire trait.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Well glad to see something of the E:A AP/AT system remains.
86045
Post by: leopard
sounds reasonably good, however heavy weapons going to AT0 v squishy stuff is a missed opportunity to also make such weapons struggle to hit in the first place (or to show how a las cannon killing one guy in a squad likely doesn't stop the rest of the squad functioning)
like say "AT" means AP0 v infantry & cav, plus a -1 to hit.
light weapons not being able to allocate to shields makes me wonder if shields are back to what they used to, i.e. you have a set number of them, dropped in turn, or if they are going to be a shield save of some sort but that lighter stuff flat out cannot get through
34906
Post by: Pacific
So I'm assuming the Tactical Strength bit is going to be used for objective capture? Add up totals within a defined area and the highest score controls the objective?
Interesting contrast with SM 2nd, which just had a 'closest unit controls' rule for objectives. That game got away with having eight objectives as that was the only, simple, calculation you had to make. Be interesting how LI handles it, especially if you have then unit special rules (one of which above requires potentially two other rule references) on top of the general calculation. Automatically Appended Next Post: leopard wrote:sounds reasonably good, however heavy weapons going to AT0 v squishy stuff is a missed opportunity to also make such weapons struggle to hit in the first place (or to show how a las cannon killing one guy in a squad likely doesn't stop the rest of the squad functioning)
like say " AT" means AP0 v infantry & cav, plus a -1 to hit.
light weapons not being able to allocate to shields makes me wonder if shields are back to what they used to, i.e. you have a set number of them, dropped in turn, or if they are going to be a shield save of some sort but that lighter stuff flat out cannot get through
The way Titan Legions handled that was just to introduce a rule where only weapons with -1 TSM could strip titan shields - stopped masses of infantry fire (and Vulcan mega bolters) from cutting them down as happened in the initial SM 2nd edition. I guess that is just a slightly different way of achieving the same effect.
85057
Post by: vadersson
It seems like they are using some ideas from 40K, specifically 10th. No cost for weapon options, objective control points, etc. I really want to see more rules. I hope the JoyToy announcement was not todays heresy…
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Yeah, thinking the same thing.
It would be nice if they announced some of the AT and AI stuff thats moved from resin to plastic.
65284
Post by: Stormonu
Personally, rather than rolling for every single weapon, I'd rather see single attacks with different damage range bands.
The kratos might therefore have something like (just making up numbers) Range 20" +6 AT / Range 10" +10 AT, 2 attacks / Range 8" +10 AT,3 attacks
A leman russ (w/ battlecannon and heavy bolter sponsons) might look like Range 10" +4 AT / Range 8" +6 AT or +5 CAF (2 attacks)
That way you don't need to define and select each individual weapon (and which one its actually carrying); you simply make the attacks and assume the tank is grouping fire as efficiently as it can.
110083
Post by: skeleton
Terminators in epic armagedon did have 3 special rules and 3 weapons on ther entry.
special rules: Reinforced armour, Teleport, thick rear armour.
weapons: stormbolters, assault cannons, powerweapons,
and there where some more weapon special rules.
The baneblade had 5 weapon entry's but only one special rule : reinforced armour.
86045
Post by: leopard
 Stormonu wrote:Personally, rather than rolling for every single weapon, I'd rather see single attacks with different damage range bands.
The kratos might therefore have something like (just making up numbers) Range 20" +6 AT / Range 10" +10 AT, 2 attacks / Range 8" +10 AT,3 attacks
A leman russ (w/ battlecannon and heavy bolter sponsons) might look like Range 10" +4 AT / Range 8" +6 AT or +5 CAF (2 attacks)
That way you don't need to define and select each individual weapon (and which one its actually carrying); you simply make the attacks and assume the tank is grouping fire as efficiently as it can.
at which point you may as well not bother with models and just have generic counters with a firepower rating printed on them, part of what gives the game its flavour is specifically not doing that
horses for things horses run round of course but I quite like the idea that a Russ can blast its cannons at one thing while also firing the anti infantry stuff at something else, I also quite like the idea you could take more dedicated anti tank versions at a cost of weaker anti infantry firepower, something else that a generic 'firepower' system tends to omit. likewise how some weapons will be better against well armoured infantry in small numbers while others will be better against low armoured hordes - especially since we have power armour and non-power armoured infantry here
the trick is not giving one model the sort of number of profiles, and dice that 40k players love (looking at you Repulsor), but for say a predator having a main gun, side guns and maybe bolters works
8042
Post by: catbarf
leopard wrote:horses for things horses run round of course but I quite like the idea that a Russ can blast its cannons at one thing while also firing the anti infantry stuff at something else, I also quite like the idea you could take more dedicated anti tank versions at a cost of weaker anti infantry firepower, something else that a generic 'firepower' system tends to omit. likewise how some weapons will be better against well armoured infantry in small numbers while others will be better against low armoured hordes - especially since we have power armour and non-power armoured infantry here
the trick is not giving one model the sort of number of profiles, and dice that 40k players love (looking at you Repulsor), but for say a predator having a main gun, side guns and maybe bolters works
E:A did this pretty well. Each weapon was defined with AP, AT, AA, MW, or Barrage values and only required one roll to resolve. You could look at your statlines and figure out how many dice you need to roll, color-code dice as needed, do them all in one go, other player takes saves, done.
With LI, even just having to roll each weapon individually- since AP values will vary- is going to slow things down. I'm concerned that this system, while having a bit more crunch, takes after 40K in that on paper the mechanics all work fine but in practice may not be particularly quick to resolve.
26519
Post by: xttz
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/03/heresy-thursday-fire-support-and-remote-control-bombs-for-the-solar-auxilia/
New solar models, but the release of Epic has been delayed 
While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Again I'd like to see how players would make Terminators without the USRs. Would you just preferer a paragraph that states cant ride in rhinos, or should every vehicle list what it can hold? Terminators teleporting has always been a thing since Terminators were released way back in Rogue Trader. There are games with less USRs sure but units still then have a paragraph of special rules you have to track.
Stormonu wrote:
Personally, rather than rolling for every single weapon, I'd rather see single attacks with different damage range bands.
The kratos might therefore have something like (just making up numbers) Range 20" +6 AT / Range 10" +10 AT, 2 attacks / Range 8" +10 AT,3 attacks
A leman russ (w/ battlecannon and heavy bolter sponsons) might look like Range 10" +4 AT / Range 8" +6 AT or +5 CAF (2 attacks)
That way you don't need to define and select each individual weapon (and which one its actually carrying); you simply make the attacks and assume the tank is grouping fire as efficiently as it can.
This is a terrible idea, leaves no room for different weapons loadouts. They make a version of 40k Risk if that's what people are looking for.
I liked 2nd ed, but I like that now you can customize your vehicles a little bit more to make them either anti tank or anti infantry focused. I'm not sure what a lot of people who are complaining were looking for, or if they ever played EPIC. This isn't a chit based hex map Panzer General game. This isn't a whole front, like the siege of Stalingrad, this is one large battle using multiple companies comprised of separate and distinct units that each have a 40 year history of how they act and perform. If your units epic units don't feel like HH or 40k units.....whats the point? You don't want Terminators to feel like Terminators? Why bother with assault marines, or heavy weapons squads, there should just be Marine?
In first Ed infantry squads had bolters and special weapons....it was not that hard. I think that Terminators right now not having an autocannon shot is generic, but I'm ok with it, certainly not going to skip the game over it. I think Titans are going to be not nearly as fun as 2nd ed (we don't know for sure, but I don't like multiple wounds in epic), still won't get me to skip the game.
I think they have cut out a lot of good rules already to simplify the game almost too much. These rules didn't take tons of time, they didn't take tons of research. LI and 2nd ed lack a real morale system, when half a company gets wiped out in a turn I think it requires more than "3+ yep we are completely fine" Crossfire and Fire fight were great rules. I get GW is shy of those rules because they were in editions that didn't do well....but it wasn't those rules that people had problems with, thank god there isn't that stupid firepower rule.
I don't want the game to shrink like some of the later versions of Epic that were more detachment size really, but I don't want a generic game either.
As someone who had played all the versions of epic.....this is pretty much right in line with what to expect, if its not your cup of tea, then epic just isn't right for you, but that's not epic fault.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vadersson wrote:It seems like they are using some ideas from 40K, specifically 10th. No cost for weapon options, objective control points, etc. I really want to see more rules. I hope the JoyToy announcement was not todays heresy…
More like 10th got those options from epic, this is how epic has always been.
126443
Post by: Matrindur
The cyclops is interesting as it isn't in the leaks, so either those are incomplete or this box wasn't meant to be revealed yet and happened because the release was moved back
67795
Post by: RexHavoc
lord_blackfang wrote:Lots of people here acting like games of 40k don't take 2 hours per turn specifically because each unit has 7 different weapon profiles to resolve.
Which is why I ditched playing 40k to only play E40k.
xttz wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/03/heresy-thursday-fire-support-and-remote-control-bombs-for-the-solar-auxilia/
New solar models, but the release of Epic has been delayed
While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.
Ha. Whilst it being delayed doesn't affect most people that want to play the game, its going to take a hit as interest is going to drift to 3rd party models/older rules. Watch how they use this as the excuse not to give release dates again in the future- the old world will suddenly be released out of no where 
Oh well, bad luck for GW, good for vanguard. I guess this means I can go and make that order of a couple of thousand bases which I'd been holding off doing until I knew how much GW plastic I would end up getting.
49827
Post by: MajorWesJanson
Honestly, delay is a good thing for some budgets.
126443
Post by: Matrindur
Another strange thing is that the article says its 28 models, 12 Rapiers, 12 Tarantulas and 4 cyclops but the box shows 40 models? Also the cyclops isn't even shown on the box?
95318
Post by: SU-152
Andrew1975 wrote:Again I'd like to see how players would make Terminators without the USRs. Would you just preferer a paragraph that states cant ride in rhinos, or should every vehicle list what it can hold? Terminators teleporting has always been a thing since Terminators were released way back in Rogue Trader. There are games with less USRs sure but units still then have a paragraph of special rules you have to track.
Extremely easy:
instead of the Ward Save, +1 to the normal save and to CAF.
instead of the other 2 morale rules, +1 to morale.
remove bulky, and do like in 4th edition.
The rules of the weapons could have been avoided with an AP/ AT system, like 4th edition.
Just keep teleport.
Oh, and that way there's more difference in power with tacticals, which is extremely low (they are just slightly better tacticals - when they should be way way better than them).
26519
Post by: xttz
 Matrindur wrote:Another strange thing is that the article says its 28 models, 12 Rapiers, 12 Tarantulas and 4 cyclops but the box shows 40 models? Also the cyclops isn't even shown on the box?
The individual crew count as models. You have 12 rapiers with 12 extra crewmen to go on them.
95318
Post by: SU-152
Matrindur wrote:Another strange thing is that the article says its 28 models, 12 Rapiers, 12 Tarantulas and 4 cyclops but the box shows 40 models? Also the cyclops isn't even shown on the box?
28 + 12 extra crew = 40
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Nice to see a proper Mole Mortars return of old
52122
Post by: Mentlegen324
I was hoping the Leagues of Votann would get them, or at least they'd have their lore connected like originally. Can't see that happening now.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
I was hoping the Leagues of Votann would get them, or at least they'd have their lore connected like originally. Can't see that happening now.
Thudd Guns and Mole Mortars... The crew do seem taller than I'd like
Who knows, the Leagues may make an appearance in 30k in which case, oh boy, all bets are off on what they come up with
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
A delay is also much, much better than a botched launch that could very well kill the game before it even takes of, i'm happy to wait a few weeks to months instead of running into 'out of stock' immediately.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
SU-152 wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:Again I'd like to see how players would make Terminators without the USRs. Would you just preferer a paragraph that states cant ride in rhinos, or should every vehicle list what it can hold? Terminators teleporting has always been a thing since Terminators were released way back in Rogue Trader. There are games with less USRs sure but units still then have a paragraph of special rules you have to track.
Extremely easy:
instead of the Ward Save, +1 to the normal save and to CAF.
instead of the other 2 morale rules, +1 to morale.
remove bulky, and do like in 4th edition.
The rules of the weapons could have been avoided with an AP/ AT system, like 4th edition.
Just keep teleport.
Oh, and that way there's more difference in power with tacticals, which is extremely low (they are just slightly better tacticals - when they should be way way better than them).
I submit that those are poor and generic options. Plus you've just substituted USRs as AP and AT are USRs in anything but name, they just weren't refereed to as USRs. You've also now added clunky USRs to every single firing action.
Removing bulky and replacing with another rule is the same thing as having a USR. A USR is just a convenient reference to a rule.
So lets go over shall we
Accurate lets them rerolls missed hits, You didn't address this but you'd probably just make them +4 to hit...( I hate rerolls so I'm ok with that)
Assault we don't even know what that does yet
Light again don't know what that means yet, is not the same as light AT which is known
Bulky you would replace with another rule so at least with USR we have reference on the card.
Deep Strike you would Keep
Implacable and Steadfast you would replace with a +1 morale which lacks flavor and impact, besides I'm sure there may be other elite units that get +1 morale
You' get rid of the invol 6+ and just make them save 3+ Pretty much a wash percentage wise, one less die to roll.
But you would add at least 2 USRS in AT\ AP system.
So you would in effect get rid of 4 USRS that might be applicable to other units.....but you'd add 2, so still six and now they have less flavor.
Your way they are just tacticals with a few pips of stat difference, in LI they are very stubborn and act like elite unmovable rocks. Now they should get one more shot with their auto cannon, but they had to "Dummie it up for the hardheads" who would complain about too many weapons stats in one unit while also not having to make them substantially more expensive as you would effectively double thier shots and vastly improving one of those shots. I'm willing to concede those shots so I can have more stands. Terminators in EA are Monsters and feel like what they should be, but are super expensive, Im good with the current LI stats and price.
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
Sarouan wrote:Billicus wrote:
I don't know why you'd want the official GW rules to be a one-page-rules style effort given how easy it is to just remove stuff you don't want to play with yourself and how quickly someone (probably OPR themselves) will come out with a simple version anyway.
We don't want that. In term of game systems, there's not just these extremes. It's also possible to have a middle ground.
After all, GW did produce games like Epic 40k in the past. Here for LI, they chose an older version as base that was already known as complex and bloated, instead of posterior versions that were "lighter" in comparison.
We'll have the same Horus heresy issue : the game appeals to veterans (most of them having all what they need to play, anyway), but struggles to have new players because of well the game system being old and bloated, and thus doesn't sell that well in comparison to others - leading to a prophetized end with "it doesn't sell enough" as self-fulfilled justification.
Oh well. If it's fun for those passionnate enough to jump on the wagon, at least they'll have a good time for as long as it lasts.
2nd Epic was the most well received version of the game. When the other editions came out interest dwindled fast. Veterans like me love to see the game return with the Orders system, CAF melee and dedicated USR. Everybody who wants "Simplified but not simple" should try out 10th 40K instead. Automatically Appended Next Post: Apple fox wrote:I am really just not seeing that much complexity yet.
The only scare is the possibility for GW bloat. But at least now, I think it’s fairly reasonable and I don’t think it will take that long to go through a turn.
Off corse it’s also just a positive not to like the game itself, but that I do think is different from the design issues itself as of yet.
I also think they probably pick the heresy as it is a niche setting, so as not to take sales from 40K.
Not splitting the setting players to much, something that other 40K products tend to have is heavy cross compatibility.
How can there be bloat when there are only two factions in the game? Automatically Appended Next Post: Albertorius wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Four. The Kratos has four weapons.
Turret
Co-Axial Autocannon
Hull
Sponsons.
That’s it. If you’re overwhelmed by that, I don’t know what to say. Spesh as that’s a Heavy Tank, so most others are going to have Turret and Sponson only.
Six, if the hull and sponson weapons are actually stats for a single of them. And yes, it's a Heavy Tank... So? So is the Land Raider. And you could have oodles of those.
But the thing is that a detachment of those, even if they all shoot the same enemy detachment, will need four separate rolls to resolve, because each gun has a different to hit, a different armor penalty and different special rules.
To resolve shooting for a single detachment, out of how many? Each round?
Feels like way too fiddle for a game where I want to be the general commanding sweep movements and gak.
But to each their own. I'll keep playing other games, it's still cool to see new minis.
Also, I think portraying people that think that's excessive detail as being "overwhelmed" is purposefully misrepresenting the issue, here.
Then you should never play 40K, if you are repulsed by that. There you grab a bucket of dice and roll for hit, wound and saves. Epic makes you roll a couple of dice for hit rolls and the majority of targets evaporate when hit. Some may have saving throws. You make an elephant out of a mosquito.
87618
Post by: kodos
Tsagualsa wrote:
A delay is also much, much better than a botched launch that could very well kill the game before it even takes of, i'm happy to wait a few weeks to months instead of running into 'out of stock' immediately.
why do you think this won't be the case if it is delayed?
124786
Post by: tauist
Bummed about the launch getting postponed, I was really looking forward to it!
Oh well, at least the new KT21 season launches soon enough..
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Kill Team wasn't until Autumn.
83198
Post by: Gimgamgoo
Tsagualsa wrote:
A delay is also much, much better than a botched launch that could very well kill the game before it even takes of, i'm happy to wait a few weeks to months instead of running into 'out of stock' immediately.
Is the delay time to build up a bigger stock? Doubtful as that would mean sitting half a year awaiting reprints and shipping of the books/card material from china.
More likely it's to sort the feth up of warehouse moving.
Eg, my order from mid July of in-stock items is still 'pending' and usually it's only a day before despatch. I know they said there would be delays, but it's pushing two weeks now. I figure things are not going as smoothly in that move as GW expected.
81283
Post by: stonehorse
SU-152 wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:Again I'd like to see how players would make Terminators without the USRs. Would you just preferer a paragraph that states cant ride in rhinos, or should every vehicle list what it can hold? Terminators teleporting has always been a thing since Terminators were released way back in Rogue Trader. There are games with less USRs sure but units still then have a paragraph of special rules you have to track.
Extremely easy:
instead of the Ward Save, +1 to the normal save and to CAF.
instead of the other 2 morale rules, +1 to morale.
remove bulky, and do like in 4th edition.
The rules of the weapons could have been avoided with an AP/ AT system, like 4th edition.
Just keep teleport.
Oh, and that way there's more difference in power with tacticals, which is extremely low (they are just slightly better tacticals - when they should be way way better than them).
Agreed, thise seem sensible. I still think that infantry in Epic scaled games should not have access to the like of invulnerable saves... even Terminators. The weapons being used in such a scale are of city leveling power, infantry should not be able to survive such.
Again, people saying that thise of us are complaining about '8 special rules being too complex'. No one has made that claim, just that it seems a bit much, and there are better ways to do it. In Epic, unit statline and wargear statline is what should really be the thing used to make things different and stand out.
34899
Post by: Eumerin
A proper mole mortar is a four foot tube angled into the ground, with a bipod supporting the raised end, and a guy standing behind it with a hand-held control device.
I used to have a lone metal epic marine mole mortar that came as an extra random bit in a blister of something else (it was common to get a single random metal epic figure in an unrelated epic blister back in the day). I might still have it sitting somewhere, though I'm not sure I still have it.
Shame about the delay. I'm curious what the cause is. It must be pretty important if they'd announce it at this late of a date. Hopefully they can get it resolved swiftly, with a release next month.
81283
Post by: stonehorse
The delay is unfortunate, but it does allow me to save more money for it.
34899
Post by: Eumerin
Terminators had a 6+ invulnerable save in 2nd edition, as well. The rationale given was that flat ground on the table usually isn't perfectly flat in a real situation, with "small" (at this scale) otherwise seemingly inconsequential dips in the ground being big enough to conceal a man. That, coupled with the sheer toughness of the terminator suits, means that sometimes they narrowly escape what would be certain death for any other infantry.
124786
Post by: tauist
September is a lot closer than "early 2024"
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Sure, but September is just the start of Autumn. Do you realize how much stuff is slated for Autumn? Heck, we still haven't gotten the "slated for summer" Kill Team solo releases from Gallowfall.
1001
Post by: schoon
WarCom wrote:While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.
Given some of the confusion generated by a few of the preview articles, I'm wondering if they might be taking a second look at some of the components - unit cards and such.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
There was a note on the UK webstore that they're in the process of migrating warehouses, that's more likely than not the cause of the delay.
83198
Post by: Gimgamgoo
 Kanluwen wrote:There was a note on the UK webstore that they're in the process of migrating warehouses, that's more likely than not the cause of the delay.
As I mentioned a few posts above.
Just received an email about the order as well, which seems to confirm it's taking them longer than expected...
"Greetings Rogue Traders.
We are reaching out to you today regarding your recent mail order -XXXXXXXXXXX.
Due to recent improvements being made with our logistics facilities, we are experiencing a few delays beyond those that were advertised on our web store.
Please don’t worry, your order is safe in our system and will be processed again once the improvements have been completed.
We thank you for your continued patience and ask that you keep an eye
out on your emails for a dispatch confirmation to follow over the next few weeks. "
I guess I won't be reading that novel I ordered over my summer holidays. :-(
100848
Post by: tneva82
Tsagualsa wrote:
A delay is also much, much better than a botched launch that could very well kill the game before it even takes of, i'm happy to wait a few weeks to months instead of running into 'out of stock' immediately.
For more kits produced for launch would mean delay is quite long though.
34899
Post by: Eumerin
 schoon wrote:WarCom wrote:While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.
Given some of the confusion generated by a few of the preview articles, I'm wondering if they might be taking a second look at some of the components - unit cards and such.
That would require redesigning and reprinting the cards in question, which would probably push the release back until next year.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Funny how people think special rules needed for flavour. Gw marketing at work Automatically Appended Next Post: schoon wrote:WarCom wrote:While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.
Given some of the confusion generated by a few of the preview articles, I'm wondering if they might be taking a second look at some of the components - unit cards and such.
Gosh i hope not. I would like to see game before summer 24.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Booo. But, hopefully it’ll mean greater stock levels for launch?
Also rather liking the Solar Auxilia Support units. Rapiers and Tarantulas aren’t something I ever had in my 2nd Ed Armies, and we get a decent amount in this box.
34906
Post by: Pacific
A delay to allow you to get some games of Net Epic or Armageddon in beforehand, get some minis from Vanguard or 3D prints and get a head start!
66936
Post by: Vorian
tneva82 wrote:Funny how people think special rules needed for flavour. Gw marketing at work
I think the fan reaction to Epic 40k was the driver for GW's special rules focus, rather than the other way round.
We seem to be at E:A levels for USRs which is a nice level imo.
128124
Post by: Billicus
Likely just a delay to get copies to "influencers", I doubt it's going to make a meaningful difference for customers
1001
Post by: schoon
Regardless of the reason, I'm just hoping the delay is relatively short.
Fall is fine. Winter would be a harder wait.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Billicus wrote:Likely just a delay to get copies to "influencers", I doubt it's going to make a meaningful difference for customers
Most influencers probably already have them.
61286
Post by: drbored
A few things through the grapevine.
This weekend's collectible coin at Warhammer stores was supposed to be fore Legiones Imperialis (via a few store facebook pages and leaks).
Rumor is that the delay is due to the rulebook needing to be reprinted due to some politically charged quotes. I'm not here to start a political discussion, just sharing what's been shared in other places.
If they really did pull the product launch because of needing to reprint some troublesome material, I say kudos to GW. Better to put your best foot forward rather than try to correct something when it's already out in the wild.
In the meantime, we're still waiting on Tyranids, Space Marines, Cities of Sigmar, and a handful of other things. We've also heard NOTHING about Kill Team in some time, the store desperately needs to continue restocking a ton of supplies, and the warehouse move needs to finish.
And I know most of y'all got stuff to build and paint, so get to it.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Well if it's reprint of rulebook long wait ahead
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
That seems…unlikely. Anything sent to print would’ve been proofed and cleared well in advance. And it’s far from cheap to get it all reprinted.
61286
Post by: drbored
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:That seems…unlikely. Anything sent to print would’ve been proofed and cleared well in advance. And it’s far from cheap to get it all reprinted.
I mean, a little cost now better than a potential ****storm that could have come due to GW printing something really bad.
It would also imply them having to open up every single Legiones Imperialis starter box and swap the books out, which in and of itself is a logistics nightmare, especially when you're talking about doing that and trying to keep the delicate sprues within whole. If rushed, I foresee lots of people getting damaged boxes.
Printing speed isn't that bad. If I was GW I'd go to a US printing studio for speed (they've done it before. 9th ed Orks codex at least). If they got new books from China, we wouldn't be seeing LI until next summer.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Yet anything that bad would’ve been picked up during page setting, proofing etc?
As ever I’m not shooting the messenger here. Just kind of suspicious about the claim.
26519
Post by: xttz
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yet anything that bad would’ve been picked up during page setting, proofing etc?
As ever I’m not shooting the messenger here. Just kind of suspicious about the claim.
That main thing that lends credence to the rumour is that it was posted on the AT Discord hours before GW's official article. That indicates some truth to it.
Whatever the issue is, I have a feeling that GW found out a few weeks ago. In July we had a run of articles building up hype then there was a jarring week with next to no content. That fits with them spotting a problem and pausing the hype train while they figured out what to do. Hopefully that means they have a headstart on any needed reprints if that's what is needed.
86045
Post by: leopard
keep in mind "politically charged" is a moving target, something fine when all this was signed off, maybe a year ago, could easily have "unfortunate" meanings assigned by now
3309
Post by: Flinty
And putting any faith in GWs internal proof reading and editorial processes seems misguided at best.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
It's Heresy era stuff. What objectionable textual material could they have put in there that didn't show up in a Black Book before?
Feels like one of those so-big-we-can't-tell-you-how-big stories, that almost always end up bogus.
102719
Post by: Gert
The HH 2 rulebook used language that has been used by anti-trans people in the UK recently. An individual then wrote an open letter asking GW to make sure proofreaders had sensitivity training so that things like that wouldn't get printed.
People in turn did not read the letter, media outlets misrepresented or omitted important parts of the letter, and then the author got enough death threats and other unsavory things hurled at them that they had to contact the police.
The whole thing wouldn't have been an issue if one line hadn't been written, and in fact, had not been written in other GW publications for some time. There was no malice at all but it caused real hurt to real people.
I don't believe that is what is happening here but just some context as to why some might believe it.
26519
Post by: xttz
 His Master's Voice wrote:What objectionable textual material could they have put in there that didn't show up in a Black Book before?
There's some brand new fluff and artwork for the Solar Auxilia 1488th Cohort!
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Allowing for variance of telling?
I suppose this could be true, but not “and so we pulped all the copies” true.
As in prior to going to print, a late change was made, delaying overall delivery of the prints, with an expected shipping date being missed?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
xttz wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yet anything that bad would’ve been picked up during page setting, proofing etc?
As ever I’m not shooting the messenger here. Just kind of suspicious about the claim.
That main thing that lends credence to the rumour is that it was posted on the AT Discord hours before GW's official article. That indicates some truth to it.
Whatever the issue is, I have a feeling that GW found out a few weeks ago. In July we had a run of articles building up hype then there was a jarring week with next to no content. That fits with them spotting a problem and pausing the hype train while they figured out what to do. Hopefully that means they have a headstart on any needed reprints if that's what is needed.
There's a literal popout on the Warhammer Community site that was up talking about the delay hours before the article as well.
34899
Post by: Eumerin
I'm *highly* skeptical. Changing something in the rulebook is not a quick task. This close to release, everything should be set in stone, unless something on the level of Mein Kampf quotes is discovered in the rules. Further, I wouldn't expect to see the game out until next year at the earliest, while the issue was resolved and the new rulebooks were printed. But the delay announcement explicitly states that the game is still on track for this year.
Barring actual evidence to the contrary, I'm currently inclined to stick with the theory that the delay is connected to the warehouse move.
181
Post by: gorgon
As someone who's worked in publishing and advertising, let me assure you that mistakes can get through no matter how many people review it and no matter how many times it's checked. But it sounds like this isn't actually about something a proofer would find anyway. Sounds like something the writer and editor just didn't realize could be interpreted in an offensive way relating to something real-world. Given the nature of the 30k/ 40K universe, it's surprising it doesn't happen more often.
61286
Post by: drbored
Kanluwen wrote: xttz wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yet anything that bad would’ve been picked up during page setting, proofing etc?
As ever I’m not shooting the messenger here. Just kind of suspicious about the claim.
That main thing that lends credence to the rumour is that it was posted on the AT Discord hours before GW's official article. That indicates some truth to it.
Whatever the issue is, I have a feeling that GW found out a few weeks ago. In July we had a run of articles building up hype then there was a jarring week with next to no content. That fits with them spotting a problem and pausing the hype train while they figured out what to do. Hopefully that means they have a headstart on any needed reprints if that's what is needed.
There's a literal popout on the Warhammer Community site that was up talking about the delay hours before the article as well.
tbf, I originally heard this rumor two days ago, so it's definitely something that got floated before the official announcement.
But yeah, I don't mind if it's real or not either way. We sadly just won't know if 'later this year' means September or December or next year...
No matter what happened, it's likely that it wasn't an easy decision to come to, and I'm sure they'll continue to drip-feed us with LI stuff over the next few months leading up to it.
Would love to see them reveal some more esoteric stuff in the meantime. Dracosan tanks for solar auxilia, Falchions for astartes, maybe we finally see a Nightgaunt for titans.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
You can datamine the GW site to find this stuff.
81283
Post by: stonehorse
leopard wrote:keep in mind "politically charged" is a moving target, something fine when all this was signed off, maybe a year ago, could easily have "unfortunate" meanings assigned by now
Sounds about right, if it is what I suspect it to be, I'd wager in less than 2 years time that 'politically charged' passage will be a total nothing-burger.
85326
Post by: Arbitrator
Guess we'll know depending on how long the delay is.
If it's just a few weeks it won't have been enough time for them to reprint and cram them into the boxes. The article did still say it was 'very soon'.
Plus it feels like it would be very expensive in print costs and manhours for a potential controversy that would blow over in a few weeks anyway.
1464
Post by: Breotan
drbored wrote:Rumor is that the delay is due to the rulebook needing to be reprinted due to some politically charged quotes.
I'd sooner believe it was some sort of production error such as the wrong barcode appearing on a box so the boxes have to be reprinted.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
As I speculated, it could be a late change to the pages before printing. If so, it wouldn’t lead to extra cost or pulping, reboxing etc. But if the printhouse was rammed with jobs? It could mean the window was missed, causing a delay to GW receiving the finished goods.
Or, this is all part and parcel of their warehouse moving locations, and them needing some breathing space. Which if I’m honest, I think it much more likely as the reason.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
leopard wrote:sounds reasonably good, however heavy weapons going to AT0 v squishy stuff is a missed opportunity to also make such weapons struggle to hit in the first place (or to show how a las cannon killing one guy in a squad likely doesn't stop the rest of the squad functioning)
like say " AT" means AP0 v infantry & cav, plus a -1 to hit.
light weapons not being able to allocate to shields makes me wonder if shields are back to what they used to, i.e. you have a set number of them, dropped in turn, or if they are going to be a shield save of some sort but that lighter stuff flat out cannot get through
Wouldn't it have just been easier to give weapons an anti-material and anti-personnel value to represent variations in performance vs different targets, rather than giving exception based special rules to these weapons? I believe this is actually how one edition of epic functioned. Its mystifying to me that they didn't do that here.
61286
Post by: drbored
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As I speculated, it could be a late change to the pages before printing. If so, it wouldn’t lead to extra cost or pulping, reboxing etc. But if the printhouse was rammed with jobs? It could mean the window was missed, causing a delay to GW receiving the finished goods.
Or, this is all part and parcel of their warehouse moving locations, and them needing some breathing space. Which if I’m honest, I think it much more likely as the reason.
Yeah, that's all fair.
My hope is that we do see some releases coming up, because outside of Leviathan it's been pretty slow.
20062
Post by: RobertDD
 Breotan wrote:drbored wrote:Rumor is that the delay is due to the rulebook needing to be reprinted due to some politically charged quotes.
I'd sooner believe it was some sort of production error such as the wrong barcode appearing on a box so the boxes have to be reprinted.
I immediately was thinking box modifications, but not for a wrong barcode, but because the boxes list “40 models” when they only contain 28 models.
We now know that “model” is an actual defined term in the context of this game, meaning one stand of figures. So advertising 40 models when a box contains just 28 stands, is a little disingenuous. The discrepancies will be much worse on the infantry boxes. Imagine a mother buying her son a box that says 100 models, and upon opening it only contains 20 models. I see false advertising claims in GWs future.
To avoid issues, I think these boxes need to be stickered or re-printed.
133503
Post by: hams
RobertDD wrote: Breotan wrote:drbored wrote:Rumor is that the delay is due to the rulebook needing to be reprinted due to some politically charged quotes.
I'd sooner believe it was some sort of production error such as the wrong barcode appearing on a box so the boxes have to be reprinted.
I immediately was thinking box modifications, but not for a wrong barcode, but because the boxes list “40 models” when they only contain 28 models.
We now know that “model” is an actual defined term in the context of this game, meaning one stand of figures. So advertising 40 models when a box contains just 28 stands, is a little disingenuous. The discrepancies will be much worse on the infantry boxes. Imagine a mother buying her son a box that says 100 models, and upon opening it only contains 20 models. I see false advertising claims in GWs future.
To avoid issues, I think these boxes need to be stickered or re-printed.
To confuse things even more.. the footnote said this ... "* The box actually contains 40 miniatures in total, but several of them combine to make 28 game pieces – which are known as miniatures in the Legions Imperialis rules." ... so now the word miniature means a stand too. There seems no words left to describe the actual minis that go on the base. Figurines I guess. Automatically Appended Next Post: drbored wrote:A few things through the grapevine.
Rumor is that the delay is due to the rulebook needing to be reprinted due to some politically charged quotes. I'm not here to start a political discussion, just sharing what's been shared in other places.
If that's the reason, I wouldn't mind if they release the other boxes that were planned like the Support boxes, the Thunderhawk, or the Knights, or Titans... I could get started building and painting early....
61286
Post by: drbored
Yeah, would be nice if they could at least bring back the reboxed Titanicus and Aeronautica stuff since those are games that exist still despite everything.
128093
Post by: twentypence
hams wrote:To confuse things even more.. the footnote said this ... "* The box actually contains 40 miniatures in total, but several of them combine to make 28 game pieces – which are known as miniatures in the Legions Imperialis rules." ... so now the word miniature means a stand too. There seems no words left to describe the actual minis that go on the base. Figurines I guess.
There’s 12 Rapiers, 12 Tarantulas, and 4 Cyclopes, making 28 game pieces.
And the Rapier has two crew, with 12 crew in the box making 40 figures… so only half of the Rapiers can be crewed?
126443
Post by: Matrindur
twentypence wrote:hams wrote:To confuse things even more.. the footnote said this ... "* The box actually contains 40 miniatures in total, but several of them combine to make 28 game pieces – which are known as miniatures in the Legions Imperialis rules." ... so now the word miniature means a stand too. There seems no words left to describe the actual minis that go on the base. Figurines I guess.
There’s 12 Rapiers, 12 Tarantulas, and 4 Cyclopes, making 28 game pieces.
And the Rapier has two crew, with 12 crew in the box making 40 figures… so only half of the Rapiers can be crewed?
The Rapier stand has two miniatures on each base, one is the gun itself together with the operator, the other is the second guy thats standing next to it.
So 24 miniatures on 12 rapier bases.
They should have really kept the name stand for the bases so they could use miniatures for the models in them. No idea why they changed that
132327
Post by: Greenfield
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As I speculated, it could be a late change to the pages before printing. If so, it wouldn’t lead to extra cost or pulping, reboxing etc. But if the printhouse was rammed with jobs? It could mean the window was missed, causing a delay to GW receiving the finished goods.
Or, this is all part and parcel of their warehouse moving locations, and them needing some breathing space. Which if I’m honest, I think it much more likely as the reason.
They would have known about anything like that long before now, since books and boxes would have needed to arrive months ago for assembly into completed boxes, ready for onward shipping to the US, Australia, etc.
128093
Post by: twentypence
Matrindur wrote:
The Rapier stand has two miniatures on each base, one is the gun itself together with the operator, the other is the second guy thats standing next to it.
So 24 miniatures on 12 rapier bases.
They should have really kept the name stand for the bases so they could use miniatures for the models in them. No idea why they changed that
Ah, I’d completely missed that the gunner and rapier were part of the same miniature, that makes a lot more sense now.
Thanks!
86045
Post by: leopard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:leopard wrote:sounds reasonably good, however heavy weapons going to AT0 v squishy stuff is a missed opportunity to also make such weapons struggle to hit in the first place (or to show how a las cannon killing one guy in a squad likely doesn't stop the rest of the squad functioning)
like say " AT" means AP0 v infantry & cav, plus a -1 to hit.
light weapons not being able to allocate to shields makes me wonder if shields are back to what they used to, i.e. you have a set number of them, dropped in turn, or if they are going to be a shield save of some sort but that lighter stuff flat out cannot get through
Wouldn't it have just been easier to give weapons an anti-material and anti-personnel value to represent variations in performance vs different targets, rather than giving exception based special rules to these weapons? I believe this is actually how one edition of epic functioned. Its mystifying to me that they didn't do that here.
that is essentially how first edition worked, there was a table of weapon stats to use when firing at squishies and another for firing at solid stuff, the latter having far fewer weapon entries as all the stuff like bolters etc flat out could not hurt heavier stuff, and it worked quite nicely.
However GW doesn't seem to like the idea of a generic weapon carried by multiple things, hence things getting individual profiles which can be varied unit by unit
it was however a very effective way to do this, you could even expand it slightly to have a third "titanic" target type where some lighter AT weapons either cannot hurt or have yet another profile
36
Post by: Moopy
xttz wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/03/heresy-thursday-fire-support-and-remote-control-bombs-for-the-solar-auxilia/
New solar models, but the release of Epic has been delayed
"Ah Logistics, my ancient enemy, we meet again."
~Games Workshop
133382
Post by: ThePaintingOwl
chaos0xomega wrote:Wouldn't it have just been easier to give weapons an anti-material and anti-personnel value to represent variations in performance vs different targets, rather than giving exception based special rules to these weapons? I believe this is actually how one edition of epic functioned. Its mystifying to me that they didn't do that here.
Yep, and I have no idea why they didn't do it that way. They already had examples from both earlier editions of Epic and the 8th edition Apocalypse expansion so it's not like it's an idea GW is unaware of. The only thing I can think of is that the Light trait has some rules significance beyond having an AT value of N/A, such as a rule that only Light weapons can fire within melee range.
26519
Post by: xttz
Can we please not derail this thread into yet another online debate about free speech and what people should or should not find offensive.
I'm here for the tiny models, not political hot takes from Facebook.
34906
Post by: Pacific
In response to Xttz, here here..
Anyway - The FB groups have had massive uptakes of volumes of new members over recent weeks.
As there is a delay I've tried to help push people towards Vanguard miniatures and some of the Community rules efforts - let them know there is an Epic ecosphere other than the one which is about to come from GW.
For Vanguard at least, I'm guessing their sales might have taken a big hit as I am sure almost everyone uses their stuff for proxies (even though they do have their own game and setting now) and most will be waiting for the new LI release - so hopefully might push a couple of restless potential new Epic players their way.
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
Disappointed in the delay, but it gives me more time to finish all that Civitas Imperialis Sector scenery I've got lying around (take that!, pile of shame) and repaint some of my old minis that will hopefully pass muster with the new stuff (FW versions of the super-heavies might be near enough).
Hopefully, 'later' means September.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Have flagged to the mods for a clean up.
Still a bit disappointed we’re not getting any GenCon content from GW. Would’ve been cool to show off a little more, perhaps a demo game.
Keen to see the artillery made available to Solar Auxilia. We’ve seen some for Heresy, such as the Basilisk and Medusa, but based on the Leman Russ chassis. This scale gives more freedom to go a bit crazy with designs.
For instance, 28mm isn’t particularly conducive to say, Super Heavy Artillery. But it could fit quite nicely in 6/7/8mm scale, where ludicrous ranges can mean something.
Likewise, the Deathstrike is far more at home in Epic.
86045
Post by: leopard
Pacific wrote:In response to Xttz, here here..
Anyway - The FB groups have had massive uptakes of volumes of new members over recent weeks.
As there is a delay I've tried to help push people towards Vanguard miniatures and some of the Community rules efforts - let them know there is an Epic ecosphere other than the one which is about to come from GW.
For Vanguard at least, I'm guessing their sales might have taken a big hit as I am sure almost everyone uses their stuff for proxies (even though they do have their own game and setting now) and most will be waiting for the new LI release - so hopefully might push a couple of restless potential new Epic players their way.
I've got some of the Vanguard stuff here, and while I now have a 3d printer I have to say the Vanguard stuff is very nice, and hopefully if they feel the need to adjust the scale and then offer either/or for the ranges they are excellent, and even with a printer I can see getting more infantry from them
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Can you not just print at 110% or whatever size?
As ever I don’t know much about the ins and outs, but my mate with the right kit has been able to resizograph kits with little fuss?
86045
Post by: leopard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Have flagged to the mods for a clean up.
Still a bit disappointed we’re not getting any GenCon content from GW. Would’ve been cool to show off a little more, perhaps a demo game.
Keen to see the artillery made available to Solar Auxilia. We’ve seen some for Heresy, such as the Basilisk and Medusa, but based on the Leman Russ chassis. This scale gives more freedom to go a bit crazy with designs.
For instance, 28mm isn’t particularly conducive to say, Super Heavy Artillery. But it could fit quite nicely in 6/7/8mm scale, where ludicrous ranges can mean something.
Likewise, the Deathstrike is far more at home in Epic.
the old deathstrike rules where the thing was a cruise missile were good, dice for how far it went with a chance of going no further so longer ranges were a bit more of a risk.
Do hope though that unlike Space Marine this time around they stick to the scale, they can make "OMG thats huge" these days so its perfectly possible and fits much better with how terrain and line of sight is handled
with the release delay of the boxed set (and for whatever reason I'm happy with a delay over a problem later) it at least gives me time to sort some seriously small marines out to go with the already printed & painted armour. and while I cannot see GW doing it, actually releasing some of the expansion boxes ahead of the boxed set "to give you time to get the built and painted", with enough info to make legal units would be nice Automatically Appended Next Post: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Can you not just print at 110% or whatever size?
As ever I don’t know much about the ins and outs, but my mate with the right kit has been able to resizograph kits with little fuss?
for the ones I have, designed for 6mm it was quite simple to upscale and they printed out just fine, I would guess that Vanguard are 3d printing masters for making metals from so likely not a huge issue, just the usual time and manpower so its demand based and likely needs the actual GW kits in hand to check it all works visually
81283
Post by: stonehorse
The delay could also give GW the opportunity to drum up more interest, as they can release more info and previews to fill the time... which might help sales.
Hobby burn our from the constant barrage of new shiny models is a real thing, and can put people off, so a slight slow down os a nice change of pace.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
stonehorse wrote:The delay could also give GW the opportunity to drum up more interest, as they can release more info and previews to fill the time... which might help sales.
Hobby burn our from the constant barrage of new shiny models is a real thing, and can put people off, so a slight slow down os a nice change of pace.
Could also be a rammed release slate. I mean, in the coming months we’ve Space Marines and Tyranids, we’re promised more stuff for Heresy, and Legions Imperialis.
A quick shunt around of the schedule may be to space it out a bit? Not only does that help our individual pockets, but for Stores and GW helps avoid a big takings month they’d struggle to match next year in terms of Like For Like Sales and the measurement thereof.
28481
Post by: StraightSilver
I would imagine the announced delay is somehow related to the scheduled move to the new distribution hub and warehouse. i suspect something may have gone awry it might impact planned releases and Legions Imperialis was the one they felt safest to delay?
4716
Post by: Patriarch
I'm glad they are doing a "rules only" pack, which is probably what I'll go for. With my piles of older epic stuff, I have no desire to upscale the actual models. No interest in the solar auxillia, and I can print off counts-as for anything new which has appeared for the marines since.
CAF+4 looks a bit low for Terminators. That's only as good as a second stand of human grunts (CAF+D6). I'm pretty sure 5 Terminators should be able to handle 10 (or even 20) regular humans in a fight without breaking a sweat.
41390
Post by: Fugazi
The simplest explanation (the one with fewest theoretical guesses) is often the best.
My head says logistics/warehousing. My heart says datacard redesign
102719
Post by: Gert
Better to delay a side game than anything 40k or even AoS related.
52897
Post by: Ignispacium
The delay gives me time to put funds aside for this, and I'm impressed so far with everything I've seen.
Now, depending on how well produced this launch box is, there might be a lot of wisdom in just purchasing the rules and buying the sprues from the box from resellers.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Side game, sir?
SIDE GAME?!
41390
Post by: Fugazi
I read this in Howard Moon’s voice
(Julian Barratt’s character from Mighty Boosh…I have no idea if that’s an esoteric reference these days or what)
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Today is a sad day.
We have someone in the Barbie thread saying Rocky Horror Picture Show isn’t a good film. And now…..this betrayal
Woe, woe and thrice woe.
So much woe, it’s starting to sound like an Offspring record from the hit parade!
7375
Post by: BrookM
Okay, warnings have been issued and I think I got all of it plus the quotes that were quoting the bits that really didn't need to go here. If I missed a quote or something, pretty please with extra sticky napalm on top, do not re-quote it, but report it.
That said, let's stay on topic now, I am as excited as you guys for this and the delay is a sad thing, but let's stay on target and take all the other bants (is that still a word or am I showing my age now?) regarding third party alternatives, the joy of soon owning even more tanks (if tank legions are a thing, I am in!), but in a tinier format and whatever else to a thread of its own, okay kids?
Cheers! 👊🏻
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
The delay is alleged to be related to the books, influencers were instructed to send them back and keep the miniatures. It would seem the re-printing of the books is what's going to delay the release window to later in the year. No, this is not a troll, this is reliable information. HH 2.0 had a few small errors or inconsistencies between different language printings. In this case, stuff like upgrade costs were not properly accounted for for infantry and unit cards did not match the stats/costs in the book for some units. If its big enough to require the delay its pervasive enough to mean a faq/errata wouldn't be sufficient. If its bad enough for them take the hit of having to re-print books. At least we'll get a better book in the end so that's silver lining. hoping we don't have to wait too long.
86045
Post by: leopard
 Crablezworth wrote:The delay is alleged to be related to the books, influencers were instructed to send them back and keep the miniatures. It would seem the re-printing of the books is what's going to delay the release window to later in the year. No, this is not a troll, this is reliable information. HH 2.0 had a few small errors or inconsistencies between different language printings. In this case, stuff like upgrade costs were not properly accounted for for infantry and unit cards did not match the stats/costs in the book for some units. If its big enough to require the delay its pervasive enough to mean a faq/errata wouldn't be sufficient. If its bad enough for them take the hit of having to re-print books. At least we'll get a better book in the end so that's silver lining.
they need to add the bit about paying points for upgrades in that they "forgot" to include...
actual reprint suggests its more than a page or two being wrong that could be corrected with an insert in the box & book, even stuff like incorrect ISBN or barcode would require a reprint, but the recall from those who already have it suggests a content error thats quite bad. I doubt it will be fluff text related.
but then it could be something laughably trivial, like someone forgetting to update the contents & index so all the page number references are wrong, one of those gun-foot-aim-fire embarrassing things.
either way I'd hope they take the chance to do a reasonably careful read through
reprint means someone has the fun job of opening, repackaging and resealing all the boxes too, I do not envy them, especially as how the book tends to be under all the sprues.
there is an upside to all this, someone spotted something ahead of the actual release and there was a chance to do something about it, we will probably find out what, and maybe who at some point (if it was an "influencer" they either know or would likely copy the book prior to returning, but will I guess be carefully looking for whatever now before sending it back). Says a fair bit that GW are wanting the previous ones back too.
wondering if if could be something more "business critical", e.g. there are pictures of things that are not meant to be released yet?
126443
Post by: Matrindur
Crablezworth wrote:The delay is alleged to be related to the books, influencers were instructed to send them back and keep the miniatures. It would seem the re-printing of the books is what's going to delay the release window to later in the year. No, this is not a troll, this is reliable information. HH 2.0 had a few small errors or inconsistencies between different language printings. In this case, stuff like upgrade costs were not properly accounted for for infantry and unit cards did not match the stats/costs in the book for some units. If its big enough to require the delay its pervasive enough to mean a faq/errata wouldn't be sufficient. If its bad enough for them take the hit of having to re-print books. At least we'll get a better book in the end so that's silver lining. hoping we don't have to wait too long.
Since influencers already have them I wonder if and how long it will be until we get more leaks. Modelwise there shouldn't be more in the book than the old leak already showed but ruleswise there is still much to show and I don't believe there won't be a someone who can't hold back if it still takes more than a month.
34899
Post by: Eumerin
leopard wrote:
but then it could be something laughably trivial, like someone forgetting to update the contents & index so all the page number references are wrong, one of those gun-foot-aim-fire embarrassing things.
IIRC, the first edition of Team Yankee had that issue.
86045
Post by: leopard
Eumerin wrote:leopard wrote:
but then it could be something laughably trivial, like someone forgetting to update the contents & index so all the page number references are wrong, one of those gun-foot-aim-fire embarrassing things.
IIRC, the first edition of Team Yankee had that issue.
and the "United Soviet Socialist Republic"
which is borderline a tripwire thing that someone forgot to take out
In no way shape or form have I ever forgotten to update a contents or index and have anyone notice
128124
Post by: Billicus
TBF that was a common term for the USSR in the west in the 70s/80s, which is when TY is set.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Ah well at least if that's the case it was spotted in time. Much better than the alternative of a day-one FAQ release.
In the meantime, if you are bored and got an Epic itch that cannot be sated, please check out this thread which has a bunch of info on free rulesets, the different Epic communities and where to get Epic-usable minis
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
And if you're already collecting at the scale, this is a kind of shared project log of people's ongoing work, down in the heavily shadowed nether-regions of the forum
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750/791159.page#11575492
128124
Post by: Billicus
The book is still bound to be full of issues or get FAQ'd into uselessness within a few weeks anyway because it's GW.
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
The previews might be just on 'Heresy Thursday' as they slow down the teases from here on in, which a bit of a let down after all the build up 'til now. I was hoping we'd see a bit more detail on how the super heavies act and take damage in this version.
86045
Post by: leopard
Billicus wrote:TBF that was a common term for the USSR in the west in the 70s/80s, which is when TY is set.
though Battlefront did correct in in other books
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:Wouldn't it have just been easier to give weapons an anti-material and anti-personnel value to represent variations in performance vs different targets, rather than giving exception based special rules to these weapons? I believe this is actually how one edition of epic functioned. Its mystifying to me that they didn't do that here.
Yep, and I have no idea why they didn't do it that way. They already had examples from both earlier editions of Epic and the 8th edition Apocalypse expansion so it's not like it's an idea GW is unaware of. The only thing I can think of is that the Light trait has some rules significance beyond having an AT value of N/A, such as a rule that only Light weapons can fire within melee range.
Well, we already have people complaining that the game is too granular and units have too many weapons profiles. I can kind of see it both ways. In first edition a marine squad got bolter shots but also melta shots, the melta was short ranged, but you still got two shots which would maybe mean you have to make the stands more expensive? In epic Id rather have lots of units, at least the basic ones, so keeping them cheap is good to my eyes. There are lots of little things that have been paired away from epic out of simplicity, which I find annoying.
87618
Post by: kodos
So doing a re-print of the books, depending on what was wrong and how much work need to be done before it goes to the printer, we talk about 3-6 months
So end of 2023 if nothing else goes wrong
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
 kodos wrote:So doing a re-print of the books, depending on what was wrong and how much work need to be done before it goes to the printer, we talk about 3-6 months
So end of 2023 if nothing else goes wrong
If it’s true, not necessarily. The issues could’ve been picked up ages ago, and there’s just a week or two delay in the printshop getting the goods to GW.
26519
Post by: xttz
Yeah if the issues were first reported by content creators getting review copies then GW may have known up to a month ago and have a headstart.
There was a strange pause in Epic hype on WarCom in mid-July when articles totally stopped for a few days, that may have been them finding out and deciding what to do next.
87618
Post by: kodos
If the issue was discovered ages ago, there would have been no reason to announce the original release date and than delay it later
Also the "strange gap" would indicate that it was discovered after the first announcement
Than they were looking into which solution is best, decided on that and communicated that the release is delayed
But without a new date/month which could mean they don't know yet for sure
So at best they have a month done from the 3-6 it might take, worst would be it is just a few days
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
kodos wrote:If the issue was discovered ages ago, there would have been no reason to announce the original release date and than delay it later
Also the "strange gap" would indicate that it was discovered after the first announcement
Than they were looking into which solution is best, decided on that and communicated that the release is delayed
But without a new date/month which could mean they don't know yet for sure
So at best they have a month done from the 3-6 it might take, worst would be it is just a few days
Again, not necessarily.
Any issue with the book could’ve been discovered a while back, and a new printing ordered. But if that printing is delayed? The launch is delayed. And that delay could be done to any number of things, from plates delayed, binding being dodgy, slow delivery etc.
I’m not saying “therefore this is what happened”, just offering other thoughts and possibilities.
1464
Post by: Breotan
I'm not sure how long this was known, but the fact that they switched to a Ghur coin and are providing older, existing miniatures for August shows that they are scrambling to reschedule the release.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/04/return-to-ghur-with-this-months-free-coin-and-miniature/
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
We’ve seen coins rejigged at short notice. Most notably when the Eldar one never saw the light of day, as they were seemingly used as bait to help firmly identify a thief, or at least online auctions/sales selling GW and FW stuff that was definitely nicked, as never going on general release, they couldn’t have been obtained by legitimate means.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
We've also seen situations where the assumption is that the coin was delayed and the model wasn't or whatever. Remember that Dawnbringers Book II is supposed to be a "big deal" for Orruk Warclans.
Most notably when the Eldar one never saw the light of day, as they were seemingly used as bait to help firmly identify a thief, or at least online auctions/sales selling GW and FW stuff that was definitely nicked, as never going on general release, they couldn’t have been obtained by legitimate means.
They did put the Aeldari coin out later on. It wasn't announced, but my local GW had them to hand out.
98762
Post by: RazorEdge
There is also a rumor about qualiity issues with the Infantry Sprues - maybe something about those "Tabs" between the Legs?
87618
Post by: kodos
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: kodos wrote:If the issue was discovered ages ago, there would have been no reason to announce the original release date and than delay it later
Also the "strange gap" would indicate that it was discovered after the first announcement
Than they were looking into which solution is best, decided on that and communicated that the release is delayed
But without a new date/month which could mean they don't know yet for sure
So at best they have a month done from the 3-6 it might take, worst would be it is just a few days
Again, not necessarily.
Any issue with the book could’ve been discovered a while back, and a new printing ordered. But if that printing is delayed? The launch is delayed. And that delay could be done to any number of things, from plates delayed, binding being dodgy, slow delivery etc.
I’m not saying “therefore this is what happened”, just offering other thoughts and possibilities.
I agree that there are more possibilities but it is unlikely that the error was discovered early but than still send to influencer without adding that there is a reprint on the way or that this is not the final book
722
Post by: Kanluwen
RazorEdge wrote:There is also a rumor about qualiity issues with the Infantry Sprues - maybe something about those "Tabs" between the Legs?
That feels a bit more like wishlisting, since there were some really upset about those and the rumor cropped up immediately afterwards.
86262
Post by: MaxT
There’s no way in heck they’ve known about this for weeks/months. All the marketing has been building up to a preorder announcement this or next Sunday.
3309
Post by: Flinty
MaxT wrote:There’s no way in heck they’ve known about this for weeks/months. All the marketing has been building up to a preorder announcement this or next Sunday.
Its not that far fetched. I can see them trying to keep to an original release schedule as far as possible, but not quite being able to make it.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Gak happens. Fixing it before release is waaaaay better than after release.
61286
Post by: drbored
Yeah, we could speculate till the cow's come home but without an official notice or report, it's unlikely we'll ever know the truth or timeline of the matter (until one of the LI designers retires from GW and goes onto the Painting Phase podcast or something to reveal all several years from now).
For now, we wait, hope we get some further leaks and reveals. I'd love to see a Thunderhawk Transporter, Ordinatus, and other tanks and things revealed as coming to the game. Maybe it'll mean a bigger and faster supporting product launch after the launch box? Could be a good thing for those that gotta have it all.
26519
Post by: xttz
I'd love to see Stormbirds, Rapier scout titans, and Mechanicum some time next year.
Though my biggest wish is just that the core infantry boxes are released in an affordable way. Marines look like around 100pts per sprue, which is gonna add up quickly if they're something like two for £30.
128093
Post by: twentypence
Interesting to see if they remembered to edit the Sunday preview video this time
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Strg Alt wrote:
Then you should never play 40K, if you are repulsed by that. There you grab a bucket of dice and roll for hit, wound and saves. Epic makes you roll a couple of dice for hit rolls and the majority of targets evaporate when hit. Some may have saving throws. You make an elephant out of a mosquito.
I do not play 40k anymore already.
3309
Post by: Flinty
Good grief Albertorious… at least drop some spoiler tags in there or something
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Flinty wrote:Good grief Albertorious… at least drop some spoiler tags in there or something
On it xd, Im travelling and the phone is not the greatest for that ^^
61286
Post by: drbored
Remember: The warcom marketing team gets told things LAST out of anyone in the chain of command.
It's very possible that they were told, months ago "here's your hype schedule and the articles we need" and then just last week were told "oh by the way change the release date" even if the decision was made well before then to change the release date.
It's happened plenty of times and these frustrations are documented from people that actually worked for the warcom team, even for big releases, misinformation issues, or other details.
So yeah, we wont know when epic releases until they announce a new release date, and it could be for any number of reasons.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
It's the book. The issues are so pervasive it require re-printing. They've re-called it from the influencers already in possession and it's the reason for the delay.
552
Post by: Prometheum5
Citation needed?
98762
Post by: RazorEdge
Maybe that "August" announcement was from an over motivated source?
1001
Post by: schoon
True this. Better to correct whatever was wrong and deal with the schedule delay.
34906
Post by: Pacific
If we go a bit quiet on the news front for a while, we have a thread down in the Specialist Games dungeon forum with people talking about what their plans are for the new Epic, games and collection wise etc. Please come and post if you have any thoughts you'd like to share!
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/809833.page
132327
Post by: Greenfield
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: kodos wrote:If the issue was discovered ages ago, there would have been no reason to announce the original release date and than delay it later
Also the "strange gap" would indicate that it was discovered after the first announcement
Than they were looking into which solution is best, decided on that and communicated that the release is delayed
But without a new date/month which could mean they don't know yet for sure
So at best they have a month done from the 3-6 it might take, worst would be it is just a few days
Again, not necessarily.
Any issue with the book could’ve been discovered a while back, and a new printing ordered. But if that printing is delayed? The launch is delayed. And that delay could be done to any number of things, from plates delayed, binding being dodgy, slow delivery etc.
I’m not saying “therefore this is what happened”, just offering other thoughts and possibilities.
No, we're well outside the window where this is possible, for multiple reasons. Firstly, if GW had found out long enough for printing to be almost complete, they would have known about the issue months ago and would not have promoted the game for an August release. If they had expected to receive the printed books in time for that August release, they would also have known for months now that they weren't going to hit it, because after printing several months would be required for packing and shipping to warehouse in the USA, Australia, etc. For GW to announce an August release in June or July, they would have had to believe that production was complete and distribution about to start if not already underway.
I've worked in print and the timescales you're suggesting aren't realistic. It's almost certainly something they've discovered post-announcement.
83198
Post by: Gimgamgoo
schoon wrote:
True this. Better to correct whatever was wrong and deal with the schedule delay.
Since when have GW ever fixed printing mistakes? We were suckered into buying 40k Index cards which had horrendous errors.
The only thing I can imagine GW losing profit over with a reprint and delay, is if it was something that would negatively affect their public standing (ie something deemed politically incorrect that would trigger someone on social media). Gaming related issues and typos have never been bothered with by GW.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Gimgamgoo wrote: schoon wrote:
True this. Better to correct whatever was wrong and deal with the schedule delay.
Since when have GW ever fixed printing mistakes? We were suckered into buying 40k Index cards which had horrendous errors.
The only thing I can imagine GW losing profit over with a reprint and delay, is if it was something that would negatively affect their public standing (ie something deemed politically incorrect that would trigger someone on social media). Gaming related issues and typos have never been bothered with by GW.
It seems like the problem is so pervasive it would be untenable to faq/errrata. People have noticed infantry point costs seem way off compared to 2nd edition space marine, and the working theory is that was not intentional and part of the reason for the re-printing. I'm being hyperbolic for effect but if literally every infantry unit had the wrong points or upgrades, that really would explain a re-print if the errors are systemic.
87012
Post by: Toofast
Pacific wrote: vadersson wrote:I am thrilled to see so many weapons options. It may not be as streamlined, but I think it makes it feel more warhammery with lots of guns. I just wish some of the weapon ranges were further.
About the streamlining.. sure there is a joke in the Porsche of wargaming companies making a game that resembles the aerodynamic profile of my long-dead great uncle's 1970 Trabant.
Porsche would never let a material like finecast get to production. They would also never let a bunch of headless knights out of the factory like FW has lately with the smaller AT stuff.
128878
Post by: arcanum
Looking at this weeks pre-order preview it was going to be going upnext weekend.
1464
Post by: Breotan
arcanum wrote:Looking at this weeks pre-order preview it was going to be going upnext weekend.
That's my impression, too. They yanked LI but didn't have anything they could push forward and had to leave this slot open. It looks like LI will end up being shoe-horned into the schedule somewhere, or something else will be punted to make room.
61286
Post by: drbored
A lotr diorama and a bloodbowl character. Big oof.
Will just have to see how the month shapes up.
|
|
