Not sure how they will manage to rehype this a few months down the road..... It's possible they just killed legiones imperialis. I hope not as I was hoping lots of folks would get into it so I would have someone to play against.
Boosykes wrote: Not sure how they will manage to rehype this a few months down the road..... It's possible they just killed legiones imperialis. I hope not as I was hoping lots of folks would get into it so I would have someone to play against.
Oh step away from the keyboard already, and go touch some grass. Yes, this sucks. No, GW's not ditching this much work on finished plastics tooling alone just because of some setback or two somewhere else in their supply chain.
Just got back from GenCon. Warhammer had quite a booth. Sadly there was no LI on display and no demos. I did find one guy from GW that said there was a chance for LI demos at Nova. So that would be the end of the month/early September. No one talked about why the delay, just that there was.
I also found zero AT or AI stuff anywhere in the exhibition hall. Even the GW booth didn’t have anything. Kill Team seemed to be getting a lot of love and demo time however.
The fact there is nothing up for preorder next week except a forgeworld release and a made to order basically confirms LI was supposed to be up on Saturday but since they didn't have anything else moved up to replace it, its also very likely they only found out and delayed it last week or shortly before. Not counting christmas and two week preorders I think this is the first week since the pandemic problems in 2021 without any plastic release. (except the contrast range expansion in 07.22)
TBH it would be good for GW to get in the habit of having weeks with no releases. The absurd content treadmill of needing a major release every single week is why we have short editions, product lines getting dumped into legends, etc. Quality over quantity is a thing.
No One Important wrote: GW is really dropping the ball on releases. If they keep this up, I'll have to actually paint my backlog.
Let's not do anything too hasty
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThePaintingOwl wrote: TBH it would be good for GW to get in the habit of having weeks with no releases. The absurd content treadmill of needing a major release every single week is why we have short editions, product lines getting dumped into legends, etc. Quality over quantity is a thing.
GW could without a problem shift everything they have one week earlier with the pre-orders and keep the original shipping/release date for those
instead of a 2 week window having a 3-4 week one until LI is ready and can be fit in
they decided not to do it it that way, which also indicates that it is not just weeks were can expect but months
GW could without a problem shift everything they have one week earlier with the pre-orders and keep the original shipping/release date for those
instead of a 2 week window having a 3-4 week one until LI is ready and can be fit in
they decided not to do it it that way, which also indicates that it is not just weeks were can expect but months
Ya I think oct/nov/dec and if proves to be earlier, awesome, all the better
GW could without a problem shift everything they have one week earlier with the pre-orders and keep the original shipping/release date for those
instead of a 2 week window having a 3-4 week one until LI is ready and can be fit in
they decided not to do it it that way, which also indicates that it is not just weeks were can expect but months
So have multiple 2 week preorder items that generally aren't well received being sold out and then 2 week wait?
Not exactly optimal.
And if reason for delay is indeed reprint of books several month is indeed bare minimum. Any re-do is.
I imagine with the delays due to their current warehouse upgrading, they're taking full advantage of a week with no new stuff to get a little extra catch up time!
I think GW will probably do another splurge of marketing to build up hype before the release again once the new date is set - that will pick up all the magpies.
A friend of mine is printing a complete Tau army (the Lazy Forger set, which look absolutely awesome https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-the-tech-army-bundle-166776 so I'm just giving him a hand to get the rules sorted for them. We might use as a Great Crusade 'random alien' army to play them against my Crusade-era World Eaters.
Nothing really interesting has been released after Leviathan IMO. GW is sleeping, must be the holidays..
Normally I wouldn't mind them spreading out releases, gives me more time to save money, but now it's looking like all of the releases I'm personally interested in will get crammed into Q4/23.. KT21S3 launch box will open the floodgates, followed by MKIII resculpts, followed by MKVI Assault squad, followed by Legions Imperialis... xmas gift budget is looking bleak hehehe!
Well besides the fact that you can get 10 Leman Russes, I wonder what is "Explorator Adaptation" special rule on Leman Russ and Baneblade. Scout perhaps?
nowhere does it say what the model actually has - e.g. the vanquisher and battle cannon are together and not seeing anything (yet) that says you have one or the other but not both
that implies the standard battle tank and the vanquisher have the same cost, but surely somewhere there will be a description of the two vehicles individually stating what each carries?
also given we have seen other weapon options for tanks the lack of costs related to alternative equipment is slightly worrysome
I could see a "Leman Russ Battle Tank Squadron" of three for x pts and a "Leman Russ Vanquisher Tank Squadron" for y pts (or the same value) but presumably they are different?
or is this a bit like a British WW2 Sherman unit, a firefly and a few others?
same with the baneblade, nothing to say what the thing actually as, just a list of what it could have and a fixed point value
nice to see though that larger units get a slight discount over MSU
tauist wrote: Looking at the photoshopped pict in the article, are these new 28mil models? Not familiar with FW's Auxilia vehicle range..
GW said recently that the first step in designing Epic scale models is to make a 'full size' version in CAD, then decide which details to preserve when shrinking it down.
Even if they don't plan to release a 28mm plastic Auxillia baneblade, they very likely have CAD assets to render one for artwork like this.
lurch wrote: Honestly they look like 3d models to me.
All HH illustrations of this style are traditionally photoshopped photographs of actual models. I am quite certain we are looking at new models here
Looks more like a render than an actual model that's been photoshopped. I know they use photos of models quite often in their artwork, but they also use renders (Aeronautica stuff comes to mind).
leopard wrote: one thing about those unit cards with the stats
nowhere does it say what the model actually has - e.g. the vanquisher and battle cannon are together and not seeing anything (yet) that says you have one or the other but not both
that implies the standard battle tank and the vanquisher have the same cost, but surely somewhere there will be a description of the two vehicles individually stating what each carries?
also given we have seen other weapon options for tanks the lack of costs related to alternative equipment is slightly worrysome
I could see a "Leman Russ Battle Tank Squadron" of three for x pts and a "Leman Russ Vanquisher Tank Squadron" for y pts (or the same value) but presumably they are different?
or is this a bit like a British WW2 Sherman unit, a firefly and a few others?
same with the baneblade, nothing to say what the thing actually as, just a list of what it could have and a fixed point value
nice to see though that larger units get a slight discount over MSU
Maybe they noticed that too and thats the reason its delayed
stonehorse wrote: Nice sneak peak at how Point Defence weapons work.
No kidding. Being able to effectively shoot before even First Fire units is quite handy. Just need to find out what Overwatch does now…
As for the russ vanquisher vs regular - the vanquisher will have a hell of a time taking out infantry, since they get their unmodified saves against it. Ditto lascannon. Maybe that’s the balance?
A couple of questions from earlier were answered. First, the super-heavy tank detachments are now confirmed at 1-4 tanks each. Second, the note at the bottom confirms that you can add terminators to a regular detachment of space marines.
leopard wrote: one thing about those unit cards with the stats
nowhere does it say what the model actually has - e.g. the vanquisher and battle cannon are together and not seeing anything (yet) that says you have one or the other but not both
that implies the standard battle tank and the vanquisher have the same cost, but surely somewhere there will be a description of the two vehicles individually stating what each carries?
also given we have seen other weapon options for tanks the lack of costs related to alternative equipment is slightly worrysome
I could see a "Leman Russ Battle Tank Squadron" of three for x pts and a "Leman Russ Vanquisher Tank Squadron" for y pts (or the same value) but presumably they are different?
or is this a bit like a British WW2 Sherman unit, a firefly and a few others?
same with the baneblade, nothing to say what the thing actually as, just a list of what it could have and a fixed point value
nice to see though that larger units get a slight discount over MSU
Maybe they noticed that too and thats the reason its delayed
Given 40k points atm and sigmar to a degree, it might just be that they intend for sidegrades rather than anything being worth more than the other. In theory.
lurch wrote: Honestly they look like 3d models to me.
All HH illustrations of this style are traditionally photoshopped photographs of actual models. I am quite certain we are looking at new models here
Looks more like a render than an actual model that's been photoshopped. I know they use photos of models quite often in their artwork, but they also use renders (Aeronautica stuff comes to mind).
Eumerin wrote: A couple of questions from earlier were answered. First, the super-heavy tank detachments are now confirmed at 1-4 tanks each. Second, the note at the bottom confirms that you can add terminators to a regular detachment of space marines.
stonehorse wrote: Nice sneak peak at how Point Defence weapons work.
No kidding. Being able to effectively shoot before even First Fire units is quite handy. Just need to find out what Overwatch does now…
As for the russ vanquisher vs regular - the vanquisher will have a hell of a time taking out infantry, since they get their unmodified saves against it. Ditto lascannon. Maybe that’s the balance?
It seems like that. But even if there are no points cost difference between upgrades, there is a nice kind of configuration and perhaps balance on the Leman Russ: go full AT (vanquisher+lascannon), go AT+AP (BattleCannon+LasCannon or Vanquisher+HBolter), or go to the opposite, mainly AP (battleCannon+Bolter).
Eumerin wrote: A couple of questions from earlier were answered. First, the super-heavy tank detachments are now confirmed at 1-4 tanks each. Second, the note at the bottom confirms that you can add terminators to a regular detachment of space marines.
That point defense rule will make the super heavies harder to kill than they were in 2nd ed - usually opponent would be on the lookout for ones on advance order, then you could charge them with some cheap/expendable units and mob them.
So it looks like now you have first fire, overwatch and a point defense rule for firing to protect from charging units - assuming first fire will work in the same way as 2nd and allow units to protect themselves from charging enemies, aside from where they were template weapons.
I really like that the Guard have a chain of command rule - that was again a great part of Epic. Guard players had to try and protect their command units and the opponent would be trying to take them out - although the punishment for losing them in the new version is less severe (you just get an advance order, in the old game you couldn't move and just fired in the advance fire phase)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit - am I correct in assuming point defense has been taken from NetEpic? (Is it available in any of the official editions?)
The fact that they're continuing preview articles makes me hopeful...
I also like the synapse creature... Erm, Chain of Command rules If anything, these are better than the old Epic, as they allow for limited actions. There's nothing as disheartening as having your force completely hamstrung and having to watch it die. This gives you more of a fighting chance.
Eumerin wrote: A couple of questions from earlier were answered. First, the super-heavy tank detachments are now confirmed at 1-4 tanks each. Second, the note at the bottom confirms that you can add terminators to a regular detachment of space marines.
1 super heavy, up to 5 more.
Whoops, you're right. The card allows you to add +1, +3, or +5 tanks, not 1, 2, or 3.
he fact that they're continuing preview articles makes me hopeful...
Hopefully it's not just because they're still scrambling to find replacement articles.
Whoops, you're right. The card allows you to add +1, +3, or +5 tanks, not 1, 2, or 3.
Just to make it clear for everyone as I saw it misunderstood before:
The card says +1, +3, +5 but above is a text that you can purchase the same upgrade multiple times up to a total of six so you basically can have any number from one to six. But this is only the case for the Baneblade (and the Kratos), other units like the Leman Russ can only buy one of their upgrades so in case of the Leman Russ only 4, 6, 8 or 10 per detachment
Boosykes wrote: Not sure how they will manage to rehype this a few months down the road..... It's possible they just killed legiones imperialis. I hope not as I was hoping lots of folks would get into it so I would have someone to play against.
I don't think it will matter much, tbh. Most people interested was interested and hyped already before any kind of announcement.
Just got back from GenCon. Warhammer had quite a booth. Sadly there was no LI on display and no demos. I did find one guy from GW that said there was a chance for LI demos at Nova. So that would be the end of the month/early September. No one talked about why the delay, just that there was.
I also found zero AT or AI stuff anywhere in the exhibition hall. Even the GW booth didn’t have anything. Kill Team seemed to be getting a lot of love and demo time however.
Being forced to sticking to Advance orders kind of messes you up though, because now your opponent will never have to guess which order you will be issued, and can use this knowledge to their advantage
tauist wrote: Being forced to sticking to Advance orders kind of messes you up though, because now your opponent will never have to guess which order you will be issued, and can use this knowledge to their advantage
This is the whole point.
Solar Auxilia have all the numbers, but are inflexible.
Adeptus Astartes are few, but are very flexible.
However you can factor it in to your overall plan, to the degree it only really becomes a hefty impact if you were intent on another order, only to see the Command Stand blatted.
It can also make your opponent a bit more predictable, as you kind of know they’ll be gunning for your Command first. This can allow you to be somewhat more confident others units may be ignored, letting them Be Successfully Up To Something.
tauist wrote: Being forced to sticking to Advance orders kind of messes you up though, because now your opponent will never have to guess which order you will be issued, and can use this knowledge to their advantage
Good.
Epic has always done a better job than 40K in differentiating how the factions operate, not just how accurately they shoot and how hard they punch, and I am keen to see LI continue with that tradition. Guard/Auxilia are relatively inflexible and vulnerable to command chain disruption, while Marines have initiative and flexibility but less staying power in a knock-down-drag-out fight.
tauist wrote: Being forced to sticking to Advance orders kind of messes you up though, because now your opponent will never have to guess which order you will be issued, and can use this knowledge to their advantage
Good.
Epic has always done a better job than 40K in differentiating how the factions operate, not just how accurately they shoot and how hard they punch, and I am keen to see LI continue with that tradition. Guard/Auxilia are relatively inflexible and vulnerable to command chain disruption, while Marines have initiative and flexibility but less staying power in a knock-down-drag-out fight.
LI chain of command rule comes straight from second ed and was a reflection of the Imperial Guard rule that existed in 40K at the time. Never really understood why they got rid of it in 40K.
schoon wrote: I find it interesting that apparently (US) WD 491 has no LI content, which would be a bit unusual if this was an "emergency" issue.
Much like rulebooks, you can't alter WD content on a dime... There was likely some time to consider options.
White Dwarf often doesn't feature new games in the month of release, to cut down on leaks. It's certainly the case that White Dwarf couldn't have been reprinted since the delay to Legions Imperialis was announced, but it remains much more likely it simply never had any content focusing on it.
No One Important wrote: GW is really dropping the ball on releases. If they keep this up, I'll have to actually paint my backlog.
I've been doing that since about my 5th game of the new edition where I realized I wasn't having any fun. Wife and I started Sigmar armies over the weekend and I'm finishing up my titans.
schoon wrote: I find it interesting that apparently (US) WD 491 has no LI content, which would be a bit unusual if this was an "emergency" issue.
Much like rulebooks, you can't alter WD content on a dime... There was likely some time to consider options.
It wouldn't be that unusual. The lead time on white dwarf production and distribution is measured in weeks rather than months. James Hewitt (designer of the latest incarnation of Adeptus Titanicus) discussed how GW management made the decision to pursue production of the game in plastic about an hour after the game announcement in White Dwarf had gone to print. They had to call the printers and have them pull the Titanicus articles (which were then shelved for ~2-3 years while the plastics went into tooling and production, and then eventually republished with any mention of his name completely scrubbed from the article, as he had left GW by that time) just as they were getting started on the actual press process. The issue was on shelves just a few weeks later.
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
Just to add, they are playable as allies, just not as the main force
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
Just to add, they are playable as allies, just not as the main force
*Starts wondering how big a game needs to be for me to field my entire titan collection*
Here's hoping 'Heresy Thursday' is still a thing and we some more info - like say how titans operate in the game. I hope they are a bit more than a large tank.
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
Just to add, they are playable as allies, just not as the main force
*Starts wondering how big a game needs to be for me to field my entire titan collection*
Here's hoping 'Heresy Thursday' is still a thing and we some more info - like say how titans operate in the game. I hope they are a bit more than a large tank.
Heresy Thursdays have only been for new model reveals. Gameplay infos can be in an article on any day but I wouldn't expect them that often now that its delayed. One per week is probably the maximum we should expect.
Also Heresy Thursdays would have probably shown some stuff that is coming after the launch if it released normally but now that will likely be moved back too so will be interesting if they move up some HH reveals that would have originally happened later (basically trade their places with LI reveals) or if they will just leave some weeks without any Heresy Thursday
vadersson wrote: It would have been nice to give both discussion of the 28mm version and the LI version. Bummer.
Have they discussed aircraft at all for LI? They've finally removed all the models from the Aeronautica section in the store, so they're probably being repackaged like the Titans but I've not seen any official announcements.
vadersson wrote: It would have been nice to give both discussion of the 28mm version and the LI version. Bummer.
Have they discussed aircraft at all for LI? They've finally removed all the models from the Aeronautica section in the store, so they're probably being repackaged like the Titans but I've not seen any official announcements.
They did talk about the Thunderhawk as a transport in one article. There have also been some rule info given.
Hecaton wrote: Well here's hoping like Legio Mortis can square up against the Imperial Fists or whatever as primary factions.
I'm sure it won't be hard to whip together a Titan Maniple as an unofficial primary force for use in friendly games, if you want.
How did 2nd ed Space Marine/Titan Legions handle it? Just a case of restricting what the Titans can bring as support?
In 2nd ed, once Titans Legions was released there really were no restrictions officially, folks usually made the distinction though between playing Titan Legions and playing regular Space Marine. it really all depended on points, you really couldn't fit lots of Titans in a small game, if the game was large enough everyone was bringing Titanic Vehicles as every army had some form of large model. The games were pretty well balanced though. Infantry was needed to take and hold objectives. Titans gave up a lot of victory points when taken down and were not indestructible, having basically only one wound like everything else and were not particularly good in close combat unless equipped for it. Most armies also had specific Titan killing weapons. If you brought all Titans you were going to get bogged down by infantry assaulting you. You really needed to play a balanced combined army.
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
I couldn't find it but I have a distinct memory of a recent warcom article or something basically saying fielding a Titan Legion won't be an option in the game because that's what Titanicus exists for and that Titans will basically only ever be allies. If nothing g else they are heavily pushing the idea that this is a "combined arms" game, so going pure titan wouldn't really be keeping in that spirit.
Also makes sense given how the rules seem to work, the majority of a non titan army's weapons basically wouldnt be able to do anything to an army of titans. Seems the only way a base of space marines could harm a titan is to swarm them in melee.
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
I couldn't find it but I have a distinct memory of a recent warcom article or something basically saying fielding a Titan Legion won't be an option in the game because that's what Titanicus exists for and that Titans will basically only ever be allies. If nothing g else they are heavily pushing the idea that this is a "combined arms" game, so going pure titan wouldn't really be keeping in that spirit.
Also makes sense given how the rules seem to work, the majority of a non titan army's weapons basically wouldnt be able to do anything to an army of titans. Seems the only way a base of space marines could harm a titan is to swarm them in melee.
Yeah, but thats why you have tanks, super heavy tanks, flyers and all the other bits. If they balance the Titans correctly with the rest of the game there is no reason to not be able to take a Titan based army. While Titanicus and LI might share models, the gameplay of those models will be completely different. Titanicus is as much of a fiddley Titan management game akin to naval warfare as it is a straight wargame. Two completely different rule sets for two different tastes.
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
I couldn't find it but I have a distinct memory of a recent warcom article or something basically saying fielding a Titan Legion won't be an option in the game because that's what Titanicus exists for and that Titans will basically only ever be allies. If nothing g else they are heavily pushing the idea that this is a "combined arms" game, so going pure titan wouldn't really be keeping in that spirit.
Also makes sense given how the rules seem to work, the majority of a non titan army's weapons basically wouldnt be able to do anything to an army of titans. Seems the only way a base of space marines could harm a titan is to swarm them in melee.
Yeah, but thats why you have tanks, super heavy tanks, flyers and all the other bits. If they balance the Titans correctly with the rest of the game there is no reason to not be able to take a Titan based army. While Titanicus and LI might share models, the gameplay of those models will be completely different. Titanicus is as much of a fiddley Titan management game akin to naval warfare as it is a straight wargame. Two completely different rule sets for two different tastes.
Titans are not meant to be balanced for a combined arms game any more than Knights were balanced for 40K when they first came out, or an all Battleship fleet is not balanced for a naval combat game.
Much of the balance is that you can only take a limited amount of titans in a list.
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
I couldn't find it but I have a distinct memory of a recent warcom article or something basically saying fielding a Titan Legion won't be an option in the game because that's what Titanicus exists for and that Titans will basically only ever be allies. If nothing g else they are heavily pushing the idea that this is a "combined arms" game, so going pure titan wouldn't really be keeping in that spirit.
Also makes sense given how the rules seem to work, the majority of a non titan army's weapons basically wouldnt be able to do anything to an army of titans. Seems the only way a base of space marines could harm a titan is to swarm them in melee.
Yeah, but thats why you have tanks, super heavy tanks, flyers and all the other bits. If they balance the Titans correctly with the rest of the game there is no reason to not be able to take a Titan based army. While Titanicus and LI might share models, the gameplay of those models will be completely different. Titanicus is as much of a fiddley Titan management game akin to naval warfare as it is a straight wargame. Two completely different rule sets for two different tastes.
Titans are not meant to be balanced for a combined arms game any more than Knights were balanced for 40K when they first came out, or an all Battleship fleet is not balanced for a naval combat game.
Much of the balance is that you can only take a limited amount of titans in a list.
Says who? Its actually hard to take that comment seriously considering the history of the epic scale game range.
You could run a full Titan army in 2nd ed, just Warlords if you wanted (well once Titan legions came out anyway) because it was pretty balanced. Now remember that a Titans legions army could be anything from all Warlords to a combination of Warlords, Reavers, Warhounds, it could also include Knights and Ad Mech infantry and vehicles, even a mighty Emperor Titan. The original Adeptus Titanicus was the first epic scale game which they added vehicles to eventually, and then 1st Ed Space Marine came out which allowed the use of infantry in Adeptus Titanicus (or vice versa depending) on your viewpoint. 2nd Ed Space Marine came out and included a Warlord Titan in the box because the game was specifically meant to be a combined arms game THAT INCLUDED TITANS from day one. Titan legions expanded the use of Titans greatly, instead of just fielding one or two Titans now you could field one or two or even more Titan Battle Groups of three Titans each along with infantry, tanks, flyers.....whatever. Titans were not unbalanced, losing a Titan was not a good sign, but it wasn't the end of the game at all.
I would say running a pure Titan army in 2nd would be difficult to win with unless you were a Titan ace or playing against another pure Titan army, but again that's because the game was balanced properly. I knew plenty of people that didn't take Titans because they were a huge investment in points.
The fact that they are including Titans in the launch box tells me that they have incorporated Titans heavily in this game. I would doubt that they are over powered, never have been in past epic games. If anything it will be possible to use more Titans in a game of LI than AT because the rules will be more streamlined. But to say Titans were never meant to be balanced for a combined arms game is well....just not understanding the history of the games.
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
I couldn't find it but I have a distinct memory of a recent warcom article or something basically saying fielding a Titan Legion won't be an option in the game because that's what Titanicus exists for and that Titans will basically only ever be allies. If nothing g else they are heavily pushing the idea that this is a "combined arms" game, so going pure titan wouldn't really be keeping in that spirit.
Also makes sense given how the rules seem to work, the majority of a non titan army's weapons basically wouldnt be able to do anything to an army of titans. Seems the only way a base of space marines could harm a titan is to swarm them in melee.
Yeah, but thats why you have tanks, super heavy tanks, flyers and all the other bits. If they balance the Titans correctly with the rest of the game there is no reason to not be able to take a Titan based army. While Titanicus and LI might share models, the gameplay of those models will be completely different. Titanicus is as much of a fiddley Titan management game akin to naval warfare as it is a straight wargame. Two completely different rule sets for two different tastes.
Titans are not meant to be balanced for a combined arms game any more than Knights were balanced for 40K when they first came out, or an all Battleship fleet is not balanced for a naval combat game.
Much of the balance is that you can only take a limited amount of titans in a list.
Says who? Its actually hard to take that comment seriously considering the history of the epic scale game range.
You could run a full titan army in 2nd ed (well once Titan legions came out anyway) and it was pretty balanced. A Titans legions army could be anything from all Warlords to a combination of Warlords, Reavers, Warhounds, it could also include Knights and Ad Mech infantry and vehicles, even a mighty Emperor Titan. The original Adeptus Titanicus was the first epic scale game which they added vehicles to eventually, and then 1st Ed Space Marine came out which allowed the use of infantry in Adeptus Titanicus (or vice versa depending) on your viewpoint. 2nd Ed Space Marine came out and included a Warlord Titan in the box because the game was specifically meant to be a combined arms game THAT INCLUDED TITANS from day one. Titan legions expanded the use of Titans greatly, instead of just fielding one or two Titans now you could field one or two Titan Battle Groups of three Titans along with infantry, tanks, flyers.....whatever. Titans were not unbalanced, losing a Titan was not a good sign, but it wasn't the end of the game at all.
The fact that they are including Titans in the launch box tells me that they have incorporated Titans heavily in this game. I would doubt that they are over powered, never have been in past epic games. If anything it will be possible to use more Titans in a game of LI than AT because the rules will be more streamlined. But to say Titans were never meant to be balanced for a combined arms game is well....just not understanding the history of the games.
I missed a sentence there. I meant Titan-only forces (not titans in general) are not meant to be balanced against combined arms forces. Knight households vs Titans in AT are also problematic. As part of a combined force Titans fill a certain role, but an entire titan force would be a major skew list that would not balance well against the combined arms force LI is pushing.
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
I couldn't find it but I have a distinct memory of a recent warcom article or something basically saying fielding a Titan Legion won't be an option in the game because that's what Titanicus exists for and that Titans will basically only ever be allies. If nothing g else they are heavily pushing the idea that this is a "combined arms" game, so going pure titan wouldn't really be keeping in that spirit.
Also makes sense given how the rules seem to work, the majority of a non titan army's weapons basically wouldnt be able to do anything to an army of titans. Seems the only way a base of space marines could harm a titan is to swarm them in melee.
Yeah, but thats why you have tanks, super heavy tanks, flyers and all the other bits. If they balance the Titans correctly with the rest of the game there is no reason to not be able to take a Titan based army. While Titanicus and LI might share models, the gameplay of those models will be completely different. Titanicus is as much of a fiddley Titan management game akin to naval warfare as it is a straight wargame. Two completely different rule sets for two different tastes.
Titans are not meant to be balanced for a combined arms game any more than Knights were balanced for 40K when they first came out, or an all Battleship fleet is not balanced for a naval combat game.
Much of the balance is that you can only take a limited amount of titans in a list.
Says who? Its actually hard to take that comment seriously considering the history of the epic scale game range.
You could run a full titan army in 2nd ed (well once Titan legions came out anyway) and it was pretty balanced. A Titans legions army could be anything from all Warlords to a combination of Warlords, Reavers, Warhounds, it could also include Knights and Ad Mech infantry and vehicles, even a mighty Emperor Titan. The original Adeptus Titanicus was the first epic scale game which they added vehicles to eventually, and then 1st Ed Space Marine came out which allowed the use of infantry in Adeptus Titanicus (or vice versa depending) on your viewpoint. 2nd Ed Space Marine came out and included a Warlord Titan in the box because the game was specifically meant to be a combined arms game THAT INCLUDED TITANS from day one. Titan legions expanded the use of Titans greatly, instead of just fielding one or two Titans now you could field one or two Titan Battle Groups of three Titans along with infantry, tanks, flyers.....whatever. Titans were not unbalanced, losing a Titan was not a good sign, but it wasn't the end of the game at all.
The fact that they are including Titans in the launch box tells me that they have incorporated Titans heavily in this game. I would doubt that they are over powered, never have been in past epic games. If anything it will be possible to use more Titans in a game of LI than AT because the rules will be more streamlined. But to say Titans were never meant to be balanced for a combined arms game is well....just not understanding the history of the games.
I missed a sentence there. I meant Titan-only forces (not titans in general) are not meant to be balanced against combined arms forces. Knight households vs Titans in AT are also problematic. As part of a combined force Titans fill a certain role, but an entire titan force would be a major skew list that would not balance well against the combined arms force LI is pushing.
If that a problem in AT then thats a problem with balancing the rules in AT. But an all Titan force in 2nd ed could be done (with Titan Legions anyway). It would have been hard to win with specifically because the game was balanced, but with the right commander and the weapons loadout it could be done. That was the great thing about 2nd ed epic, most anything was possible.
How come we don't see more Daemons in HH armies? Clearly there were daemon hosts in the lore. Daemons would be a great addition to LI, but even in the HH game they don't play much or a role.
Mr_Rose wrote: It’s not for LI? That’s the 28mm version.
While this IS the 28mm version, it strikes me that the design process goes from 28mm down to 8mm. So this redesign could very well be the precursor of the LI version.
Mr_Rose wrote: It’s not for LI? That’s the 28mm version.
While this IS the 28mm version, it strikes me that the design process goes from 28mm down to 8mm. So this redesign could very well be the precursor of the LI version.
True enough, but I think we know the LI Arvus sculpt already? It’s the one used for AI.
Saying that, I had an idea that you could in fact use the 28mm version as a drop ship in LI - just replace the pilots with a tiered command deck full of crew and call it the Arvus Heavier.
There are also a ton of STLs and 3d prints for it, or at least were when I last looked. I guess it's a simple one to design and print as it's just a box with little stumpy wings!
Andrew1975 wrote: How come we don't see more Daemons in HH armies? Clearly there were daemon hosts in the lore. Daemons would be a great addition to LI, but even in the HH game they don't play much or a role.
In 2.0 at least, it's because the main rules aren't out, and for what we have, while they're a solid beatstick, they don't bring all that much to marines unless you're word bearers who can allow mutliple chars to summon. Militia will use them occasionally, but only one in place of ogryn.
Andrew1975 wrote: How come we don't see more Daemons in HH armies? Clearly there were daemon hosts in the lore. Daemons would be a great addition to LI, but even in the HH game they don't play much or a role.
In 2.0 at least, it's because the main rules aren't out, and for what we have, while they're a solid beatstick, they don't bring all that much to marines unless you're word bearers who can allow mutliple chars to summon. Militia will use them occasionally, but only one in place of ogryn.
Thats too bad, Chaos Daemons were great units in 2nd ed Space Marine. It hard to imagine HH without loads of Daemons.
twentypence wrote: Just confirmed that there is no LI content in WD 491.
It was a slim hope anyway.
What if that’s why they delayed it? Like they somehow forgot to add the LI article(s) so they pushed it back to line up with the issue that does have it.
WD has barely been involved with cutting edge releases for some time now, that stuff is all online. These days White Dwarf is more used to provide inspiration and content for games & models that are already available.
Andrew1975 wrote: How come we don't see more Daemons in HH armies? Clearly there were daemon hosts in the lore. Daemons would be a great addition to LI, but even in the HH game they don't play much or a role.
My guess is GW want to limit the number of their games that one model range can be used in. Same reason that Daemons of Chaos will have a very limited appearance in the new WFB game.
twentypence wrote: Just confirmed that there is no LI content in WD 491.
It was a slim hope anyway.
What if that’s why they delayed it? Like they somehow forgot to add the LI article(s) so they pushed it back to line up with the issue that does have it.
First WD rarely has new stuff to avoid leaks anyway.
AT once point WD(coming mid month) had contents for last half of previous month and first half of that month. This way WD didn't show releases that werent announced yet.
Not sure is system still same but if so anything that would be revealed after about this week would be off limit from WD anyway.
My guess is GW want to limit the number of their games that one model range can be used in. Same reason that Daemons of Chaos will have a very limited appearance in the new WFB game.
I don't see how it makes any sense. Surely the optimal situation for the company is when it can sell the same product to the largest customer group possible (players of different games). And wargaming companies have been trying to do this for almost as long as I remember, for example pushing their new expensive kits as mercenaries playable in all factions (remember when every Warhammer Fantasy army at a tournament had a Giant?).
Cyel wrote: I don't see how it makes any sense. Surely the optimal situation for the company is when it can sell the same product to the largest customer group possible (players of different games). And wargaming companies have been trying to do this for almost as long as I remember, for example pushing their new expensive kits as mercenaries playable in all factions (remember when every Warhammer Fantasy army at a tournament had a Giant?).
Because GW is betting that the group of players who will buy a kit because it is used in multiple games is smaller than the group of players who will buy a whole army for each game. They don't want that second group getting a discount and sharing models between their two armies, they want full army sales.
My guess is GW want to limit the number of their games that one model range can be used in. Same reason that Daemons of Chaos will have a very limited appearance in the new WFB game.
I don't see how it makes any sense. Surely the optimal situation for the company is when it can sell the same product to the largest customer group possible (players of different games). And wargaming companies have been trying to do this for almost as long as I remember, for example pushing their new expensive kits as mercenaries playable in all factions (remember when every Warhammer Fantasy army at a tournament had a Giant?).
GWs concept is built around whales, they don't care for people who buy 1 army and be done, they care only about those who buy everything on each release
and with 1 army being used in multiple games, there are less releases those people will buy
like releasing a Daemon army for 3 games is a single release for the target group to buy, while releasing 3 different armies are 3 releases the target groups buys
and GW does not care if people play the game or not
I suspect that's not the case, especially with the recent interview on the painting phase with Tom Hibbard and the "Hobby Trumpet" concept they had.
It's a focus on primarily getting new people into the hobby for the main lines, with FW previously (and the other boxed games) being a little more focused on on retaining customers by giving them something new within the GW ecosystem rather than having them drift off into another hobby, so that later the main lines will tempt them back in AoS/40K later.
I can't remember if they said it explicitly in that interview or just referred back to what timelines they had going around a few years ago, but as far as GW see things the typical customer is a customer for around 18 months.
By “whales”, I assume you mean ‘folks with the temerity to know the depth of their own unique pocket who choose to spend their money as they please, even if it’s to your chagrin?”
Yeah?
Please don’t use derogatory terms. You do you, I’ll do me, and everyone else can draw their own preferred lines.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: By “whales”, I assume you mean ‘folks with the temerity to know the depth of their own unique pocket who choose to spend their money as they please, even if it’s to your chagrin?”
Yeah?
Please don’t use derogatory terms. You do you, I’ll do me, and everyone else can draw their own preferred lines.
It's a term that is common in sales/commerce it just means like large client/big account/big spender it can be term of endearment in some contexts. Whale rolls off the tongue better than elephant or gigantic ect, i guess that's why it sticks
The excess in the hobby can certainly be seen that way, very possible to purchase more than have time to build/paint/display ect. Pile of shame is common I think even for moderate sized model puichasers/gamers.
Its been nice to see people dust off old epic stuff in the interim to and star painting it, get ahead of things to make the best of the delay in release. Lots of people posting AT/AI stuff they find stores. Also nice to think some of the stuff that saw les table time in AT might see more play in LI like some of the knights models that aren't as good in AT. Has there been any confirmation on what will be in resin other then the AI fw flyers?
Yeah, I wouldn't say 40K and AoS are aimed at "whales". There's an obvious focus on new players with those product lines.
The HH product lines on the other hand are clearly aimed at veteran players -- and some of them could be described as "whales". Good lord, the amount of expensive FW resin some folks use to walk off with at those Open Days and such...
i'm pretty sure that if GW was indeed aiming at a whale market above everything else their stores would be geared up for them,
but they're really geared up to sell (fairly forcefully) to new customers, and as of 4 or 5 years ago when i was regularly in touch with a member of staff their training (and store survival metrics) were all geared up for new players
now i'm sure they're delighted if some of the folk who stay in the hobby are open to spending the big bucks (and without them the hobby would suffer too) but they don't seem to be the main target of 40K or AoS (I think FHFB was more geared to older players, but more as a consequence of ever expanding army sizes than a deliberate descision)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Please don’t use derogatory terms. You do you, I’ll do me, and everyone else can draw their own preferred lines.
Seems to me like you chose to make the term derogatory and then chose to include yourself in it lol
I was commenting on GW's sales strategies, not your personal spending habits or guilt regarding them
"Whale" is quite often used in a derogatory manner in some online hobby circles, most often by folks who brag about getting all of their models from prints or recasts. However "paypig" is starting to take over as the preferred term. Presumably that's because it makes the contempt much clearer.
I would imagine the "half-life" or whatever for GW customers is about 3 years, hence the 3 year cycle they use for their major games to try to keep them on board.
Kodos and Blackfang are known to be fierce anti GW, so just ignore their derogatory terms when they describe GW customers. In particular when they misuse them.
"Whales" is one coming from video games and it is intentionnaly negative in the community of players - especially mobile ones, when some players can spend thousands of dollars on "virtual goods". That's why the comparison doesn't stand, because with GW, not only because it's nowhere near the ridiculous amount sunk in mobile games in the same amount of time but also because with GW you at least have a physical product than you can indeed sell later at some known value. In mobile games, you gain nothing at all but the illusion of value.
Of course, there's cheaper elsewhere, but good luck selling them after a while on a market where their value is clearly not the same than GW products (to be polite and not to say "it's worth crap"). That's the difference.
As with HH...I expect it will have the same "value" than Epic models we saw on Ebay after a good while. It's not as big as the core games for sure, but it's still there...so there's that as well. Not to mention the comparison with core games will be made and that smaller scale usually means smaller box prices for the 40k equivalent.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: By “whales”, I assume you mean ‘folks with the temerity to know the depth of their own unique pocket who choose to spend their money as they please, even if it’s to your chagrin?”
Yeah?
Please don’t use derogatory terms. You do you, I’ll do me, and everyone else can draw their own preferred lines.
No, we mean the people who compulsively buy because of addiction, not because they genuinely want something and can afford to buy it. "Whales" is a standard term and we will continue to use it.
Talking about the game again...even if the core set is delayed, will the Dire Wolf plastic kit see an early release since it works for AT, with the included LI base and possibly rules as a sort of preview, or will they hold it back as well?
Sarouan wrote: That's why the comparison doesn't stand, because with GW, not only because it's nowhere near the ridiculous amount sunk in mobile games in the same amount of time but also because with GW you at least have a physical product than you can indeed sell later at some known value. In mobile games, you gain nothing at all but the illusion of value.
That is a minor and irrelevant difference. Whales still exist in games like MTG, where you have obvious compulsive buying behavior by gambling addicts even though technically the cards are a physical product that can be sold. GW hasn't quite reached the level of WOTC with blind buy sales but they're definitely trying to exploit the FOMO element of whales and targeting the person who will spend $1000 on a shiny new army only to have it gather dust in a closet forever.
If you're chasing whales (as every profit-focused company should be) then avoiding overlap between products is necessary. You don't want a whale saying "I'll use my AT titan army in LI", they want the whale to see a shiny new game and buy an entire space marine army to play it.
Or are you really that upset by others doing *expansive gesture* whatever it is they feel fits them?
I'm not upset over anything, but it's pretty damning that you're upset over me commenting on GW's sales strategy.
And all I've cropped is your personal definition of a term you choose to describe yourself with, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, meant, implied or thought
Well, we still await your own definition of the term “whale”.
I’ve offered my own, which apparently you didn’t mean. Onus is now on you my good man.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: By “whales”, I assume you mean ‘folks with the temerity to know the depth of their own unique pocket who choose to spend their money as they please, even if it’s to your chagrin?”
Yeah?
Please don’t use derogatory terms. You do you, I’ll do me, and everyone else can draw their own preferred lines.
No, we mean the people who compulsively buy because of addiction, not because they genuinely want something and can afford to buy it. "Whales" is a standard term and we will continue to use it.
You can boil it down to something even less emotive, "a customer who spends in substantial excess of average." I daresay with access to enough info you could put a number on what qualifies as a dolphin, whale, Kraken etc.
The reasons behind behaviour that deviates so far from the average are probably a lot more triggering in some cases, as I'm sure it's not exclusively explained by physical wealth or supported by an enterprise such as painting models for resale or some other activity requiring bulk purchases.
Probably best leave that for personal speculation though, lest it upsets some people and drags the topic further away from where is should be.
Sarouan wrote: "Whales" is one coming from video games and it is intentionnaly negative in the community of players - especially mobile ones, when some players can spend thousands of dollars on "virtual goods". That's why the comparison doesn't stand, because with GW, not only because it's nowhere near the ridiculous amount sunk in mobile games in the same amount of time but also because with GW you at least have a physical product than you can indeed sell later at some known value. In mobile games, you gain nothing at all but the illusion of value.
LOL. Everything isn't a gaming term. And it has nothing to do with 'addiction' etc.
The term "whale"/"white whale"/"whale customer" has been around for years in business. They're the big customers/clients/etc who spend far more than the average one. So the business spends a lot of effort chasing and trying to land them. As in a whale hunt. It's like the 80/20 rule but more exclusive than that. Most industries have them.
Basically it's a sales and marketing term to define a real type of customer and something that no one should be getting bent out of shape about.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Talking about the game again...even if the core set is delayed, will the Dire Wolf plastic kit see an early release since it works for AT, with the included LI base and possibly rules as a sort of preview, or will they hold it back as well?
It would be a great interim small scale fix to release all the repackaged Titans and aircraft in addition to the new Dire Wolf, but I have to agree that I think it’s unlikely to happen because GW will think it’s preferable to have no stock rather than stock for an unreleased system (even with all the products doing double duty)
Hecaton wrote: Are the Titan Legions going to be playable factions in LI?
Not right away. It's possible that they'll be added in the future. It's been explicitly stated that we should expect to see other factions added later on, and the legions might be one of them. But for the moment, the only playable factions are the Marines and the Solar Auxilia.
I couldn't find it but I have a distinct memory of a recent warcom article or something basically saying fielding a Titan Legion won't be an option in the game because that's what Titanicus exists for and that Titans will basically only ever be allies. If nothing g else they are heavily pushing the idea that this is a "combined arms" game, so going pure titan wouldn't really be keeping in that spirit.
Also makes sense given how the rules seem to work, the majority of a non titan army's weapons basically wouldnt be able to do anything to an army of titans. Seems the only way a base of space marines could harm a titan is to swarm them in melee.
That's weird, I have a memory of them implying the opposite for knights and titans.
GW stores are aiming on new players, hence why only sales of starter boxes are counted to check if a store as successful or not
The online store and release cycle is aiming on people who are unable to hold back, were FOMO is a big part of it
For a new customer it does not matter if there is a shiny new kit every week that need to be had because it is the only chance to get it no matter the price, they are still painting the core box and waiting for their Codex, and a lot of them will still be painting their first 2k points when 11th is released and don't care but any other army.
Yet the whole hype/fomo pre-order marketing is aiming at compulsive buying which is a problem for people with a disorder who cannot control themselves
"whale" is the term used for those but from the corporate site of view as those are the ones who keep that business going without ever playing
if people who point out that GW sales marketing is aiming at people with a disorder are "hates" that just want to talk GW bad for what they are doing, well this kind of sales tactic is bad and need to be called out
that corporate chills are playing that down or defend such tactics (for whatever reason) is a problem too
Sarouan wrote: "Whales" is one coming from video games and it is intentionnaly negative in the community of players - especially mobile ones, when some players can spend thousands of dollars on "virtual goods". That's why the comparison doesn't stand, because with GW, not only because it's nowhere near the ridiculous amount sunk in mobile games in the same amount of time but also because with GW you at least have a physical product than you can indeed sell later at some known value. In mobile games, you gain nothing at all but the illusion of value.
LOL. Everything isn't a gaming term. And it has nothing to do with 'addiction' etc.
The term "whale"/"white whale"/"whale customer" has been around for years in business. They're the big customers/clients/etc who spend far more than the average one. So the business spends a lot of effort chasing and trying to land them. As in a whale hunt. It's like the 80/20 rule but more exclusive than that. Most industries have them.
Basically it's a sales and marketing term to define a real type of customer and something that no one should be getting bent out of shape about.
This is my understanding of it too, it's certainly not a GW-only term and I think every sellable item that has a collectible element has customers that buy everything that they sell. There used to be a chap in the DCM who bought 2 X every new GW release, and posted this information each time without further comment. Similarly, I'm in a Tamiya FB group and there are people who have storage rooms in their house devoted to holding the hundreds of kits they have bought, which unless they have an army of slaves in their basement, they will not have enough years in their life to build.
Not something I would do, it's not exactly a desirable character trait and I can think of many more worthwhile avenues for disposable income, but each to their own.
Pacific wrote: There used to be a chap in the DCM who bought 2 X every new GW release, and posted this information each time without further comment. Similarly, I'm in a Tamiya FB group and there are people who have storage rooms in their house devoted to holding the hundreds of kits they have bought, which unless they have an army of slaves in their basement, they will not have enough years in their life to build.
I cannot imagine that customers buying to that extent are anywhere near common enough to have any impact on GW's marketing plans. Sure those people may spend a lot annually, but in practice it's still a tiny percentage of each product release that will often be expected to comfortably sell out anyway. It's not the same situation as something like mobile games / gambling, where "whales" provide a majority of the total revenue.
By maintaining relatively high prices for most of their products GW are ensuring there's always demand for limited discount items like launch boxes. They don't need to rely on statistical aberrations like "guy who buys every GW product ever". There will typically be more than enough regular customers (or scalpers) interested in that model range to shift them all upon release.
and yet GW has adjusted their release cycle and items to go with it to fit that buying behavior
we don't know how big the impact of those people is, but we can see that GW is aiming for them
maybe it is just a bonus on top of regular sales, but also the higher prices compensate for lower amount of sales so a minority spending a lot more money is better for the yearly numbers than a majority buying a single kit once in a while
PS: estimates are that 30-40% of people are having a compulsive buying disorder
if the 10% of the people are compulsive buyers who buy everything and spend 10 times more than the regular 90%, their sales are already exceeding the regular ones
like from 100 people, 90 of them spend a 100$ on release items, 10 spend a 1000$ those 10 spent more than the 90 together
make it 30% of GW customers and they are out-spending the 70% by a lot
My attic is full of half-finished armies and things. For me it's entirely dysfunctional and stems from ADHD. It's only gotten worse as FOMO marketing has become more prevalent. In my gaming group I'd say a minimum 10% have the same general overbuying behaviour.
Sooo... we ban scale discussion in a news thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale, but I just waded through a page of discussion about whales that had absolutely nothing to do with LI? Hahaha.
To try and bring the thread back on topic... this facebook page has posted pictures of LI models painted on behalf of MWG:
Interestingly the full photo includes:
The contents of a core box
An extra set each of marine & solar infantry/walkers
4 Kratos
2 Baneblades
Content creators typically get standard retail products, so this implies that the basic infantry will be sold separately as a box of two sprues. It also may mean that the Baneblade & Kratos will be part of the first wave, while omission of rhinos could indicate they come later.
xttz wrote: To try and bring the thread back on topic... this facebook page has posted pictures of LI models painted on behalf of MWG:
Interestingly the full photo includes:
The contents of a core box
An extra set each of marine & solar infantry/walkers
4 Kratos
2 Baneblades
Content creators typically get standard retail products, so this implies that the basic infantry will be sold separately as a box of two sprues. It also may mean that the Baneblade & Kratos will be part of the first wave, while omission of rhinos could indicate they come later.
Huh didn't know Kratos are that much smaller than Baneblades.
I can't find their original comment anymore but when they said 4 per box did they say that for both or only the kratos? as with that size difference I wouldn't be surprised if its only two baneblades per box
Also in the comments in the facebook post the OP said the bases are 2mm flat disc when asked about the bottom of the new bases so seems like they won't b hollow and you'd have to drill holes for magnets
Huh didn't know Kratos are that much smaller than Baneblades.
I can't find their original comment anymore but when they said 4 per box did they say that for both or only the kratos? as with that size difference I wouldn't be surprised if its only two baneblades per box
Both. Although that could be misinformation the social media rep got wrong.
Considering the size difference between the Kratos and Baneblade in current Heresy I was surprised they were pushing them as somewhat equivalent but I guess they're banking on there being a lot more marine collectors.
Billicus wrote: Self-adhesive magnetic discs are the way forward for magnetizing bases anyway, individual magnets are fiddly
I'm preferring steel sheets on the bottom of my models then magnets in the storage containers. Gives the models a nice heft, and means they aren't attracted to/repulsed from other models which is a problem I've had with some models.
My 3D printed 8mm models, I've left a 1.5-ish mm recess in the base so I can glue in steel sheet. It's just a bit of a pain in the arse to cut at home.
Somebody must sell steel discs for some reason? Blank cat or dog name tags? Dunno how the economics stack up, but possibly a big time and effort saver?
xttz wrote: To try and bring the thread back on topic... this facebook page has posted pictures of LI models painted on behalf of MWG:
Interestingly the full photo includes:
The contents of a core box
An extra set each of marine & solar infantry/walkers
4 Kratos
2 Baneblades
Content creators typically get standard retail products, so this implies that the basic infantry will be sold separately as a box of two sprues. It also may mean that the Baneblade & Kratos will be part of the first wave, while omission of rhinos could indicate they come later.
That looks awesome, how long do you figure it took to paint it all?
Depending on the quality you aim for, not very long. Especially considering they didn't go for better looking contrast between the troops and their bases, that's a couple of days' work.
8-12 hours perhaps? Epic is pretty quick as long as you're at that distance and aren't doing Lamenters.
Maybe less as they airbrushed the Titans and big stuff.
Interesting that they don't mention the Asterius anywhere
Because it is a loadout of the Acastus, like the Poryphoron.
With the mentions of Armigers, will we see them in plastic as well? LI is a scale where they serve a purpose, and it would be nice to have them available in a more affordable kit.
Interesting that they don't mention the Asterius anywhere
Because it is a loadout of the Acastus, like the Poryphoron.
With the mentions of Armigers, will we see them in plastic as well? LI is a scale where they serve a purpose, and it would be nice to have them available in a more affordable kit.
Is it just a loadout change? I thought it was a mechanicum version like the Atrapos/Styrix/Magaera
With the mentions of Armigers, will we see them in plastic as well? LI is a scale where they serve a purpose, and it would be nice to have them available in a more affordable kit.
Even without mentioning the price, the resin version is an absolute (k)nightmare to put together.
This (Lance)Formation is made up of a single Knight Banner, which consists of one pattern type – Questoris, Cerastus, or Acastus – with the option to customise them. You can add extra Knights of the same chassis, upgrade a Cerastus into an Atrapos, or have a swarm of Armigers to tag along.
...because in Titanicus a Lance consists of three banners of at least 2-3 Knights each.
This (Lance)Formation is made up of a single Knight Banner, which consists of one pattern type – Questoris, Cerastus, or Acastus – with the option to customise them. You can add extra Knights of the same chassis, upgrade a Cerastus into an Atrapos, or have a swarm of Armigers to tag along.
...because in Titanicus a Lance consists of three banners of at least 2-3 Knights each.
Well it could be that the unit size of the lance is very big/flexible. If when designing they knew that most cases it's max 30% of overall list points, it sorta means they could put really big unit caps like 9 or something because unless the point levels are really high, the limit is almost moot, you'll run out of points out of the 30% allotment like long before unit maxes out in size.
What is a bit confusing is upgrading knights to be entirely different knights, I guess they did this to reduce unit count. It's also going to be interesting to see how they tackle the questoris, given all the possible loadouts people could have already kitted out. Also unsure of how the armigers will work, like if its a separate unit or they're part of the same unit.
technically it can be that a single unit forms a larger formation by just adding a higher up command
like a company, commanded by a captain consists of 2+ platoons commanded by a Lieutenant, but a single platoon commanded by a captain might still be considered a company
yet for a dedicated formation calling it a lance formation with a single banner, instead of a special banner formation is not the best way to do it
chaos0xomega wrote: I still think its weird that the Dominus class knights are entirely absent from both Adeptus Titanicus and now Legions Imperialis.
Personally I'm fine for them to remain in the 41st millenium along with with Repulsors, Storm Speeders, and other over-engineered imperial vehicles that were designed by applying glue and rolling them around in a bits box full of spare guns.
chaos0xomega wrote: I still think its weird that the Dominus class knights are entirely absent from both Adeptus Titanicus and now Legions Imperialis.
Personally I'm fine for them to remain in the 41st millenium along with with Repulsors, Storm Speeders, and other over-engineered imperial vehicles that were designed by applying glue and rolling them around in a bits box full of spare guns.
xttz wrote: To try and bring the thread back on topic... this facebook page has posted pictures of LI models painted on behalf of MWG:
Interestingly the full photo includes:
The contents of a core box
An extra set each of marine & solar infantry/walkers
4 Kratos
2 Baneblades
Content creators typically get standard retail products, so this implies that the basic infantry will be sold separately as a box of two sprues. It also may mean that the Baneblade & Kratos will be part of the first wave, while omission of rhinos could indicate they come later.
The only thing that worries me a bit is that there are only two Baneblades in that picture. Didn't we get a confirmation on Facebook that there was 4 in a box?
chaos0xomega wrote: I still think its weird that the Dominus class knights are entirely absent from both Adeptus Titanicus and now Legions Imperialis.
Personally I'm fine for them to remain in the 41st millenium along with with Repulsors, Storm Speeders, and other over-engineered imperial vehicles that were designed by applying glue and rolling them around in a bits box full of spare guns.
and the bits the orks said no to at that
Think that sums up the current state of 40k Space Marine models. A few nice ones here and there, but then we get Desolators and Centurions.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: i'm pretty sure that if GW was indeed aiming at a whale market above everything else their stores would be geared up for them,
but they're really geared up to sell (fairly forcefully) to new customers, and as of 4 or 5 years ago when i was regularly in touch with a member of staff their training (and store survival metrics) were all geared up for new players
They hammer on this in interviews but in practice, I rarely see it. I've been to 3 stores all in different states hundreds of times. I can count the number of demo games I've seen to new players on 1 hand. It's usually veterans playing Sigmar or a specialist game because the FLGS only has 40k players. The ones I've been to would make a lot more money stocking specialist games than starter boxes, as all the starter boxes they got in the initial shipment just sit on a shelf collecting dust.
Toofast wrote: They hammer on this in interviews but in practice, I rarely see it. I've been to 3 stores all in different states hundreds of times. I can count the number of demo games I've seen to new players on 1 hand. It's usually veterans playing Sigmar or a specialist game because the FLGS only has 40k players. The ones I've been to would make a lot more money stocking specialist games than starter boxes, as all the starter boxes they got in the initial shipment just sit on a shelf collecting dust.
I suspect this is a case of applying UK concepts inappropriately to the US market. Focusing on demo games works great in the UK, where stores are in high-traffic areas and get people stopping to take a look even if they've never heard of any GW games. It's a terrible plan in the US, where stores are in the cheapest possible strip mall and nobody even knows the store exists unless they're already a customer.
The only thing that worries me a bit is that there are only two Baneblades in that picture. Didn't we get a confirmation on Facebook that there was 4 in a box?
Yeah:
Possible that WarCom got it wrong, or that these guys just didn't get the extra Baneblades painted up in time for the photo.
leopard wrote: its a nice looking force, it also looks utterly impractical as infantry have to walk, meaning they will be dead before they get anywhere
but as an indication for the sort of size force it looks good
I wonder if they didn’t get any rhino boxes, or the other force is being built for more speed and using them. Guess we will find out when they post videos.
Wonder if the date for those have been changed as well now.
I think we are overthinking this, they probably just didn't paint everything they were sent, either because what's shown is a full points army or they didn't have tome
leopard wrote: its a nice looking force, it also looks utterly impractical as infantry have to walk, meaning they will be dead before they get anywhere
but as an indication for the sort of size force it looks good
I wonder if they didn’t get any rhino boxes, or the other force is being built for more speed and using them. Guess we will find out when they post videos.
Wonder if the date for those have been changed as well now.
I think implicit in the book re-printing is holding off reviews for a later date. I'm guessing this was also part of GW's reasoning for re-print, if influencers were emailing endless questions and or "are you sure you want me/us to review this in its currents state?". I can't help but think even the channels/blogs/people that would usually praise most releases would have to at least mention the current state of the rules on release and that'd likely be a very mixed bag to have to swallow. Anecdotally a lot of online epic communities/rulesets have had a mixed reaction at best to the new game being based off 2nd edition space marine. Seems like too much of a perfect storm/I told ya so moment for those on the fence.
leopard wrote: its a nice looking force, it also looks utterly impractical as infantry have to walk, meaning they will be dead before they get anywhere
but as an indication for the sort of size force it looks good
I wonder if they didn’t get any rhino boxes, or the other force is being built for more speed and using them. Guess we will find out when they post videos.
Wonder if the date for those have been changed as well now.
I think implicit in the book re-printing is holding off reviews for a later date. I'm guessing this was also part of GW's reasoning for re-print, if influencers were emailing endless questions and or "are you sure you want me/us to review this in its currents state?". I can't help but think even the channels/blogs/people that would usually praise most releases would have to at least mention the current state of the rules on release and that'd likely be a very mixed bag to have to swallow. Anecdotally a lot of online epic communities/rulesets have had a mixed reaction at best to the new game being based off 2nd edition space marine. Seems like too much of a perfect storm/I told ya so moment for those on the fence.
That’s interesting, this is the only game I haven’t play from GW. So I cannot compare to any previous rules specifically, so I only been looking at what’s been posted here or Warhammer community.
It would be nice to see more creator pushback if the rules are as a whole quite difficult or bad >,<
Honestly I most interested in the tiles at this point, as I don’t want the solar auxilia or the titans in the box.
So rules have been a wait for a full review sorta deal, why reading here for any possible news.
by now this is all speculation as there was no reason given and the details we have is from people breaking the NDA (or not taking it more relaxed)
what we know is that the book needed to be send back, the release is delayed with no date given and that any reviews or reporting about the game from people who got a copy is on hold until release
and of course influencer are on hold as GW want to have a good timing for the release and not everyone doing it now and there is nothing when people actually can buy it
we don't know if the rules were there reason why it was delayed as other rumours are saying there was a problematic quote (and be aware, this is an international release, so just because it does not matter in the UK or US does not mean it is not a problem for GW)
this would be the very first time GW cared enough about the rules to re-print a book and hold a release, while re-printing because they would get into troubles in one country with a name happend before
and there is the possibility, if a quote was the problem, this is also the only thing that will be corrected
If (and it's a big 'if') the book has been pulped and reprinted, then it really depends on when the problem was identified, when it was corrected, and what the problem was.
My company prints in the Far East, and once the books are off the press, shipping typically takes around six weeks. Redacting a single problematic quote would have been a plotter proof correction, which is very swiftly made and would require nothing more than swapping a PDF page, then an electronic thumbs-up.
In this scenario, taking into account scale (I'm guessing GW prints more than our relatively specialist works), frantic repacking of boxes at GWHQ and the inevitable slippage, GW could still launch Legiones Imperialis within three months.
I don't know when preview stuff goes to 'influencers', but if anyone does know, we could hazard a guess as to that date being T-3 months in an optimistic but realistic timescale – so release in October or even September isn't beyond the realms of reason.
A more substantial set of changes, which required more substantial editorial work, reproofing and so forth, would add a few more weeks to that. It'll vary hugely between publishing houses, but if GW really put noses to grindstones; I would think that a more pessimistic timescale would still see see it delivered within six months from identification of the problem.
Apologist wrote: In this scenario, taking into account scale (I'm guessing GW prints more than our relatively specialist works), frantic repacking of boxes at GWHQ and the inevitable slippage, GW could still launch Legiones Imperialis within three months.
I don't know when preview stuff goes to 'influencers', but if anyone does know, we could hazard a guess as to that date being T-3 months in an optimistic but realistic timescale – so release in October or even September isn't beyond the realms of reason.
Preview material is typically sent out around a month before release so the influencers have time to get their stuff painted, photographed, and possibly record games being played with it. LI was most likely sent out in early-mid July.
We know that GW do use UK-based printers when needed, one was specifically named in a Painting Phase video. They would obviously cost more, but the quicker turnaround in this case could mean the difference between Epic launching in 2023 or 2024.
It's plausible that GW could get reprints done in just a few weeks, but then their challenge is to get those books out to their regional distribution hubs and arrange for people to re-pack the boxes sitting in warehouses. The alternative of recalling boxes back to Nottingham would likely require shipping containers in both directions and definitely delay the release for quite a long time.
I'm sorry, where did this about book reprinting come from? I don't recall seeing it anywhere in this thread prior to the current page, a quick search through the last few pages shows nothing on the topic, etc. Its like it suddenly came out of nowhere as a known fact that everybody seems to know about without any prior discussion of it.
Bolter and Chainsword, one of the people who got a copy talked about it when the WC announcement came up
being that GW asked them send the book back and keep the rest for later
this is also the source that the there were a lot of errors (the usual copy&paste stuff) in the book
while a different one came up that there is an unappropriate historical quote used that could be the reason why the book was called back
FW has a long and colored history about copy pasta errors (and an utter lack of proofreading) so I'm really curious what they might have done to actually cause a recall on the book. As for an inappropriate historical quote, I'm really curious what that could possibly be such that it could cause a recall.
Seems we get to see Solar Auxilia Artillery next week.
Warhammer Community wrote: We’re dipping back into Warhammer: The Horus Heresy – Legions Imperialis next week, with some impressive cannons big enough to shake the earth.
Warhammer Community wrote: We’re dipping back into Warhammer: The Horus Heresy – Legions Imperialis next week, with some impressive cannons big enough to shake the earth.
A silhouette for Arquitors was shown in the space marine article, so perhaps those and basilisks get revealed together in an artillery themed article?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'd love to know what the historical quote was if that's true.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: i'm pretty sure that if GW was indeed aiming at a whale market above everything else their stores would be geared up for them,
but they're really geared up to sell (fairly forcefully) to new customers, and as of 4 or 5 years ago when i was regularly in touch with a member of staff their training (and store survival metrics) were all geared up for new players
They hammer on this in interviews but in practice, I rarely see it. I've been to 3 stores all in different states hundreds of times. I can count the number of demo games I've seen to new players on 1 hand. It's usually veterans playing Sigmar or a specialist game because the FLGS only has 40k players. The ones I've been to would make a lot more money stocking specialist games than starter boxes, as all the starter boxes they got in the initial shipment just sit on a shelf collecting dust.
Every store is different and every city is different. Sometimes you'll see trends, but 3 different stores hardly establishes a pattern across 500+ stores worldwide that are all supposed to be running the same plan.
What I will say is that the Warhammer stores are 1-man stores. Hard to run demo-games, even on slow days, when you've got a dozen other things to do in a day. The demo games I've seen are usually very short examples of gameplay that help explain the game to little kids getting into the hobby, either because of a game or video, or because their parents want to encourage development of fine motor skills etc.
Enough of this though. If you want to know more about how GW sells their products, watch this video from Peachy and crew on the Painting Phase: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-63A7cDkOm8
I guarantee most Dakkaites will learn something from this video.
Warhammer Community wrote: We’re dipping back into Warhammer: The Horus Heresy – Legions Imperialis next week, with some impressive cannons big enough to shake the earth.
Warhammer Community wrote: We’re dipping back into Warhammer: The Horus Heresy – Legions Imperialis next week, with some impressive cannons big enough to shake the earth.
I thought the earthshaker cannon was its own thing, a cruxifux platform with a very large cannon on it, akin to the Long Tom of the US Army. Is the cannon on the Basilisk an earthshaker cannon?
I thought the earthshaker cannon was its own thing, a cruxifux platform with a very large cannon on it, akin to the Long Tom of the US Army. Is the cannon on the Basilisk an earthshaker cannon?
Yeah, the basilisk has an earthshaker cannon on it, but its also been separate to the tank in a few forms (artillery carriage, platform like you mention).
Toofast wrote: They hammer on this in interviews but in practice, I rarely see it. I've been to 3 stores all in different states hundreds of times. I can count the number of demo games I've seen to new players on 1 hand. It's usually veterans playing Sigmar or a specialist game because the FLGS only has 40k players. The ones I've been to would make a lot more money stocking specialist games than starter boxes, as all the starter boxes they got in the initial shipment just sit on a shelf collecting dust.
I suspect this is a case of applying UK concepts inappropriately to the US market. Focusing on demo games works great in the UK, where stores are in high-traffic areas and get people stopping to take a look even if they've never heard of any GW games. It's a terrible plan in the US, where stores are in the cheapest possible strip mall and nobody even knows the store exists unless they're already a customer.
I went through the interview process about 5 years ago. My third interview was a video chat with a few higher ups from the NA branch and I had to run a demo game. I guess I didn't make enough laser noises compared to the 20 year old kid with no work experience that got the job over me. It's insane to me that they prioritize that over years of commission-based sales experience and knowledge of all the rule systems. I'm not upset as working at a car dealership pays about 4x what that job would have paid me, it just seems like a strange way to run a business. They're still very much in the UK mindset over here.
Toofast wrote: They hammer on this in interviews but in practice, I rarely see it. I've been to 3 stores all in different states hundreds of times. I can count the number of demo games I've seen to new players on 1 hand. It's usually veterans playing Sigmar or a specialist game because the FLGS only has 40k players. The ones I've been to would make a lot more money stocking specialist games than starter boxes, as all the starter boxes they got in the initial shipment just sit on a shelf collecting dust.
I suspect this is a case of applying UK concepts inappropriately to the US market. Focusing on demo games works great in the UK, where stores are in high-traffic areas and get people stopping to take a look even if they've never heard of any GW games. It's a terrible plan in the US, where stores are in the cheapest possible strip mall and nobody even knows the store exists unless they're already a customer.
I went through the interview process about 5 years ago. My third interview was a video chat with a few higher ups from the NA branch and I had to run a demo game. I guess I didn't make enough laser noises compared to the 20 year old kid with no work experience that got the job over me. It's insane to me that they prioritize that over years of commission-based sales experience and knowledge of all the rule systems. I'm not upset as working at a car dealership pays about 4x what that job would have paid me, it just seems like a strange way to run a business. They're still very much in the UK mindset over here.
I had a sales job many many years ago in Germany. The attitude was: You sell stuff via emotions and need to connect to the customer. If you fail in that regard your chances of selling anything will drop down significantly no matter how good you are with the technical details. Unsurprisingly I quit this endeavour as all the middle managers present at the company were meatheads as well as petty as a child.
I had a friend who made it to the third round a few years ago, they flew him out to the citadel store or whatever its called in Texas for it. He was supremely well qualified for the position and I'm still stunned he didn't get it as he's been organizing 40k events state-wide for years and helped a number of new stores build up their communities, etc and demoed games to more people than most GW staffers I suspect.
I haven't met the guy they hired instead (I don't bother with warhammer stores), but I can tell you he doesn't know how to run a Facebook page and his spelling and grammar are honestly embarrassingly bad.
Worked out for my friend though, he took a job in IT instead and now he's making about 2-3x more than he would have had he gone with GW
sounds about right, people who know or care too much about the game itself are not qualified to sell things GW wants to sell
can someone who knows all the games and is running tournaments sell little Timmy into buying the core box although he said he likes Tau more and does not have a friend to share and start with?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Light AT seems fun. Best off taking down infantry as they retain any save modifier, but still fairly useful against lighter vehicles like presumably Rhinos and Aurox transports. Plus if you can properly hose down bigger stuff, it might help deal with Landraiders and up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Light AT seems fun. Best off taking down infantry as they retain any save modifier, but still fairly useful against lighter vehicles like presumably Rhinos and Aurox transports. Plus if you can properly hose down bigger stuff, it might help deal with Landraiders and up.
Also those datasheets also include how weapons can be changed. Wonder if those are just full datasheets in the book with the cards being just a reference or if that layout is unique to Titans for some reason. Is there any other change apart from the loadout specifications to the cards?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Light AT seems fun. Best off taking down infantry as they retain any save modifier, but still fairly useful against lighter vehicles like presumably Rhinos and Aurox transports. Plus if you can properly hose down bigger stuff, it might help deal with Landraiders and up.
Not sure if it's just me, but your link goes to a picture of an orc. Though the article on titans is now up on the main page.
So the 'light anti-tank' trait actually makes a weapon worse at killing tanks?
Everything I'm seeing just looks pointlessly over-complicated. If mega-bolters were just AP -1 rather than AP -1, Light AT, Shieldbane, would that actually fail to represent how mega-bolters 'should' work in any way? Why do mauler bolt cannons work better against infantry than mega-bolters, but not against shields?
Perfect Organism wrote: So the 'light anti-tank' trait actually makes a weapon worse at killing tanks?
Everything I'm seeing just looks pointlessly over-complicated. If mega-bolters were just AP -1 rather than AP -1, Light AT, Shieldbane, would that actually fail to represent how mega-bolters 'should' work in any way? Why do mauler bolt cannons work better against infantry than mega-bolters, but not against shields?
Nope.
Light weapons cannot damage Heavy Tanks.
Light AT means you can at least plink away.
Light AT normally can’t strip Void Shields, but Armour Bane allows them to do so.
This adds a differentiation between weapon types, which for my money is something that was a welcome change in Epic Armageddon.
So a Vulcan Mega Bolter will likely shred enemy infantry through weight of fire and a handy save mod, but be markedly less effective against Tanks, as it loses that useful Save Mod.
This opens up design space for other weapons.
Whether any give weapon on the Warlord is going to be crap or must-have won’t really be known until we’ve got some games under our belts.
Is a dire wolf so much more powerful that a WarHound?
It seems to me the Warlord is quite "weak" and the DireWolf quite "strong", judging by their wounds and points costs ( a Warlord costs less than 2 DireWolfs). At least comparing to other editions internal balance.
I am of the belief that there was a cleaner way to manage essentially the same mechanics without needing to layer multiple special rules, etc. but its not the worst thing in the world either.
It seems to me the Warlord is quite "weak" and the DireWolf quite "strong", judging by their wounds and points costs ( a Warlord costs less than 2 DireWolfs). At least comparing to other editions internal balance.
Depends of the scenarios.
Point of the warlord is to be resilient while being a big eye-catching target for the enemy. It's not just a question of if he's able to kill the same amount of points in the enemy army, IMHO.
6 Void Shields is quite handy, as even if they’re all stripped, you’ve a greater chance of getting enough back online for your next turn.
Just eyeballing, I reckon a Warlord with Vulcan Mega Bolter array, Macro Gatling Cannon and a Belicosa Volcano Cannon is gonna be fairly nasty.
Against massed infantry, the VMB and MGC can kick out a respectable seeming amount of fire at reasonable ranges.
Against tanks the MGC and BVC are a worry for your opponent.
Against even fully shielded Titans? The VMB go first to hopefully strip the shields. MGC next which can strip any remaining shields and have some chance of plinking off wounds, then the BVC for a hopeful coup de grace.
Of course, we don’t know what all the other weapon traits do, but in terms of “just stick with relative basics” the above loadout feels nicely rounded - provided you get in range and arc!
chaos0xomega wrote: I am of the belief that there was a cleaner way to manage essentially the same mechanics without needing to layer multiple special rules, etc. but its not the worst thing in the world either.
yeah, it is a possibility to have keywords for infantry, light tanks, heavy tanks and shields and let only the weapons with the right keyword kill those
but than you would go around the whole AP stuff because it is not needed any more
on the other hand, a wounding table with a hard cap and low health on all models would work the same
Shadow Walker wrote: So if Warlord has 6 W and Direwolf 4, I am guessing that Reaver is 5 and Warhound is 3.
From the leaks:
Its interesting how their stats are quite differently balanced than in HH.
Just looking at the wounds in HH Warhounds have 12 while Warlords have 30 so 2.5 times as many. The same ratio is used in 40k with 40 and 100 wounds respectively. But then in LI its the other way around with 4 and 6 so only 1.5 times as many.
Its interesting how their stats are quite differently balanced than in HH.
Just looking at the wounds in HH Warhounds have 12 while Warlords have 30 so 2.5 times as many. The same ratio is used in 40k with 40 and 100 wounds respectively. But then in LI its the other way around with 4 and 6 so only 1.5 times as many.
Well void shields do not appear in that list and since we know what it does, I'd say it's a pretty damn big difference to take into account. Warlord has 6 while warhound has 2. No wonder it has the impact on point cost.
That will be quite interesting that the VMB can now strip titan shields. That was one of the changes that Titan Legions brought to 2nd edition Epic previously, where people used to kit out special 'Titan/war machine' killers with VMB and plasma blastgun. Get onto the flank of a Reaver or Squat Cyclops, strip the shields with the VMB and then kiss them goodbye with the Plasma. Titan Legions changed that by making it so only -1 weapons could strip shields, making them a hell of a lot more durable.
I have to wonder why a similarly elegant rule wasn't used for the new game.
chaos0xomega wrote: I am of the belief that there was a cleaner way to manage essentially the same mechanics without needing to layer multiple special rules, etc. but its not the worst thing in the world either.
My thoughts too. A particular favourite of mine is a tank spec having both 'armour piercing' and 'armourbane'.. I mean, come on, it's like there is not even an attempt at effeciency.
Is a dire wolf so much more powerful that a WarHound?
It seems to me the Warlord is quite "weak" and the DireWolf quite "strong", judging by their wounds and points costs ( a Warlord costs less than 2 DireWolfs). At least comparing to other editions internal balance.
Keep in mind that with an alternating activation mechanic that LI has, that having two units does provide an advantage. That obviously effects point costs, as we see in detachments that are cheaper to add units than take another detachment of the same units.
Pacific wrote: That will be quite interesting that the VMB can now strip titan shields. That was one of the changes that Titan Legions brought to 2nd edition Epic previously, where people used to kit out special 'Titan/war machine' killers with VMB and plasma blastgun. Get onto the flank of a Reaver or Squat Cyclops, strip the shields with the VMB and then kiss them goodbye with the Plasma. Titan Legions changed that by making it so only -1 weapons could strip shields, making them a hell of a lot more durable.
I have to wonder why a similarly elegant rule wasn't used for the new game.
Likely because stripping shields is the VMB's main role in Adeptus Titanicus (they are ok against Knights too, but no guarantee you'll be facing Knights so Shield stripping is the usual reason to take), so changing that up for LI entirely would be a bit odd, hence they came up with Shieldbane.
Interesting that the Warlord sheet has the "Warlord Graviton Ruinator", which would imply the existence of another one (but not sure if any of the Ordinatus had these, especially the minoris)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, in the new game basic Infantry now gets a save, which is a new thing.
So Light AT is how you keep certain weapons good against infantry and desperate against Tanks.
I think giving all infantry a save and sticking to a D6 system is why GW have to add in these sort of rule interactions.
I honestly wish GW would step outside their comfort zone and do a game where a D10 is the standard die used. It would really help to give more wiggle room to differentiate stats, and thus reduce the over reliance on special rules/abilities.
Tastyfish wrote: Interesting that the Warlord sheet has the "Warlord Graviton Ruinator", which would imply the existence of another one (but not sure if any of the Ordinatus had these, especially the minoris)
stonehorse wrote: I honestly wish GW would step outside their comfort zone and do a game where a D10 is the standard die used. It would really help to give more wiggle room to differentiate stats, and thus reduce the over reliance on special rules/abilities.
GW tried that with the 8th edition Apocalypse rules, replacing a bunch of special rules with a D12 to wound (and separate anti-tank and anti-infantry values). People hated it because it was too honest about its lack of depth and it was pretty much immediately abandoned. People want all the layers upon layers of special rules so they can feel like a tactical genius for figuring out how to stack up the obvious combination of buffs, consolidating it all into a D10/D12/D20 value ruins that fantasy.
(And we know GW isn't really capable of making a genuinely deep and engaging game without the need to hide its lack of depth behind layers of rules bloat, nor do a lot of GW customers really want that game.)
stonehorse wrote: I honestly wish GW would step outside their comfort zone and do a game where a D10 is the standard die used. It would really help to give more wiggle room to differentiate stats, and thus reduce the over reliance on special rules/abilities.
GW tried that with the 8th edition Apocalypse rules, replacing a bunch of special rules with a D12 to wound (and separate anti-tank and anti-infantry values). People hated it because it was too honest about its lack of depth and it was pretty much immediately abandoned. People want all the layers upon layers of special rules so they can feel like a tactical genius for figuring out how to stack up the obvious combination of buffs, consolidating it all into a D10/D12/D20 value ruins that fantasy.
(And we know GW isn't really capable of making a genuinely deep and engaging game without the need to hide its lack of depth behind layers of rules bloat, nor do a lot of GW customers really want that game.)
I vaguely recall that game, it was a flash in the pan, blink and you miss it. Shame as it seemed good.
I think this is also why Epic 40,000 failed, but is regarded as the best GW game ever made by both Jervis and Andy... as it is a wargame and not the usual miniature game that GW make.
Yeah but its already seeming like it will be a problem. It's one thing to have a and b options that are pigeon holed into a specific role like AT or anti infantry, but binary choice is way far off from say how the warlord titan takes its loadout. The second there's a less than optimal set of loadouts and optimal ones, the problems start. Dual claw warlords for example, don't seem like the way to go.
Yeah but its already seeming like it will be a problem. It's one thing to have a and b options that are pigeon holed into a specific role like AT or anti infantry, but binary choice is way far off from say how the warlord titan takes its loadout. The second there's a less than optimal set of loadouts and optimal ones, the problems start. Dual claw warlords for example, don't seem like the way to go.
Give me a Plasma Destructor like in the 90s and I will be fine.
Yeah but its already seeming like it will be a problem. It's one thing to have a and b options that are pigeon holed into a specific role like AT or anti infantry, but binary choice is way far off from say how the warlord titan takes its loadout. The second there's a less than optimal set of loadouts and optimal ones, the problems start. Dual claw warlords for example, don't seem like the way to go.
Give me a Plasma Destructor like in the 90s and I will be fine.
Lots of range variation across them, different accuracy, save mods, To Hit, some with special traits, others without.
Whilst I listed a load out I think would be fairly “take all comers” that’s in isolation of knowing what all the traits do at this juncture. And it features wildly different ranges.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't see why diversifying weapon types is a problem, or why making it so that some weapons are bad at taking out giant vehicles is a bad thing.
I wish GW's other games did that more often, so distinct anti-tank and anti-infantry guns were bad against their opposites.
As long as it doesn't involve a lot of back and forth having to check rules and/or micromanagement. What made some of the older editions of Epic enjoyable was how they were focused at a different level, not worrying so much what each individual gun was shooting at, but rather the net effect of that fire.
I don't know, going to have to play to see how much I like it. I'm not liking how Titians work. Maybe there is more, but I don't see hit locations or damage tables. The rules in general not just Titians look kind of clunky.
The cost of weapons being the same was never an issue in 2nd ed, they balanced them out pretty well, will probably do the same here. Carapace weapons are paired AGAIN! Why do they keep doing that? I guess that is just a thing now and forever. Also missing a lot of great Titan class weapons. Besides the Plasma guns all Titan weapons used to be the same, now the Titans all have different weapons classes? I'm seeing a lot of the issues that turned me off epic after 2nd ed...I was really hoping for a cleaned up standardized version of 2nd Ed with more units....this....I don't know if this is what I was looking for.
I vaguely recall that game, it was a flash in the pan, blink and you miss it. Shame as it seemed good.
It was good, but unlike The Painted Owl implied, its game system was simple on design, not because "it was honest on its lack of depth / because GW is unable to do games like that". Because the designers knew Apocalypse's scale means depths of layer would get in the way of players for no real addition of fun, but would just be more time wasting.
People actually didn't hate it, but simply, Apocalypse was always intended to a very small portion of players : those who had the collection (and finances) big enough to be able to play at that scale. It wasn't a commercial success because of that.
(and to be honest, it was more the cards that were a problem, not the core rules)
Here with LI, it's more a question to specifically use an older edition as base for the rules than wanting to make the simplest design ever. Reality with game design is that there's no real bad rules : they're just a convention people agree on to have fun together, and there are simply different expectations from players (some having a very stubborn view on what "the perfect game rules" should be).
This video does a good example of fleshing out all the "epic's". As someone who hasn't played any edition I get why something that has been around so long has so many people invested in what they feel the best edition to be and from the cursory glances at the editions I get why there would be strengths and weaknesses to each iteration.
I vaguely recall that game, it was a flash in the pan, blink and you miss it. Shame as it seemed good.
It was good, but unlike The Painted Owl implied, its game system was simple on design, not because "it was honest on its lack of depth / because GW is unable to do games like that". Because the designers knew Apocalypse's scale means depths of layer would get in the way of players for no real addition of fun, but would just be more time wasting.
I suspect the failure of a mass combat game, normally requiring a large number of players, that came out end of 2018 start of 2019, may not have been entirely GWs fault.
As well as the Warmasters being way less points, when all other titans are up from their titanicus point values, I've just realised that the Psy-Warlord is also less.
If the leaked titan stats are correct, then this could be the Porphyrion issue all over again. I think this might be the deal breaker for me.
Crablezworth wrote: This video does a good example of fleshing out all the "epic's". As someone who hasn't played any edition I get why something that has been around so long has so many people invested in what they feel the best edition to be and from the cursory glances at the editions I get why there would be strengths and weaknesses to each iteration.
Amusingly, while the video serves its purpose, it (like GW's warcom articles) sells Armageddon way short, given that it is the currently most played and talked about iteration of Epic with the most tactically interesting gameplay. Sure 2nd ed was on GW shelves the longest, but its mainly played at home by folks who enjoy its quirks and E40k has been gaining some steam recently, despite usually being remembered for the initial rejection by many.
I played from 2nd Ed thru Armageddon. Armageddon was the superior ruleset with more ability for games to be found. I actually liked E40k but couldn't get anyone to play and 2nd Ed, while good, didn't feel as good as Armageddon. Granted 2nd Ed was when I was a kid and Armageddon was as a young adult.
I prefer Epic 40k but Armageddon is a mighty fine game (the worst part for me is army building, which to me feels very restrictive for no good reasons).
2nd edition, to me, is a distant third, and I never played 1st edition.
I suspect the failure of a mass combat game, normally requiring a large number of players, that came out end of 2018 start of 2019, may not have been entirely GWs fault.
The last Apocalypse came out in July 2019. About 6 months later COVID hit, so I can definitely see why the game never saw a reprint.
It's a shame though, the rules were solid and definitely the best incarnation of the concept so far. We had a fullday game of it at my local club as recently as last Xmas.
I suspect the failure of a mass combat game, normally requiring a large number of players, that came out end of 2018 start of 2019, may not have been entirely GWs fault.
The last Apocalypse came out in July 2019. About 6 months later COVID hit, so I can definitely see why the game never saw a reprint.
It's a shame though, the rules were solid and definitely the best incarnation of the concept so far. We had a fullday game of it at my local club as recently as last Xmas.
Did it even get anything but the most barebones support during those six months though?
I also do not see how LI is related to Apoc: their similarities start and end with being a mass battle game set in the wider 40K universe. Different scale, different buy-in amounts different requirements for table sizes and players needed, completely different target demographic.
tneva82 wrote: Why points would have to be same as in titanicus? Different gamn, different values.
They aren't even same as in 40k...
The more same they are the more suspicious it is indicating lack
of balance
Nothing wrong with Titans costing more or less in different systems, but the differences between the titans should be somewhat consistant and inline with their characters.
Whithout wanting to be pedantic covid wasnt taken seriously until late march, at least in spain , so it's nine months without further support appart from an additional set of command assets. So it's quite reasonable to see the game as what was planned from the beggining, and it works well with what is in the box already. I remember it as a game with good rules and a set of datasheets that was too fussy for the scale of the game. So the only thing that coul be reasonably added was an alternative set of datasheets, because the original ones were badly thought but covered almost all the units in the game.
tneva82 wrote: Why points would have to be same as in titanicus? Different gamn, different values.
They aren't even same as in 40k...
The more same they are the more suspicious it is indicating lack
of balance
Nothing wrong with Titans costing more or less in different systems, but the differences between the titans should be somewhat consistant and inline with their characters.
Its nice knowing that your Titan is going to be the same cost no matter what the loadout it though. In 1st ed AT since they only had Warlords in the beginning, it actually had different classes of Warlords, some with just two weapons systems, these tended faster and cheaper, so you had to add up points and figure a bunch of stuff out...in 2nd ed it was really easy to just grab a Titan knowing that the only variable was which weapons you took, but the points would still be same. Want less guns, take a Reaver.
tneva82 wrote: Why points would have to be same as in titanicus? Different gamn, different values.
They aren't even same as in 40k...
The more same they are the more suspicious it is indicating lack
of balance
Nothing wrong with Titans costing more or less in different systems, but the differences between the titans should be somewhat consistant and inline with their characters.
So should cost arbitary number over true value in game?
Did it even get anything but the most barebones support during those six months though?
I also do not see how LI is related to Apoc: their similarities start and end with being a mass battle game set in the wider 40K universe. Different scale, different buy-in amounts different requirements for table sizes and players needed, completely different target demographic.
To be fair there wasn't much support to give other than adding the small handful of new 40k datasheets and/or arranging a reprint. It's possible the original plan was to reprint the main Apoc box sometime in 2020/21 like they did with the AT GME or Blackstone Fortress.
It's relevant because this subject was first brought up when discussing how LI/Epic could have used non-D6-based rules, and how popular those were in other GW games. There was a suggestion that using D12's was a factor in Apocalypse's short run.
Nothing wrong with Titans costing more or less in different systems, but the differences between the titans should be somewhat consistant and inline with their characters.
Not if the core game rules discourage large expensive single units via diminishing returns. Hell, due to this reason units like Baneblades might not even have the same point cost across two games of LI. I can bring six of them in a single squadron for 490pts, while if they're taken in detachments of 1 or 2 that gets closer to 600pts.
So should cost arbitary number over true value in game?
No, you misunderstand the point I'm making here...
For example, lets say that a new game system places a warhound titan at 1000 points but a Warlord at 1100 points. No matter how the rules spin it, a Warlord is a much larger, heavier and destructive engine and the warhound much smaller, fragile and less powerful. 100 points difference is simply not enough to reflect the difference between those two titans, and one of those unit's points value is clearly in error - possibily both.
In both 40K and Titanicus you can have two Warhounds for every Warlord, even though the point values are different between the two games. I don't know what the difference is in The Horus Heresy but I'd be very surprised if it were not roughly the same.
Another example is the Acastus Knights and how they measure up to a titan; its an engine that can "rival" a scout titan. Therefore the only titan close enough to it in Titanicus or 40K is the regular Warhound. The points difference between them in 40K is straight up ridiculous as they're less than half the cost of a Warhound, and doesn't begin to suggest a rival at all. Points wise thats the difference between a Guardsman and a Space Marine. While the rules might be sound in that an Acastus can rival a Warhound, its broken if we can purchase two Acastus for every Warhound.
Now, getting back to the Warmaster and Psi-Warlord - Titanicus being the only game to represent them at this time; A Warmaster costs as much as two Warlords, and the Psi-Warlord is about roughly 35% more than a regular Warlord. And for good reason, because in both lore and rules a Warmaster is going to trash a Warlord, and a Psi-Warlord has better weaponary than a regular Warlord has access to.
So its not important how much units cost in a game, but the difference in relation to each other most certainly is.
really loved the way first edition in Codex Titanicus gave you the build flexibility with titans, a "scout warlord" being perfectly viable for example, ditto fire support titans and so on
I suspect the failure of a mass combat game, normally requiring a large number of players, that came out end of 2018 start of 2019, may not have been entirely GWs fault.
The last Apocalypse came out in July 2019. About 6 months later COVID hit, so I can definitely see why the game never saw a reprint.
It's a shame though, the rules were solid and definitely the best incarnation of the concept so far. We had a fullday game of it at my local club as recently as last Xmas.
Did it even get anything but the most barebones support during those six months though?
I also do not see how LI is related to Apoc: their similarities start and end with being a mass battle game set in the wider 40K universe. Different scale, different buy-in amounts different requirements for table sizes and players needed, completely different target demographic.
The other two epics were also set in 40K rather than 30K and with the level of abstraction per unit (tactical squads might just have a stand with a special weapon) and that infantry were mounted 5 to a stand as a single unit - it might as well be considered part of that family. There were definitely people using epic models and 40Kapoc rules with an inch to cm conversion (which would get it to a regular table size) at the time to try out the ruleset, as well as the perrennial 'travel 40K'.
I'd be tempted to include it as it was also the last stage on the 'Blast Markers and morale' path that started with Epic40K, which makes LI going back to the start that bit more suprising.
Crablezworth wrote: This video does a good example of fleshing out all the "epic's". As someone who hasn't played any edition I get why something that has been around so long has so many people invested in what they feel the best edition to be and from the cursory glances at the editions I get why there would be strengths and weaknesses to each iteration.
Thanks for posting this
That's a nice vid and well worth a watch, covers everything nicely I thought in a short video.
I liked especially that they mentioned some of the community supported versions of the game and proxy miniatures after support of the official games ceased.
As for favourite versions.. I think everyone has one. I would say 2nd/Titan Legions is probably my favourite, just because there is a big nostalgia element for me, I *love* playing Orks (and they are suitably chaotic in that edition!) and it copes really well with massive point mega battles.
I do like Armageddon too though, it's a deeply tactical game and tremendously satisfying to play (I always think it's a great game design when your opponent pulls of an excellent strategy, and you can admire and commend them for it, rather than just picking some awful NetList deathstar unit, resulting from lack of game balance, and smashing you with it!) I didn't like however that they made Orks and Chaos in particular quite boring, and the Titan rules also lost something by changing to an HP-bar and doing away with the hit charts. 1st edition SM and Epic 40k I have yet to play unfortunately, but would love to give them a try one day.
Will be interesting to see where Legions Imperialis falls on that scale, and what will happen in a year's time if we ask "what is your favourite version of Epic?"
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Oooh, we’re expecting to see some form of artillery shown off today.
more interested in the rules, the old "Barrage points" idea was good where overlapping markers made it worse, if its back to a basilisk battery can fire twice and is by rare the recommended way to strip void shields it will be disappointing
I suspect the failure of a mass combat game, normally requiring a large number of players, that came out end of 2018 start of 2019, may not have been entirely GWs fault.
The last Apocalypse came out in July 2019. About 6 months later COVID hit, so I can definitely see why the game never saw a reprint.
It's a shame though, the rules were solid and definitely the best incarnation of the concept so far. We had a fullday game of it at my local club as recently as last Xmas.
Did it even get anything but the most barebones support during those six months though?
I also do not see how LI is related to Apoc: their similarities start and end with being a mass battle game set in the wider 40K universe. Different scale, different buy-in amounts different requirements for table sizes and players needed, completely different target demographic.
The other two epics were also set in 40K rather than 30K and with the level of abstraction per unit (tactical squads might just have a stand with a special weapon) and that infantry were mounted 5 to a stand as a single unit - it might as well be considered part of that family. There were definitely people using epic models and 40Kapoc rules with an inch to cm conversion (which would get it to a regular table size) at the time to try out the ruleset, as well as the perrennial 'travel 40K'.
I'd be tempted to include it as it was also the last stage on the 'Blast Markers and morale' path that started with Epic40K, which makes LI going back to the start that bit more suprising.
Apoc is firmly within the Epic family as a ruleset, yes. It combined many ideas from previous games in very recognisable ways (orders, blast markers, AP/AT weapon values etc.). Some of its ideas are in all honesty pretty great, like the delayed feedback from damage as casualties are resolved at the end of the round or how garrisoning terrain is made clear. I played some games of it with Epic minis in centimetres and it works fine on a 6' x 4' table. Its certainly more of a casual affair, but not a bad game.
Hopefully both. Their messaging on Monday said flyers next, though last Thursday did mention earth shaking firepower. Which many thought meant ES cannons (artillery vehicles), but maybe it could have meant the titans. I hope not, as I want to see even more vehicles!
This sounds like you'd be able to build all 8 with the same weapon?
Each box provides eight vehicles that can be assembled as the support platform of your choice, so you can fill your need for fire support at whatever range suits you best.
Really wish that article had unit cards or explained, anything. They'll be in boxes of 8 with swap-able barrels from the sounds of it. Unit price will make this sink or swim, if it's gonna be like 80$ for 8 I think the writing is on the wall.
That's interesting that they have gone with a closed cab, which I think is a departure from the previous versions. I used to quite like adding little artillery crew to the backs of the vehicles.
It also looks to be the same tank chassis as a Leman Russ? (Or very similar?) Again a difference to the old minis, which had a much longer chassis body (do that in RL artillery so they don't get flipped over by the weapon discharge, see )
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: 40K versions use the Basilisk Chassis*. 30k it’s the Leman Russ chassis.
Never having known this, I prefer the look of the Chimera chassis. Or maybe it’s just familiarity bias. Anyway, good set to help boost the starter forces.
Squat Grand Batteries were Thudd Guns and Mole Mortars, plus they had the Goliath Cannon - they weren't technically static but they were VERY slow. Functionally immobile if not technically so.
Albertorius wrote: I prefer Epic 40k but Armageddon is a mighty fine game (the worst part for me is army building, which to me feels very restrictive for no good reasons).
2nd edition, to me, is a distant third, and I never played 1st edition.
It was restrictive to make army selection for the GT scenario more balanced. The initial idea was lists would come out regularly for the same armies but in different theatres, perhaps linked to different scenarios. The problem with say an all arms marine army is that it would be excellent for some scenarios and many units useless for others.
The book had a whole section on no GT games, but they weren't often done.
My experience of them was they were tricky to do, because the activation system did have problems for armies getting out activated which was a further not that well foreseen balance and army selection problem. All resolvable, but now you need a hell of a lot of playtesting to balance less picked choices and even the UKGT scene couldn't do it, preferring tweaks and simplification instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: really loved the way first edition in Codex Titanicus gave you the build flexibility with titans, a "scout warlord" being perfectly viable for example, ditto fire support titans and so on
I did love that system (pre codex titanicus), still play a cardboard 2d version designed for train tables
Götterdämmerung Howitzer and Blitzen AA gun from the IG Siege regiment in Epic Swordwind were immobile (though could be transported/dragged by the Bruennhilde Land Crawler).
There are proxy minis of Basilisk and Medusa on gun emplacements and in NetEpic I believe, but I don't think I've ever seen anything in the official versions of the game.
Pacific wrote: That's interesting that they have gone with a closed cab, which I think is a departure from the previous versions. I used to quite like adding little artillery crew to the backs of the vehicles.
It also looks to be the same tank chassis as a Leman Russ? (Or very similar?) Again a difference to the old minis, which had a much longer chassis body (do that in RL artillery so they don't get flipped over by the weapon discharge, see )
No wonder they look like russ when article flat out says russ chassis
This sounds like you'd be able to build all 8 with the same weapon?
Each box provides eight vehicles that can be assembled as the support platform of your choice, so you can fill your need for fire support at whatever range suits you best.
I love those Medusas. I hope they are not very expensive because I want LOTS of them!!!
Snord wrote: I think these models look kind of lame. The gun just sort of disappears into the hull. Uninspired.
They are the existing Solar Auxilia designs. Can’t really expect GW to go for something new here
There is nothing to stop them refining or even overhauling the design at this point.
This is kind of where the previous incarnations of Epic and I parted company. If a vehicle design is underwhelming, having lots of them doesn't really improve things. I'm still undecided on LI - some of the vehicle models (like the BaneBlade) look great, but even with improved detail the stands of infantry look kind of meh. The bases tend to overwhelm the figures.
GW can't win on this. If they change the design it'll be "why do they look different just because the models are smaller" and if they keep them the same it's "they could have used the opportunity to change the design"
There's a reason none of the Krieg tank designs survived Epic Armageddon. People don't want GW to innovate in epic games, they want the models they have (or want to have but can't afford) in 28mm, but tiny
Snord wrote: I think these models look kind of lame. The gun just sort of disappears into the hull. Uninspired.
Hard disagree. The 28mm version is an excellent design (other than the standard problem of guard tanks having no ground clearance or suspension) and the not-Epic version is a good match. And TBH the classic guard Basilisk/Medusa design wouldn't be a great option, either you have tiny and awkward to paint crew on the loading platform or the model looks empty and unfinished. The enclosed SA version dodges that issue nicely.
If anything, these are better than the old Epic, as they allow for limited actions. There's nothing as disheartening as having your force completely hamstrung and having to watch it die. This gives you more of a fighting chance.
