They are. All models are 25% of their full size scalings. Tneva is basing his tenuous arguments based on references to supposed fluff heights which have never really been accurate to begin with
Nope. When you measure titans and infantry and calculate you will find that infantry is 1:220. Titans 1:269.
We know size of things in fluff(warlord 33m tall, non-primaris marines 2.1m). We have tools to measure models and then it's simple calculation(can even calculate it in head but if you don't want to do trivial math calculator helps).
There's no point to arque gw didn't change scale since at. We even have designer of warlord saying they sized it so that marines would be 8mm(which would mean scale isn't 8mm). Incidentally marine at 1:269 scale would be...7.8mm....
Math doesn't lie and it's easy enought to prove titans are 1:269 scale and if infantry was so solar auxilia wouldn't be 8mm, marines wouldn't be 10mm. It would be 6.5mm and 7.8mm instead.
sorry but according to the company they are all to scale.
chaos0xomega wrote: They are. All models are 25% of their full size scalings. Tneva is basing his tenuous arguments based on references to supposed fluff heights which have never really been accurate to begin with
No. I'm basing it on MATH. You do know we have fluff sizes and measuring tools? And even calculators if math in head is too hard.
BTW there's nothing that stops infantry and titans being different scale and legions being 25% of 40k being incompatible...It just means 40k titans are different scale than 40k infantry. Seeing how bad GW is with scales that's not even that unlikely..But since I don't have 40k titan in neutral standing position at hand(just see their euro cost...).
I do have legion scale titan though. And I have measuring tool. And I have read how tall warlord titan is. And I have graduated finnish school system.
Oh and we also have designer of adeptus titanicus warlord say size was so that marines are 8mm Which incidentally fits with titans being 1:269 scale.
It's really embarrassing to claim they are in same scale when math is showing and we have guy who designed the titan revealing what scale titans were made for. Marine 8mn, Which is pretty much spot on 1:269.
Nope. When you measure titans and infantry and calculate you will find that infantry is 1:220. Titans 1:269.
We know size of things in fluff(warlord 33m tall, non-primaris marines 2.1m). We have tools to measure models and then it's simple calculation(can even calculate it in head but if you don't want to do trivial math calculator helps).
There's no point to arque gw didn't change scale since at. We even have designer of warlord saying they sized it so that marines would be 8mm(which would mean scale isn't 8mm). Incidentally marine at 1:269 scale would be...7.8mm....
Math doesn't lie and it's easy enought to prove titans are 1:269 scale and if infantry was so solar auxilia wouldn't be 8mm, marines wouldn't be 10mm. It would be 6.5mm and 7.8mm instead.
sorry but according to the company they are all to scale.
Nope.
Warlord designer said 8mm for marines.
Which is 1:269. Which is not what legions infantry is. Plans changed.
It's really bad idea to arque something that elementary school kid can prove by easy simple math...Never try to claim something that is trivially proven false. It's embarrassing.
We have GW saying it's 1/4 of 40k scale but that doesn't actually contradict. 40k model scales are not exactly consistent so it just means infantry and titan scales are different in 40k as well. Have you ever measured 40k models? The scale is all over the place...
(btw reminder. 32mm, 6mm etc those are not scales. 1:X is scale)
GW really need to get the next wave out, and get the already released stuff properly in circulation.
It’s clearly selling for now, but if release and stock are stymied, you’re preventing the game’s overall growth.
And that's the interesting paradox with 3d printer going brrr, it's doing a lot to help the game's growth. And clearly can't be affected demand given gw's supply is already constantly being exhausted.
Whilst not expecting or intending to persuade either side of that fence? And certainly not going to bother anyone with moralistic arguments…
I’m yet to see evidence 3D Printing is a particular issue for GW. I mean, people absolutely are making use of that tech for that purpose, and depending on their knowledge and competence with it getting on fine.
But I still think the evidence points to a firm majority happy to buy off the peg. Though if GW don’t get supply lines sorted, they are just handing impetus to that hobby.
Me? I’ll be sticking with off the peg. But you, Dear Dakkanaut reading this with thine own eyes? You do you!
Dunno what to tell you, except that you're wrong. The guys that sculpted it said they are in the same scale, therefore they are the same scale. The AT/LI warlord titan is 1/4 of its 40k counterpart, LI space marines are 1/4 of their full scale counterparts. GW pretends that all its full-size models are in the same consistent scale as well. Ergo, everything is the same size.
Also, the warlord designer did *not* say 8mm tall marines, if they did then that was removed in a subsequent edit of warhammer community, because theres no evidence of it there. Warcom itself has referred to LI and AT as being "8mm scale" on multiple occasions, including here:
"Chris Drew from the Specialist Games team is the man responsible for turning the huge Warhammer 40,000 models into their 8mm scale counterparts – and here he is to talk about the process."
"The Specialist Games team ran a special preview participation game of the forthcoming Adeptus Titanicus here at the hotel last night. They used Warhammer 40,000 Titans to stand in for the 8mm scale versions the game itself will use."
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Whilst not expecting or intending to persuade either side of that fence? And certainly not going to bother anyone with moralistic arguments…
I’m yet to see evidence 3D Printing is a particular issue for GW. I mean, people absolutely are making use of that tech for that purpose, and depending on their knowledge and competence with it getting on fine.
I agree, I would be very, very surprised if 3d printing prevented even 1% of GWs sales of Legions. Even the people I know of who are Epic die-hards and been in the community for years, have tons of classic, proxy and printed minis, are still buying stuff (often in large quantities!)
The biggest barrier I can see to the success of the game are stock availability (great sign that it seems to be constantly sold out), and the game rulebook being an utterly turgid affair, possibly one of the most dull rulebooks I have ever read (and I say this as someone who *loves* Epic). So the game is going to rely on a strong demo network of people into the game, and who give 'casual' players a demo of the game without them being given a look at the rulebook, lest they slip into a coma.
I don't think 3d printing is preventing sales, those who print wouldn't have bought anyway in most cases.
for me its a mix, the SA infantry will be bought, the box has decent contents and its all very usable, I could probably print for less but they are fiddly so I prefer not to
for marines, well the Mk V stuff I have is nice, and have grabbed some Mk III which I like. most of the armour is printed as I'm not paying that price for Rhinos and the other stuff is basically out of stock anyway
so 'meah'
but being able to have games is driving more to get the starter, or try to, and get those who have it to get it on the table and play it
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Whilst not expecting or intending to persuade either side of that fence? And certainly not going to bother anyone with moralistic arguments…
I’m yet to see evidence 3D Printing is a particular issue for GW. I mean, people absolutely are making use of that tech for that purpose, and depending on their knowledge and competence with it getting on fine.
I agree, I would be very, very surprised if 3d printing prevented even 1% of GWs sales of Legions. Even the people I know of who are Epic die-hards and been in the community for years, have tons of classic, proxy and printed minis, are still buying stuff (often in large quantities!)
The biggest barrier I can see to the success of the game are stock availability (great sign that it seems to be constantly sold out), and the game rulebook being an utterly turgid affair, possibly one of the most dull rulebooks I have ever read (and I say this as someone who *loves* Epic). So the game is going to rely on a strong demo network of people into the game, and who give 'casual' players a demo of the game without them being given a look at the rulebook, lest they slip into a coma.
Biggest factor for me playing outside the basement is stores having nice small scale terrain. I think that's the catch 22 as most options from gw are sold out, there are wonderful third party options but largely require printing so puts stores in an awkward sport, I think the easiest solution to at least get the ball rolling is the paper hawk wargames cityscape boxes. Even 2 of those would be enough for a store to host some epic gaming.
The problem with titanicus was even if stores had room for the sideboard required. it was a big ask to have to also bring appropriate terrain, so that locally was a big barrier. I also understand a stores reluctance to have small scale terrain because its often very expensive for its size and much easier for someone to pocket than a big 28mm ruin.
If it can get over the niche it stands a good chance of remaining popular. The demand is certainly there for now.
Sorry if this seems Weasel Words on my “no 3d, not for me, thank you please” approach?
But terrain is entirely fair game for me. Yes GW’s kits exist. And they’re nice. And for the amount you get not insanely priced. But terrain is terrain is terrain.
GW branded, otherwise shop bought, scratch made or 3d printed*, it’s all fair game to me. All that matters is it’s in proper scale and painted to a reasonable standard, and in sufficient quantity to make the game interesting.
*unless it’s 3d print copies of any commercially available kits, in which case you’re not a tech maverick, you’re a thievey little cheap skate and get in the bin.
keep in mind that unless you actually play in a GW shop, where they may have terrain, or at a shop that has a "you buy it here or bugger off" policy where you get stuff from basically doesn't matter any more than you and your opponent want it to matter
there is plenty out there that will do the job
indeed once you step outside the world of GW games the idea that you *must* use terrain made by the games creators is basically laughable
leopard wrote: keep in mind that unless you actually play in a GW shop, where they may have terrain, or at a shop that has a "you buy it here or bugger off" policy where you get stuff from basically doesn't matter any more than you and your opponent want it to matter
there is plenty out there that will do the job
indeed once you step outside the world of GW games the idea that you *must* use terrain made by the games creators is basically laughable
No but if it's a store that tends to chase of people using 3d miniatures it's odd to give 3d printed terrain a pass. I really wish more were going the other way and showrooming terrain they can print on demand, but don't see many shops doing that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Sorry if this seems Weasel Words on my “no 3d, not for me, thank you please” approach?
But terrain is entirely fair game for me. Yes GW’s kits exist. And they’re nice. And for the amount you get not insanely priced. But terrain is terrain is terrain.
GW branded, otherwise shop bought, scratch made or 3d printed*, it’s all fair game to me. All that matters is it’s in proper scale and painted to a reasonable standard, and in sufficient quantity to make the game interesting.
*unless it’s 3d print copies of any commercially available kits, in which case you’re not a tech maverick, you’re a thievey little cheap skate and get in the bin.
Well there's crossover that blurs the line as well, like hybrid gw plastic and 3d printed resin kits.
one of the local shops near here is considering adding a couple of 3d printers themselves and selling (licensed) prints, the bulk of their terrain is 3d printed and they seem to be going down the "if you cannot beat them, join them" route with a print on demand service
If they don’t stock terrain kits (perhaps due to difficulties sourcing stock, or limited shelf space), then “no you can’t use 3d prints” isn’t really justifiable, as it’s not hitting them for potential sales.
But if they do sell terrain (GW, MDF, other) then of course that argument then starts to hold water.
Then there’s the consideration of why GW and FLGS encourage in-store gaming. And that of course is…free advertising!! Look at the people playing. What are they playing? I dunno, but they sure seem to be having fun doing so. Man those models look pretty. Oh you paint them yourself? That’s kinda cool and so on and so forth.
Terrain is part of that visual experience. And an integral one at that.
For me, I guess that provided theyre not knock-offs off a commercially available design*, using a 3D Printer is just another version of Scatch Built terrain, with the added bonus that once you’re a dab hand with the printer, it’s gonna look great painted, and probably be more resilient to being packed and unpacked for a game.
*I’ll let each draw their own line on when a kit is a knock-off and when it’s simply copying a certain overall aesthetic, because to do otherwise is fruitless. But certainly “I scanned in a GW piece and now I print 1:1 copies is not something I’ll ever agree with.
I'm pretty lucky that my FLGS is really good for stocking terrain for loads of different game types, if a few people coming in to play have an interest in the game usually the owners will put some terrain together for it.
So they've already got a bunch of Adeptus Titanicus terrain and I'm guessing they'll add some scatter terrain and other bits for this
Of course it's not an issue. Like all piracy (and like other forms of proxying in the case of miniatures games) it's free advertising and grows your ecosystem. And for LI specifically, right now, a printed army isn't even a lost sale as the line is out of stock everywhere anyway. A printed army is a retained player that otherwise might have lost interest in the game entirely by the time they could buy official minis, and so might his friend who bought the first wave but has nobody to play with.
This kind of made me laugh reading some of the special rules this morning. The Independent rule in Legions vs. the same rule in Epic SM2 (this is a copy from NetEpic, which is more or less the same although actually wordier than the original rule in SM2!)
These are what those dozens of 'Lean Methodologies' courses you seem to get on LinkedIn are obviously for! Jesus wept.
Yeah and what's amazing is they can take two pages to say stuff that might take a couple paragraphs, but nowhere in the book do they even touch on the fundamentals of how or where to draw line of sight from or even height.
So played a game last night where we limited overwatch to first fire only (with the exception of weapons with point defense) and it played a lot better and made a lot more sense. One thing it cut down on a bit was units dump firing overwatch at planes. It also saw more detachment on both sides actually use the first fire order, which in our past games has been quite rare.
Crablezworth wrote: So played a game last night where we limited overwatch to first fire only (with the exception of weapons with point defense) and it played a lot better and made a lot more sense. One thing it cut down on a bit was units dump firing overwatch at planes. It also saw more detachment on both sides actually use the first fire order, which in our past games has been quite rare.
Noted! going to use that too.
Also, in order to keep things simple, instead of suggesting a slight change in cover rules and/or to hit rules (-> 6s not always hit), I am going to suggest to use all saves available to a model, instead of choosing just one (that will reduce lethality).
seem to remember 1st Edition had the "snap fire" mechanic limited to units of first fire.
I think it would work to allow a unit on advance orders that is itself charged to fire at the unit charging it, but otherwise limit reaction fire to first fire orders
Allowing some sort of snap-fire mechanic on Advance order is a really interesting design decision, in that it swerves away from the prior game to only allow that on First Fire.
One of the main purposes of secret orders is the risk/reward component of how you are going to activate and move your troops. Do you sit still and fire, meaning you will be out of position and range with no targets? Do you advance, which gives you the opportunity to shoot later on but puts you at risk of being charged by an opportunistic charging opponent? There won't be one person who played Epic that didn't have the stomach sinking realisation of moving a tank unit forward only to leave them exposed to a charge, and there is nothing you can do about it.
So that has taken away a big part of the risk/reward mechanic of choosing between FF and advance. I wonder if during play testing, with the much larger move ranges this game has, they found units were just too exposed to charges and so had to give a snap-fire mechanic.
The problem is nothing in advance order even compels you to move anyway but nothing prevents you from staying still either, so why ever use first fire if advance is just better/more flexible.
There are 3 rules I can think of that either require the detachment not move or specifically in the case of 2 of them where the detachment must be on first fire order but sadly no units have weapons that use them yet. The weapon rules are: siege weapon/ripple fire/power capacitor.
Just feels like until more units have rules that benefit first fire in some way it will be quite rare.
leopard wrote: have seen first fire quite a bit, any unit not planning to move tends to be on it here specifically so it can get its shots out nice and early
In my experience they rarely pre-empt anything, it's not often we see for example a close combat/engagement where one of detachments is bigger and able to be targeted. It may also be that even with 2000pts, 5x4 has been fairly spread out in terms of detachments being spread out. Outside of charge it's often been to some advantage at time going second, at least once planes are largely gone.
main utility seems to be to fire at aircraft before aircraft can fire, and to splat stuff thats had to move to get into range to fire back
e.g. Vanquishers sitting pretty, the enemy has to move up to engage and first fire means not much may be left.
you are giving up the initiative though to do it, so needs care or a canny player will use knowing you are not moving to advance but stay out of sight.
has worked well though at the air defence stuff, first fire can avoid having to overwatch them (of course you still can, but first fire means more units can do it)
has worked well though at the air defence stuff, first fire can avoid having to overwatch them (of course you still can, but first fire means more units can do it)
Yes but the necessity of that overwatch might be in the extreme if its to pre-empt a bombing run for example, especially considering dedicated AA like tarantulas can't overwatch and would basically have to survive a bombing run before activating in the movement phase because they're allowed to with what's left and firing back.
To be fair if an air strike is going for a Tarantula battery the robots can take their chances, it means something valuable is safer, for a turn
to be honest the aircraft rules are plain weird, stuff that cannot drop to hover seems to have no way to remain on the table, that or I'm missing something, so any bombing run is within range of its own table edge?
leopard wrote: To be fair if an air strike is going for a Tarantula battery the robots can take their chances, it means something valuable is safer, for a turn
to be honest the aircraft rules are plain weird, stuff that cannot drop to hover seems to have no way to remain on the table, that or I'm missing something, so any bombing run is within range of its own table edge?
I also find it odd how top weighted it is, games I've seen that have even like 4-6 planes can often have vey abrupt and rapid endings if things go well. Which is why If find it odd that of all the things that can't overwatch it's the dedicated AA unit both armies have access to. Like don't get me wrong, they're very affordable points wise and fairly flexible in terms of you may be limited by targeting but still can decide whether or not to fire them in the movement or shooting phase. It's just that it's a damn shame the counter to bombing runs is dump fire overwatch with whatever you can, If your opponent has like 2-4 bombers it can get pretty disgusting no matter what. Only thing even limiting skew is availability for now it seems.
counter to bombing runs it seems is to stay in your own table half where they can't reach you
the auto AA stuff fires in the movement phase when activated (unless no targets then if can fire later), so its not exactly overwatch but if you activate after the fliers turn up they fire
non-auto AA has to use overwatch, or be on first fire to get a shot before the aircraft do
to be honest so far the best AA is your own interceptors and having a few more activations
the laughable bit is the description of the thunderbolt as managing to get home with damage others couldn't.. 4+ save, 1 wound...
and yes I'm aware that "shot down" could actually just be "driven off"
People are arguing on facebook you don't need a full 1500points to take a legate commander. They've just decided to ignore it or worse, insist the word full doesn't mean anything. Absolutely baffling.
People are arguing on facebook you don't need a full 1500points to take a legate commander. They've just decided to ignore it or worse, insist the word full doesn't mean anything. Absolutely baffling.
they will be the same people who insist on following the letter of other rules, except that one, and the same ones who will milk every obscure rules reading but then claim the 40k points for painted "doesn't apply"
People are arguing on facebook you don't need a full 1500points to take a legate commander. They've just decided to ignore it or worse, insist the word full doesn't mean anything. Absolutely baffling.
they will be the same people who insist on following the letter of other rules, except that one, and the same ones who will milk every obscure rules reading but then claim the 40k points for painted "doesn't apply"
But it's actually kind of amazing the level of gymnastics these people are going to, It's not enough to just say "I don't care for that limitation, hopefully my opponent will be ok with ignoring it" That comes off entitled to me but at least that person is existing in the same universe and we're both at least reading the same thing, whether or not out reactions or opinions are in sync. But these people are literally seeing whatever they want to see.
Like if they themselves ordered a full order of wings at the pub and only got a half order of wings they wouldn't then say "close enough",
People are arguing on facebook you don't need a full 1500points to take a legate commander. They've just decided to ignore it or worse, insist the word full doesn't mean anything. Absolutely baffling.
they will be the same people who insist on following the letter of other rules, except that one, and the same ones who will milk every obscure rules reading but then claim the 40k points for painted "doesn't apply"
Point limit is chosen before armies are built. Page 126.
Point limit isn't same as how much your army list is. If it was i could bring my full collection to game. That's my point limit after all.
1 per 1500 limit involves point limit.
A Solar Auxilia force can include a maximum of 1 Legate
Commander per full 1,500 points of the pointslimit
(e.g., a 2,000 point Army can include a single Legate
Commander, a 3,000 point Army can include 2 Legate
Commanders, etc.)
Note. Limit. Not points spent.
Not surprised crablezworth wants to arque he can bring whole collection to game though. Worst angle shooter i have seen. Can't win fair game, rather than learn to play take 10000 army. After all after adding 10000 to army his army limit is 10000 according to him
But as page 126 shows point limit locked before even allegiance shown...
pg178 paragraph 2 "A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)" You need 1500pt list to take 1, a 3000pt list to take 2. It's stated explicitly with clear example. All this mean is you have to hit 1500 on the nose including the 16pts of that for the legate, but if its 1499, you have to bump it back down to the 10pt commander. Same time if you're playing over 1500, like 2000 you know you're good for 1 even if the list is like 1996pts or something. But same thing applies up to 3k if you want 2, you gotta hit 3k on the nose or more.
But I'm sorry, it's incredibly explicit. If you order a full order of wings and receive only a half order of wings, it's not a full order. The word full has a definition:
full
/fo͝ol/
adjective
1.
containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space.
2.
not lacking or omitting anything; complete.
Not surprised crablezworth wants to arque he can bring whole collection to game though. Worst angle shooter i have seen. Can't win fair game, rather than learn to play take 10000 army. After all after adding 10000 to army his army limit is 10000 according to him
But as page 126 shows point limit locked before even allegiance shown...
Whilst they’ve clearly explained their thinking, as long as it’s a 1,500 point game? I’d be happy to see a Legate, because I’m more persuaded it’s tied to Points Limit, not Points Spent. And that is indeed what the rule says.
Just above, but emphasis mine wrote: A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per full 1500 points of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)
The limit is the defining factor in that wording. Not spent. 1 per 1,500 points of the points limit.
Lol tneva doing an odd pairing of being embarrassingly wrong with almost every statement, while also going into weird diatribe personal attacks whenever crabz posts.
Literally just being a troll I guess?
@mad doc it says per full 1500 points of the points limit, which means the complete amount. Going by your interpretation "full" is meaningless in the sentence and could be removed without impacting the mechanic at all.
So if one interpretation uses the actual wording to derive the intended mechanics, and another interpretation doesn't rely on the wording, which is the more accurate interpretation? Its the former, at least in areas of law, statutory interpretation, and technical writing.
Whilst they’ve clearly explained their thinking, as long as it’s a 1,500 point game? I’d be happy to see a Legate, because I’m more persuaded it’s tied to Points Limit, not Points Spent. And that is indeed what the rule says.
Just above, but emphasis mine wrote: A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per full 1500 points of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)
The limit is the defining factor in that wording. Not spent. 1 per 1,500 points of the points limit.
One does not get to characterize that I'm being over literal while literally editing out the word FULL to suit one's argument. One really can't get to do both.
What the rules say and how one approach/fix/edit them are not the same thing and its quite disingenuous to edit out the key word in a sentence then try and gaslight.
Again I'll highlight the meaning of the word full
But I'm sorry, it's incredibly explicit. If you order a full order of wings and receive only a half order of wings, it's not a full order. The word full has a definition:
full
/fo͝ol/
adjective
1.
containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space.
2.
not lacking or omitting anything; complete.
A FULL 1500 point solar auxillia force would be a force that utilizes a full 1500 points. Full.
"I just put a full tank of gas in the car" "oh so a subjective number not defined by objective physical limits?" "no, the tank is full, it cannot contain any more gas" "Oh so how I'd approach that is just selectively hearing part of what you say" "This doesn't seem like a good strategy for dealing with objective reality"
At no point does it mention the player having to spend the full 1,500 points. Because it’s defined by the agreed points limit.
Someone is always free to go a bit bonkers and bring well under the agreed points limit if they wish, and it’s still ultimately a 1,500, 2,000, 3,000 or what have you Points Game.
And the rule, as stated and as written, defines entitlement to a Legate by the Points Limit, not the points actually spent.
At no point does it mention the player having to spend the full 1,500 points. Because it’s defined by the agreed points limit.
Someone is always free to go a bit bonkers and bring well under the agreed points limit if they wish, and it’s still ultimately a 1,500, 2,000, 3,000 or what have you Points Game.
And the rule, as stated and as written, defines entitlement to a Legate by the Points Limit, not the points actually spent.
g178 paragraph 2 "A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)
Wait... is someone actually claiming you can't bring a 0-1 per 1500 pts unit in a 1500 pts limit game if your list is a point short? Absolute pants on head insanity.
full
/fo͝ol/
adjective
1.
containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space.
2.
not lacking or omitting anything; complete.
A full 1500 point list comprises of a full 1500 points, just a like a full pizza isn't half a pizza...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Wait... is someone actually claiming you can't bring a 0-1 per 1500 pts unit in a 1500 pts limit game if your list is a point short? Absolute pants on head insanity.
No, it's that your force needs to be 1500 points, not 1499. You'll notice a 2000 points force can still only have 1, because it's not a 3000 point force, the rule doesn't just explicitly state full, it literally gives that exact example.
And you can read it for yourself below:
g178 paragraph 2 "A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)"
By your argument, if my total points spent is 1,499 or less….i don’t actually need to include any formations at all in Matched or Narrative play. I say that because on pp127, we get the following compulsory instruction.
pp127 wrote:3. Assemble Compulsory Formations…
Formations represent the main building blocks of an Army; each Army must include a minimum of 1 Formation from its Primary Army List for each full 1,500 points of the agreed points limit for each Army (i.e. an Army assembled to 3,000 points must include at least 2 Formations. A 4,500 point Army must include at least 3 Formations etc..
Do you concede the wording is the same, yes? And that even if my force totals only 1,499 points of an agreed 1,500 point limit, I must still field at least 1 Formation?
lord_blackfang wrote: Wait... is someone actually claiming you can't bring a 0-1 per 1500 pts unit in a 1500 pts limit game if your list is a point short? Absolute pants on head insanity.
Yes. Crableworth.
Arqument revolves around word "full" which he takes to mean you have to spend 1500. Not that it's there to sort out what happens if point limit is 1250, 1750, 2000 etc..'
A Solar Auxilia force can include a maximum of 1 Legate
Commander per full 1,500 points of the pointslimit
(e.g., a 2,000 point Army can include a single Legate
Commander, a 3,000 point Army can include 2 Legate
Commanders, etc.)
Rule is for point limit. Not points spent.
If point limit is same as points spent you can never go above point limit. Hello to full collections. He who buys most wins. And what you are agreeing to with point limit before army building as per page 126? Limit is then obviously 0 as you haven't even picked allegiance let alone spent.
It was funny when he 1st said. Seeing him deny regardless of multiple people pointing out rule as written...less funny.
1 legate per full 1500 point LIMIT.
In same way maximum you can spend 30% of your point LIMIT to allies. Not of spent points. No warlord in 2k game isn't illegal because you ran 1 pts short.
You can even play about 200 pts army with legate if you agreed to 1500 pts game and play "bit" short.
At no point does it mention the player having to spend the full 1,500 points. Because it’s defined by the agreed points limit.
Someone is always free to go a bit bonkers and bring well under the agreed points limit if they wish, and it’s still ultimately a 1,500, 2,000, 3,000 or what have you Points Game.
And the rule, as stated and as written, defines entitlement to a Legate by the Points Limit, not the points actually spent.
This is my take on it also.
The rule could have been better worded I think; something like "maximum of one per 1500pts"
You’re placing your emphasis on the wrong part of the rule.
The inclusion of Full isn’t indicating “if you’ve not spent 1,500 points, no Legate for you”. Instead, it’s clarifying it’s not “per 1,500 or part thereof”. So at 2,000, still just the one.
But at all times, the wording couldn’t be clearer it’s the points limit that defines the entitlement.
The inclusion of Full isn’t indicating “if you’ve not spent 1,500 points, no Legate for you”. Instead, it’s clarifying it’s not “per 1,500 or part thereof”. So at 2,000, still just the one.
But at all times, the wording couldn’t be clearer it’s the points limit that defines the entitlement.
Bingo.
Without that if you agreed 1501 pts game 2 legate...
The inclusion of Full isn’t indicating “if you’ve not spent 1,500 points, no Legate for you”. Instead, it’s clarifying it’s not “per 1,500 or part thereof”. So at 2,000, still just the one.
But at all times, the wording couldn’t be clearer it’s the points limit that defines the entitlement.
That's not true, the rule literally gives the example of 2 at 3k, not 2 under 3k, for your made up bs to work you're not only ignoring the word full, you're also ignoring half the example.
g178 paragraph 2 "A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)"
At no point does it mention the player having to spend the full 1,500 points. Because it’s defined by the agreed points limit.
Someone is always free to go a bit bonkers and bring well under the agreed points limit if they wish, and it’s still ultimately a 1,500, 2,000, 3,000 or what have you Points Game.
And the rule, as stated and as written, defines entitlement to a Legate by the Points Limit, not the points actually spent.
This is my take on it also.
The rule could have been better worded I think; something like "maximum of one per 1500pts"
It's not a take, it's literally rules as written. How you wish to ignore that with opponent's consent or one's opinion on the rules doesn't change what it, explicitly, says. A full gas tank is a full gas tank, a FULL 1500point list is exactly that, 1500 points, it's not subjective.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: By your argument, if my total points spent is 1,499 or less….i don’t actually need to include any formations at all in Matched or Narrative play. I say that because on pp127, we get the following compulsory instruction.
pp127 wrote:3. Assemble Compulsory Formations…
Formations represent the main building blocks of an Army; each Army must include a minimum of 1 Formation from its Primary Army List for each full 1,500 points of the agreed points limit for each Army (i.e. an Army assembled to 3,000 points must include at least 2 Formations. A 4,500 point Army must include at least 3 Formations etc..
Do you concede the wording is the same, yes? And that even if my force totals only 1,499 points of an agreed 1,500 point limit, I must still field at least 1 Formation?
This is check mate right here, you don't get to skip over it and continue arguing
Are you feeling alright? Because you’re coming on a bit strong here.
My example isn’t “bs”, on account…I’ve correctly and directly quote the rule as it’s printed.
Full is not the defining term. Points Limit is.
Show us where it says the Points Limit of a game is based on what the player has actually spent. Because that is the core of your argument. And so far, it’s not supported by the rules.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: By your argument, if my total points spent is 1,499 or less….i don’t actually need to include any formations at all in Matched or Narrative play. I say that because on pp127, we get the following compulsory instruction.
pp127 wrote:3. Assemble Compulsory Formations…
Formations represent the main building blocks of an Army; each Army must include a minimum of 1 Formation from its Primary Army List for each full 1,500 points of the agreed points limit for each Army (i.e. an Army assembled to 3,000 points must include at least 2 Formations. A 4,500 point Army must include at least 3 Formations etc..
Do you concede the wording is the same, yes? And that even if my force totals only 1,499 points of an agreed 1,500 point limit, I must still field at least 1 Formation?
This is check mate right here, you don't get to skip over it and continue arguing
And how does an army add a legate if it's less than 1500 points? Oh right, it can't.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Are you feeling alright? Because you’re coming on a bit strong here.
My example isn’t “bs”, on account…I’ve correctly and directly quote the rule as it’s printed.
Full is not the defining term. Points Limit is.
Show us where it says the Points Limit of a game is based on what the player has actually spent. Because that is the core of your argument. And so far, it’s not supported by the rules.
What is full referring to then? The legate comander's ability to be taken is contingent upon having a FULL 1500 points. You have yet to show where that lets you take one in less than 1500 points, or why you could take 2 in less than 3k.
its all "points limit", doesn't even specify thats points spent on SA stuff
plenty of GW games have done this previously, you pick to play a 2,000 point game - you are playing a 2,000 point game, even if your army is 1,994 or whatever. that point total then sets stuff like the table size and various limits
e.g. go back to Warmaster, with lists that have min & max per 1,000 points, thats min & max per 1,000 of the game size
leopard wrote: its all "points limit", doesn't even specify thats points spent on SA stuff
plenty of GW games have done this previously, you pick to play a 2,000 point game - you are playing a 2,000 point game, even if your army is 1,994 or whatever. that point total then sets stuff like the table size and various limits
e.g. go back to Warmaster, with lists that have min & max per 1,000 points, thats min & max per 1,000 of the game size
Quote where i can take a legate commander in a 1000 point limit game. I'll wait.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Are you feeling alright? Because you’re coming on a bit strong here.
My example isn’t “bs”, on account…I’ve correctly and directly quote the rule as it’s printed.
Full is not the defining term. Points Limit is.
Show us where it says the Points Limit of a game is based on what the player has actually spent. Because that is the core of your argument. And so far, it’s not supported by the rules.
What is full referring to then? The legate comander's ability to be taken is contingent upon having a FULL 1500 points. You have yet to show where that lets you take one in less than 1500 points.
I mentioned it earlier, but the thread has been active.
1 per full 1,500 points of the points limit is there to explain that it’s not per 1,500 or part thereof. Hence the examples essentially shake out to 1-1,499 points limit = No Legate allowed. 1,500 to 2,999 = max 1 Legate, 3,000-4,499 = max 2 Legate.
None of the examples make reference to the test being points spent. Only the points limit.
leopard wrote: its all "points limit", doesn't even specify thats points spent on SA stuff
plenty of GW games have done this previously, you pick to play a 2,000 point game - you are playing a 2,000 point game, even if your army is 1,994 or whatever. that point total then sets stuff like the table size and various limits
e.g. go back to Warmaster, with lists that have min & max per 1,000 points, thats min & max per 1,000 of the game size
Quote where i can take a legate commander in a 1000 point limit game. I'll wait.
Which nobody has argued? So I’m not sure what the relevance is here.
this is also why fantasy used to see a lot of "1,999+1" point games, so you had the limits as if 1,999 to stop extra rare slots, but you could still spend 2,000 points
The inclusion of Full isn’t indicating “if you’ve not spent 1,500 points, no Legate for you”. Instead, it’s clarifying it’s not “per 1,500 or part thereof”. So at 2,000, still just the one.
But at all times, the wording couldn’t be clearer it’s the points limit that defines the entitlement.
You're agreeing with me...
The assesment of facebook is in their collective opinion you don't have to fill 1500 points, they're saying 1499 with legate is fine.
leopard wrote: this is also why fantasy used to see a lot of "1,999+1" point games, so you had the limits as if 1,999 to stop extra rare slots, but you could still spend 2,000 points
Its not brilliant writing but it's also pretty clear you can't take a legate under 1500pts, people are arguing on facebook that you can. Which is just not true.
Reminds me of the time we had oral exams at uni and a classmate was adamant, standing at the blackboard, that the formula for table salt was HCl. The professor said "I know you're just having a brain fart right now, but I can't let you pass when you're saying this gak in front of 50 people"
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Lol tneva doing an odd pairing of being embarrassingly wrong with almost every statement, while also going into weird diatribe personal attacks whenever crabz posts.
Literally just being a troll I guess?
@mad doc it says per full 1500 points of the points limit, which means the complete amount. Going by your interpretation "full" is meaningless in the sentence and could be removed without impacting the mechanic at all.
So if one interpretation uses the actual wording to derive the intended mechanics, and another interpretation doesn't rely on the wording, which is the more accurate interpretation? Its the former, at least in areas of law, statutory interpretation, and technical writing.
I keep asking people why full or what full means in the sentence and they can never seem to answer it because it destroys any nuance with incredible specificity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Reminds me of the time we had oral exams at uni and a classmate was adamant, standing at the blackboard, that the formula for table salt was HCl. The professor said "I know you're just having a brain fart right now, but I can't let you pass when you're saying this gak in front of 50 people"
Reminds me of the time I filled my gas tank, to the point where it was full, like, couldn't contain anymore gas. I then ordered a full large pizza and ate it, fully. To completion. You know, a subjective thing...
And I think you’re misunderstanding what our take on this is.
Army Size is defined, as per these rules, by the agreed points limit. With nothing to show it’s the points you actually spend in assembling said army.
If the agreed points limit is 1,499 or less? Nobody can take a Legate.
But if it’s 1,500-2,999? 1 Legate can be chosen, regardless of how many points the army actually tots up to, because that is not a relevant qualifier under the rules.
Crablezworth wrote: I keep asking people why full or what full means in the sentence and they can never seem to answer it because it destroys any nuance with incredible specificity.
Nah it's been explained to you plenty of times, you're literally having a full mental lock right now. You need to sleep this over and tomorrow we can pretend this never happened.
Army Size is defined, as per these rules, by the agreed points limit. With nothing to show it’s the points you actually spend in assembling said army.
If the agreed points limit is 1,499 or less? Nobody can take a Legate.
But if it’s 1,500-2,999? 1 Legate can be chosen, regardless of how many points the army actually tots up to, because that is not a relevant qualifier under the rules.
^^^^ this
and your army could be just the man himself and the other core stuff at minimum size
Army Size is defined, as per these rules, by the agreed points limit. With nothing to show it’s the points you actually spend in assembling said army.
If the agreed points limit is 1,499 or less? Nobody can take a Legate.
But if it’s 1,500-2,999? 1 Legate can be chosen, regardless of how many points the army actually tots up to, because that is not a relevant qualifier under the rules.
I'm not sure what you're arguing then, we agree, you can't take a legate until the list is 1500 on the nose, not 1499.
"A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit
Crablezworth wrote: I keep asking people why full or what full means in the sentence and they can never seem to answer it because it destroys any nuance with incredible specificity.
Nah it's been explained to you plenty of times, you're literally having a full mental lock right now. You need to sleep this over and tomorrow we can pretend this never happened.
leopard wrote: I'd say in this context this is saying take your points limit, divide it by 1,500, round the result down, thats how many you get to take
Yes and people on facebook are arguing you don't have to fill 1500 points to take the legate. They're arguing you can take it at 1499, for example. Which you can't.
leopard wrote: I'd say in this context this is saying take your points limit, divide it by 1,500, round the result down, thats how many you get to take
Yes and people on facebook are arguing you don't have to fill 1500 points to take the legate. They're arguing you can take it at 1499, for example. Which you can't.
yes, however its the size of the game that matters, not the size of the army, a 1,500 point game can be played with 200 point armies if you want, I mean daft but its legal, nothing says you have to spend all your points. if you agreed a 1,499 point game then no, he stays at home
to be honest I really don't see whats meant to be unclear about this, the game has some funny rules but not sure this is one of them
leopard wrote: I'd say in this context this is saying take your points limit, divide it by 1,500, round the result down, thats how many you get to take
Yes and people on facebook are arguing you don't have to fill 1500 points to take the legate. They're arguing you can take it at 1499, for example. Which you can't.
yes, however its the size of the game that matters, not the size of the army, a 1,500 point game can be played with 200 point armies if you want, I mean daft but its legal, nothing says you have to spend all your points. if you agreed a 1,499 point game then no, he stays at home
to be honest I really don't see whats meant to be unclear about this, the game has some funny rules but not sure this is one of them
what is the reasoning people are quoting?
That's irrelevant, I'm fully aware you can play any point level, that statement though doesn't mean at any point level you can play a legate commander, it needs to be 1500 or higher. This is not what facebook is arguing, they're arguing you can take a legate commander at 1499, which you can't. None of this has anything to do with the point level you choose to play outside of 1500 point increments, it has no effect on the set in stone requirements for fielding a legate until 1500 or more points worth is fielded.
If you are convinced you are the only person in the world who is correct, are not able to accept rational arguments and are unwilling to answer counterpoints, then you are the topic, I'm afraid, because it's no longer an issue with the rules text.
If you are not able to accept rational arguments and are unwilling to answer counterpoints, then you are the topic, I'm afraid, because it's no longer an issue with the rules text.
leopard wrote: I'd say in this context this is saying take your points limit, divide it by 1,500, round the result down, thats how many you get to take
Yes and people on facebook are arguing you don't have to fill 1500 points to take the legate. They're arguing you can take it at 1499, for example. Which you can't.
yes, however its the size of the game that matters, not the size of the army, a 1,500 point game can be played with 200 point armies if you want, I mean daft but its legal, nothing says you have to spend all your points. if you agreed a 1,499 point game then no, he stays at home
to be honest I really don't see whats meant to be unclear about this, the game has some funny rules but not sure this is one of them
what is the reasoning people are quoting?
That's irrelevant, I'm fully aware you can play any point level, that statement though doesn't mean at any point level you can play a legate commander, it needs to be 1500 or higher. This is not what facebook is arguing, they're arguing you can take a legate commander at 1499, which you can't. None of this has anything to do with the point level you choose to play outside of 1500 point increments, it has no effect on the set in stone requirements for fielding a legate until 1500 or more points worth is fielded.
if you note I'm agreeing with you, I'm asking what reasoning people are using to say otherwise, I think the rule is very clear
for every 1,500 points in the size of game you have agreed, you can bring one of them
leopard wrote: I'd say in this context this is saying take your points limit, divide it by 1,500, round the result down, thats how many you get to take
Yes and people on facebook are arguing you don't have to fill 1500 points to take the legate. They're arguing you can take it at 1499, for example. Which you can't.
yes, however its the size of the game that matters, not the size of the army, a 1,500 point game can be played with 200 point armies if you want, I mean daft but its legal, nothing says you have to spend all your points. if you agreed a 1,499 point game then no, he stays at home
to be honest I really don't see whats meant to be unclear about this, the game has some funny rules but not sure this is one of them
what is the reasoning people are quoting?
That's irrelevant, I'm fully aware you can play any point level, that statement though doesn't mean at any point level you can play a legate commander, it needs to be 1500 or higher. This is not what facebook is arguing, they're arguing you can take a legate commander at 1499, which you can't. None of this has anything to do with the point level you choose to play outside of 1500 point increments, it has no effect on the set in stone requirements for fielding a legate until 1500 or more points worth is fielded.
if you note I'm agreeing with you, I'm asking what reasoning people are using to say otherwise, I think the rule is very clear
for every 1,500 points in the size of game you have agreed, you can bring one of them
Yes but they're holding that premise there, at just agreeing to play a 1500 game, they don't think they actually have to field 1500 to take the lagate, simply agree to the point level of the game. Which is false.
if you note I'm agreeing with you, I'm asking what reasoning people are using to say otherwise, I think the rule is very clear
for every 1,500 points in the size of game you have agreed, you can bring one of them
Except he's arquing what you agreed is irrelevant...
He's arquing point limit is what you have spent.
This means
A) there's no poit limit agreement pre-game. Point limit at the point you pick allegiance is 0 as you have spent 0(direct violation of page 127 btw)
B) you literally cannot go over point limit as your point limit is what you have spent...so he can bring whole collection to game if he wants. Once you are at 1500? Add 1500 more. Now your point limit is 3000 so still inside point limit. Add 3000 more. Now you have 6000 and point limit is 6000...obviously this doesn't work like this but thats his arqument...
Page 127(sorry about misremembering page #) though says point limit is agreed BEFORE even allegiance is picked.
And legate rule talks about point limit. Not points spent.
A Solar Auxilia force can include a maximum of 1 Legate
Commander per full 1,500 points of the points limit (e.g., a 2,000 point Army can include a single Legate
Commander, a 3,000 point Army can include 2 Legate
Commanders, etc.).
Where does it say points spent rather than points limit?
And are you realizing if you agree with him you are allowing people to bring their whole collection to game? Point limit is after all same as point spent according to him.
And here's handy quote from page 127.
Once a points limit for a game has been agreed upon,
players can begin mustering their armies.
So as can be seen point LIMIT(you know, the one referenced in legate rule...) is set before army is created.
If you have agreed to 1500 pts point limit then that's the point limit legate rule uses. And minimum formation rule. And ally continent size. None of those is altered by how much points of your limit you manage to spend.
A Solar Auxilia force can include a maximum of 1 Legate
Commander per full 1,500 points of the points limit (e.g., a 2,000 point Army can include a single Legate
Commander, a 3,000 point Army can include 2 Legate
Commanders, etc.).
Read it again.
Timo can a 1497 point list legally take a legate commander? YES/NO
Because the points spent are not cited as a requirement. Only the points limit.
if the agree upon point limit is 1500 and one player field 1499, they can't field legate commander. This is equally true if you agree to play 2999 points and one side only fields 1497 points of that possible 2999, they can't take a legate commander, they didn't field at least 1500.
Because the points spent are not cited as a requirement. Only the points limit.
They absolutely are, hence the specificity of full, something that is not subjective. A full 1500 point solar auxillia force and a full gas tank, absolutely indicate 100% capacity.
tneva82 wrote: No. Full means you need to agree to 1500 to get 1. Not 1250 pts. And you don't get 2 in 1750. Without word full you would get 2 at 1501 pts game.
Funny. 6 year old niece understands this
If you agree to 1500 point game and field less than 1500 points, you can't field a legate commander.
People understand where you’re coming from. But the whole “points spent” is an insertion into the rules entirely your own.
The rules refer to “full 1500 of the points limit”.
Not “full 1500 spent of the points limit”. I’m afraid you can’t just go around inserting words and then insisting that’s what the rule means.
Full 1500 points of the points limit is setting the maximum number available per integer - not spend.
Right. I’m off for now. Got some washing up to do and my next YouTube video to film when my buddy arrives.
A full gas tank does not tell one if the individual paid for the gas only that the tanks limit has been reached and it is full. It's a fair inference though given the subject is points that 1500 in fact, a full 1500 point force of a 1500 point limit is how many? 1500 points. We agree? Both examples reference armies and their point values, a 2000 point army, a 3000 point army, neither says point levels. It's a fair inference that its reference to 2000 point army in 2000 point game and 3000 point army in 3000 point game. I don't know how one gets past 0 points an army without spending points.
Can a 1497 point army/force fielded in a 1500 point limit game take a legate commander? No, it can't.
I can’t speak for other countries, but when I fill up my little car? UK Petrol Pumps have an automatic shut-off. I’m not exactly up on how it exactly works, but it’s there to prevent spillage from overfilling. In short, there’s some kind of valve or pressure lock thing which triggers, stopping the pump dispensing more petrol.
Now, after the initial shut off, you can usually get a bit more out the pump with a squeeze or two. But eventually whatever that fail safe actually is just keeps kicking in.
That is to say, my gas tank is full.
But is my gas tank full? I honestly don’t know. I can look up the manufacturers specifications, and gain knowledge of how much fuel the tank should be able to hold. Which is fine.
Let’s call that information the Tank Limit. Which for this explanation is synonymous with the Points Limit.
But how much fuel am I actually carrying once I’ve filled the tank?
Like a Legions Imperialis army, it’s not necessarily the Maximum Capacity. It’s probably close (Because like building an army, there’s no sense in the automated fuel pump shut off being overly sensitive. The petrol station wants as much money off me as possible, just as I want to spend as many points as possible), within a few centilitres of the maximum capacity. But it’s by no means automatically the tank’s actual maximum capacity.
Do you see why that argument you’ve made a few times just isn’t doing what you think it’s doing?
Looking at my Car’s manufacturer data, my fuel tank, rather frustratingly, is either 42l or 45l.
But when I fill up, and as much as the pump will allow? 42l or 45l is the maximum I’m carrying. But due to the vagaries listed above, it’s likely around 41.8 or 44.8 litres or so, certainly I’m very, very unlikely to ever truly fill the tank.
I can’t speak for other countries, but when I fill up my little car? UK Petrol Pumps have an automatic shut-off. I’m not exactly up on how it exactly works, but it’s there to prevent spillage from overfilling. In short, there’s some kind of valve or pressure lock thing which triggers, stopping the pump dispensing more petrol.
Now, after the initial shut off, you can usually get a bit more out the pump with a squeeze or two. But eventually whatever that fail safe actually is just keeps kicking in.
That is to say, my gas tank is full.
But is my gas tank full? I honestly don’t know. I can look up the manufacturers specifications, and gain knowledge of how much fuel the tank should be able to hold. Which is fine.
Let’s call that information the Tank Limit. Which for this explanation is synonymous with the Points Limit.
But how much fuel am I actually carrying once I’ve filled the tank?
Like a Legions Imperialis army, it’s not necessarily the Maximum Capacity. It’s probably close (Because like building an army, there’s no sense in the automated fuel pump shut off being overly sensitive. The petrol station wants as much money off me as possible, just as I want to spend as many points as possible), within a few centilitres of the maximum capacity. But it’s by no means automatically the tank’s actual maximum capacity.
Do you see why that argument you’ve made a few times just isn’t doing what you think it’s doing?
Looking at my Car’s manufacturer data, my fuel tank, rather frustratingly, is either 42l or 45l.
But when I fill up, and as much as the pump will allow? 42l or 45l is the maximum I’m carrying. But due to the vagaries listed above, it’s likely around 41.8 or 44.8 litres or so, certainly I’m very, very unlikely to ever truly fill the tank.
Is a full1500 point army of a possible 1500 point limit still a full1500 point army of possible 1500 point limit in the uk? Cool.
1497point army of a possible 1500 point limit isn't a full 1500 point army.
At no point does it mention the player having to spend the full 1,500 points. Because it’s defined by the agreed points limit.
Someone is always free to go a bit bonkers and bring well under the agreed points limit if they wish, and it’s still ultimately a 1,500, 2,000, 3,000 or what have you Points Game.
And the rule, as stated and as written, defines entitlement to a Legate by the Points Limit, not the points actually spent.
g178 paragraph 2 "A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)
I've quoted the rules, your turn.
Lemme just
FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit
FTFY.
I assume Canadian English works the same way as American English and the Kings, and that when you read "full 1500 points" you understand that to be a modifying quantifier that modifies the subject of the clause, which is "the points limit", yes?
You would be correct if the sentence ended after "points". But it doesn't - it continues to "of the points limit". You can't ignore that, thats giving you the context of what is being quantified. It's like if it said "per full 1500 points of charonite ogryns" - you wouldn't try to argue that you could take a legate commander if you spent 1500 pts on malcadors in that context, so why are you arguing that it's 1500 pts spent when it's clearly determined by the agreed upon points limit instead per the sentence as its written?
And if a solar aux force doesn't comprise1500 points of that limit it can't field one, a full 1500 points of the 1500 point limit. What is the points limit? 1500. Does a 1497 point list fielded in a 1500 point limit game comprise 1500 points? No. You can't field a legate. A 2997 point solar aux force in a 3000 point limit game can only field 1 legate commander.
Thats not how the english language works. Unless you can show me the clause that specifies that you must have spent those points, the determining factor is the points limit of the game you agreed to play, and nothing else.
A 1499 pt limit game allows you 0 legate commanders.
A 1500 pt limit game allows you 1 legate commander, even if you only build an army of 1499 points.
Because that is what the rule actually says, and how it is actually written. Period, end of.
A 1500 pt limit game allows you 1 legate commander, even if you only build an army of 1499 points.
You solar auxillia force would then not comprise of a full 1500 points of that 1500 point limit you agreed to, and thus you wouldn't be able to field one.
A Solar Auxillia force can include a maximum of 1 legate commander per FULL 1500 POINTS of the points limit (e.g., a 2000 point army can include a single legate commander, a 3000 point army can include 2 legate commander, ect.)
Both examples literally says 2000 point army, 3000 point army, not game, not point level, army. I don't know how anyone's army gets past 0 points without spending. And one can field a 2000 point army in a 3000 point game if one is so inclined, in both instances its refencing the points an army costs. We can get into semantics on them not saying force but army if you want.
So very simply, agreeing to a 1500 or 3000 point games and fielding 1500 or 3000 points on the nose are indeed not the same thing, however, in order for a solar aux force to include 1 legate commander, it may only do so per full 1500 points of the 1500 point limit, if the solar aux force/army doesn't reach that limit, 1500 points in full, like in the case of 1497 point force, it cannot include a legate commander.
SHOW THE DAMN RULE THAT SAYS LEGATE IS 1 PER 1500 OF SPENT POINT LIMIT!
It says 1 per 1500 POINT LIMIT.
The point limit is agreed before allegiance is even decided. At that point your spent point limit is 0...
Aren't you embarrassed to have worse grasp of language than a 6 year old kid? I know I would be...
'
You can't change words at will.
It's 1500 POINT LIMIT. Not 1500 SPENT POINTS.
A Solar Auxilia force can include a maximum of 1 Legate
Commander per full 1,500 points of the points limit
(e.g., a 2,000 point Army can include a single Legate
Commander, a 3,000 point Army can include 2 Legate
Commanders, etc.).
From above. Highlight where it says "spent".
Go on. That's direct quote from rulebook. If you are right there's word "spent" somewhere there. So either you are flat out lying or cheating or there's word spent there.
'
Which of the 3 it is? Only 3 options available.
'
You can choose whatever you wish. Show where's word spent or declare do you want to be known publicly as liar or cheater. Your pick. I don't care which of the two it is if you can't show where in quote is word "spent"
How does one get past 0 without spending? Why are 2000 and 3000 point armies referenced and not point limits? How does one get to 2000 or 3000 without spending points?
Okay! And we are more than done here, we have strayed from the path and this has been a rollercoaster for sure, haven't seen this many reports generated by a single topic in a long time now. Back on topic, no more of this pedantic derailing.
anyway, moving on. a 2k game tonight, stated as a 2k game, with models to or less than 2k.
then we added a warhound each on top of that, just to pour petrol into the water
then light it
anyway..
left the Vanquishers of Doom in the box, kept the pioneer company, boosted to have all 8 sentinels as they are cute, and this time the mad axe lunatics actually got into combat, making a predator detachment wish they had stayed at home before retreating the following turn to a building
where some marines then murdered then with frag missiles, probably for the best really
also had a marine pioneer company, two lots of tarantula, four of each, the laser ones splatted a Kratos, then got splatted but distracted them enough my Kratos finished them, good work. the air defence ones never fired, and never fired at but kept the enemy air force out of range so a good job
had an armoured force for the marines, I haven't been impressed with the Sicaran, too short ranged and fragile, however two blocks of six did some work
won, indeed game called end of turn two as my opponent had little left.. even the Vanquishers of Doom (tm) didn't end a game that fast - though my opponents dice were terrible, I mean really terrible.. as in four AP0 hits on some Kratos killed one and wounded the other, which they ran away terrible.
Those little Thudd Gun Rapiers do some work though, infantry in the open gets shredded, not exactly cheap but good, especially the indirect fire ability.
in a twist of fate both Warhounds survived, never shot at each other, or even came into range to do so, neither taking a single hit from anything, but equally neither contributing much to the overall result
I think they are a liability to be honest, Reaver upwards may be different but the warhound is fragile
also face two thunderhawks again, nice, air dropping assault marines got hurty, thankfully only a unit of six and as we are both learning, they cannot clear buildings unless they outnumber whatever is in there
thunderhawks I also think are a liability, too many points for the save and wounds, especially when facing three flights of interceptors.. expensive but pulling their weight so far
good game, still no idea how a bomber is meant to work, no enemy unit got close enough to my board edge for a bombing attack
White Dwarf issue 493 has the death guard player taking a Legate in an auxiliary force allied to the death guard of 331 points in a army size force of less than 3000. He took it he's one of the games developers so taking it for a force less than 1500 is correct as long as full list is over 1500.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry didn't read as far down as post from MOD before I found the white dwarf article. I'll shut up now.
Jaxmeister wrote: White Dwarf issue 493 has the death guard player taking a Legate in an auxiliary force allied to the death guard of 331 points in a army size force of less than 3000. He took it he's one of the games developers.
The game developers that made the rule for quake, the rule that doesn't currently prevent anything from moving as it can only be fired after everything has moved, those game developers?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, dunno about anyone else but I’ve been off filming for my YouTubes channel. And it was fun.
To get us back on discussion track?
Which slot which presently has no commercially available models are you most looking forward to adding to your existing force?
I think I mostly want Light Armour for my Demi-Company. Mostly because I don’t think we’ve had anything that might fall into said slot previewed.
Interesting tidbit from the Mustering an Army section of the core rules...
Spoiler:
A player's Army points value (i.e., the total points cost of all its Detachments) can be equal to or less than the agreed points limit, but can never exceed it.
An army's points value is how much is spent. An army's points limit is how much was agreed to play. A certain rule is clearly and definitively based on a points limit, not on a points value.
Anyways,
Yeah, looking forward to the Sabre.
is this something that has been rumored/previewed? That's my favorite vehicle from the big game.
Was going to write my first impressions of the game but will leave it a while to see that the fire has died down... Jesus wept guys, went away for a few hours and it turned into royal rumble
Am popping into a couple of local stores today; my quest, either some marine tanks or a Thunderhawk. I fear it may end in failure.
Pacific wrote: Was going to write my first impressions of the game but will leave it a while to see that the fire has died down... Jesus wept guys, went away for a few hours and it turned into royal rumble
Am popping into a couple of local stores today; my quest, either some marine tanks or a Thunderhawk. I fear it may end in failure.
Thunderhawks are lovely models, no two ways about that, would be nice to get the transport one at some point too
think they need fighters, which can come on first, then when the thunderhawk arrives and the enemy decides to drop an interceptor, they can overwatch to try and defend their charge. given overwatch is all weapons (on a 6) v interceptors one weapon with a -2 (so a 6) this should work
I'm hoping my semi regular opponent doesn't work this bit out, though I can drop a lightning out of range of his Xiphon, he could stick them further forwards to end in range if I want to fire upon the juicy target
The Thunderhawk is indeed lovely. I'm looking forward to paint up one in Night Lord colours.
Rather than the Xiphon mini I'm probably going to use this one from Vanguard which is a bit more evil-looking, rather than the Battlestar Galactica-style official one.
Put in spoilers for the sake of people viewing on their phones
thunderhawks I also think are a liability, too many points for the save and wounds, especially when facing three flights of interceptors.. expensive but pulling their weight so far
My experience is the opposite. Too few points for the brutal firepower. And it is like a flying Kratos regarding W and Armour!
If you check the points per wounds and save all units in the game are crap actually.
will agree the thunderhawk has some nasty damage output potential, however to actually use it requires not lurking in a corner and being aggressive, which has its own problems.
it does have the "tiger terror" element to it however.
have faced a pair in two games, to date neither has managed much other than dropping off a six man assault marine unit (which to be fair was effective), both dropping dead to my interceptors reasonably fast and both corner hugging to limit overwatch fire against them
I suspect used more aggressively, maybe from T2 onwards when other stuff is also in my face they would do a lot better
Automatically Appended Next Post: incidentally what all these experiences prove, which is I think quite good, its not just the model but the way a player uses it that matters, don't seem to be any "I have this so I win" units
every game though has seen about a third to a half of the models die on the first turn, then a proper furball over one objective and the survivors battered and trying to hold on
tneva82 wrote: One can mitigate interceptors by overwatch. Even better if own xiphons move to cover. Take hit on 5+ rerolling overwatching shots 1st.
Plus then they have already delivered cargo.
it all varies a bit, given the 30" range on the lightnings missiles the things only need move to 30" from the thunderhawks, this may well be outside of the range of anything to overwatch them - hence my comment on their escorts coming on first, well ahead of the thunderhawks planned location, specifically to make their own overwatch weapons (4+ to hit base, 6 for overwatch - though yes with a re-roll on four shots per Xiphon) be within range, or the interceptor have to be out of range of the T'hawk
and the T'hawk comes on in one activation, the bods dismount on the next activation so a single interceptor flight can come in and take a shot, though its a single weapon system so for me usually two dice of skystrike missiles, hitting on a 6 with a re-roll.. and the T'hak ends up saving on a 3+ so its got a pretty good chance to live
but it does benefit significantly from escorts being in place first, they lose their "intercept" shot, but can fire full overwatch, however any interceptors that do survive will later be firing at full effect
though as you correctly note, by then the cargo, which is likely more dangerous, has dropped.
incidentally, have found thudd guns are remarkably good at dealing with assault bods arriving this way if within suitable overwatch range, just from the volume of shots
so far everything seems to have a counter, which in turn can be countered, and player actions count for quite a bit - which is a good thing
the bigger expensive beasties seem to depend far more on tactics to get the best out of them, which is no bad thing
I need two more T-Hawks for my Raven Guard. Only thing missing from my first go at an air wing/aerial assault detachment (4 Storm Eagles, 2 Fire Raptors, 3 Xiphons, and a T-Hawk so far).
Love the description 'tiger terror' Leopard, think that is spot on for how they behave.
They can definitely be a massive PITA, and that ability to discorge the infantry onto an objective, or some other annoying place, and then back it up with a few nasty shots I don't think can be overlooked.
it all varies a bit, given the 30" range on the lightnings missiles the things only need move to 30" from the thunderhawks, this may well be outside of the range of anything to overwatch them - hence my comment on their escorts coming on first, well ahead of the thunderhawks planned location, specifically to make their own overwatch weapons (4+ to hit base, 6 for overwatch - though yes with a re-roll on four shots per Xiphon) be within range, or the interceptor have to be out of range of the T'hawk
and the T'hawk comes on in one activation, the bods dismount on the next activation so a single interceptor flight can come in and take a shot, though its a single weapon system so for me usually two dice of skystrike missiles, hitting on a 6 with a re-roll.. and the T'hak ends up saving on a 3+ so its got a pretty good chance to live
Skyfire overwatch -1 to hit, not -2. Hence xiphon missiles on 5+ rerolling.
Also disembark is on transport activation. Interceptor can't stop. Only overwatch.
missed the -1 bit, guess the actual overwatch rules noting -2 and the skyfire bit being elsewhere doesn't help.. noted though
also on the disembarkation, thats cunning, though overwatch from other units will be more dangerous anyway - point with interceptor is that can do it and still fire later
Yea. But if guys in transport want out it's on transport activation. Of course every turn might not want. Depending on how dangerous i might not want to disembark t1 and instead shoot from far big dangers from relative safety
tneva82 wrote: Yea. But if guys in transport want out it's on transport activation. Of course every turn might not want. Depending on how dangerous i might not want to disembark t1 and instead shoot from far big dangers from relative safety
which is of course perfectly valid, stay out of range of enemy air defences, or at least minimise the amount of fire if there is a safe location to snipe from - e.g. have that mahoosive cannon ready if other stuff drops a titans shields
not immune to damage of course as fliers can still move into range, of course bring your own air defences and you can create a reasonably safe pocket to operate from
I actually think the idea of keeping the bodies on board until T2 or T3 will make their value shoot up as by then half the enemy will be dead anyway
same with the full on marine air wing formation, doesn't need huge units in multiple Storm Eagles if half the targets are already dead and its a clean up operation.
do need to get around to sorting some air transports to try that sort of thing, given enemies now expect the Vanquishers of Doom (tm) or similar with marines, swap a chunk of the list into flappy birds brigade and see how it goes
So after playing some games, my thoughts on Legions so far. I'll call it The Good, The Bad and The Ugly/Pretty
The Good - Firstly, and most importantly, the game is definitely fun. Had an absolute blast! Once we got going (more on that later).
- I liked how dynamic/fast moving it is. The increased movement (over previous versions) and reduced ranges means there is a lot more of units rushing around the table and blowing each other up, a lot less slow 10cm trudging move and not doing anything. And it is a *lot* more destructive. Don't get too attached to any unit, as it will generally die when it is shot.
- Alternating activation keeps both players involved, having to think of what order to fire your units or move to engage.
- The missions and objectives system, as this was one area perhaps lacking a bit from previous versions. I liked that most of them are based around capturing your objectives rather than just 'kill stuff' and it really encouraged you to dive in.
The Bad - The Rulebook. In terms of barrier to entry, if this book was a pair of chastity pants they would be made of wrought iron, covered in spikes and double-padlocked. I *love* Epic and reading this book was an absolute chore. Like the Age of Darkness book, just the complete lack of colour, of artwork, even the po-faced background bits are boring. And the rules themselves are a needlessly wordy; I think someone pointed out before it is to stop 'TFG' reading them upside down and coming to some daft idea of how to play it, but the net result is that they read like the T&Cs from my car insurance.
- The Crunch. Barrier to entry part II. It's not quite as bad as I first feared, so as to make the game unplayable, but I've been wargaming for 30 years, played a ton of the previous versions of Epic, and was playing against people of a similar experience level and we still struggled. Once we got going it was OK (we had to use a third-party app of the Armylist builder to help rules reference) but it took some getting there. I would not want to be coming to this game as a relative newbie or casual player from something like Age of Sigmar, Warcry or One Page Rules systems. There is just so much additional bumf in the rules, references from one rule to another, that could have been handled much more efficiently without altering the feel of the game. So in that respect, I do not think it is well written and could have done with a more forceful editor.
- Table size & miniature count. I assume this might change as the roster gets filled out (we are essentially playing an unfinished beta version of the game at present) but even at 1500pts the game board feels very crowded. This has removed tactical agency as you effectively just swarm things forward to die.
- Multiple weapon loadouts and WYSIWYG - I don't think this is a good idea at this scale. It's quite funny that GW have obviously aimed the game at a certain age demographic, without accounting for fading eyesight. We have just used a 'this unit is armed with this' approach and gone through the list at the start of the game, which I think worked better, even though I know this won't be acceptable to some players.
The Ugly/Pretty In summary I will say there is a great game there, underneath. It's a bit of a gourmet meal, you have to crack through some shellfish to get at the succulent parts within and if you spend the effort you can enjoy it. But I think a lot of gamers, and especially the more casual, will not be willing or able to make that effort - and so I think because of this (combined with short stock levels and marketing/coverage - not a single mention in the new WD for example) is only ever going to be a fringe system. Which is a shame, as all of us over a certain age (and remembering Epic Space Marine as the game that got us into the hobby) know that it could have been more and held widespread appeal.
Anyway - the miniatures look beautiful (actually, they look like the tiny drawings in the old 1st edition book of dozens of tiny beakies fighting each other, which is jsut awesome). I'm looking forward to the first, much needed, expansion to be released so we can get to play the game in its full form.
The book is definitely a slog, it feels often like my inner monologue takes on the voice of ben stein when reading some of the most tedious parts. The game is undeniably fun. I gotta disagree on the wysiwyg, it's a balancer, if it didn't matter in the games I've had, there would be far less variance in weapon loadouts and a lot more homogeneity. The only thing keeping that tank having a battlecannon right now is it physically having one and me not having a vanquisher to replace it with. Being overly permissive on wysiwyg in this situation would mean me not even having to put in the effort to even convert these russes, could just pretend they have vanqs. Speaking only from experience, the only thing keeping myself or my opponent from running very cynical builds/loadouts is simply the lack of physically having every model in the ideal loadout currently, like running some contemptors with kheres for now because we have them but likely to be all lascannon in the near future. But in a game that's already so permissive when it comes to army construction AND the rarity of weapon upgrades costing any additional points, not playing wyswyg seems less than ideal, it can be a decision born out of compassion for an opponent with a less than ideal collection of miniatures, but going the other way as like an event policy, the ambiguity can be so badly abused, to say nothing of the effect on immersion as well.
I think 3 main points of focus to ponder given wave 2's delay:
- Tackling the game feeling at times top heavy, this might be through missions design, we've debated the merits of progressive vs end game scoring and given the insane vp scores you see even in small games its worth considering. Other consideration would be encouraging/forcing some units into reserve, all the functional rules bits for reserve are already in the book, a missions just needs to communicate its basic functions. Missions/scenarios in general may need to limit/cap stuff like infiltrate/deepstrike.
- Limiting formations at certain point levels. I'd like to maybe try and do an event around 1500-2000pts but would want to cap it at 4 formations max, for example. This might also include having to limit players to one marine legion unless they want to burn their 30% allies to take a second. That's both balance and aesthetic. As much as I very much look forward to big 2v2 games with multiple legions on the board, I just don't love how cynical one can go to take advantage of the different legions rather varied special rules. I don't even think limiting formations is much of a silver bullet for balance, more just to get people used to being told no in an otherwise very permissive game.
- Keeping an eye combined arms being incentive or made to be the focus. The reality is, while many are still struggling to get their hands on all the models they want, certain things going brrr change the supply and possibilities for some. And that's a reality that I don't think has hit everyone yet in terms of just how permissive and unconstrained army construction really is when supply/access isn't an impediment. One truly can run a single formation 50 leman russ and 12 baneblade army and its just under 3k, one really can run 8 lightnings for all of 610pts in a single pioneer formation for solar aux (would still need a few key things), Skimask mohawk has pointed out on b&c you can get like 48 missile launcher bases in a single demi company and its like 520pts. The aforementioned 50 leman russ army could be all vanquisher/lascannon. So not that there's anything wrong with taking a lot of detachments in a mass battle game, if we also want it to be combined arms, I'm hoping the balance is found in the real need for a variety of unit types, I really hope some silly skew lists or just spamming a good detachments with the best loadouts as many times as possible don't become the norm, so worth keeping an eye on. The game is an all you can eat buffet, my concern going into wave 2 isn't just players potentially taking crazy portions of only the best things but full on going past that and stealing the steam tray. It's not even a concern in terms of cynicism, access can lead to disparities as well. Can't fault a marine player if their army is majority kratos if its the only box of tanks they can buy that aren't rhinos. And if no delay or supply issues existed, things going brrr or players with deep pockets both lead us to the same place.
The book is certainly needlessly wordy, and for all the "its to make it precise"... it isn't, the extra words seldom help clarity and more often confuse it.
at least its not "DBA 2.0" level "look at me, aren't I clever" language, and I's much prefer, if they want wordy, something closer to the Star Fleet Battles "Engineering document" style of writing and cross referencing - the latter part of which would certainly help when a rule is in one place, and a host of exceptions are elsewhere
e.g. the "skyfire" rule would be a lot better if it had a list of exceptions, with page references, as a bullet point list below it.
this sort of page referencing is made a lot easier when you number paragraphs and sections and use that instead of page references
main issue with that of course is GW's mix of paranoia and inability to think ahead as it largely requires a completed rules framework for all of the edition before any of it is published - and to be honest they should have the rules nailed down before the first book is written - add the fluff, add the units etc later but the actual mechanics should be known up front.
I think its a good game, it has the potential to be an excellent one, but its not there yet and without a few changes to approach it can't be (e.g. weapons upgrades being wildly unbalanced)
and note this latter point is actually reasonably easy to fix. take the humble Leman Russ and the Vanquisher option
make them separate units, which can have different point costs
the basic unit can then maybe allow one or two Vanquishers to be added to the basic four at a higher cost than adding more basic ones
yes its a re-write of the units, but doesn't change any of the core rules, formations can note that maybe they can/cannot be "core" units
most of the weapon disparities can be addressed in this way without having to back down on "upgrades cost no points, except for Rhinos because feth Rhinos"
the bit on how some people will always have access to more stuff applies in every game system out they beyond card counters systems. its being helped locally with the approach of "don't use printed units unless your opponent has access to similar" combined with "be willing to help fellow players access stuff"
e.g. I've printed Xiphon for a few people, one guy has a few Thunderhawks so I don't feel bad printing a few Storm Eagles etc
- Limiting formations at certain point levels. I'd like to maybe try and do an event around 1500-2000pts but would want to cap it at 4 formations max, for example. This might also include having to limit players to one marine legion unless they want to burn their 30% allies to take a second. That's both balance and aesthetic. As much as I very much look forward to big 2v2 games with multiple legions on the board, I just don't love how cynical one can go to take advantage of the different legions rather varied special rules. I don't even think limiting formations is much of a silver bullet for balance, more just to get people used to being told no in an otherwise very permissive game.
Agreed. There is a minimum of formations stablished by the rulebook. I would also stablish a maximum (something like 2xminimum or 3xminimum).
- Keeping an eye combined arms being incentive or made to be the focus. The reality is, while many are still struggling to get their hands on all the models they want, certain things going brrr change the supply and possibilities for some. And that's a reality that I don't think has hit everyone yet in terms of just how permissive and unconstrained army construction really is when supply/access isn't an impediment. One truly can run a single formation 50 leman russ and 12 baneblade army and its just under 3k, one really can run 8 lightnings for all of 610pts in a single pioneer formation for solar aux (would still need a few key things), Skimask mohawk has pointed out on b&c you can get like 48 missile launcher bases in a single demi company and its like 520pts. The aforementioned 50 leman russ army could be all vanquisher/lascannon. So not that there's anything wrong with taking a lot of detachments in a mass battle game, if we also want it to be combined arms, I'm hoping the balance is found in the real need for a variety of unit types, I really hope some silly skew lists or just spamming a good detachments with the best loadouts as many times as possible don't become the norm, so worth keeping an eye on. The game is an all you can eat buffet, my concern going into wave 2 isn't just players potentially taking crazy portions of only the best things but full on going past that and stealing the steam tray. It's not even a concern in terms of cynicism, access can lead to disparities as well. Can't fault a marine player if their army is majority kratos if its the only box of tanks they can buy that aren't rhinos. And if no delay or supply issues existed, things going brrr or players with deep pockets both lead us to the same place.
It is boring how people keep mentioning vanquisher again and again and again when missile launchers are way more broken, and can be taken if way higher numbers (and armoured companies should fit perfectly at this scale). But yeah, you are at least mentioning those too. right now SM missile launchers + rhinos is the most broken (and annoying due to potential numbers).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Well Epic Warpath will be almost the exact same game but probably explained in like 16 pages
I've seen their beta rules, and they have actually taken the best of Epic editions (LI haven't, and should have done), so not the same game, but better. I would say LI is a straight bad game (and I do not even take balance into account as I played narrative only so far), and I do not blame GW per se because the same department made ToW which is way way better (and took the best from previous editions).
think there is an issue with missile launcher teams for sure (as in they need to cost slightly more than they do, and perhaps be limited to two stands in a tactical unit)
its actually the same issue as the vanquisher, though not quite so obvious, both fall into the "why wouldn't you?" category, for the points there being no real downside
both should be good in specialist units, both are too good currently taken as general stuff.
both come over, indeed quite a bit comes over, as GW thinking the number in the box is a limit and "no one will spam them", though obviously a 100% vanquisher build is possible and there really is no reason not to currently
sorting the SM missile launchers to cost slightly more and maybe be limited in numbers in tactical units also makes the plasma guys perhaps worth a look where as presently they essentially are shelf happy
still not sure there is a need for a maximum number of formations, having too many makes them individually small and individually fragile. I do think that for marines you should have one legion as your force and others fall under the "allies" percentage however
SU-152 wrote: I've seen their beta rules, and they have actually taken the best of Epic editions (LI haven't, and should have done), so not the same game, but better. I would say LI is a straight bad game (and I do not even take balance into account as I played narrative only so far), and I do not blame GW per se because the same department made ToW which is way way better (and took the best from previous editions).
might be the simple difference that with TOW we have the rules first and models+background later (and also changing the background to fit the rules), while usually GW works the other way around, making models and background first and than write the rules to fit those
I think that is, in very broad terms, whats wrong with a lot of GW games - they do not sit down and create the rules framework and mechanics first, its almost an afterthought
I think that's just a matter of how GW see themselves. They're a company that makes models. The rules are an accessory, and an optional one at that. If you use their rules with proxy minis, they don't make much money. If you buy the minis just for the fun of assembling and painting them, and never actually play a game, they still make plenty of money.
So something that's come up is with the exception of firestorm weapons mentioning touching one end to the weapon, nothing in the book talks about los and how to draw los in much detail.
It also would seem blast weapons and possibly firestorm weapons can target models that are engaged/pinned. Quake doesn't pick a target detachment, you just pick a point on the board, roll to hit/scatter and that's it.
In the case of firestorm it also basically has split fire.
Just as a quick note I have noticed that the latest Legion Builder app update has included loadout selection - so it now includes this in your prints etc. So the game's most useful/helpful tool just got a bit better.
I haven't got a copy of the Great Slaughter so don't know if they have included all of the stuff from that yet, although it did look like the formations list has expanded.
Pacific wrote: Just as a quick note I have noticed that the latest Legion Builder app update has included loadout selection - so it now includes this in your prints etc. So the game's most useful/helpful tool just got a bit better.
I haven't got a copy of the Great Slaughter so don't know if they have included all of the stuff from that yet, although it did look like the formations list has expanded.
Yeah it's a great tool, they have indeed added the stuff from the great slaughter, there was a few error last I saw but mostly spelling mistakes.
Just slapped some color on all the different legions to find out which ones I enjoy painting. I already have a small Salamander and Deathguard army each, with a detachment of Sons of Horus. A detachment of Iron Warriors and World Eaters will also follow for sure. As for the rest, still undecided... The black colored legions look dull and Thousand Sons didn't turn out great. Maybe Alpha Legion? Realy nice that you can mix and match some legions in LI and keep it fluffy and working still.
Garfield666 wrote: Realy nice that you can mix and match some legions in LI and keep it fluffy and working still.
visually it can have great appeal if limited, game-wise it's not great, has lead to very cynical combinations for less than awesome reasons, like taking just enough emperor's children for a re-roll.
Yeah, the EC are something you can abuse easily, but most of the others can be added without any cheese.
Thinking about doing a White Scars detachment in honor of a buddys 40k favorites.
There are so many instances in the books where several legions fight alongside each other, but in 40k that was unreasonable outside of big mega battles.
Garfield666 wrote: Yeah, the EC are something you can abuse easily, but most of the others can be added without any cheese.
Thinking about doing a White Scars detachment in honor of a buddys 40k favorites.
There are so many instances in the books where several legions fight alongside each other, but in 40k that was unreasonable outside of big mega battles.
Sure but having no limits? A legal 18 legion army? Why doesn't the second legion come out of the 30% allies?
Worse, one could have a legal 18 legion army only made up of land speeders. For a game that just announced a third yet to be titled book it really should think about saying no to stuff on occasion
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: cheesemongers will always find a selection of mature chedder to play with
It's not even really cheese mongering necessarily, its just a really weirdly permissive army building mechanic on gw's end. Like I can no more fault someone running 2 legions in an army than i can fault them for running like 5 and allies. I think for events though I'm def gonna cap marines at 2, and the 2nd legion will come out of the 30% allies. On the other end, can't stop solar aux from taking a really cynical marine like EC, I just really hope that doesn't become a thing.
local shop has a few boxes in now, still no marine infantry, boxes are the newer bits mostly, the stuff people are not buying as they can't get the book with the rules in
hopefully the book issue gets sorted at some point
well with how most of the game is structured I think drop heavy is a liability, you need to be on objectives right from the off. delay and you may be too far back on points - nice balancing act
drop/air assault stuff is useful but at the off will die too easily, needs the enemy thinning out a bit.
I'm planning to go with some, and some airborne stuff, but keeping it smaller as a bit of a threat/firefighting unit.
will take a while to work it all out though I think thats all part of it
leopard wrote: well with how most of the game is structured I think drop heavy is a liability, you need to be on objectives right from the off. delay and you may be too far back on points - nice balancing act
drop/air assault stuff is useful but at the off will die too easily, needs the enemy thinning out a bit.
I'm planning to go with some, and some airborne stuff, but keeping it smaller as a bit of a threat/firefighting unit.
will take a while to work it all out though I think thats all part of it
Most of it can come in turn 1, pods other than the scatter itself don't have much risk like say a thunderhawk getting shot down with non assault marine cargo. The only thing mitigating them for many is access and cost, but as always on the brrrr side its very possible to see many pods.
It's also another knock against knights that are starting to seem more and more expensive after the latest book, 152pts for the 6 leviathans in pods isn't even 1 questoris. Other than bad scatter or getting overwatched, also in the context of infiltrate still being handed out like candy, I feel like I'm able to have my my cake and eat it too because whether raven guard or solar aux with pioneer, infantry can start pretty much wherever depending on how much the opponent has for infiltrators, but to then to be able supplement that with leviathans in pods is a bit easy, also there isn't much savings in the larger units, so 2 units of 4 leviathans each with pods is only 5pts more than one detachment of 8.
I was running SA, with one Sub-Cohort + one Pioneer Co. Plenty of infantry, 2 reinforced tank platoons (mixed LRs), LC tarantulas, and 2 flights of 3 Lightings.
Agains Sons of Horus: 1 armoured formation with xyphons, plus 1 demi-Co with SA allies and more xyphons.
I was able to cripple the opposing airforce. My tarantulas were able to divert the Kratos. Then my horde of infantry was unstoppable scoring.
But thanks to total air supremacy I tabled the opposing side at the end of turn 3.
I've played abunch of games and:
To overcome an initial difference in score is extremelly dificult.
Yes I think I've been tabled or tabled the other person in each game I have played, or at least the outcome was not in doubt probably after end of turn 2. I quite like Crablezworth's idea of end of game scoring (or else using a VP 'benchmark' to win, as per Epic 2nd edition, which allows you to come back later in the game) so might try that after a few more games.
Disappointed to see no mention at all of Legions in WD 498. I can understand not every 'other box game' getting mention each month, but you've got a new expansion, whole range of new minis for a new game - it should have got something.
I was running SA, with one Sub-Cohort + one Pioneer Co. Plenty of infantry, 2 reinforced tank platoons (mixed LRs), LC tarantulas, and 2 flights of 3 Lightings.
Agains Sons of Horus: 1 armoured formation with xyphons, plus 1 demi-Co with SA allies and more xyphons.
I was able to cripple the opposing airforce. My tarantulas were able to divert the Kratos. Then my horde of infantry was unstoppable scoring.
But thanks to total air supremacy I tabled the opposing side at the end of turn 3.
I've played abunch of games and:
To overcome an initial difference in score is extremelly dificult.
Tabling is quite common.
My very broad "meta" thoughts are:
Flyers can be a big liability to balance, locally it's very much have and have nots in terms of airforce. I like flyers but the costing seems off, and the amount that can be taken in a detachment can get really oppressive.
The initial games that were more infantry and tank focused seemed more "fun" in terms of balance and game length. If someone was getting tabled it was late game generally.
Titans like flyers can really break/swing game balance. I think what I'm finding is, the games "economy" only seems to function well at lower point levels. But the only balance to be found as points creep past 1k is like talking to one's opponent about what sort of battle/game either is looking to have.
Here's a great example of that too, We've been testing the waters of 1k list and then an agreed upon amount/points level of knights and titans. Next game for example we're doing 1k, but me and my opponent agreed to both take a questoris with armigers. Further plans are trying out like mirror match titan lists (by titans, not weapon loadout) so for example 2 hounds, 2 reavers and a warlord are 2090pts, that plus a 1k list that starts in reserve. A classic example of what tends tso happen otherwise is, at 2k, if one side fields a full 2k and ther other takes a 600pt warlord it get be too swingy, I try to avoid even saying balance because while that's part of it, the real culprit is also huge activation disparities when one side has a model worth 600pts and the other does not.
Flyers aren't as bad as titans, but they can add up. Things are changing now that tarantulas are out, but that's sadly my other concern, spamming tarantulas isn't just effective, it's insanely cheap and on the solar aux side the get infiltrate if taken in pioneer company. But ya the games balancing of unit types could use more guard rails than infinite formations, I sort of wish we could pick battles or scenarios that have differing limits on what armies can and can't have, or would put some stuff in reserve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: Yes I think I've been tabled or tabled the other person in each game I have played, or at least the outcome was not in doubt probably after end of turn 2. I quite like Crablezworth's idea of end of game scoring (or else using a VP 'benchmark' to win, as per Epic 2nd edition, which allows you to come back later in the game) so might try that after a few more games.
Disappointed to see no mention at all of Legions in WD 498. I can understand not every 'other box game' getting mention each month, but you've got a new expansion, whole range of new minis for a new game - it should have got something.
Ya end game scoring big. The infantry moshpit early lead turn 2 tap out while it can look cool and very much like box art, I feel like the game skews enough to infantry given how brutal combat is, triple speed march order and nothing slowing them down, I don't want to add to that by who can stack the most preferential special rules next to an arbitrary circle.
I think there's less mention of legions because logistically it's the biggest adjustment for them on a documentation side. The big initial 3k battle report from last year that was done before the delays, it actually highlighted how difficult it is to try and document something far smaller than normal in any meaningful way, the other problem too is if the board is always going to be an unbroken urban sprawl, if there aren't enough focal points its actually kinda taxing to try and follow, I know just from photographing games while playing, alternating activation makes documenting stuff much more difficult both photo wise and video wise. AT didn't get a tonne of coverage I think for the same reason, they're just so much more tooled up to do batreps at higher scales.
I picked up mine from a local GW today - a halo of light of surrounded it as I entered and it floated up and into my hands the guy behind the till said he had got hold of 4 just to stock up!
Crablezworth - about the WD features I get what you are saying, but have you seen the old Epic battles book full of battle reps and articles? If they managed to take photos with (I am guessing) old macro lens film cameras, on far smaller and less detailed minis, and make it look awesome, there is no excuse for not managing to do it nowadays with the camera kit available. I agree I don't think the identikit tiles (all done to shift more terrain) stock - some of the stuff yourself and Sherrypie do show what the potential is far better I think, if they let some of the Eavy Metal guys loose with some 3d printers and paintbrushes.
Crablezworth - about the WD features I get what you are saying, but have you seen the old Epic battles book full of battle reps and articles? If they managed to take photos with (I am guessing) old macro lens film cameras, on far smaller and less detailed minis, and make it look awesome, there is no excuse for not managing to do it nowadays with the camera kit available. I agree I don't think the identikit tiles (all done to shift more terrain) stock - some of the stuff yourself and Sherrypie do show what the potential is far better I think, if they let some of the Eavy Metal guys loose with some 3d printers and paintbrushes.
The difference now is they can't do a battle report on a nice piece of negative space like a bright green field. It's easier to track points of interest like little hamlets or collections of structures when the board itself isn't an unbroken urban landscape. The current legions boards they show are like 25-40 structures.
Would love them to do a report like this with the old school green.
The problem now for gw goes beyond just legions, because they went from largely hobby boards and terrain to strictly only showing their offerings. Even the LI books suffers in this regard because the all of two example battlefield are city and slightly ruined city
But added to that, it is difficult to document alternating activation because so much gets sandwiched in the middle. Example, if it was turn based, I could take a picture at the stat and end of each player turn and that'd only be like 10-20 pictures, even older epic editions I believe some the movement phase was i go you go but the combat phase was alternating, even that cleans up documenting movement because its just a before and after, like marines were here, now they're here ect. Alternating is nuts, it means documenting while playing is like next to impossible without it being a real drag for one's opponent.
That's also why I like the end game scoring for LI, because even though the documentation issues are still present, you can still sort of follow the battle somewhat, but most importantly, the last few photos showing who controls what really should/does/can tell the tale, like one can infer the score mostly by sight alone. This isn't true sadly for progressive scoring in LI where it's often hard to translate what one is seeing in terms of mosh pits of units all over objectives.
Yes that is very true - I think the nature of the game changing probably makes it harder to report on. Remember from those old battle reps the Cult of Speed flanking Squat artillery, Eldar titans crossing fjords and being shot at. You did have mosh pits (that is a great description), but not the squeezed table looking like a horde of 12yr olds playing football at lunchtime and chasing after the ball. As much as that has its own cool imagery from the descriptions in the 28mm 30k books and Heresy series (which may be what the designers were going for).
One positive I shall take from this is that it has made me want to dust off my copy of Epic Battles.
I have to disagree heavily on the reporting issue. Any battle, fictional or real, will have key moments that are important to communicate and background that's just kinda there. Exhaustive, comprehensive documentation on every unit's every action is very rarely desirable in reports unless you're already committing to it from a training exercise angle. Alternating activation doesn't make it harder to pick what those moments are, it just changes the flow a bit. Just look at any Kill Team reports or any arbitrarily chosen skirmish game in general, or Bolt Action, or any Lardies game and so on. If you want a solid AA example for very clear Epic reporting, check henafoo's older E:A games on Youtube.
On the one hand, it's wonderful that the Epic community has now grown so much. Some of the FB groups have doubled, tripled or more, and there is lots of great new hobby content.
But (you knew there was a but coming I am sure ) with the increase in volume comes some 'bad eggs'. People that have got some sort of insecurity or other problem at home (or maybe they are just a bad egg?) that means they have to drop to personal insults and threats (I actually saw the words "you say that to my face" earlier, which is so sad that it reached that point) - over rules for an effing game of toy soldiers. And then as follow on threads deleted as admins (and I don't blame them) just nuke the whole lot.
It is one thing that has changed from before - I felt like I knew a good number of people in the community. Conversation was always civil, and mostly friendly, I could post someone some minis to finish their collection and had people help me likewise. It's perhaps unavoidable now with volume a lot of this has gone and also new rules, models, releases seem to act like a catalyst for argument; I don't know if this is what 40k/AoS groups are like all the time, but what an awful state if they are.
Sherrypie wrote: I have to disagree heavily on the reporting issue. Any battle, fictional or real, will have key moments that are important to communicate and background that's just kinda there.
Yes but with progressive scoring those key moments tend to fall back on big things dying, because it's very hard to say "oh wow, this unit was next this objective the end of this turn,,, and this....and this ....and this" It's difficult to narrow down key moments in a game of basketball vs say low scoring games like hockey or soccer. So the key moments can fall back on just interesting moments of two units fighting in cc ect but the key moments in say a hockey game and a basketball game, you'd have to really pare down the shots of the basketball game. That's why documenting end game scoring is easier than progressive scoring imo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sherrypie wrote: Exhaustive, comprehensive documentation on every unit's every action is very rarely desirable in reports unless you're already committing to it from a training exercise angle.
Agreed. but a before and after movement phase shot of say a turn base game, re "all units were here, now they're here" is at least a conceivable endeavor, the li movement phase contains so much back and forth, in addition to some shooting and bombing that a whole whack load of things can occur more so than turn based, a small exception might be 30k 2.0 and its silly reaction stuff. But alternating activation really is more difficult to document imo, at least consistently, it seems much more about just getting nice shots but actual documentation that can be followed without a write up is tough to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sherrypie wrote: . Alternating activation doesn't make it harder to pick what those moments are, it just changes the flow a bit.
Yeah but in my case, doing it while also playing is super taxing mentally vs documenting a game between friends where I can place my focus solely on the task of taking pics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sherrypie wrote: Just look at any Kill Team reports or any arbitrarily chosen skirmish game in general, or Bolt Action, or any Lardies game and so on. If you want a solid AA example for very clear Epic reporting, check henafoo's older E:A games on Youtube.
Well kill team's model count is pretty low, but again I'd put the distinction between documenting while also playing vs being a third party fly on the wall. But so far with LI playing and documenting has been difficult, it's mostly like you say exhaustive comprehensive reporting of every units actions just isn't possible so gotta just sorta pick moments here and there and snap what might be a cool shot, context sorta taking a back seat a bit. I try and get army shots pre game as that's a big help in terms of untangling what's on the board as well as end game shots if possible to who ended up in control of what end game.
Pacific wrote: I don't know if this is what 40k/AoS groups are like all the time, but what an awful state if they are.
don't know about those groups but the warhammer fantasy groups have similar problems
general there is the clash between "I want to know how this game is played" people asking rules questions and the "by asking questions you are saying my game is bad and I don't like that" people
I just stay away from the larger groups for now and wait for updated rules to drop as I have the feeling that this is related to certain style of rules writing that is similar to both games and the problem that certain questions cannot be answered (and some people have a problem with that)
Pacific wrote: On the one hand, it's wonderful that the Epic community has now grown so much. Some of the FB groups have doubled, tripled or more, and there is lots of great new hobby content.
But (you knew there was a but coming I am sure ) with the increase in volume comes some 'bad eggs'. People that have got some sort of insecurity or other problem at home (or maybe they are just a bad egg?) that means they have to drop to personal insults and threats (I actually saw the words "you say that to my face" earlier, which is so sad that it reached that point) - over rules for an effing game of toy soldiers. And then as follow on threads deleted as admins (and I don't blame them) just nuke the whole lot.
It is one thing that has changed from before - I felt like I knew a good number of people in the community. Conversation was always civil, and mostly friendly, I could post someone some minis to finish their collection and had people help me likewise. It's perhaps unavoidable now with volume a lot of this has gone and also new rules, models, releases seem to act like a catalyst for argument; I don't know if this is what 40k/AoS groups are like all the time, but what an awful state if they are.
A lot of the facebook groups are run by like absentee admins and mods, I got booted out of the ontaro legions imperialis group on facebook for posting screenshots of a book review that I linked to on youtube for the great slaughter, the same admin who apparently greatly felt like white knighting gw had no problem ignoring my requests to remove my own intellectual property from his group, very consitent . But that's typical sadly, there aren't any checks and balances on bad admins and mods on facebook other than shaming them to the wider public, which works really well actually but isn't really worth it most of the time.
My experience has been the communities are sorta all over the place, my complaint isn't so much new blood but a lack of focus. The old world has syphoned off a lot of peoples attention to LI at least locally and it really sucks. I'm honestly a bit disgusted with how easy it is to ring a "new thing" bell and have people just flock to that, I've never been more convinced that GW is its own worst enemy. I'm happy for them but the timing sucks for legions. Entire movie studios slave over release schedules precisely because they don't want to overlap with other big movies because consumer have finite time and resources, It's on gamers as well for having the focus of a small animal but it's super depressing. Completely deflates any urge I had to run an event because it feels like even if it's planned a month out people will be on to the next new thing or playing old world instead of li. Le sigh. GW's terrible communication on releases isn't helping either. It's hard to shine that turd for new players because I either have to lie to them or be honest and say "this game is a bit of an early access game, but there's also dlc's" and the look of disgust/malaise on potential players faces is unavoidable, its that or lie to them and say everything is great like some youtuber who gets free gw stuff, but I can't do that sadly.
Pacific wrote: I don't know if this is what 40k/AoS groups are like all the time, but what an awful state if they are.
don't know about those groups but the warhammer fantasy groups have similar problems
general there is the clash between "I want to know how this game is played" people asking rules questions and the "by asking questions you are saying my game is bad and I don't like that" people
I just stay away from the larger groups for now and wait for updated rules to drop as I have the feeling that this is related to certain style of rules writing that is similar to both games and the problem that certain questions cannot be answered (and some people have a problem with that)
HH players don't seem to like being told HH 2.0 rules are bad, even though they'd be the first to say an FAQ is overdue, you're absolutely right that people are weirdly territorial and defensive of games in fb groups, I've seen it as well where people just asking blunt questions are enough to upset someone.
people get weirdly territorial over the most trivial of things, people are people.
in other news yoof has started a legions army, well actually two. Ultramarines and then either Iron Warriors or Sons of Horus (not decided which yet). and he can actually paint them as fast as I can print the things.
started out by pinching the two marine sprues from my starter set that I'd done nothing with, and painted them blue.
will grab pics when I see them next as hes a sod for painting well and fast, sprayed blue, drybrushed Calgar blue, added weapons and backpack in gun metal, bits of helmet colours, cloaks and trim, then a thinned black wash and very minimal highlighting
has one of the two frames done and the other half done, plus eight Rhinos of the initial nine he wants (one failed to print), a bunch of dreadnaughts, eight sicaran and a pair of Kratos..
hes building two forces so a few of his friends who will play it can have a loner army and he has a spare one until they get their own
Sherrypie wrote: I have to disagree heavily on the reporting issue. Any battle, fictional or real, will have key moments that are important to communicate and background that's just kinda there.
Yes but with progressive scoring those key moments tend to fall back on big things dying, because it's very hard to say "oh wow, this unit was next this objective the end of this turn,,, and this....and this ....and this" It's difficult to narrow down key moments in a game of basketball vs say low scoring games like hockey or soccer. So the key moments can fall back on just interesting moments of two units fighting in cc ect but the key moments in say a hockey game and a basketball game, you'd have to really pare down the shots of the basketball game. That's why documenting end game scoring is easier than progressive scoring imo.
While there certainly is less material to comb through in an end game score, I'm not necessarily convinced that it's all that much different. I like to talk through the games we play with my opponents and it's not usually that hard to discern what the major turning points have been. It's often things like "when you did those Marches there" or "when you failed to crush this flank here" moreso than "woah that unit dying just changed everything" (which obviously also happens a lot). Especially in the context of LI, where objectives are sticky and you don't need to sit next to them unless there is a major enemy push onto them.
Sherrypie wrote: Exhaustive, comprehensive documentation on every unit's every action is very rarely desirable in reports unless you're already committing to it from a training exercise angle.
Agreed. but a before and after movement phase shot of say a turn base game, re "all units were here, now they're here" is at least a conceivable endeavor, the li movement phase contains so much back and forth, in addition to some shooting and bombing that a whole whack load of things can occur more so than turn based, a small exception might be 30k 2.0 and its silly reaction stuff. But alternating activation really is more difficult to document imo, at least consistently, it seems much more about just getting nice shots but actual documentation that can be followed without a write up is tough to do.
Mh. That depends again on what level of documentation one is looking for. You can't really tell the story of that battle without a write-up anyway, unless you just want to show off some pretty pictures, at which point it doesn't particularly matter what kind of pretty pictures they are as they will inevitably only be snippets of the whole. I get that documenting 1000 individual actions is obviously harder than 10 and so on, but that's just an editorial choice. Regardless of the game type, how many overview pictures, zoomed details, key fights and so on does one want to show off? How many pictures go into a good, concise and clear report? 10? 20? That decides way more about the reporting than the game itself, I've found.
Tangentially, I'd plug Play on Tabletop as an example of a channel that has made the clear choice to keep their reports focused on the overview of what's happening in the battle rather than bogging down in specifics. A recent LI report:
Sherrypie wrote: . Alternating activation doesn't make it harder to pick what those moments are, it just changes the flow a bit.
Yeah but in my case, doing it while also playing is super taxing mentally vs documenting a game between friends where I can place my focus solely on the task of taking pics.
It is more taxing for one person doing both simultaneously, certainly. I share the sentiment, being usually the guy in my circle who comes up with scenarios, table setups, photographing and reporting In my case though I have an excellent working memory for gaming related things like this, so running complex sandbox RPGs or keeping a mental record of game round overviews for a while until I get them written down is pretty painless, which probably contributes to my thoughts on the issue. I appreciate this might not be universal. Still, while documenting AA games while playing certainly is more taxing, separated from that issue I don't see documenting them as such any harder from other formats.
Sherrypie wrote: Just look at any Kill Team reports or any arbitrarily chosen skirmish game in general, or Bolt Action, or any Lardies game and so on. If you want a solid AA example for very clear Epic reporting, check henafoo's older E:A games on Youtube.
Well kill team's model count is pretty low, but again I'd put the distinction between documenting while also playing vs being a third party fly on the wall. But so far with LI playing and documenting has been difficult, it's mostly like you say exhaustive comprehensive reporting of every units actions just isn't possible so gotta just sorta pick moments here and there and snap what might be a cool shot, context sorta taking a back seat a bit. I try and get army shots pre game as that's a big help in terms of untangling what's on the board as well as end game shots if possible to who ended up in control of what end game.
That's the thing though, I don't think context needs to take a back seat there. After map layout is shown in an overview shot, I feel it's pretty intuitive to follow the flow of battle with comments like "On the second turn, the loyalists start rolling up the left flank! After fierce fighting, the defenders' first line crumbles. *picture of loyalist Russes overrunning traitor defenders near a building* But all is not yet lost, as the reserves start pouring in. *picture of the traitor line moving towards the location*"
So close to finishing, but so, so sick of the Legion Support Sprue.
The models, once built, are really cool. But do the Leviathan legs really need to be three parts? Do the Deredeo launchers need to be four parts?
If they’d put the Launchers as two parts, they probably could’ve squeaked in alternative weapons for the Rapier Carriages.
It is nice to have an entirely empty sprue when you’re done, but man, some of this stuff is just plain old fiddly.
But, just one more Deredeo and two more Leviathans to go. Then I’m done, and probably not buying anymore of this particular kit. Mostly because I don’t need more of it. I’ve an elegant sufficiency to start filling out a Garrison detachment. But I also don’t want to go back through this.
this is the other benefit of printed, Leviathans I have are:
- legs (10 poses and can mirror for another 10)
- body (I think two of these)
- two arms (many options and can mirror them)
don't have a dorito as yet from them, have enough flack stuff with two or three part tarantula.
the GW models are very nice once built but I think they went too far into "very nice" and a bit too far away from "Its a gaming model"
e.g. take a Tamiya sherman tank v a rubicon sherman tank..
It’s an impressive level of engineering, no mistake. But in the wise words of Jeff Goldblum? They spent so long finding out if they could, they didn’t think if they should.
But also, now I think of it? That’s all my LI army models built. All of them. Every last one.
Hopefully I can get this all painted by the end of next week.
Future? Going forward I’ll be in for more Predators and Sicarans of course. And a bunch of speedy stuff as right now, outside of transports I don’t have anything especially nippy.
Xiphons are also feeling quite “must take”. They’re points intensive, but pack a pretty decent punch on paper.
Xiphons are interesting. one is overwatch bait, however a pair, or indeed two flights of two while expensive can be seriously infuriating. care is needed to position them after other stuff moves so they have the target in range but not much else so only really the target gets to overwatch them
What appeals to me is they’re fairly ubiquitous. Enough firepower to swat bombers, nippy enough to do whatever passes for dogfighting enemy fighters, and still a decent enough punch that they don’t feel locked out of targets if a given opponent has taken no air support.
Granted in that last role they need to go some to pull their points weight. But I’ll take “achievable, but you’ll need be clever” over “well guess a bunch of army isn’t doing much”. Plus just being a fast threat is a useful tool in itself, as it’s one more thing for my opponent to fret over.
It's fire raptors you want, one of the few flyers with rockets that can outrange other flyers AA missiles. That and on account of having hover can switch modes hide and do pop up attacks. Some nice sponson options as well. Xiphons are great but, like with lightnings, after painting about 3 of them they get a bit boring to paint.
e.g. take a Tamiya sherman tank v a rubicon sherman tank..
This is the point I was going to make exactly, and I know of people that have struggled trying to use plastic model kits for wargaming purposes - model kits are just not designed to be pushed around a tabletop and small components get snapped easily.
I have acquaintances who manage to squish 28mm minis with their heavy hands and poor motor control, they are going nowhere near these guys
Once built the LI models seem solid enough. But I still question having quite so many parts.
That being said, I am of course about as far from expert in kit design and injection mould engineering as it’s possibly to be, so I accept it’s entirely possible there is a necessity.
Anyways. This week is the week I blitz more Epic scale painting.
Looking forward to seeing it Doc! I too have to get through a fair bit, I've got an event next month and still a good 3-400pts (including infantry) to paint up.
Think minis wise GW have a fine history of making stuff that looks lovely but is often impractical as a wargaming mini: in the past it was metal dragons which needed a blacksmith to smelt together or fell apart if a large truck drove by outside, Epic space marines that snapped at the ankle and everyone getting unplanned acupuncture by ranked-up goblin spearmen. These days it's wonderfully elaborate Age of Sigmar centrepiece minis that have tons of weight through a single structure point, which absolutely will not survive a few battles, and it seems multi-part tiny Epic minus that look lovely but give you eye/hand strain to put together. I'm sure the extra legs on dreadnought are to replace those that have fallen into deep pile carpet, never to be seen again!
still have that slaneesh lawnmower thing in a box, lovely looking model, never assembled it as I couldn't work out a way to transport the thing, or store it
and yes on goblins extracting blood, so very much yes on that
Played another game on the weekend. At last my SA was defeated!!
Basically because I brought no air cover and little infantry. Well and I really brought poor anti-infantry weapons.
The opposing player also SA with loads and loads of infantry in a pioneer Co., supported by Thunderbolts and a Warhound. I was tabled at the end of T3.
After 10+ games:
- At the end of T2 it is always clear who's going to win. Kept playing for fun or to take revenge on some key enemy units
- It is pretty clear infantry is OP even when little cover and scenery is present, just because of points costs and rules.
It is definitely a fun game, despite it's faults, watching hordes of little marines wipe each other out is always going to be of appeal.
One thing I have noticed is that I don't think I have played more than one game where my opponent has had the same interpretation of the rules - often little things such as withdrawing from melee, weapons profiles, rules for reserves and shooting at aircraft etc. Each time it's a pause in the game while we both heft our rulebooks and read through the pages of quite obtuse rule description and try and get to the solution. And we are now approaching people having played 10-12 games, which to me is not the sign of a well composed set of rules.
Part of me thinks they really needed to air drop in Alessio Cavatore with a pair of scissors to cut down on some of the extraneous extra detail in the rules, make it faster flowing and just easier to play. I think you would have gained a lot from that as an 'experience' of a wargame, and those tiny little details in terms of unit variations and the way that combat works would probably not have been missed. I have honestly played skirmish games which carry less individual unit detail, and it's one of the reasons I am looking forward to the new Mantic Warpath Epic game - at this scale, and with this volume of miniatures, you need some abstraction.
SU-152 wrote: Played another game on the weekend. At last my SA was defeated!!
Basically because I brought no air cover and little infantry. Well and I really brought poor anti-infantry weapons.
The opposing player also SA with loads and loads of infantry in a pioneer Co., supported by Thunderbolts and a Warhound. I was tabled at the end of T3.
After 10+ games:
- At the end of T2 it is always clear who's going to win. Kept playing for fun or to take revenge on some key enemy units
- It is pretty clear infantry is OP even when little cover and scenery is present, just because of points costs and rules.
It's an undeniable trend at this point, its a 5 turn game that never goes past turn 3 in terms of chance to win and it's not a feel good experience a lot of the time. Game is just too top heavy.
I'm really pushing people to try end game scoring and reserves, the simplest mechanic we've come up with is adding a rule to a scenario that says both armies have to put 1/3 of their activations(detachments) in reserve, and you roll from turn 2 onward, 4+, 3+ turn 3, turn 4 anything left comes in automatically.
Part of me thinks they really needed to air drop in Alessio Cavatore with a pair of scissors to cut down on some of the extraneous extra detail in the rules, make it faster flowing and just easier to play.
On that front I agree, I think tracking break points for formations needs to go entirely, it adds nothing but stress and time and takes way too much sideboard. It feels like being asked to take a traffic census while playing grand theft auto 5. It just needs to be axed.
There are other quality of life and speed of play considerations that I'd make some changes for. Example, instead of alternating placing formations, I'd honestly just have both players roll off and winner can choose deployment and deploy whole army or make opponent go first but lose ability to choose deployment etc. Deploying by formation also means added time organizing the whole army beforehand by formation which is a task that goes from reasonable with a few formations to quite mentally taxing when you attempt to play a big game.
As I mentioned replying to SU-152, adding forced reserves can also be a big quality of life improvement for the game. It also helps games scale up in size without having those big burdensome first two turns that just drag on because so many things are alternating back and forth their activations. But if the tempo of the battle see fewer initial units on the board, but an ok to steady stream of reserves arriving, it keeps activations at any one time lower overall but also helps battles go to turn 5 and feel a bit closer.
From the games I've had whats missing is a "sudden death" scenario system, something where a side thats taken a hammering can still win by grabbing one or two of several objectives.
then casualties just determine the scale of victory, you had a mission, and you succeeded.
currently as noted by turn two you know who will win because its a grind of defined length, grab a VP lead and its seldom taken back if you are laying on the pain
reserves can help with traffic management but just draws the grind out - though its going to be an easy win v someone who decides "I will hold and wait for my reserves" to win a mobility game.
tracking formations etc hasn't been a problem here, I guess coming from other systems where similar is needed helps - e.g. FoW v3 with large soviet units than intermingled.
the first change I'd make is to the missions, experiment with a lift & drop of the Flames 3 system
essentially you "win" by grabbing one of the objectives in the enemy area, you do this by moving something onto it (well within 3") and no enemy within 3". you do this on your turn - but you win at the start of the next turn, so the enemy always has their turn to dislodge you or contest - you need to firmly secure it, not just toe in
the level of casualties you take, and only the winners casualties matter, determines the level of victory.
there is no "oh a point for killing your leader" or "a point for killing a unit first" stuff - its all about "capture that bridge/landing zone, bunker etc
reserves can help with traffic management but just draws the grind out - though its going to be an easy win v someone who decides "I will hold and wait for my reserves" to win a mobility game.
tracking formations etc hasn't been a problem here, I guess coming from other systems where similar is needed helps - e.g. FoW v3 with large soviet units than intermingled.
But tracking works against having larger and larger games, especially even attempting say 2 v 2 games. It's certainly not the only impediment to scaling up but it's there. We can agree tracking 1-2 formations, especially very different ones with zero crossover in models isn't as taxing but man, as you scale up to 4-5-6 formations it gets a bit nutty and the ever more space you need for sideboard as well just adds to that. But its so out of step from what the game is trying to be, and most orders just end up being advance order anyway tbh.
the first change I'd make is to the missions, experiment with a lift & drop of the Flames 3 system
essentially you "win" by grabbing one of the objectives in the enemy area, you do this by moving something onto it (well within 3") and no enemy within 3". you do this on your turn - but you win at the start of the next turn, so the enemy always has their turn to dislodge you or contest - you need to firmly secure it, not just toe in
the level of casualties you take, and only the winners casualties matter, determines the level of victory.
there is no "oh a point for killing your leader" or "a point for killing a unit first" stuff - its all about "capture that bridge/landing zone, bunker etc
I don't mind 1vp per leader or tank commander so long as objectives are worth more, like 3-4vp each. I'm fine with ones in or near enemy zones being worth more like 4 instead of 3. A big problem with the progressive scoring is just the scale of it, like I joke that the scores resemble basketball games.
I agree though the focus should be on controlling objectives over killing stuff, casualties are just sorta the name of the game.
We also gotta get people using more varied terrain types, infantry are just too good if you play wall to wall structures, but also, the cadence of a turn based game is different than alternating and that also means that terrain for alternating benefits a lot from big mountains/rocks/los blockers that break up the flow and pathing of units, because a grid of 2x2 structures basically means infantry are playing on an open board in terms of pathing. If the flow of the board is more like a real time strategy style, with very defined pathing/cliffs/ramps ect you get a lot more maneuver play and a lot less demolition derpy mosh pit traffic jame around every objective for 2 turns until both sides just wanna tap out.
end game scoring goes right back to "oh I don't need to worry about objectives if I just kill stuff", its why I like them being sudden death or progressive
though progressive gets to the point you also need "if you are 'x' ahead you win" to avoid utterly pointless games when the outcome has already been decided.
and seriously unit tracking isn't half the problem you think, don't even need the sideboard for it - you have say four formations, you note the starting strength of each, you then note the break strength of each in terms of whats left on the table.
stuff dies, back in the box, you never need to look at it, you count what you have left.
all thats then needed is a way for a player to clearly see which unit something belongs to, base markings, unit colours, flags, whatever, job done.
managed it fine with some 12-14 units that need tracking and unit sizes varying from 2 to 10 "things", quickly becomes at a glance - especially if you have sensibly designed formations, and in LI if you have a lot of formations they are not individually containing many units - unless you go infantry spam where you will need a way to tell units apart anyway.
goal should be "here is your mission", the enemy is just something thats in the way trying to stop you
and totally agree on more terrain, but a mix, you want some open areas as well as some dense areas. rivers, river crossings, impassible rubble areas etc.
best way is to actually dig up some actual maps or the edges of towns etc and adapt them
leopard wrote: end game scoring goes right back to "oh I don't need to worry about objectives if I just kill stuff", its why I like them being sudden death or progressive
though progressive gets to the point you also need "if you are 'x' ahead you win" to avoid utterly pointless games when the outcome has already been decided.
and seriously unit tracking isn't half the problem you think, don't even need the sideboard for it - you have say four formations, you note the starting strength of each, you then note the break strength of each in terms of whats left on the table.
stuff dies, back in the box, you never need to look at it, you count what you have left.
all thats then needed is a way for a player to clearly see which unit something belongs to, base markings, unit colours, flags, whatever, job done.
managed it fine with some 12-14 units that need tracking and unit sizes varying from 2 to 10 "things", quickly becomes at a glance - especially if you have sensibly designed formations, and in LI if you have a lot of formations they are not individually containing many units - unless you go infantry spam where you will need a way to tell units apart anyway.
You're doin a poor job of sellin me sir, tracking is dead
goal should be "here is your mission", the enemy is just something thats in the way trying to stop you
and totally agree on more terrain, but a mix, you want some open areas as well as some dense areas. rivers, river crossings, impassible rubble areas etc.
best way is to actually dig up some actual maps or the edges of towns etc and adapt them
I think if the game system can't handle controlling 3-5 objectives with end game scoring it won't work for complex missions.
Ya terrain needs a mix, but we also need to write some additional terrain sub types in the vain of how they have obstacles and reinforced obstacles, and mainly to have stuff that also slow down infantry, like cliffs needs a re-write because you can just b-line up and down over a damn mountain with 15 inches of movement, poor assault marines feel pretty redundant lol.
The problem with alternating is its just hyper-i go-u go but if you spread objectives out enough, and i do think 5 is better than 3 for most games, but if you spread 5 out enough, 1 in center say and 1 in each quadrant with interesting terrain in between the game can function. Missions still need to limit the hell out of infiltrate but its a start. Also gotta force 1/3 of armies into reserve as like a baseline I feel. And do whatever else is needed to pull back from all the alpha strikey/drop podey/million flyer/bombers spammy/rending ogryn top heavyness we see ruining games and making them all turn 2-3 affairs at best. I want turn 5, i want games that feel close and engaging and i think its possible to get pretty close.
Q: how do people handle tracking which model is from which unit in other games? genuinely curious why this is considered such a problem when large numbers of games have it.
heck 1st & 2nd edition Space Marine certainly had "which unit is that model from" as you had break points, e.g. the old Land Raider company from 2nd being fragile with only 10 models and breaking at 5 gone
curious, some games go for "total models", some do it unit by unit, others formation by formation, sometimes with a smattering of stuff that doesn't count for morale.
and yes terrain needs a lot more granularity, I want minefields, razor wire etc, and for them to be different
go look at Battletech: Alpha Strike, three types of woods, and then three types of jungles - each with different line of sight rules for how far you can see through and at what penalty, an entire height system (Z axis is Heresy though)
FoW at its most simple sticks two objectives each side of the table, within 8" of the baseline but more than 8" from the corner. both players place one at home and one away, so usually one is easier to defend than the other
that system often has reserves, more often for the defender so its not symmetrical.
also has a system that I think could be very easily brought into legions, a formation has a "type", there its infantry, mechanised or armoured. infantry is more likely to defend against mechanised who are more likely to defend against armoured
means tank heavy forces tend to be the attacker, and thus infantry heavy ones by design get to play a more defensive game - though not always.
in legion give each formation a score, say infantry "1", armour "2", heavy armour "3", fliers "4", titans maybe "3". total it up, highest number is attacking
your point on a close engaging fight needs a fundamental re-write, its not just cover, the lethality needs roughly halving from ranged fire.
for example two roughly equal infantry forces, one sits tight, the other advances. you want the firepower balanced so when the attacked assaults the game is now about 50-50 who wins.
so assault needs to provide an advantage to those who charge in relation to likely casualties and distance to cover. then best use of cover by the player provides and edge, as does cross fire etc.
as for forcing a third into reserve, fine with that, indeed its something I am surprised the base rules do not allow as an option - not outflanking or anything, just some units arriving 2nd and 3rd turn, either by dice roll or pre-programmed by formation. e.g. "this armoured company arrives on the left flank on the 2nd turn"
infiltrate.. curious, here Team Yankee I think gets this right, a unit that wants to infiltrate deploys as normal as a drop, then gets its nornal move forward - and it extends the deployment zone around it - but nothing can, ever, get closer than say 16" to the enemy deployment zone or an already deployed enemy unit
so infiltrators can go forwards, can bring others along for the ride, but becomes a skill in alternate deployments.
frankly the idea of legions is good, and its not a bad game, but it could be oh so much better drawing from a range of other games
Okay so latest version of the scenario for event hopefully soonish. The reason it has so many special rules is its simpler than asking people to read like a home brew FAQ and its also seen as less of a threat to core rules people may like, it's easy to show this and say "try it with some or none of the special rules at you and your opponent's discretion". The reserves rule is a bit of a slog to read, but only because it has so many loose ends to tie up. The goal of all of this is to make the game playable in a reasonable amount of time and have it be possible for newer and more experienced players to be able to finish their games in a timely manner. The board size might change from 5x4 back to 4x4 in terms of doing an event, space wise we may only have 6x4 tables and you really need some sideboard. If doing 5x4 is possible for an event that's still the preference.
So basically the hope would be trying to do a 2 or 3 round event at some point in spring/summer using this scenario/mission. In the context of an event, it'd be like 5 objectives round one, 4 objectives round two, 3 round 3. Each round would be a different deployment type.
If we could get 8-10 players, we could split between loyalist and traitor and pool victory points for an overall traitor or loyalist victory in addition to awards for best overall generals for both sides and best sportsman/coolest army etc as usual. Location and time would be tbd, possibly not a store.
Having fiddled with an online list builder, I think we’re still to see the game at its full potential.
Marines are hurting for flyers, artillery and light tanks, for instance. As such various strategies are shut off from Marine players until those units are released. And that’s just the sort of units with no models announced - there’s still plenty shown, but not yet released.
The knock-on effect of course is going to be armies feeling pretty samey, because we’re all currently drawing from a very limited pool - even if your 3D printing to be slightly ahead by being able to field bikes, speeders etc.
It helps keep knock-off makers from getting ahead of the game, and if that release model is what keeps the games in production? I’ll live with it.
Plus, this is what GW has always done. Sometimes it’s Codexes or boxes like Ork and Squat Warlords. Sometimes it extra volumes with variant rules and new units for multiple armies.
Even way, way back to Rogue Trader, you had to keep up with White Dwarf to keep up to date.
That of course isn’t then to say “STFU”. Just…it is what it’s always been, and I’m cool with that. Other opinions are welcome and valid.
It helps keep knock-off makers from getting ahead of the game
Yeah that's uhhh objectively false. We're now back at where gw was during the chapter house lawsuit with books out for months now without models, the only way I even have an air force or half the models I do is "knock-off makers" who in some cases were years ahead of gw making files and prints. The epic community is so far ahead of he game its not even funny. The terrax drills gw previewed for the yet to be named third book, there are 1 piece files/prints that have had files for like 3-4 years.
It helps keep knock-off makers from getting ahead of the game, and if that release model is what keeps the games in production? I’ll live with it.
Yeah... dunno. At the end of the day, I don't feel like it's something that benefits me instead of GW.
Expansion books, particularly for these Specialist Games, do actually bother me, a lot. Even more so when they leave out stuff that really should be mainstays out just so that you have to buy a supplement, like mfing drop pods or Land Raiders, FFS.
It is the main reason I went back to the Necromunda Community Edition.
It helps keep knock-off makers from getting ahead of the game, and if that release model is what keeps the games in production? I’ll live with it.
Yeah... dunno. At the end of the day, I don't feel like it's something that benefits me instead of GW.
Expansion books, particularly for these Specialist Games, do actually bother me, a lot. Even more so when they leave out stuff that really should be mainstays out just so that you have to buy a supplement, like mfing drop pods or Land Raiders, FFS.
It is the main reason I went back to the Necromunda Community Edition.
But at the end of the day they need these games to make money. Things like Necromunda, Epic, Blood Bowl etc have failed to do that in the past and stopped getting support as a result.
If this is how they have decided they can justify doing the specialist games then that’s the way it is.
My only current gripe with Legions is that there’s a shortage of official models and expansion books.
FLGS have had a restock of the expansion book, not sure I can be bothered know I know how little actual content is in there
still think the game looks amazing, haven't had a drive to play it with what used to be semi regular opponents when it first dropped recently though
its not that people have moved on its just "oh yeah, I've got a box of that somewhere"
entertaining bit is a club set up more or less for 40k players with a smattering of AoS now sees regular Bolt Action games, Battle Tech (classic and alpha strike), heroquest, blood bowl and a whole range of other games
and occasionally legions, issue is so far the few who play it have an established pecking order for who will win thats not really shifted in all the games played
entertaining bit is a club set up more or less for 40k players with a smattering of AoS now sees regular Bolt Action games, Battle Tech (classic and alpha strike), heroquest, blood bowl and a whole range of other games
and occasionally legions, issue is so far the few who play it have an established pecking order for who will win thats not really shifted in all the games played
Albertorius wrote: At the end of the day, I honestly think that's a net positive.
its entertaining watching a few go for "whats that rubbish?" and general micky taking over "historical rubbish" to "that seemed quite close" (even when it wasn't) to a demo game or two and then the shop the club is attached to start stocking it
now have a chunk of Warlords range in and are talking to both battlefront and catalysts distributors
I suspect and hope legions will drift back as people gradually get a few more bits
essentially you "win" by grabbing one of the objectives in the enemy area, you do this by moving something onto it (well within 3") and no enemy within 3". you do this on your turn - but you win at the start of the next turn, so the enemy always has their turn to dislodge you or contest - you need to firmly secure it, not just toe in
Chat to some of the GW design teams. The rules have to have granularity for modelled options and have to have winning revolving around what happens to models. While they depart a bit its pretty core as they believe it is part of their model centric offering to customers.
for sure, its common across their games, sometimes one model or another counts extra but its usually "stuff that dies", even 40k that has largely gone objective based still has a lot of VP for killing stuff being possible.
it is their system and they do tend to stick to it, pity as the rules framework they have could support that and a range of other possibilities in the core scenarios that could, perhaps, shake up army building a bit
Is it better to have one big scary one, or multiple Warhounds or something?
so far only seen warhounds used in games I've played, and heard of a reaver and a warlord
not impressed with any of them, the warhounds die far too quickly, shockingly so to any reasonable anti tank guns, and from what I have seen the others go down in a single turn also, though taking more fire - in theory being a bullet soak for a turn could help but they are so many points you don't have the stuff to capitalise on it.
local games are set up often as "x" points + a titan or two, simply so both sides have to have the things otherwise the side that doesn't has a huge advantage.
first time I saw a warhound it fires a few shots that didn't do a lot, then a vanquisher unit of four tanks removed it from the game in one volley (4x cannot & 4x las cannon, bye bye shields, bye bye titan), didn't expect it to go down so fast
Is it better to have one big scary one, or multiple Warhounds or something?
[...]
first time I saw a warhound it fires a few shots that didn't do a lot, then a vanquisher unit of four tanks removed it from the game in one volley (4x cannot & 4x las cannon, bye bye shields, bye bye titan), didn't expect it to go down so fast
In fairness, that is a spectacularly rare event as generally you don't expect the Warhound to take even one wound from the first volley like that (four Vanquishers hitting on 4+ cause two hits that will be stopped by the Voids as defender decides their order, after which four lascannons hitting on 4+ become two 3+ saves). A second similar volley starts to hurt badly, though.
As the rules are set up, the bigger engines do not individually cost all that much more for starkly increased staying power. A Warlord with its larger pool of regenerating shields is harder to spike damage dead in one go without letting the rest of the enemy force to ravage the troops concentrating on it. When I tried out the psi-titan, pretty much all fire that the enemy threw at it without managing to kill it was merely wasted from stopping my other forces that then slaughtered their army even if the titan itself didn't necessarily kill all that much.
The Titans are disappointing, but I see potential in the Warbringer for larger 2K+ games. It not only has good range on it's Mori and Volcano cannons, but also benefits from skyfire for it's defence batteries. If going with the stock kit then the laser blaster is a respectable answer for most things closing in on it's position.
On the subject of GW's approach to releases of minis and rules, as I love Epic as a 'system' and scale, I am against anything that is a barrier to entry - I want the game to succeed so more people play Epic, and unfortunately GW have put up a fair few of these barriers:
- Poor availability of the game and 'core' models for many months knocked a lot of wind out of the sails and stopped momentum building.
- Not having 'core' units (Land Raiders, jet bikes etc) available at launch - still not widely available actually - and putting rules for these units in a book that is still difficult to get hold of. Having to use a 3rd party app to play the game, many will just not bother.
- An extremely crunchy and poorly edited rulebook, a heavy tome which is good to use as a blunt instrument to stop home invasions but not much else. I would say it is the most difficult to learn and play Epic system of any of the five editions released at a time when the industry has moved in the opposite direction and more streamlined games. 'For us, not for them' is a quote I have seen aimed at Necromunda, and I think applies here too, and the game is not suitable for casual gamers.
- Almost no attempt at marketing the game in White Dwarf, to the point where you might not even know the game exists.
All of these factors mean that I think this game is only ever going to be a 'fringe' system and definitely won't be as popular as Bloodbowl or Necromunda. I will be surprised if it persists as long as the 28mm game.
Loving the models, and keep finding all sorts of other GW games I can use them with. We are finally starting HH2.0, and will be playing with LI models (distances converted to centimeters, stands have their multiples of wounds). I am also going to start playing 1st edition Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marine, once I have collected enough stuff.
But the actual LI rules? meh. I was initially optimistic about them, but have since come to the realization that they are pretty raw, betatesting tier stuff. Nice to have in a pinch, but I have better uses for the models.
Who knows, perhaps the game will mature and will turn out decent after half a dozen DLCs.. but I'm not holding my breath. I love the models, everything else is secondary for me
Is it better to have one big scary one, or multiple Warhounds or something?
I'll use them on occasion as I just like the models. But so far none of them have impressed me. The Reaver especially so. For the pts cost I'll just usually take more tanks.
I haven't used the Dire wolves yet though as they're sitting on my desk waiting to be built.
SamusDrake wrote:Suggesting 3K points for a standard game also didn't help, when 2K was plenty.
Certainly at my local I haven't seen anyone wanting to play 3k. 1.5/2k is just possible to squeeze in before closing time, and the Legions guys are usually the last ones there playing (after the Necromunda guys, which is saying something!)
Is it better to have one big scary one, or multiple Warhounds or something?
I'll use them on occasion as I just like the models. But so far none of them have impressed me. The Reaver especially so. For the pts cost I'll just usually take more tanks.
I haven't used the Dire wolves yet though as they're sitting on my desk waiting to be built.
For me, the only purposes for Titans at the moment are 1) Helping to bulk up points if you don't have enough other units 2) look on the tabletop, as they look great.
I think I've had one instance where a Warhound has survived more than one round of stuff shooting at it, and there was more to do with the horrendous luck on my opponents part and some flukey armour saves on mine.
It's almost like they looked at Armageddon as a template for how Titans would work, as just a multi-wound weapons platform, but then didn't account for how much more deadly firepower is (and how much more of it there is) in this game. And I do miss the hit charts of Epic Space Marine, where you could end up with a Reaver with no arms trying to run around and stomp on stuff, or could equally go down to one lucky shot at the start of the game.
For those with a fair few games under their belts? I’d like to talk Sponsons.
See, all my tanks that have sponsons I’ve given Lascannon Sponsons. Yes infantry get their full save, but the increased range and accuracy appealed to me more, as is the reliability to strip Void Shields and knacker Tanks.
But….Heavy Bolters of course have point defence. And not having played yet, I’ve no idea how desirable that trait is?
Point Defence is amongst the most desirable traits in the whole game, in particular when you're playing against infantry heavy lists.
LI is built with the paradigm that stuff will die and you will be shoveling models off the table. With Point Defence, particularly on stuff like Rhino Havocs, Sicaran HB's and so on, you get to throw out a lot of dice before the shooting phase proper begins or if you're being swamped by charging infantry. It's very economical in the activation war.
From the last video I posted in the LI news thread, I got the impression than you will almost always want to max out on point defence, infantry and walkers/dreads. Warmaster is the only titan worth fielding, apparently.
Not a fan of the fact that a game which features such adorable lil tanks and vehicles.. has rules which make tanks not worth their points
General Kroll wrote: Talking of sponsons, the predator sheet gives the sponson 1 shot. Is that 1 shot or sponson, or 1 shot per model?
One per model, cannon is the plural of cannon. You get precisely the number of weapons listed on the unit entry, no more.
It’s very inconsistent in the rules though. Some sponson weapons are listed as “sponsons” others as singular. And if we look at things like heavy bolters, they generally get two shots a piece, the hull heavy bolter on a sicaran gets 2, if we take your view of the sponsons then the sponsons get one shot less.
the "so thats per sponson right?" question came up early on, the consensus is basically "don't think about it just roll the dice on the sheet"
which given how deadly the game is also works as the best outcome as it reduces firepower.
on "point defence" the fire during movement bit is very useful, e.g. pushing Rhinos forwards to at least try to take down some infantry before it gets to move/assault
I've gone with tank units having a mix of point defence and anti tank secondary weapons so all units have some point defence, its not worth going 100% point defence but the ability to split fire is very useful
General Kroll wrote: Talking of sponsons, the predator sheet gives the sponson 1 shot. Is that 1 shot or sponson, or 1 shot per model?
One per model, cannon is the plural of cannon. You get precisely the number of weapons listed on the unit entry, no more.
It’s very inconsistent in the rules though. Some sponson weapons are listed as “sponsons” others as singular. And if we look at things like heavy bolters, they generally get two shots a piece, the hull heavy bolter on a sicaran gets 2, if we take your view of the sponsons then the sponsons get one shot less.
Standard GW inconsistency, right?
Actually, for once, it isn't. The rules corpus uses the same language for this particular thing very consistently throughout the whole book. As leopard says, this was discussed a lot after the initial release. For example, those Predators list "Sponson Mounted Heavy Bolters" (one weapon ruleswise, 2 Dice) and "Sponson Mounted Lascannon" (one weapon ruleswise, 1 Dice), from which you get to choose one. Where "sponsons" is used in plural, like the Baneblade, weapons like "Lascannon sponson turrets" or "Baneblade heavy bolter sponsons" are again single entries combining all the relevant sponsons of that type on the model. That classic English plural cannon is used in pretty much every entry in the army lists. Most clearly you can see the difference in the Imperial Fists special rule on page 159, where they list weapons as such:
- Legion bolters
• Legion combi-bolters
• Legion bolt pistols
• Missile launchers
• Plasma cannon • Lascannon • Autocannon • Heavy bolters
And yeah, generally the combined sponsons fire as much as one hull-mounted weapon system of the same kind. That is the design choice they have gone with, possibly to represent the sponsons being limited to side arcs in-fiction while the game system only concerns itself with the front and rear arcs. It is similarly largely consistent throughout the lists and not at all unusual for games of this scale.
There is plenty of questionable design cunk in the game, but "do I get more weapons than is listed in the unit entry?" is not one of them. The answer is simply no, English is a silly language but you only get what is listed.
the confusion came from some things that you have more than one of being described in the plural, and others that you have more than one of, in the singular
personally it stems from making individual weapons too powerful such that giving a predator both sponsons for the laser cannons starts to get silly, well sillier
would have helped for there to be a very quick example in the rulebook of say three predators shooting at something noting that they have three dice for the turrets, with the re-rolls then three for the sponson mounts, without re-rolls.
in effect each line being a weapon system, not an individual weapon, it could have been clearer - as evidenced by it even being a point of discussion.
it is however I think largely accepted water under the bridge at this point in how to run it
personally I'd have gone with "per weapon" and either a lower chance to hit on non-primary weapons or more restricted arcs (which the game used to have without any issues - and which can create some interesting tactics around forcing rear armour to be exposed to fire all guns or accepting fewer shots for better armour)
Got to play in an event over the weekend, my takeaways:
- Not sure if anecdotal, but Legions is one of 'those games' (perhaps like 28mm Heresy) where people seem to take a lot of time painting and presenting their armies. I don't think there was any grey on display and you can see a lot of effort went into it, there is such a great visual aspect.
- I enjoy playing! The two armies, on nice terrain, has a wonderful aesthetic. If nothing else, you can take that away.
- It is not possible to play three games in a day and have them played through to anything like a satisfying conclusion. Despite 3hrs per game most people only played two turns, if that, with a couple that finished after 1 turn because of concession. And this was a 2k soft 'narrative' game where lots of rule disputes and queries got waved through or decided with a dice-off. I would say at full points and a more competitive tournament scenario? The game is absolutely not suitable and you would struggle to finish 2 games in a day.
- There is just way, way too much crunch and granular detail in not only the rules and weapons loadouts. So much of the playing time is spent looking up ("hang on..this vehicle has an auto cannon") and completely unintuitive (needlessly complex) special rules. I cannot understand how Jervis Johnson came up with such a wonderfully abstract mechanism for Armageddon (one weapon type is anti armour, one is anti infantry) and then for this to be completely ignored for a subsequent edition. It's like someone creating headlights for cars to stop them crashing at night time, and then a subsequent vehicle to be designed without them.
- the VP system needs to be reworked. This event had cut back on VPs per turn to allow people to catch up if they didn't have infiltrating armies, but a lot of the time you can see the result of the game by midway of turn 2. Did they not play any previous versions of Epic and see how it worked in SM 2nd for example?
- Titans are useful as a points sink if you are otherwise short and unable to play, but otherwise a waste of time. Mine didn't get anywhere close to making it's points back, everyone I spoke to said likewise. Think they need a major rework, beyond a rebalancing of their points and weaponry. Perhaps worst of all, other than their visual look on the tabletop, they are just boring to use.
Anyway just some more thoughts on the game. I still enjoy playing it, and it's great fun at the moment as you can get games and events easily, and we have the lovely new models range. But as a rules system, it has deep flaws that I would say put it below Epic Space Marine and it isn't worthy to even crawl in the shadow of Armageddon.
It might come down a little, but I don't think significantly. A lot of the guys playing are 6 months in and 20+ games and were still not getting beyond turn 2.
Sorry another list! But a few of my thoughts as to why:
- Alternative movement activation. I know a lot of people prefer this (with good reason) but it is much slower to play.
Epic Armageddon had a much smaller model count so perhaps could get away with it.
- There are too many stat lines, even for a single vehicle profile, to remember without having to reference the rules. Stat lines in other versions of Epic were much smaller and simpler and could be remembered, and each check of an app or rulebook takes time. (I am referring to the general player here, not the person who will no doubt reply to this "I have no problem at all remembering 80 lines of stats and special rules")
Also the fact that all of the weapons have different special rules that apply in context. So you end up with a couple of dice that give -1 armour, this dice you have to re-roll successful saves, this dice is exploding 6s. All of this stuff slows down the flow of the game as you can't just roll dice and apply a result and it can take 5 minutes just to apply one units actions.
- Lots of very specific unit rules that have to do their own thing rather than being rolled up into other actions; my fliers are taking intercept shots, these tarantulas need to be activated and fire in a different way etc.
There is just so much granular detail of 'stuff' that I think you would usually see in a skirmish game, rather than massive battle.
I would say it's fine if you are happy to have an afternoon to knife and fork through a very detailed game, but it has made the game not really well suited to big event or tournie type games - perhaps a bit more like Necromunda, where you are playing one game as part of a campaign, and whoops we are still playing it's almost midnight (and if that doesn't matter that much to you).
I love this game. I take on board a lot of points from above and concede that a tournament setting probably wouldn't suit this.
However I won't be going anywhere near any tournaments so I'm happy. This seems more suited to a relaxed game style with enjoyment the aim and not just winning. My group are partway through a narrative campaign and we're having a blast. I think we're lucky as most of us come.from a RPG background into wargaming. We have a few excellent storytelling players who are producing some excellent material for us.
After spending so long painting 40k models, I'm finding these a joy to paint. Enough detail to standout without making it difficult to paint.
I'm looking forward to the next releases and eager for the Mechanicus to appear.
My main scenery project is for further down the line when we start to play the assault on the Emperor's Palace. Lots of planning needs to go into this.
I certainly wouldn't be going out of my way to make it work as a tournament game in it's current state.
I'm guessing that Legions will probably be relaunched as soon as GW can do so. Likely a revised core book and both AT and AI will be discontinued, to focus on just Heresy and Legions.
Jaxmeister wrote: I love this game. I take on board a lot of points from above and concede that a tournament setting probably wouldn't suit this.
However I won't be going anywhere near any tournaments so I'm happy. This seems more suited to a relaxed game style with enjoyment the aim and not just winning. My group are partway through a narrative campaign and we're having a blast. I think we're lucky as most of us come.from a RPG background into wargaming. We have a few excellent storytelling players who are producing some excellent material for us.
I should have added the caveat that I do still enjoy playing the game (it is Epic!) but agree the sort of loose narrative game, bunch of close playing acquaintances with 4 or 5 hours to play on a weekend day is the best way to get the most of the game.
Thankfully, my FLGS does £2 for all-day use of their facilities.
I need to go read the rules, start digesting and then see if there’s anyone locally that fancies a kicking. There must be, because I’m not the only one denuding its shelves of Legions Imperialis! Or Age of Darkness for that matter.
What surprises me is that games do not come to a conclusion. I have also played 20+ games, and by end of turn 2 there is a clear winner -> so all games are bellow the 2 hour duration.
Pacific wrote: Did they not play any previous versions of Epic and see how it worked in SM 2nd for example?
I need to go read the rules, start digesting and then see if there’s anyone locally that fancies a kicking. There must be, because I’m not the only one denuding its shelves of Legions Imperialis! Or Age of Darkness for that matter.
Hopefully Doc you shouldn't have much trouble getting a game. My place has had a lot of people come out of the woodwork when some posts were made on the store FB page. If you can get someone to run through something like a 1k or 1.5k game and a lot of the flow of the rules will make sense in context when you actually play.
Also get the Legion Builder app (or equivalent) with your list ready on your phone, as an absolute essential I would say.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On the pace of games, do you think that’ll improve as people gain greater playing experience?
Yes.
Things have sped up in the little group I play this with as we've played more.
It's still a bit slow as someone always seems to have to look something up (it's not our weekly game of choice), but it has sped up.
In general our games last 3 turns. By that point it's usually pretty obvious who'll win.
I might need to try out a funky hash of Epic: Armageddon GT scenario with LI one day and see if that'd solve some of the issues brought up here, in particular taking the pressure off the early game without swinging entirely on the last turn.
These things are always subjective, but I would say Armageddon is just a better game mechanically. It also does a much better job of handling the abstraction of different weapon types and their efficacy against different targets - the anti-armour and anti-infantry specs are just such a clean way of doing that I can't understand why something similar wasn't used for Legions rather than the incredible special rules bloat.
CCS has made the point about learning the rules and specs but I would say it is almost impossible for this game, unless you live and breathe it or are some sort of savant. This gun is -1 but hang on I'm shooting infantry so no modifier. These dice you have to re-roll your armour saves, one moment the description (not the weapon listing) says I actually get 2 shots. All of these things need a rules check way above and beyond most other games, to the point where the meme from Always Sunny in Philadelphia and the crazed looking guy with the paper and bits of string on the wall writes itself. I would say Legions is more complex in this regard than even Infinity, a game famous for its complexity, but that game does at least use repeating elements and you only have 7-8 minis on the table.
To me it's such a shame, as the game returning felt like you had just read that Pink Floyd is reforming and going on tour. But then David Gilmour dies. Anyway I'm going to shut up now, as I think I'm sounding like a stuck record and don't want to ruin the enjoyment of the game who haven't experienced previous editions, and therefore aren't getting hung up on 'what could have been'.
Pacific wrote: These things are always subjective, but I would say Armageddon is just a better game mechanically. It also does a much better job of handling the abstraction of different weapon types and their efficacy against different targets - the anti-armour and anti-infantry specs are just such a clean way of doing that I can't understand why something similar wasn't used for Legions rather than the incredible special rules bloat.
Armageddon is more of a wargame than the typical miniature game and is probably why it failed becaus this isnt what the core audience of GW type games is interested in.
Which is better is down to someones personal taste is.
CCS has made the point about learning the rules and specs but I would say it is almost impossible for this game, unless you live and breathe it or are some sort of savant. This gun is -1 but hang on I'm shooting infantry so no modifier. These dice you have to re-roll your armour saves, one moment the description (not the weapon listing) says I actually get 2 shots. All of these things need a rules check way above and beyond most other games, to the point where the meme from Always Sunny in Philadelphia and the crazed looking guy with the paper and bits of string on the wall writes itself. I would say Legions is more complex in this regard than even Infinity, a game famous for its complexity, but that game does at least use repeating elements and you only have 7-8 minis on the table.
Saying Legions is more complex or anything near that of anything in Infinity is hyperbolic. Its nowhere near it.
For just the weapons there is like around 160 different weapon profiles, they al have between 1-4 range brackets with modifiers, different dammage, different ammunition that either halv your armor, forces you to take saves on a nother stat or both and then you might have different extra effects on top of that.
And Infinity i played with 10-15 minis mostly different.
What infinity does really well in this regad is its exelnt army builder were everyting is fast and easyly available thanks to hyperlinks and the superb wiki.
Its easily the best army builder out there (that i know of) and its free
If Legion hade on that just lets you print out unit and wepaon profiles in the style of the reference in the back of the main book it would have been super heplfull to have.
Now you have to do it manually yourself as needed.
picked up "the great slaughter" last night, largely as youngest is getting into the game and the swine paints well and fast.
happy to use the Legion Builder for lists, prefer an actual book during actual games and have a game next week
not amazingly impressed I have to say, agree with points made previously that it feels like the unit stats were done by someone other than whoever did the first book
laughable how some units have cost upgrades for minor weapons but others get "yeah whatever you want"
also raised an eyebrow the land raider being one dice to hit with a "sponson mounted lascannon" (singular) when it clearly has two, obviously we have been through that and the description doesn't note it has two so its got one dice
seems weird the Land Raider being worse as a tank than say the Predator, can see it as a balance thing but just feels weird
also still think the lack of a Land Raider battle tank option (them limited to transports) sucks
leopard wrote: picked up "the great slaughter" last night, largely as youngest is getting into the game and the swine paints well and fast.
happy to use the Legion Builder for lists, prefer an actual book during actual games and have a game next week
not amazingly impressed I have to say, agree with points made previously that it feels like the unit stats were done by someone other than whoever did the first book
laughable how some units have cost upgrades for minor weapons but others get "yeah whatever you want"
also raised an eyebrow the land raider being one dice to hit with a "sponson mounted lascannon" (singular) when it clearly has two, obviously we have been through that and the description doesn't note it has two so its got one dice
seems weird the Land Raider being worse as a tank than say the Predator, can see it as a balance thing but just feels weird
also still think the lack of a Land Raider battle tank option (them limited to transports) sucks
I think that’s the case for all sponsons in the game apparently. The LR ones get accurate too though don’t they? So marginally better than the predator ones.
In LI, that matters. Not only are Infantry your best bet for taking and holding objectives, but the Landraiders provide said infantry with some reliable anti-armour firepower, whilst benefitting from the infantry’s own firepower.
Transport capacity matters much less in this game than previous Epic versions due to the high movement and triple movement rate of infantry. I can have no Rhinos and get my marines into buildings mid table on turn 1.
Meanwhile Rhino zerg squadrons are very effective - very few points to spam charge enemy vehicles, interfere with their firing and probably kill a few. Not exactly how you imagine things should work.. I have read some events are actually banning Rhinos from being issued with charge orders.
Just being in a transport provides significant protection though, as your dudes are then immune to all Light Weapons, and highly resistant to Light AT.
Yes there’s a risk to the passengers if their Transport is shot out from under them, but we can’t have everything.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Just being in a transport provides significant protection though, as your dudes are then immune to all Light Weapons, and highly resistant to Light AT.
Yes there’s a risk to the passengers if their Transport is shot out from under them, but we can’t have everything.
Yeah, I’ve found transports to be incredibly vital so far.
Also, Dedicated Transports don’t go gobbling up limited Supprt/Armour/Heavy Armour slots in your Detachment. So Landraiders, where available as DT, add some not insignificant armoured oomph without that additional premium.
Not to say “therefore Landraiders am grate”. Just that a direct comparison to Predators or other non-Transport tanks isn’t entirely accurate.
Well, I’ve been loving building and painting, but yet to get a game under my belt, as I’m now dedicated to only playing with painted models, and in the midst of building a gaming group.
ashlevrier wrote: It's been a minute since I posted this thread. Surprised to see it still going.
So what has happened so far after it's been a few months. I haven't played much because I moved and not many people play where I am at.
still playing, just not much - not because LI is bad, but because I have limited time and there are better games so any given game only gets so much. Game tonight actually, someone who hasn't played much so will be mostly starter set type stuff and being flexible with list building and then trying not to break the rules in order that its a fun game.
we are still getting drip fed models, though ta least the basic tanks are due out soon outside the starter, GW are being GW with badly written rules and "oh you need this book of course" stuff, nothing unexpected. hopefully some of the balance issues become less as more options are out there but being honest it needs a re-write, just best to leave it until all of the current edition models are done and let it run a while first
I'm loving this game, finally got caught up with painting everything and now new stuff coming. Happy with how it plays as anything we find strange we just use a house rule instead.
Not really had much to change as yet, main thing as new flyers went up for pre-order. Happy days.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, I’ve been loving building and painting, but yet to get a game under my belt, as I’m now dedicated to only playing with painted models, and in the midst of building a gaming group.
Half a dozen people in the club bought it. Some armies painted... I think 1 game played to date? I have more chance of getting an EpicA game (and tournament http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp/) or even a 2nd ed game...
ashlevrier wrote: It's been a minute since I posted this thread. Surprised to see it still going.
So what has happened so far after it's been a few months. I haven't played much because I moved and not many people play where I am at.
Oh just:
●playing every few weeks
●buying/building ever more Solar Auxillia.
●buying & hoarding SM stuff - really, i swear that some day I'll field SM....
●and slowly painting up Solar Units in-between gaming & other projects.
On GWs end?
More stuff has been released, more stuff announced,
& people continue to complain (about release schedule, rules quality, minis selction, because thats their true hobby, etc). So same old same old.
game was indeed had, nothing unexpected, its still "whoever rolls the most dice wins!"
enjoyable and it looks good, balance is off
gave my Spartans and Land Speeders a run
Spartans lasted ok (four of them), didn't really accomplish all that much, on a flank to avoid being hit by the Eye of Vanquisher. firepower was lacklustre at best
Land Speeders... HF/MM loadout, curious but potentially useful, half is generally going to be wasted but the other half can on paper get the job done. except with only 10" movement and 6" weapons they never got close enough to fire except once, then they fluffed it (dice game, it happens). think the solution is more of them (only had four) and target saturation - suspect that leads to a less than enjoyable experience for the other side though
Scoring was predictable, opponent bagged one of my objectives for a turn, and even though they couldn't hold it that was enough of an edge that by turn three is was over
Had a fun, though fairly one sided, 1500 pt game today. (my opponent deployed poorly, I'm waaay more aggressive in taking objectives)
My solar with 1 allied Knight Cerastus (sp? the spear & shield one) vs the Nightlords & their pet Reiver.
Today in addition to the Knight I also tried out some of the new Arvus I've been building.
I'm quite pleased with the Arvus's. They did a fine job of getting the infantry to exactly where my foe didn't want them. The knight? My God that things a beat stick in melee.... I included it simply because it fit pts wise & was on the list of stuff I own but haven't used yet. Then it charged into combat & I looked at it's stats.
But the true MVPs in my force? The 12 basilisks. Whatever they fired at simply went away. The opponents main AA options, large blobs of infantry, units of dreads, spartans, the Reiver....
yoof has started an artillery battery though I have yet to actually face off against it, the ability to have something that can drop 12 shots onto anything, anywhere outside its minimum range is interesting, ok they probably won't land too many hits on average but on the turn they do, watch out.
not sold on knights, or any of the bigger stuff, all far too fragile for the points, can do work without doubt (as you note especially in melee) but short of being a distraction carnifex, and typically an expensive one, I think they are too vulnerable - the larger titans stick about longer but are still a lot of points
I think the main value in superheavy stuff is having them, but not always using them, so anyone you play against reasonably often is aware of them and has to counter them, but can find they have wasted points
Me and my buddy have decided to try out the hex campaign system that’s in the Great Slaughter book.
We’ve made a map to fight over using the old planetary empire tiles, and we’re going to spend the next few weeks and maybe months fighting over the planet.
I’ll try and remember to post some updates in here as it progresses.
Sherrypie wrote: Please do, it is interesting to hear actual plays on campaign frameworks. Many of the lessons learned can apply to other games as well, after all.
I’ll have to work out how to post pics so I can show the progression of the campaign map
Finally had my first game last night. Had 5 out of 6 of my aircraft blown out of the sky in the first turn. My Fire Raptors never fired a shot. My opponent rolled outrageously and I had some appalling save rolls from mine. Ah well. Rules seem alright and I feel the Marines definitely need some form of artillery unit. I also need more tanks...
Here’s our campaign map. We decided to make it a rule that we could only occupy the outer ring of tiles on the first round. So we alternated picking tiles. We’ll go from here and see how we do.
We played our first battle of the campaign today, my Blood Angels forces attacked my friends Imperial Fist held Manufactorum.
He stubbornly resisted my advance though and held onto his territory. We then did a few more rounds on the campaign map, each taking some of the unoccupied territories until a battle was triggered, which we’ll hopefully play next week.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One question that did come up in today’s game was why the Thunderhawk’s Heavy bolters have sky fire, they are light weapons and can’t harm any flyers.
It's nice to see someone else using the Planetary Empires set. Nice looking as well. Good luck with your campaign, I do enjoy a good campaign, the effort is definitely worth it.
The Thunderhawk part is a clear mistake. Heavy bolters have been an AA staple forever in Epic fliers and the Auxilia planes have Light AT in theirs. It's best to just play them as Light AT and carry on.
Sherrypie wrote: The Thunderhawk part is a clear mistake. Heavy bolters have been an AA staple forever in Epic fliers and the Auxilia planes have Light AT in theirs. It's best to just play them as Light AT and carry on.
Wish they’d give us an FAQ. Do the other specialist games ever get them?
FAQs and erratas vary by game. Blood Bowl has been honed over decades already, Necromunda is rewritten every second release or so, Kill Team has great and frequent quarterly care, Titanicus has accumulated a rather thorough documentation with every release and so on. Very much depends on who runs which game.
LI seems to be on the low end of FAQ priorities for the studio.
ingtaer wrote: Anyone have any advice or tips for using dreads? Outside of podding them they seem rather lackluster but not sure if that is just user error?
Dreads suffer from a few things, firstly their damage output is incredible, or can be, secondly they are not that hard to kill so they are priority targets - they need to be trying to use cover to stay out of sight and limiting what can fire at them
seem more useful on the flanks than in the centre, that or as a one shot distraction carnifex advancing with a lot of other stuff thats technically more useful to distract some enemy fire. a decent sized unit of them, couple of the big sods to try and take hits if its low AP stuff inbound maybe and they become too dangerous to ignore, put them somewhere they won't take fire without the enemy diverting stuff towards them and use them to force the enemy to react to them
I have found my Thunderhawks are best used as a delivery system for my assault marines, they can jump out without the Hawk having to drop into hover mode which makes it incredibly vulnerable.
Dreadnoughts wouldn’t be able to get out without it doing this.
I’ve been using pods for my leviathans with mixed results. I’ve also tried podding Deredeos to drop them mid table as a little anti-air fire base that covers the midfield.
I personally wouldn’t bother putting them in Thunderhawks.
Flight refund *finally* came through. The day before payday.
So off to Chaos Cards where I picked up the new book, cards and two boxes of Fancy Sicarans.
Is quite good, as I now have 16 Sicaran Chassis, and enough of each turret type to do a squadron of 8 of any variant,
Would it have been even gooderer to have all the turret variants in a single box? Yes. But I’ll still take GW’s not awful offering as it stands. Because at least they provided excess turrets.
So the consensus is that dreads are just pretty crap?
Will just keep mine as shelf decorations then!
Anyone had a play with the new SM tank commanders and Sicarans? I am liking the idea of running a pair of the missile variants as AA deterrent but not sure about the commanders, maybe to fill out the armoured coy?
oh Dreads I think are pretty decent, just don't go overboard with them, one decent sized unit is plenty - just don't expect a unit of four to live long enough to do anything, larger block is starting to take firepower of several enemy units to drop it
Quite nice! Wee bit vulnerable as they’re just a single Leetle Tank. But an alternative to a stand of infantry for tanky forces is welcome all the same. Can also be used, in a pinch, to fill out compulsory Armour slots if I’ve read it correctly?
ingtaer wrote: So the consensus is that dreads are just pretty crap?
Not at all, they can be absolute monsters, it’s just about using them correctly.
I think that is where I am failing! Though I should have specified Contemptors as I have not gotten any of the others yet. Been running demi company as armoured infantry, aerial assault, sky hunter, armoured coy, knight and warhound. So not sure where to fit them unless podding in or a garrison?
ingtaer wrote: So the consensus is that dreads are just pretty crap?
Not at all, they can be absolute monsters, it’s just about using them correctly.
I think that is where I am failing! Though I should have specified Contemptors as I have not gotten any of the others yet. Been running demi company as armoured infantry, aerial assault, sky hunter, armoured coy, knight and warhound. So not sure where to fit them unless podding in or a garrison?
I usually have at least one squad of las cannon contemptors, 6-8 if I can afford it. It’s a pretty threatening unit that the opponent has to deal with. They work well pushing up through cover.
Assault cannon dreads are decent for guarding backfield objectives too imo.
Just Theoryhammering here (I've yet to play a single game of LI), but wouldnt dreads be great for charging vehicles? As they arent as vulnerable to point defence weapons as infantry..
No idea what to do with those Deredeos though.. some mobile AA you can drop in a pod to secure a beachhead from pesky fliers? Altho probably cheaper just to drop some tarantulas instead..
tauist wrote: Just Theoryhammering here (I've yet to play a single game of LI), but wouldnt dreads be great for charging vehicles? As they arent as vulnerable to point defence weapons as infantry..
No idea what to do with those Deredeos though.. some mobile AA you can drop in a pod to secure a beachhead from pesky fliers? Altho probably cheaper just to drop some tarantulas instead..
That’s my current plan for Deredeos, it worked pretty well last game and forced my opponent to divert forces to deal with them. Regular dreads are decent at charging vehicles if they have bigger numbers, you don’t want to get outnumbered in combat in this game. Even against a lowly squad of Rhinos it can result in lost models. Generally dreads will churn through whatever you charge them at though, titans aside.
Tarantulas can’t go in transports, or more accurately they can’t get out of transports because they can’t be issued with move orders and have no move characteristic.
tauist wrote: Just Theoryhammering here (I've yet to play a single game of LI), but wouldnt dreads be great for charging vehicles? As they arent as vulnerable to point defence weapons as infantry..
No idea what to do with those Deredeos though.. some mobile AA you can drop in a pod to secure a beachhead from pesky fliers? Altho probably cheaper just to drop some tarantulas instead..
That’s my current plan for Deredeos, it worked pretty well last game and forced my opponent to divert forces to deal with them. Regular dreads are decent at charging vehicles if they have bigger numbers, you don’t want to get outnumbered in combat in this game. Even against a lowly squad of Rhinos it can result in lost models. Generally dreads will churn through whatever you charge them at though, titans aside.
Tarantulas can’t go in transports, or more accurately they can’t get out of transports because they can’t be issued with move orders and have no move characteristic.
Tarantulas can absolutely be crammed into transports (Infantry (1)) and deployed from them. While its true that they cannot move otherwise, nothing in the rules prevent them from being transported. IIRC someone won the first official LI tournament who utilized this "feature" to his advantage.
Rapiers can also be deployed in transports, although them being bulky means you need the larger transport varieties to deploy them - dreadnought pods, Spartans etc
tauist wrote: Just Theoryhammering here (I've yet to play a single game of LI), but wouldnt dreads be great for charging vehicles? As they arent as vulnerable to point defence weapons as infantry..
No idea what to do with those Deredeos though.. some mobile AA you can drop in a pod to secure a beachhead from pesky fliers? Altho probably cheaper just to drop some tarantulas instead..
That’s my current plan for Deredeos, it worked pretty well last game and forced my opponent to divert forces to deal with them. Regular dreads are decent at charging vehicles if they have bigger numbers, you don’t want to get outnumbered in combat in this game. Even against a lowly squad of Rhinos it can result in lost models. Generally dreads will churn through whatever you charge them at though, titans aside.
Tarantulas can’t go in transports, or more accurately they can’t get out of transports because they can’t be issued with move orders and have no move characteristic.
Tarantulas can absolutely be crammed into transports (Infantry (1)) and deployed from them. While its true that they cannot move otherwise, nothing in the rules prevent them from being transported. IIRC someone won the first official LI tournament who utilized this "feature" to his advantage.
Rapiers can also be deployed in transports, although them being bulky means you need the larger transport varieties to deploy them - dreadnought pods, Spartans etc
ingtaer wrote: Would be cool to see the old daemon engines from 2nd back in action with modern sculpts.
Another question, how much AA are people taking/finding optimal?
None atm. But that's because none of my regular opponents have any aircraft.... If that changes I'll modify my lists as needed.
I've got four flak Tarantula, they have yet to fire at an aircraft as none has dared to come within range. No idea why they are not hugely better at the job than anything else given a 6 always hits and I usually have plenty of laser cannons anyway (assuming my own air wing of interceptor capable fighter/bombers doesn't do the job anyway)
Ingtaer - I use Contemptors in the same way as General Kroll has described. Unit of 6-8 with lascannons and deploy on the flank, rather than centrally (as they can be targeted & killed by almost everything). They are not that many points and will generally annoy an opponent enough to make them deal with them.
On the Rhinos carrying the Tarantulas, I think the idea is that they are being limbered/pulled behind as small artillery pieces often are in real life. Rather than transported inside the Rhino, which would be silly
Pacific wrote: Ingtaer - I use Contemptors in the same way as General Kroll has described. Unit of 6-8 with lascannons and deploy on the flank, rather than centrally (as they can be targeted & killed by almost everything). They are not that many points and will generally annoy an opponent enough to make them deal with them.
On the Rhinos carrying the Tarantulas, I think the idea is that they are being limbered/pulled behind as small artillery pieces often are in real life. Rather than transported inside the Rhino, which would be silly
Weld the tarantula to the roof for a mobile flak battery...
I love my sabres so much, I only printed 4 but am tempted to get another 12, I wish they had the volkite though.
Can anyone who has the SM fast attack box confirm the available build options for the speeders? It reads like you can only build two of each option per box.
Had another round of our campaign again today. We fought over a Research facility, which would give the winner a nifty advantage in the overall campaign, as well as some nice requisition points that we can spend above our points limits.
It was an absolutely brutal game, I lost the last round, so I really needed to win and my Blood Angels didn’t let me down. I reduced his forces to just three detachments by the end of the game. And so, the research centre is mine.
After the game did a couple of rounds of grabbing un defended tiles on our hex map, before he launched a counter attack on my freshly acquired Research Facility. So we’ll be doing it all again in the next couple of weeks hopefully.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Yup, set loadouts apart from Sponsons for the Cadillac looking speeders.
Cheers for the information. And bugger... got around to building some dreads today and was irritated to find that only half of them can be built with twin las.
Which incidentally fits with titans being 1:269 scale.
and little infantry. Well and I really brought poor anti-infantry weapons.
