ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Hard disagree. The 28mm version is an excellent design (other than the standard problem of guard tanks having no ground clearance or suspension) and the not-Epic version is a good match. And TBH the classic guard Basilisk/Medusa design wouldn't be a great option, either you have tiny and awkward to paint crew on the loading platform or the model looks empty and unfinished. The enclosed SA version dodges that issue nicely.

It is of course entirely a matter of personal opinion. I am fine with WW1-style suspension and vertical armour plates - I just don’t buy that a heavy artillery weapon can be mounted on one side like this. And there’s nothing about the design that tries to sell the idea that it’s workable, or even necessary. The Basilisk / Medusa configuration is far better (and having some crew would be a plus, not a minus).

It's definitely a personal thing, the closed cabs can look cool, but I like the extra modelling opportunities you get with an open cab even though it's a bit more work. It's a way to differentiate 30k from 40k too, as they had enough marines to use them for the really mundane stuff like loading artillery shells and carrying out garrison duties, so it's fun to show that sort of stuff. These are proxy artillery minis for the same, but give some idea (artillery about to be killed at the top!)

 Pacific wrote:
It's definitely a personal thing, the closed cabs can look cool, but I like the extra modelling opportunities you get with an open cab even though it's a bit more work.

I agree at 28mm scale, open gun platforms are great for cool modeling stuff. But I don't think the crew would really work at Epic scale. We've already seen how the tank commanders are out of scale with the rest of the tank just to make it possible to build and paint them, try to do that with artillery crew and it would be a hopeless mess.

A seperately-purchasable sprue with crew (and open platform) would probably be a good idea for those wanting to take the extra effort. So long as the base model is done in a way that you could easily fit the open platform instead of the closed version.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
It's definitely a personal thing, the closed cabs can look cool, but I like the extra modelling opportunities you get with an open cab even though it's a bit more work.

I agree at 28mm scale, open gun platforms are great for cool modeling stuff. But I don't think the crew would really work at Epic scale. We've already seen how the tank commanders are out of scale with the rest of the tank just to make it possible to build and paint them, try to do that with artillery crew and it would be a hopeless mess.

I... kinda disagree, personally:



Didn't feel like a mess to me, at the time.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
It's definitely a personal thing, the closed cabs can look cool, but I like the extra modelling opportunities you get with an open cab even though it's a bit more work.

I agree at 28mm scale, open gun platforms are great for cool modeling stuff. But I don't think the crew would really work at Epic scale. We've already seen how the tank commanders are out of scale with the rest of the tank just to make it possible to build and paint them, try to do that with artillery crew and it would be a hopeless mess.

...? Pacific just showed you their crew at 6 mm?

I've got some open-topped Epic scale Basilisks too:



All of them have crew inside:

 Albertorius wrote:
I... kinda disagree, personally:

Are those 3d printed or injection molded plastic? I know you can get true-scale infantry crew on high quality printed miniatures but when you look at what GW is doing with the LI infantry and tank commanders relative to the tanks the scale isn't quite the same. I don't know if it's for ease of painting or because true-scale crew would be too fragile to cut off the sprue and assemble, especially if they required multiple pieces to avoid undercuts, but there seems to be a choice to make them larger than true scale. So take those crew examples, scale up the infantry by 25% or so, reduce them to poses that work with single-piece plastic, and suddenly they don't look so great. They're packed into a space that is too small to hold them properly and reduced to awkward standing idle poses.

(And that also applies to the models themselves. Things like the thin walls on the crew compartment can be 3d printed or cast in resin but they may be below the minimum feature size for injection molded plastic. If you have to double the thickness of the walls then that's even less space available for crew.)

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
I... kinda disagree, personally:

Are those 3d printed or injection molded plastic? I know you can get true-scale infantry crew on high quality printed miniatures but when you look at what GW is doing with the LI infantry and tank commanders relative to the tanks the scale isn't quite the same. I don't know if it's for ease of painting or because true-scale crew would be too fragile to cut off the sprue and assemble, especially if they required multiple pieces to avoid undercuts, but there seems to be a choice to make them larger than true scale. So take those crew examples, scale up the infantry by 25% or so, reduce them to poses that work with single-piece plastic, and suddenly they don't look so great. They're packed into a space that is too small to hold them properly and reduced to awkward standing idle poses.

(And that also applies to the models themselves. Things like the thin walls on the crew compartment can be 3d printed or cast in resin but they may be below the minimum feature size for injection molded plastic. If you have to double the thickness of the walls then that's even less space available for crew.)

They are, admittedly, 3d printed, at home, by me, using a crappy ass regular resin on a multiple generations old printer.

That said, absolutely none of the parts I printed there are thinner than what GW is already doing for Aeronautica Imperialis (most of the AI planes' wings are thinner than those walls), and the crew is really easy to do as a single piece.... I have a fair number of plastic crews at that scale from other manufacturers. It's not really complicated at all.

EDIT: Ok, real life example time: These are one of the above Basilisks and an AI Thunderbolt wing... which is by no means the thinnest one from AI... the Eldar crafts have wings that ar probably half as thin, but it's a decent enough example of what GW is already doing:



So I would say that part thickness would absolutely not be an issue whatsoever.

Yeah, no. GW and other manufacturers have absolutely no problems making pieces that look just fine at that scale. Just look at AI or AT models and their plentiful little bits like shield generators, machine guns and other greebles much smaller than an infantryman.

6 mm artillery crews can be made without any problems, both on and around their guns. Here's another expert example painted by VonKriegStudio, models being metal casts from Vanguard minis.

If some of the examples above don't indicate that crew at 6-8mm can work, I am not sure what else can be said sorry! Saying you don't like the look of it is fine, but a blanket "no it just isn't possible" is not correct. GW have made a design decision with these initial releases to have closed cabs, but I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if further kits added crews or even if ForgeWorld did something. Because lots of other producers have done it.

Somewhat cruder than the above examples, here is another shot. These are metal miniatures from Vanguard, so you could easily get even finer detail from plastic or resin.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
A seperately-purchasable sprue with crew (and open platform) would probably be a good idea for those wanting to take the extra effort. So long as the base model is done in a way that you could easily fit the open platform instead of the closed version.

This is quite a common option with generic plastic kits, and could probably work pretty well with this sort of thing too I think.

As for plastics, if I can make original plastic Epic guardsmen from the early 90's look fine as gunners on modern AI plastic ground assets or my titans carapace guns, shame on GW if they couldn't do better today

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
I... kinda disagree, personally:

Are those 3d printed or injection molded plastic? I know you can get true-scale infantry crew on high quality printed miniatures but when you look at what GW is doing with the LI infantry and tank commanders relative to the tanks the scale isn't quite the same. I don't know if it's for ease of painting or because true-scale crew would be too fragile to cut off the sprue and assemble, especially if they required multiple pieces to avoid undercuts, but there seems to be a choice to make them larger than true scale. So take those crew examples, scale up the infantry by 25% or so, reduce them to poses that work with single-piece plastic, and suddenly they don't look so great. They're packed into a space that is too small to hold them properly and reduced to awkward standing idle poses.

(And that also applies to the models themselves. Things like the thin walls on the crew compartment can be 3d printed or cast in resin but they may be below the minimum feature size for injection molded plastic. If you have to double the thickness of the walls then that's even less space available for crew.)

Yeah, no, GW could definitely make it work. I look at the tiny little ~5mm Gretchin gunners in the AI Eavy Bommer models, they can definitely do what people with cheap 50 micron 3D printers like me can do.

The reason they've done it is because for whatever reason FW decided many years ago to make Solar Auxilia Basilisks based on the Leman Russ chassis without an exposed crew.

Did Chimeras not exist in 30k or something? I thought Leman Russes were supposed to be rare during the HH.

Anyway, I'm personally not a fan of it, but it is what it is; an existing design they just downscaled.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The reason they've done it is because for whatever reason FW decided many years ago to make Solar Auxilia Basilisks based on the Leman Russ chassis without an exposed crew.

The lore reason is that the Solar Auxilia fight in hazardous environments or even just space itself. Their wargear and tactics were heavily influenced by the soldiers of the Saturnyne Ordo and they were most often used in engagements where regular Army forces couldn't prevail such as in the void or Death Worlds.
The Leman Russ is a tougher tank and easy enough to modify.
The IRL reason is to sell more models, obviously.

Did Chimeras not exist in 30k or something? I thought Leman Russes were supposed to be rare during the HH.

It's contentious because some HH books have Chimeras and some don't.
As for the Russ, it wasn't rare but very widespread as it was the replacement for the Malcador. The Wolves discovered the STC and the Imperium realised it was massively cheaper to produce the Russ compared to the Malcador for what was basically the same result. Malcadors only saw action during the Heresy for the same reason the Legions were still equipping their new Marines with Mk2 Power Armour, everyone needed every scrap of equipment they could lay their hands on.

Any update on release date yet?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, no, GW could definitely make it work. I look at the tiny little ~5mm Gretchin gunners in the AI Eavy Bommer models, they can definitely do what people with cheap 50 micron 3D printers like me can do.

I don't have that kit so I'll have to trust you on that one. Maybe GW is capable of doing it. But looking at the LI models shown so far it doesn't seem like they're using that full potential, and crew built to the scale and detail quality of the tank commander models would be disappointing.

That might be so, but I fully expect they will do crew for Legion Basilisks and the like, given that the FW model has it.

Still waiting to see more Malcador tanks in Legion colours…

VAYASEN wrote:
Any update on release date yet?

September.

Last we heard was that Legions was intended for August but has been delayed to the following month. No specific date has yet been given.

SamusDrake wrote:

VAYASEN wrote:
Any update on release date yet?

September.

Last we heard was that Legions was intended for August but has been delayed to the following month. No specific date has yet been given.

Thanks. I noticed it was August then they said 'not August' but hadnt seen that September was referenced anywhere.

Me neither and if they had to reprint book feels oddly early.

It hasn't, really. Folks are speculating that it wouldn't take very long, but GW hasn't confirmed anything.

They haven't said anything about September and the community prediction as far as I saw until now is late October/November

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, no, GW could definitely make it work. I look at the tiny little ~5mm Gretchin gunners in the AI Eavy Bommer models, they can definitely do what people with cheap 50 micron 3D printers like me can do.

I don't have that kit so I'll have to trust you on that one. Maybe GW is capable of doing it. But looking at the LI models shown so far it doesn't seem like they're using that full potential, and crew built to the scale and detail quality of the tank commander models would be disappointing.

GW are providing pictures that are very zoomed in, so the details look a bit chunky, but it is of the level or better than people are producing with cheap 3D printers like mine. Maybe people with 20 micron printers can create something better.

But when you see the models on the table top, they're going to look pretty detailed, it's just when you take an 8mm tall model and expand it to 100mm tall on your computer monitor the necessary chunkiness really stands out.

 Matrindur wrote:
They haven't said anything about September and the community prediction as far as I saw until now is late October/November

Once again Warhammer Community previously reported that Legions would have to be delayed from August until the following month. September is the month after August.

I'd have to dig around( pretty sure it was the last week of last month, and at the end of a Thursday model reveal article ), but they have stated this. If its no longer there then they have edited the article since...

EDIT: Here it is...

While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.

Yes, thats been changed. It previously said the following month.

?

If it was changed, the change was made almost immediately after the announcement went up. I've only seen it say "this year", and all early discussion here was based around the idea that it said "later this year".

SamusDrake wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
They haven't said anything about September and the community prediction as far as I saw until now is late October/November

Once again Warhammer Community previously reported that Legions would have to be delayed from August until the following month. September is the month after August.

I'd have to dig around( pretty sure it was the last week of last month, and at the end of a Thursday model reveal article ), but they have stated this. If its no longer there then they have edited the article since...

EDIT: Here it is...

While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.

Yes, thats been changed. It previously said the following month.

If it's been changed, can one note prove that with the wayback machine/screenshots? I was perhaps late to the article but to me it always said later in the year. I can't think a re-print would be that fast, oct/nov feels more like it imo.

xttz wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/03/heresy-thursday-fire-support-and-remote-control-bombs-for-the-solar-auxilia/

New solar models, but the release of Epic has been delayed

While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
They haven't said anything about September and the community prediction as far as I saw until now is late October/November

Once again Warhammer Community previously reported that Legions would have to be delayed from August until the following month. September is the month after August.

I'd have to dig around( pretty sure it was the last week of last month, and at the end of a Thursday model reveal article ), but they have stated this. If its no longer there then they have edited the article since...

EDIT: Here it is...

While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.

Yes, thats been changed. It previously said the following month.

Here is a quote from this thread a few minutes after the announcement which already says later this year not next month so if it was changed is happened within a few minutes after it was posted and was only a mistake.
And I was looking at the article myself back then right when it was posted and I'm very sure it never said anything about following month. If you want to look it up yourself its on page 86

Also just to make sure no bad faith here, just want to clear up any misunderstandings

Eumerin wrote:
?

If it was changed, the change was made almost immediately after the announcement went up. I've only seen it say "this year", and all early discussion here was based around the idea that it said "later this year".

It happens.

There was an article a while ago showing classic artwork where they said "and is that a titan in the background? whats that then?" and as soon as I reported back on the Titanicus thread, they removed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

If it's been changed, can one note prove that with the wayback machine/screenshots? I was perhaps late to the article but to me it always said later in the year. I can't think a re-print would be that fast, oct/nov feels more like it imo.

Excuse me while I jump into my DeLorean.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
They haven't said anything about September and the community prediction as far as I saw until now is late October/November

Once again Warhammer Community previously reported that Legions would have to be delayed from August until the following month. September is the month after August.

I'd have to dig around( pretty sure it was the last week of last month, and at the end of a Thursday model reveal article ), but they have stated this. If its no longer there then they have edited the article since...

EDIT: Here it is...

While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.

Yes, thats been changed. It previously said the following month.

Was quite fast change. I read that on date it was put and was little later then.

 Matrindur wrote:

Here is a quote from this thread on the day of that announcement which already says later this year not next month so if it was changed is happened within a few minutes after it was posted and was only a mistake.
And I was looking at the article myself back then right when it was posted and I'm very sure it never said anything about following month. If you want to look it up yourself its on page 86

I've already quoted it so obviously I found the article.

Anyway, "a little later in the year" is now the official word, so fair enough.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:

Here is a quote from this thread on the day of that announcement which already says later this year not next month so if it was changed is happened within a few minutes after it was posted and was only a mistake.
And I was looking at the article myself back then right when it was posted and I'm very sure it never said anything about following month. If you want to look it up yourself its on page 86

I've already quoted it so obviously I found the article.

Anyway, "a little later in the year" is now the official word, so fair enough.

I quoted a post from this thread which was maid a few minutes after the article went live, so no editing there. What it says here is what it said back then.
But yes it doesn't matter anyway

Edit: misunderstood you here since you said article not post, sorry

 Matrindur wrote:



Edit: misunderstood you here since you said article not post, sorry

No worries. To be honest I'm glad its later as I've been dreading an expensive month ahead.

Going back to LI, every rules article since the SA one was on a Monday and since we didn't get anything today we might need to wait until next week to get the flyer article

Probably tomorrow when its quiet on Warcom.

Interestingly the AT core set is back in stock on the webstore so maybe they are preparing to at least rerelease the AT stuff for now?

 Matrindur wrote:
Interestingly the AT core set is back in stock on the webstore so maybe they are preparing to at least rerelease the AT stuff for now?

Maybe...

However, I think the main problem with AT product going back on the shelves would be the boxes. If they had a bunch of boxes that were dual use for both LI and AT, they likely don't want to use those at this time. So they would need to get AT-only boxes, which would likely require a new (and unplanned) print run. How long would that take? They wouldn't necessarily have to rebox (since the boxes will be good *eventually*). So the only delay would revolve around getting the interim boxes out.

However, since this is the AT starter, it doesn't need to be a dual-use box. In fact, that might even be inappropriate since this box includes significant stuff (most notably, the core rules book) that can't be used in LI. LI players shouldn't buy it. So this specific box is probably not going to be a dual-use box with branding for both games. As a result, it's hard to say whether this means anything for the line as a whole.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. They might be saying, "Screw it. We had planned to get the AT stuff back on the shelves on this date, and the dual-use boxes aren't the end of the world. Go ahead and let them be the first LI-branded product on store shelves. The AT players will still buy them."

Eumerin wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
Interestingly the AT core set is back in stock on the webstore so maybe they are preparing to at least rerelease the AT stuff for now?

Maybe...

However, I think the main problem with AT product going back on the shelves would be the boxes. If they had a bunch of boxes that were dual use for both LI and AT, they likely don't want to use those at this time. So they would need to get AT-only boxes, which would likely require a new (and unplanned) print run. How long would that take? They wouldn't necessarily have to rebox (since the boxes will be good *eventually*). So the only delay would revolve around getting the interim boxes out.

However, since this is the AT starter, it doesn't need to be a dual-use box. In fact, that might even be inappropriate since this box includes significant stuff (most notably, the core rules book) that can't be used in LI. LI players shouldn't buy it. So this specific box is probably not going to be a dual-use box with branding for both games. As a result, it's hard to say whether this means anything for the line as a whole.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. They might be saying, "Screw it. We had planned to get the AT stuff back on the shelves on this date, and the dual-use boxes aren't the end of the world. Go ahead and let them be the first LI-branded product on store shelves. The AT players will still buy them."

Thats probably true but I wonder if they might still put the new lower bases in it? Of course the images on the webstore don't show them but That could just be because they didn't make new ones.
For individual Titans/Knights they will probably have both bases in the box but I wonder how they do it for the AT starter

 Matrindur wrote:
Interestingly the AT core set is back in stock on the webstore so maybe they are preparing to at least rerelease the AT stuff for now?

While it's impossible to know for sure, this strikes me as a planned cross sell instead of a redirection.

The release of LI would bring more curious players into AT, so have the starter available alongside the anticipated LI release date.

Then the spanner went into the works on LI...

Could also just be related to the intention of reprinting the various titans for LI, so may as well reprint the other bits needed to restock the AT starter and just do a larger Titan print run.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/31/heresy-thursday-crush-armies-underfoot-with-entire-battle-groups-of-pint-sized-imperial-knights-and-titans/

Hey kid, wanna buy discounted big tiny robots?

Note those boxes come with the weapon cards and terminals for AT.

Definitely up for the Knight set.

I dread to think what those cost but DAMN I want them

The titan set comes with a warlord, reaver, and two warhounds. When combined with the two warhounds already in the LI starter, I'm curious how many points that will be? Unless you're playing *really* big LI games, I'm guessing that will remain an AT set. Or a "here's a lot of things you might want, though never all at once" set.

 Skinflint Games wrote:
I dread to think what those cost but DAMN I want them

Essentially the same boxed sets were released for Xmas in 2018/19. IIRC the Knight one was £80 and the four titans were £100.

Eumerin wrote:
The titan set comes with a warlord, reaver, and two warhounds. When combined with the two warhounds already in the LI starter, I'm curious how many points that will be? Unless you're playing *really* big LI games, I'm guessing that will remain an AT set. Or a "here's a lot of things you might want, though never all at once" set.

OR, it could be an indication it will not be too long after release that GW plans to make Titan Legios into a full force option for LI.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Note those boxes come with the weapon cards and terminals for AT.

And the new, thin LI bases, but "the thicker bases will still be available separately" (and I think most already are).

 Skinflint Games wrote:
I dread to think what those cost but DAMN I want them

Last time they were out quite hefty discount as usual for christmas boxes.

 ikeulhu wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
The titan set comes with a warlord, reaver, and two warhounds. When combined with the two warhounds already in the LI starter, I'm curious how many points that will be? Unless you're playing *really* big LI games, I'm guessing that will remain an AT set. Or a "here's a lot of things you might want, though never all at once" set.

OR, it could be an indication it will not be too long after release that GW plans to make Titan Legios into a full force option for LI.

I hope it's not an indication that GW are removing the individual titans from sale to be replaced by this.

When has gw removed full price kits and keep just discount box?

Eumerin wrote:
When combined with the two warhounds already in the LI starter, I'm curious how many points that will be?

1,675 if the leaks are right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
When has gw removed full price kits and keep just discount box?

When they doubled the size of Marine & Stormcast boxes, and some of the Start Collecting boxes.

tneva82 wrote:
When has gw removed full price kits and keep just discount box?

I can't see it happening neither.

The AT starter set - even if replaced with a new one - is already offering good discount and there's a forthcoming plastic Direwolves set. On top of that the Legions launch(starter set?) has two Warhounds as well.

Charging a lot for a box of 6 Iron Hands veteran legs but it comes with a lot of other stuff in the box.

They confirmed on Twitter that these are limited releases

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Note those boxes come with the weapon cards and terminals for AT.

Really hoping its not the terrible thin paper terminals

tneva82 wrote:
When has gw removed full price kits and keep just discount box?

I'm not a GW historian, so I have no idea, it just seems like a thing someone might do to reduce warehouse space and shelf storage space if they don't shift a large number of individual models.

beast_gts wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
When combined with the two warhounds already in the LI starter, I'm curious how many points that will be?

1,675 if the leaks are right.

2335 if you include the Warhounds from the starter, 1675 would be the force in just that box.

So basically the box contains about twice as many points as you are actually able to field in a standard size nu-epic game. Standard size is 3k, allies can be up to 30% of your points, which means you cap at 900 unless you play a much larger game.

Do we know Titan Legions have no list of their own in LI?

no primary list by now
if they are added with a supplement anytime soon is unknown

Hope they do an Xmas special box for this...but doubt it...too soon I guess?

chaos0xomega wrote:
So basically the box contains about twice as many points as you are actually able to field in a standard size nu-epic game. Standard size is 3k, allies can be up to 30% of your points, which means you cap at 900 unless you play a much larger game.

Yeah you can never field more than 2 of those models at 3k as allies (and only 1 if the Warlord), which is why I expect this hints that they will indeed make Titans a full force option at some point, but also would not surprise me if they wait until release of Mechanicum forces so they have fitting infantry to mix in to do so. Unless the leaked cost for Warhounds is for a pair instead of one, which is quite possible considering how they have already shown an approach in LI that gives discounts for multiples, in which case you could run them and the Reaver at 3k.

 ikeulhu wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
When combined with the two warhounds already in the LI starter, I'm curious how many points that will be?

1,675 if the leaks are right.

2335 if you include the Warhounds from the starter, 1675 would be the force in just that box.

Yeah - I'm assuming "Warhound Hunting Pack" is a pair of them, but it is only "Detachment Size 1"...

There's this other game that lets you play Titan battles...

Seriously though, those AT boxes always sold very well. Makes perfect sense that they'd want to bring those back for that market AND provide LI players a chance to get a nice range of Titans for their collection.

beast_gts wrote:

Yeah - I'm assuming "Warhound Hunting Pack" is a pair of them, but it is only "Detachment Size 1"...

Yeah it is a bit ambiguous and I was going with 330 for 1 instead since that is more comparable to existing scores (Warhounds in AT are in the 280-330 area before heavy upgrades whereas Reavers are upper 300 to mid 400s). There is a chance that score is for a pair, however, if they are significantly reducing costs for Warhounds to incentivize and differentiate their use in LI compared to AT.

Been awhile since I have played and I also run corrupted Warhounds so those single costs were a bit high for standard hounds after I actually looked up points again, which does make the 330 bit more likely for a pair cost, although that would still be a discount compared to AT when relatively comparing to Hound vs Reaver costs.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Do we know Titan Legions have no list of their own in LI?

GW has stated marines and Solar Auxilia only at launch, though other factions could arrive later.

As has already been noted, this box is perfectly serviceable with AT. However, it's now officially dual-use (unlike the AT starter, which has the AT rulebook), and the new rule is probably that all dual-use stuff gets the LI logo on the box.

beast_gts wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
When combined with the two warhounds already in the LI starter, I'm curious how many points that will be?

1,675 if the leaks are right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
When has gw removed full price kits and keep just discount box?

When they doubled the size of Marine & Stormcast boxes, and some of the Start Collecting boxes.

So what is available only in start collecting etc that was available in solo box but not any more?

beast_gts wrote:

Yeah - I'm assuming "Warhound Hunting Pack" is a pair of them, but it is only "Detachment Size 1"...

Yeah it is a bit ambiguous and I was going with 330 for 1 instead since that is more comparable to existing scores (Warhounds in AT are in the lower 200s before heavy upgrades whereas Reavers are a bit over 300 to over 400 with upgrades). There is a chance that score is for a pair, however, if they are significantly reducing costs for Warhounds to incentivize and differentiate their use in LI compared to AT.

Been awhile since I have played and I also run corrupted Titans (especially the Hounds, those things are so corrupted they cost more than a standard Reaver) so those single costs I initially posted were a bit high for standard Titans after I actually looked up points again, which does make the 330 bit more likely for a pair cost, although that would still be a discount compared to AT when relatively comparing to Hound vs Reaver costs. It would also allow one to run the Reaver and the Hound pair from that box if at 3k as allies at 330 for a pair, so that is another nod that GW may indeed go in that direction.

Weird, apologize for the odd double post, thats what I get for trying to post in the middle of work

tneva82 wrote:
So what is available only in start collecting etc that was available in solo box but not any more?

Seraphon Carnosaur is the one I was thinking of - was only in the Start Collecting box but back now that's been replaced by a Vanguard box.

Not equilavent. From discount box to discount box. Not solo to discount with no solo kit.

@ikeulhu: non-corrupted AT Warhounds in AT are ~220 while Reavers are a tad over 300 depending on weapons. That's still a pretty meaningless comparison, different games and all that. Anyhoo.

The new rehashed discount boxes are nice. I highly doubt they herald anything new about any factions or rules, being simply easy packs of varied stuff for non-AT players to widen their choices as well as a nice product for AT players. Not everything needs to be playable at once in every game.

Also those are just limited splash. Basically just bit of advertisiment to get more interest in games with li being around.

They’ve not said either way in the article.

I’d presume splash release though, if only out of caution if you’re thinking of picking one or more up.

Community guys later said limited.

Can hope wrong but once a splash release, no reason to doubt either.

My only complaint is there doesn't seem to be the new Warhound weapons sprue. Otherwise yay, discounted AT!

 lord_blackfang wrote:
My only complaint is there doesn't seem to be the new Warhound weapons sprue. Otherwise yay, discounted AT!

No, they want to push the LI starter. The extra weapon sprue may later be available on the website, or they may rerelease the individual titan boxes with the extra weapons sprues included and a price bump like they rereleased the russ and baneblade

I think a bigger gripe is that, once again, a big box set with a warlord titan in it only includes the weapon sprue with the missile pods and volcano cannons. If only GW would switch it up and include the sprue with the power claw instead.

I'm mostly uninterested because I really don't need another 2 Warhounds, especially since the LI starter will also have another 2 Warhounds in it

I'd love a "big boys" pack with a Warmaster, Warlord and maybe a Reaver.

Was there no WD support planned? Normally the mag is made somewhere between 3-6 months prior to distribution. This means that pivoting and replacing material is extremely difficult. Yet I've not seen anything related to LI in recent issues and even the teaser for the upcoming issue has nothing.

Either they replaced all that material, which seems like it would be expensive, or they never had it. At this point, I honestly wonder which is correct.

WD are printed 8 to 9 Weeks before the issues goes into the sell.

Maybe in the next issue. There could be WD Rules to play Titan and Knight House Armies.

I suspect regardless this is costing a pretty penny, which makes it all the more curious

Even 8 to 9 weeks would be on the long side, ive been told numbers half that. It wouldn't be the first time GW scratches and binned white dwarf articles at the last minute, they did thecsame with the adeptus totanicus launch announcement in ~April 2017 when they decided at the last minute to launch the game in plastic.

Is that actually true or is it internet whispers?

True. James Hewitt has stated that AT was designed with a smaller fully resin game in mind, but it got a lift from specialist games doing pretty well generally and got plastic production slots instead.

Yep, he also was the one who told us that they had to call up the printers the day the next issue of WD went to publication and tell them to pull it.

I think the very nature of magazine publication is that articles sometimes need to get shifted last minute. Even for something like White Dwarf which is an in-house publication, they will almost certainly have a supply of material that they will be able to sub in last minute, given a few late nights by the staff.

The WD is printed by Warners Midlands PLC.

Flyers...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/09/04/bad-altitude-how-aircraft-work-in-legions-imperialis/

How do units get out of flying transports, did I miss it or forget from previous article?
Otherwise they not bad considering.

Hover, probably. If not then like a bombing run (aka grav-chute drop).

Hover will probably give Flyers the ability to stay on the board for a round to drop off their cargo

I don't think they've talked about loading and unloading troops yet.

Something that occurred to me is that the movement range of flyers puts a cap of sorts on the maximum table width. If there's five feet between the two players, then units up against the other player's table edge (an artillery battery, for example) will be out of range of flyers. Make it six feet, and there will be a large chunk of space that's a no fly zone for the each side's aircraft.

Ahh, then I wasn’t just missing it.


I don’t think the table width will be passed four foot for standard, with 6 along the longest edge.
But it’s GW it could be anything until they specific.

Apple fox wrote:
Ahh, then I wasn’t just missing it.


I don’t think the table width will be passed four foot for standard, with 6 along the longest edge.
But it’s GW it could be anything until they specific.

Didn't they already specify it's 4x5?

beast_gts wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Ahh, then I wasn’t just missing it.


I don’t think the table width will be passed four foot for standard, with 6 along the longest edge.
But it’s GW it could be anything until they specific.

Didn't they already specify it's 4x5?

Honestly 4x5 does sound like what was said, but I cannot ember where. I just want the tiles the most based on size >.> I play my game any size I want!

They did say it was 4x5 in warcom, same article that they said its a 3000 pt standard.

Eumerin wrote:
I don't think they've talked about loading and unloading troops yet.

Something that occurred to me is that the movement range of flyers puts a cap of sorts on the maximum table width. If there's five feet between the two players, then units up against the other player's table edge (an artillery battery, for example) will be out of range of flyers. Make it six feet, and there will be a large chunk of space that's a no fly zone for the each side's aircraft.

I thought the same. It seems quite ridiculous that flyers cannot reach the whole table, like in previous editions.

Like you say, Artillery batteries in their deployment zones could be totally safe from most aircraft weapons.

Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Yes, they did say 4x5. But just because GW sets a particular size doesn't mean that players won't change things up. There are a couple of obvious possible reasons for this (and I'm sure other, more obscure ones). The first is that you're getting a group of friends together, each with their own armies, and want to play on a larger table for a massive battle (an epic Epic battle, if you will ). The second is that you design a scenario that turns the table sideways. Battlefront does this in some of its scenarios that feature a clear attacker and defender.

If you put together a battle like either of the above, you're going to need to make adjustments to the fliers.

Yes, they're "home brew", so to speak. But I suspect that both (particularly the first one) will be used from time to time.


Something else that just occurred to me - unless there's a nuance to the rules that hasn't been revealed yet, you're not going to be able to use a flying transport to swoop in on the last turn or two and grab an unguarded objective in your opponent's backfield.

The movement plus range is enough for full board coverage also, so I think it’s fine.
With sight being open to them, it means they can mostly fire at will on anything.

SamusDrake wrote:
Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Why would anyone's army be made up entirely of one unit type in a combined arms wargame? Really hoping that's not a thing.

 Crablezworth wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Why would anyone's army be made up entirely of one unit type in a combined arms wargame? Really hoping that's not a thing.

One thing I do wish more games did was have most of your army start off the table, with faster units going and coming on first.
You could do a lot of cool things, deployment of air support and drop pods during the opening of the game. The heavy support and titans coming in later in the start to the engagement.
Even if the air units leave after, it would be cool if the opening to the game has a bit of risk reward. With trying to get drop pods down, with also trying to shoot your opponents down.

>.> I can hope right.

Eumerin wrote:
Yes, they did say 4x5. But just because GW sets a particular size doesn't mean that players won't change things up.

we are living im times were people cut off their 6x4 mats because GW said the minimum size is smaller

If they write 5x4 this is set in stone and not gonna change for a majority of players

 Crablezworth wrote:


Why would anyone's army be made up entirely of one unit type in a combined arms wargame? Really hoping that's not a thing.

Apparently it is according to this previous article, under the "flexible army building" section...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/03/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-warhammer-the-horus-heresy-legions-imperialis/

Want a Legiones Astartes army mounted entirely in gunships for an aerial assault? You can do that!

...its probably because they want to ditch Aeronautica and have us play aerial battles with Legions rules instead.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


Why would anyone's army be made up entirely of one unit type in a combined arms wargame? Really hoping that's not a thing.

Apparently it is according to this previous article, under the "flexible army building" section...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/03/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-warhammer-the-horus-heresy-legions-imperialis/

Want a Legiones Astartes army mounted entirely in gunships for an aerial assault? You can do that!

Oh god, you're right... I think/hope a 3000pts force still wouldn't be entirely one unit type as it'd be made up of 2 "armies" /formations... god I hope they didn't ruin this.

:"Flexible Army Building
Armies in Legions Imperialis revolve around ‘Formations’. Each Formation is essentially an entire Horus Heresy – The Age of Darkness army, giving you lots of freedom in how you build your force. Want a Legiones Astartes army mounted entirely in gunships for an aerial assault? You can do that! Solar Auxilia super-heavy tank company? Yep! There’s a myriad of options and more to come in the future, allowing you to build the grand army of your hobby dreams."

But an airmobile army isn’t just one type of unit. It carries a lot of infantry and walkers, and possibly tanks as well if there is a unit similar to the thunderhawk transporter available.

 Flinty wrote:
But an airmobile army isn’t just one type of unit. It carries a lot of infantry and walkers, and possibly tanks as well if there is a unit similar to the thunderhawk transporter available.

Ya I'm really hoping that is the case, like with the more mehanized tank stuff still hopefully needing mechanized infantry ect. I'm trying to stay optimistic in that none of the options will be too immersion-breaking. I think it's just having to read the word formation gives some of us ex 40k players a mild panic attack, at least in my case

 Flinty wrote:
But an airmobile army isn’t just one type of unit. It carries a lot of infantry and walkers, and possibly tanks as well if there is a unit similar to the thunderhawk transporter available.

Naturally, but what they said in that article is that you'll also have the option to take a whole army of just Gunships. Nothing but Gunships.

Speaking of which, Cablezworth can make an Apocalypse-Now style video of nothing but...GUNSHIPS!

Well all gunship army is possible there is few negatives that should balance it out.

Flyers can’t engage in close combat, can’t hold an objective, and can’t block enemy movement.

Also unless flyers has "hover" it goes back to reserve. I suspect that if you end up with no models on the table at end of the turn you lose!

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well all gunship army is possible there is few negatives that should balance it out.

Flyers can’t engage in close combat, can’t hold an objective, and can’t block enemy movement.

Also unless flyers has "hover" it goes back to reserve. I suspect that if you end up with no models on the table at end of the turn you lose!

That would be so funny.

Gw hasn't had such a rule long time outside　practice scenario

Epic SM used a percentage system to work out mounting and disembarking from vehicles. If you'd used 50% of your movement to reach a vehicle then it would only have 50% of its movement left once you had embarked and you couldn't embark and disembark on the same turn. This was generally thought of as being a bit clunky and the community version afterwards changed it so it was just a 5cm cost to embark/disembark.

So GW could do something like this, or perhaps we'll have rules like 'quick board', 'fleeting exit' and 'experienced crew' to make the game more complicated, but without adding any tactical depth

 Crablezworth wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Why would anyone's army be made up entirely of one unit type in a combined arms wargame? Really hoping that's not a thing.

Because of people doing this sort of thing in 40k I should imagine.. you're right, one of the main features of Epic as a system is 'combinef arms, and the scale allows all sorts of aspects of battle on a tabletop. Having an entire 'drop pod army' or similar would be unlikely I think, basing it on any previous Epic editions.

Those flyer rules seem similar to Epic 40,000.


I still get a laugh at how a 28mm game gets flyers so wrong, while an 8mm game gets flyers correct.

Guess it is to do with the target audience.

 stonehorse wrote:
Those flyer rules seem similar to Epic 40,000.


I still get a laugh at how a 28mm game gets flyers so wrong, while an 8mm game gets flyers correct.

Guess it is to do with the target audience.

That and the expense of the models. Flyers still aren’t suited to 40K, but they do do an exist, so…necessary heavily abstracted evil, I guess.

SamusDrake wrote:
Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Even the Ace Combat games make liberal use of ground troops.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Those flyer rules seem similar to Epic 40,000.


I still get a laugh at how a 28mm game gets flyers so wrong, while an 8mm game gets flyers correct.

Guess it is to do with the target audience.

That and the expense of the models. Flyers still aren’t suited to 40K, but they do do an exist, so…necessary heavily abstracted evil, I guess.

I think its more about the amount of real estate available. At epic scale, you can reasonably show an attack run. On a 40k board, flyers should really just be pushed all the way across in one turn, maybe with a little brush under the model to sweep affected troops off the edge of the board...

Even in epic it's comn, end of turn awaY

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Even the Ace Combat games make liberal use of ground troops.

I never got around to that series, which is strange because I like Namco games.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, an all-aircraft army is what a previous warcom article had mentioned.

I took that to mean an AirCav or Air Mobile army, infantry mounted in fliers.

Well, I shall leave it for others to make of it what they will. I've no desire to run an entire army of aircraft outside of Horizon Wars and have no stake in it.

Nice that they're still doing fairly frequent previews.

Makes me think that while perhaps not immediate, it's still not too far off...

Lets hope so.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
But an airmobile army isn’t just one type of unit. It carries a lot of infantry and walkers, and possibly tanks as well if there is a unit similar to the thunderhawk transporter available.

Naturally, but what they said in that article is that you'll also have the option to take a whole army of just Gunships. Nothing but Gunships.

Speaking of which, Cablezworth can make an Apocalypse-Now style video of nothing but...GUNSHIPS!

It says ‘mounted entirely in gunships’ not a whole army of just gunships.

I am sure you guys discussed it here but why the reason for 'August Launch' (literally a months notice), then suddenly a delay?

Has there been a reason given or do we suspect it was to drum up excitement?

VAYASEN wrote:
I am sure you guys discussed it here but why the reason for 'August Launch' (literally a months notice), then suddenly a delay?

Has there been a reason given or do we suspect it was to drum up excitement?

No official reason has been given. It's clear that something unexpected as gone wrong though.

There have been various rumours about misprints with the rulebook that were serious enough to warrant a full recall and delay. This seems quite likely, given that copies of the starter box were given out to reviewers in July ready for an August launch. Most likely they pointed out the issues to GW.

 ImAGeek wrote:


It says ‘mounted entirely in gunships’ not a whole army of just gunships.

Fair point and we can move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VAYASEN wrote:
I am sure you guys discussed it here but why the reason for 'August Launch' (literally a months notice), then suddenly a delay?

Has there been a reason given or do we suspect it was to drum up excitement?

No reason, but their warehouse was having some difficulty according to one of my local independents. Quite a few of their products were out of stock during that time and only recently come back in stock; AT starter set, for instance.

Youtubers were told to return books. That indicates issue with book.

Also the warehouse issue was at point at which li books were already done and ready for release.

It's also not unusual for the warcom team to be told one thing, and the rest of the business told another.

Local warhammer store said coin of the month was supposed to be on the 9th this month. warcom said it was the 2nd. turns out it was the 2nd, despite store managers being told it was the 9th. Now take that tiny mix-up and blow it up across 500 stores, major distribution centers, and factor in shipping delays and the million other things that can happen in getting product from manufacturer to customer.

Always always always take warcom articles with a bit of salt. It's great to see they're still trying to keep the hype train up with LI, but all it'll take is for them to skip a week and we'll all go doom and gloom fast.

So more book info might be very imminent.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer30k/comments/16f7fca/who_wants_an_early_copy_of_legions_imperialis_lol/?share_id=sNSyMi5j8a3VHbSlaBkkf&utm_content=2&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

Maybe I'm wrong, but this sort of cocktease usually means someone found one photo and is trolling.

"printed in the UK"

That copy of the book is printed in the UK and is individually shrinkwrapped. One of the boxed game review copies distributed in July would have almost certainly been printed in China.

Good chance it's a reissued version that's being sent back out to content creators.

Designed in the uk, i don't think it was printed there. Oh wait, nevermind I see it now.

 xttz wrote:
That copy of the book is printed in the UK and is individually shrinkwrapped. One of the boxed game review copies distributed in July would have almost certainly been printed in China.

Good chance it's a reissued version that's being sent back out to content creators.

Yup. We know from Peachy that GW gets things printed in the UK if they miss the 18 week deadline for China shipping (or in this case needed a panic reprint). So this is gonna be the reissue.

 The Phazer wrote:

 xttz wrote:
That copy of the book is printed in the UK and is individually shrinkwrapped. One of the boxed game review copies distributed in July would have almost certainly been printed in China.

Good chance it's a reissued version that's being sent back out to content creators.

Yup. We know from Peachy that GW gets things printed in the UK if they miss the 18 week deadline for China shipping (or in this case needed a panic reprint). So this is gonna be the reissue.

That's exciting given that if the op is genuine they plan on reading it all tonight. So hopefully should hear a lot more by the morning.

They did one more post about Primarchs and psychic powers here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer30k/comments/16fcebl/about_the_li_rule_book_leaks/
and said they would add more in that post the next day.

Also if that is the reprinted version which it seems to be the delay shouldn't take that much longer. Very likely not in September as one reprinted book doesn't mean they have the tens of thousand they would need and then they still need to ship it around the world but October seems possible to me

Well. Color me guardedly optimistic that we'll see this a bit sooner than I'd previously thought...

If that's fake, it's a very good one.

 Matrindur wrote:
Also if that is the reprinted version which it seems to be the delay shouldn't take that much longer. Very likely not in September as one reprinted book doesn't mean they have the tens of thousand they would need and then they still need to ship it around the world but October seems possible to me

This may come off as a joke due to how GW has handled releases in the recent past, but what's to stop GW from printing, let's call it a minimum amount of books in the UK just to keep the release delay to a minimum and keep extra costs down while they're at it? They don't mind underproducing and selling out within minutes. The core box is just that, right? A continuously available starter product? They could easily order a smallish print run from a UK printer and a larger one from China at the same time because they're going to restock the box anyway.

They likely ordered enough books to cover the starter box stock currently sitting in distribution warehouses around the world. Epic products will be taking up valuable space needed for planned future releases, like TOW or xmas boxes.

A bigger question is how long repacking will take. Just sending out revised review copies of books doesn't meant they've finishing fixing up tens of thousands of boxes in several locations...

 xttz wrote:
They likely ordered enough books to cover the starter box stock currently sitting in distribution warehouses around the world. Epic products will be taking up valuable space needed for planned future releases, like TOW or xmas boxes.

A bigger question is how long repacking will take. Just sending out revised review copies of books doesn't meant they've finishing fixing up tens of thousands of boxes in several locations...

And getting them to their distribution centers

Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
Also if that is the reprinted version which it seems to be the delay shouldn't take that much longer. Very likely not in September as one reprinted book doesn't mean they have the tens of thousand they would need and then they still need to ship it around the world but October seems possible to me

This may come off as a joke due to how GW has handled releases in the recent past, but what's to stop GW from printing, let's call it a minimum amount of books in the UK just to keep the release delay to a minimum and keep extra costs down while they're at it? They don't mind underproducing and selling out within minutes. The core box is just that, right? A continuously available starter product? They could easily order a smallish print run from a UK printer and a larger one from China at the same time because they're going to restock the box anyway.

The UK Print industry is tiny, and expensive. Like….stupid expensive compared to getting it done overseas. 20, 30 years ago? Not so much. But it’s a dying industry on this benighted island in the modern day.

I’ve got to admit I was disappointed it wasn’t LI in the ‘Next Week’ article yesterday (and I’m perfectly aware it’s an unrealistic hope) but the book is a promising sign.

One day, one day.

 xttz wrote:
They likely ordered enough books to cover the starter box stock currently sitting in distribution warehouses around the world. Epic products will be taking up valuable space needed for planned future releases, like TOW or xmas boxes.

A bigger question is how long repacking will take. Just sending out revised review copies of books doesn't meant they've finishing fixing up tens of thousands of boxes in several locations...

I was so busy musing that I kind of skipped the point. Yes, I was thinking about warehouse space as well. While the starter boxes no doubt take up plenty of space, all the other unit and detachment boxes do so as well. And they won't get released until the starter box is out, making the space issue that much worse and the release of the starter box the most critical thing.

Thus my train of thought. GW could order fewer rulebooks in the UK, thereby saving money and also time repackaging starter sets with the new books. Less time to print the whole batch and less time for repackaging means the release can happen earlier compared to a full batch to cover all the starters. They free up less space from starter sets due to some of them still waiting for their books, but all the individual unit boxes can now get released and stop taking up space.

Legions Imperialis has less initial stock, but stuff doesn't sit around in the warehouse anymore for the most part. People generally don't react badly enough to things selling out quickly, so that's not something GW needs to consider. Then a month or two later when the book order from China shows up, the remaining starter sets get repackaged, new starter sets are made and people who missed out on the limited initial release can join the fun.

The Legions Imperialis rulebook is probably one of the few products GW would not want to sell out immediately, as it is essential for the game. Thus, its availabilty is a crutial factor for the demand of other Legions Imperialis products.
However, I don‘t expect GW to swallow the extra cost. Even though it is not a sound strategy from a business point of view, to price starter products too high, I could see GW to release Legions Imperialis at a higher price than originally intended to cover the cost of the blunder.
Maybe a release in Q4 instead of Q3 already entails such a price increase, as we all know that prices go up over time.
Let‘s hope the release is soon and the prices are reasonable!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

The UK Print industry is tiny, and expensive. Like….stupid expensive compared to getting it done overseas. 20, 30 years ago? Not so much. But it’s a dying industry on this benighted island in the modern day.

Why? The UK used to use China and other countries primarily for labour intensive tasks, as labour was significantly cheaper there.
I don't know the printing industry, but I imagine a lot of it is automated and not as labour intensive. Raw materials will be purchased just the same as they would be in China, ie papers, inks etc. So why the massive difference in prices?
I still don't know why GW haven't invested in building and staffing it's own printing press in the UK. They make so many millions in profit, it wouldn't bankrupt them and in the long term, would be a far better solution than waiting on 3 month boat trips and the possibility of non-GW staff leaking info. I guess excess profit and the shareholders outweigh efficiency. A sad indication of the way the world works these days.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
I’ve got to admit I was disappointed it wasn’t LI in the ‘Next Week’ article yesterday (and I’m perfectly aware it’s an unrealistic hope) but the book is a promising sign.

One day, one day.

I'd guess that they are being shipped out to previewers this week, ready for articles etc to be written for 23rd, release date then the 30th (so three weeks to fix the existing boxes).

New rules leaks here:
https://imgur.com/a/eS1y9rz

No idea where they came from just cross posted from B&C

 Matrindur wrote:
New rules leaks here:
https://imgur.com/a/eS1y9rz

No idea where they came from just cross posted from B&C

Happy to see variants of Malcador, and many loadouts.

But excessive for a game this scale. One can customize ALL weapons to extreme detail. Even the pistols can be used at 6"...

 Matrindur wrote:
New rules leaks here:
https://imgur.com/a/eS1y9rz

No idea where they came from just cross posted from B&C

Fantastic, made my afternoon.

They probably recalled the books because they had rules for running Legios and Household forces.

Oh thank god, those unit profiles are much better! You can now cearly see what equipment each tank gets.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

The UK Print industry is tiny, and expensive. Like….stupid expensive compared to getting it done overseas. 20, 30 years ago? Not so much. But it’s a dying industry on this benighted island in the modern day.

Why? The UK used to use China and other countries primarily for labour intensive tasks, as labour was significantly cheaper there.
I don't know the printing industry, but I imagine a lot of it is automated and not as labour intensive. Raw materials will be purchased just the same as they would be in China, ie papers, inks etc. So why the massive difference in prices?
I still don't know why GW haven't invested in building and staffing it's own printing press in the UK. They make so many millions in profit, it wouldn't bankrupt them and in the long term, would be a far better solution than waiting on 3 month boat trips and the possibility of non-GW staff leaking info. I guess excess profit and the shareholders outweigh efficiency. A sad indication of the way the world works these days.

Printing is a lot more expensive in countries like the UK and US than China, with some countries in Central and Eastern Europe somewhat in-between. Printing, especially of hardback books, isn't as automated as you might think. Binding in particular still involves quite a bit of manual work, and actually printers in countries like China can keep the cost down further by using even more handwork because the machines that provide the alternative are themselves very expensive. Then there's inputs like energy, which are more expensive in the UK and US, and differences in safety regimes, which mean that plants are more expensive to run in the West. Raw materials themselves are usually more expensive as well, because unless an individual printer is set up to handle all sourcing and import of raw materials themselves (which itself adds major cost), they'll be using brokers and suppliers with at least some staff based in the UK or US; those brokers and suppliers are paying UK or US wages and taking a small margin themselves. It all adds up to a lot more cost. Printing's not unusual in this regard, of course.

SamusDrake wrote:
They probably recalled the books because they had rules for running Legios and Household forces.

The back of the book mentions titan legions and a host of other forces.

 Crablezworth wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
They probably recalled the books because they had rules for running Legios and Household forces.

The back of the book mentions titan legions and a host of other forces.

Spoiler:

It mentions Titans, not Titan Legions.

Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

at a guess dictated by space on the sprue for the alternative hull, may as well make it its own model at this size

it is a shame though.

guess whatever follows depends on how well the initial lot lands, I'm running 3d printed stuff as Death Guard, I will be getting the box though to use as something else, potentially thousand sons as I think the colours will look really good at this size but not yet decided

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
They probably recalled the books because they had rules for running Legios and Household forces.

The back of the book mentions titan legions and a host of other forces.

Spoiler:

It mentions Titans, not Titan Legions.

Collegia Titanica is the Titan Legions.

 skrulnik wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
They probably recalled the books because they had rules for running Legios and Household forces.

The back of the book mentions titan legions and a host of other forces.

Spoiler:

It mentions Titans, not Titan Legions.

Collegia Titanica is the Titan Legions.

I thought Collegia Titans is where the Warhounds went to learn how to be Warlords?

/coat

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

LR & Baneblade yes, but Malcador has at least 3 main variants (Vanquisher turret, Battlecannon turret, Lascannon turret... the only missing is the defender?), and dozens of combinations of hull+sponson weapons...

Does anybody think tank weapons are going to be swappable at this scale????

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

The UK Print industry is tiny, and expensive. Like….stupid expensive compared to getting it done overseas. 20, 30 years ago? Not so much. But it’s a dying industry on this benighted island in the modern day.

Why? The UK used to use China and other countries primarily for labour intensive tasks, as labour was significantly cheaper there.
I don't know the printing industry, but I imagine a lot of it is automated and not as labour intensive. Raw materials will be purchased just the same as they would be in China, ie papers, inks etc. So why the massive difference in prices?
I still don't know why GW haven't invested in building and staffing it's own printing press in the UK. They make so many millions in profit, it wouldn't bankrupt them and in the long term, would be a far better solution than waiting on 3 month boat trips and the possibility of non-GW staff leaking info. I guess excess profit and the shareholders outweigh efficiency. A sad indication of the way the world works these days.

There are a lot of steps.

Page setting (mostly digital these days), plate making (if not fully digitised), the machines are expensive. They require skilled Labour for printing, trimming, folding, binding, QA etc.

And as mentioned elsewhere, different health and safety laws, stricter working hours before overtime, storage (it’s not massively common for the buyer to take everything, rather you warehouse it on their behalf and send them out on demand).

Then you have finding the work in the first place. Whether Poland or China (two countries notable for winning a lot of British print contracts, not some Daily Mail conspiracy), the lower the labour costs, the lower the quoted price. Doesn’t take much to squeak you out at that stage.

Yes, GW probably does have the readies to setup a printshop of their own. But…they’re just adopting more expenses. Print shops have never run on a particularly large profit margin, because in its heyday it was a competitive industry. Even stripping out the profit margin entirely? Overseas is still gonna be cheaper. So sadly, it doesn’t make economic sense.

Plus, things can and will go wrong on a print run. Human error, technological whoopsie, misaligned plate, various and sundry. When you’ve contracted out, the associated cost of such balls ups aren’t for the buyer to worry about.

How Grandad used to do it, as did most if not all of the industry, was to quote on a higher print run. Because once you’re all set up, the production cost difference between say, 1,000 copies and 1,200 copies is pretty negligible, because the expensive bit is the labour. With extra copies already printed, a larger print run is still paid for, but you’ve got the goodies produced already, ready to go. So the payment for those extra copies carries your real profit margin.

I’d ask Grandad for more details, but I’d need a Ouija board for that nowadays.

sure I read somewhere the only reason GW didn't own a print shop and do its own printing was that once set up they would use only a fraction of the capacity making it uneconomic

they brought tooling etc in house as it ended up more cost effective and more profitable from the flexibility it offers

Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

 Breotan wrote:
Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

for most people I doubt it will be an issue at all, for others it will become a near religious level of ranting issue

personally, whatever, just make it clear and don't play a shell game of mix & match and its fine

leopard wrote:
sure I read somewhere the only reason GW didn't own a print shop and do its own printing was that once set up they would use only a fraction of the capacity making it uneconomic

they brought tooling etc in house as it ended up more cost effective and more profitable from the flexibility it offers

Counter to that would be make it a wholly owned subsidiary, or at least take on other print runs. Both have flaws as arguments.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

leopard wrote:
sure I read somewhere the only reason GW didn't own a print shop and do its own printing was that once set up they would use only a fraction of the capacity making it uneconomic

they brought tooling etc in house as it ended up more cost effective and more profitable from the flexibility it offers

Counter to that would be make it a wholly owned subsidiary, or at least take on other print runs. Both have flaws as arguments.

yes its not perfect, their injection moulding production & tooling stuff is built around what they need - probably some spare tooling capability would be possible but its allowed the huge output in new kits to be possible

having worked in a job that was essentially "we have a facility with spare capacity, go sell it to people to reduce our overheads!" its one of those things that sounds a good idea but loses a lot of flexibility with capacity tied up for third parties or loses customers if they get bumped.

I think it comes down to GWs own output for printed needing multiple different production lines - books, boxes and thicker cardstock counters/boards being I gather somewhat different - plus in general terms their volumes are not actually all that high

and then as you have noted the cost of doing it in the UK is generally higher than overseas, and while you do loose the transit time its not that high

will be someone at GW who will have worked out at what point bringing it inhouse makes sense though

leopard wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

for most people I doubt it will be an issue at all, for others it will become a near religious level of ranting issue

personally, whatever, just make it clear and don't play a shell game of mix & match and its fine

Counter point, it's very easy to trust a player if their models are actually armed the way their list says that they are. It would be a good indication that accuracy is important to said individual. Constantly say just trust me bro, its a total coincidence my fighter or bomber has the ideal loadout for this situation strains credibility.

In the case of LI, will there be any rules that mandate that all the vehicles in the same unit/detachment be armed the same way?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

leopard wrote:
sure I read somewhere the only reason GW didn't own a print shop and do its own printing was that once set up they would use only a fraction of the capacity making it uneconomic

they brought tooling etc in house as it ended up more cost effective and more profitable from the flexibility it offers

Counter to that would be make it a wholly owned subsidiary, or at least take on other print runs. Both have flaws as arguments.

I think then you'd run the risk of losing the flexibility of having it in house, as you'd then have the comercial pressure of wanting to have as full a calendar as possible rather than keeping largish slots open for "just in case something that shouldn't really be happening anyway" happens.

 Crablezworth wrote:

leopard wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

for most people I doubt it will be an issue at all, for others it will become a near religious level of ranting issue

personally, whatever, just make it clear and don't play a shell game of mix & match and its fine

Counter point, it's very easy to trust a player if their models are actually armed the way their list says that they are. It would be a good indication that accuracy is important to said individual. Constantly say just trust me bro, its a total coincidence my fighter or bomber has the ideal loadout for this situation strains credibility.

In the case of LI, will there be any rules that mandate that all the vehicles in the same unit/detachment be armed the same way?

In Aeronautica the bombs and missiles are too small to be magnetised or use some sort of temporary attachment system, they're also on the bottom of wings which means they're not easily visible for your opponent to see, and since they're "consumable" anyway, it totally makes sense just to use cards/counters to represent them instead of physically representing them on the model.

For Epic, I think WYSIWYG is slightly more important because there's going to be a lot on the table and you don't want to be having to keep track of what everything is equipped with.

yes hence the point about no shell games "all my Leman russ have hull lascannons not heavy bolters" is fine regardless of what they carry

gets harder when "this unit with heavy bolters has heavy bolters, this unit with las cannon also has heavy bolters and this unit with lascannon has las cannon"

I would equip all tanks in a given formation with the same weapons for starters.

So much detail in this edition... I have to find ways to speed up play already.

New article up about terrain, https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/09/12/legions-imperialis-terrain-how-the-battlefield-shapes-your-games/

At the bottom is a note that "LI is on course for a release soon"

ccnick22 wrote:
New article up about terrain, https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/09/12/legions-imperialis-terrain-how-the-battlefield-shapes-your-games/

At the bottom is a note that "LI is on course for a release soon"

Based on this and the rulebook appearing in the wild I would say probably at the start of October

Would have been nice to get actual examples what these four levels of structures are supposed to be like

I wonder if this will end up like earlier versions, where a building was a death trap but ruins were safe.. so you level the buildings as you approach?

better is a ruin being able to be destroyed over and over

the models look good though

Imperialis Grandus sounds exactly as absurd as Biggus Dickus.

Cyel wrote:
Imperialis Grandus sounds exactly as absurd as Biggus Dickus.

Now I know what to name my Warbringer Titan!

How do you tell the difference between structure types just from looking at them? Is the one with the crane Grandus? Or Civitas? Is the little cube with the big doors Civitas or Militus?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

They gotta hold something back to make you buy the next book in the series. Give it ~3-6 months post release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laemos wrote:
How do you tell the difference between structure types just from looking at them? Is the one with the crane Grandus? Or Civitas? Is the little cube with the big doors Civitas or Militus?

Was wondering the same.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

Yes, honestly I am getting to despise their no models no rules thing more and more, as you just know it affects the minimal amount of playtesting they do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matrindur wrote:

ccnick22 wrote:
New article up about terrain, https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/09/12/legions-imperialis-terrain-how-the-battlefield-shapes-your-games/

At the bottom is a note that "LI is on course for a release soon"

Based on this and the rulebook appearing in the wild I would say probably at the start of October

Would have been nice to get actual examples what these four levels of structures are supposed to be like

Spoiler:

Sincerely hope that is area terrain rules. If it is WYSIWYG individual structures that's not a very promising sign.

Probably a second picture with the different sized buildings.

The building thing sounds really bad, for starters as others have mentioned, how does one even know what building is what, but it's worth than that, as cool as it is to have destructible buildings, players will be expected to have an intact and ruined version of each building on top of knowing its stats? No one played this....

The area terrain, the problem again is no use of the description of the model being entirely within said area, worse yet, they're not telling you to delineate an area of terrain, they're basically saying 1mm of my 25mm infantry base is on top of a flattened shipping crate so obviously Id get a cover save from 360 degrees... this isn't good design, the main problem of area terrain even with functional rules is its often unflankable, but this just raises the silliness a bit too much.

Didn't old skool Epic have quake cannons (?) to knock out buildings with?

...And to be fair, I've played a good few editions of 28mm 40K and I've never modelled a ruined vehicle to bring, some cotton wool for smoke usually did just fine (if anything that's overperforming compared to the usual marker next to the vehicle or somesuch!)

Most important Message from that Article:

Legions Imperialis is on course for a release soon – keep checking back on Warhammer Community for all the biggest news from the smallest soldiers.

 Bolognesus wrote:
Didn't old skool Epic have quake cannons (?) to knock out buildings with?

...And to be fair, I've played a good few editions of 28mm 40K and I've never modelled a ruined vehicle to bring, some cotton wool for smoke usually did just fine (if anything that's overperforming compared to the usual marker next to the vehicle or somesuch!)

Some of the weapons previewed or leaked have had a usr that lets them destroy structures, so far I believe the kratos melta turret and one of the bombers can do it. But again, its not like building have 1 set of stats, first you have to play architect apparently and figure out what type of building every structure is, its a bit daunting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RazorEdge wrote:
Most important Message from that Article:

Legions Imperialis is on course for a release soon – keep checking back on Warhammer Community for all the biggest news from the smallest soldiers.

Ya true, really hoping for october now.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

They gotta hold something back to make you buy the next book in the series. Give it ~3-6 months post release.

If the game makes it that long instead of following the Aeronautica Imperialis path of releasing a clearly incomplete game, stringing the rest of the game out over a year or more and multiple expansions, and then killing off the whole thing because for some incomprehensible reason nobody really wanted to buy it.

The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

It seems that GW did see through its entire initial roadmap for AI though, we were told up front to expect 5 factions, and we got 5 (technically more if you count Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and Imperial Navy as distinct factions), one of which only came in resin. Arguably Guard/Navy are one faction and Marines a separate one, so in that sense we got 5 in plastic and 1 in resin.

Point being, its not like they canceled the project so much as they didn't continue it when it had run its course.

I think a big part of the reason why the game didn't tickle anyones fancy was that the rules weren't particularly great (compared to the predecessor game, at any rate), and that it was tied to a hex grid (which seems to be anathema to a large segment of GWs customer base). I hope they relaunch it as a 2nd edition at some point in the future with a tighter hex-less ruleset and perhaps a bit more emphasis on ground units - being able to play missions where you have to conduct strafing runs on columns of to-scale Leman Russ battle tanks, for example, will probably excite a lot of people.

leopard wrote:
I wonder if this will end up like earlier versions, where a building was a death trap but ruins were safe.. so you level the buildings as you approach?

better is a ruin being able to be destroyed over and over

the models look good though

Well -1 save roll or die...Kinda of a death trap to me.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

Hopefully not. I'm just concerned that the game being as stripped down as it is on release means there's a lot of demand for the finished game but a significant percentage of that demand will be waiting for GW to finish the game before buying. And if initial sales of the starter set half-game don't meet expectations it potentially starts the downward spiral of de-prioritizing future content leading to even lower interest. GW really needs to at least get a roadmap and some previews out showing admech forces, the missing tank variants, etc, so we can at least trust that GW will be finishing the game soon.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

It seems that GW did see through its entire initial roadmap for AI though, we were told up front to expect 5 factions, and we got 5 (technically more if you count Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and Imperial Navy as distinct factions), one of which only came in resin. Arguably Guard/Navy are one faction and Marines a separate one, so in that sense we got 5 in plastic and 1 in resin.

Point being, its not like they canceled the project so much as they didn't continue it when it had run its course.

I think a big part of the reason why the game didn't tickle anyones fancy was that the rules weren't particularly great (compared to the predecessor game, at any rate), and that it was tied to a hex grid (which seems to be anathema to a large segment of GWs customer base). I hope they relaunch it as a 2nd edition at some point in the future with a tighter hex-less ruleset and perhaps a bit more emphasis on ground units - being able to play missions where you have to conduct strafing runs on columns of to-scale Leman Russ battle tanks, for example, will probably excite a lot of people.

100% this


Hex map rubs many the wrong way, many were expecting something more like x-wing. Hex map also meant terrain wasn't really a thing and as good as that is financially, it also kills feeling too invested in it. AT by contrast you really need to get terrain, and feel more invested on account of it. The AI models are great but for anyoe who just want to collect and not play, speaking for myself I liked them but never wanted 4-6 of any one plane. I would have got a thunderhawk if i could ever have caught them in stock. At least now with LI, the planes looks really useful gamewise and more likely to make people want them in packs of 4-6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

Hopefully not. I'm just concerned that the game being as stripped down as it is on release means there's a lot of demand for the finished game but a significant percentage of that demand will be waiting for GW to finish the game before buying. And if initial sales of the starter set half-game don't meet expectations it potentially starts the downward spiral of de-prioritizing future content leading to even lower interest. GW really needs to at least get a roadmap and some previews out showing admech forces, the missing tank variants, etc, so we can at least trust that GW will be finishing the game soon.

For my purposes, if LI is good, I don't see myself playing much titanicus anymore. And if looking for a silver lining, if LI proves popular locally, it may bring in more people with titans who could eventually consider dabbling in AT. Right now locall AT isn't very popular, but many are excited for LI. Also, AT is and has always been a real tough game for multiplayer megabatlles, where as LI might work better for that. Aeronautica has great models, but the game itself doesn't interest me too much, but with LI I'm not much more interested in owning the models.

 Crablezworth wrote:
For my purposes, if LI is good, I don't see myself playing much titanicus anymore.

I suppose it depends on how many Titans you can reasonably field in a standard game of LI. Depending on how points are structured, we may rarely, if ever, see an Iconoclast/Warmaster on the table or even multiple Warlords. I hope my pessimism is unfounded.

 Breotan wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
For my purposes, if LI is good, I don't see myself playing much titanicus anymore.

I suppose it depends on how many Titans you can reasonably field in a standard game of LI. Depending on how points are structured, we may rarely, if ever, see an Iconoclast/Warmaster on the table or even multiple Warlords. I hope my pessimism is unfounded.

Well I'd say you're at least more likely to see a warmaster, as they're much cheaper pointwise in LI than AT.

 Matrindur wrote:
Would have been nice to get actual examples what these four levels of structures are supposed to be like

I'd bet it's at least part scenario defined. But knowing GW, there's a model example for each from their own products.

 schoon wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
Would have been nice to get actual examples what these four levels of structures are supposed to be like

I'd bet it's at least part scenario defined. But knowing GW, there's a model example for each from their own products.

The building kits are modular, so hopefully they will sort them by size ranges rather than specific builds.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 schoon wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
Would have been nice to get actual examples what these four levels of structures are supposed to be like

I'd bet it's at least part scenario defined. But knowing GW, there's a model example for each from their own products.

The building kits are modular, so hopefully they will sort them by size ranges rather than specific builds.

Yeah, the kits we know from AT are all “Civitas Imperialis” so the others are probably different architectural styles. I do expect “fortifications” to be a range of separate, discrete kits though, maybe with armed variants.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

Hopefully not. I'm just concerned that the game being as stripped down as it is on release means there's a lot of demand for the finished game but a significant percentage of that demand will be waiting for GW to finish the game before buying. And if initial sales of the starter set half-game don't meet expectations it potentially starts the downward spiral of de-prioritizing future content leading to even lower interest. GW really needs to at least get a roadmap and some previews out showing admech forces, the missing tank variants, etc, so we can at least trust that GW will be finishing the game soon.

AI was the only specialist game reboot to crash and burn and I think even GW know why it did. They haven't tried to pull that gak since.

well 1st edition had, in theory, different types of buildings - though they all had the same stats - you got a picture of each. 2nd was more uniform tower blocks

to be honest I think the different buildings will be fine, a fortification will be reasonably obvious, the rest I suspect will a size split given the garrison number is different. Battletech manages with multiple building types just fine - worst case stick a label, or add a splash of colour to tell them apart.

if this time round its more limited to what can flatten buildings, and they happen to be the same weapons you need for other duties its more interesting. otherwise it will be flatten and occupy the ruins (unless ruins are more dangerous)

either way there are plenty of alternative building options out there in all sorts of sizes

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

Hopefully not. I'm just concerned that the game being as stripped down as it is on release means there's a lot of demand for the finished game but a significant percentage of that demand will be waiting for GW to finish the game before buying. And if initial sales of the starter set half-game don't meet expectations it potentially starts the downward spiral of de-prioritizing future content leading to even lower interest. GW really needs to at least get a roadmap and some previews out showing admech forces, the missing tank variants, etc, so we can at least trust that GW will be finishing the game soon.

AI was the only specialist game reboot to crash and burn and I think even GW know why it did. They haven't tried to pull that gak since.

Its ironic that it did crash and burn, as its the only one of the specialist games to feature xenos, which many seem to believe is necessary and essential for HH, AT, and even LI to be successful.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Its ironic that it did crash and burn, as its the only one of the specialist games to feature xenos, which many seem to believe is necessary and essential for HH, AT, and even LI to be successful.

What's more, it's predominately the xenos models for AI that seemed to be unpopular. I've seen many people picking up imperial flyers just for painting (especially the Thunderhawk) even when they don't play AI. Meanwhile the Tau and Eldar planes ended up in clearance sales for several UK 3rd-party retailers, like Dark Sphere.

 xttz wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Its ironic that it did crash and burn, as its the only one of the specialist games to feature xenos, which many seem to believe is necessary and essential for HH, AT, and even LI to be successful.

What's more, it's predominately the xenos models for AI that seemed to be unpopular. I've seen many people picking up imperial flyers just for painting (especially the Thunderhawk) even when they don't play AI. Meanwhile the Tau and Eldar planes ended up in clearance sales for several UK 3rd-party retailers, like Dark Sphere.

I would have actually bought into the game if they hadn't cast my Xenos of choice in resin. But they did, and there went my incentive for spending money.

On the bright side I don't have to be upset about my faction getting taken out of the game or never making it to the latest version of Epic. So yay, I guess.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

I'm sure it is going to have more demand, it's always hard to say how much though. It's always the same handful of folks discussing it on the forums, and while the LI handful might be bigger than the AI one, I dunno if it's astronomical.

I do recall hearing that AI sold pretty well at launch and died pretty soon after.

I think a big part of the reason why the game didn't tickle anyones fancy was that the rules weren't particularly great (compared to the predecessor game, at any rate), and that it was tied to a hex grid (which seems to be anathema to a large segment of GWs customer base). I hope they relaunch it as a 2nd edition at some point in the future with a tighter hex-less ruleset and perhaps a bit more emphasis on ground units - being able to play missions where you have to conduct strafing runs on columns of to-scale Leman Russ battle tanks, for example, will probably excite a lot of people.

I hope GW are self aware enough to realise the reasons it failed and release another edition, but they probably won't. If they were self aware enough, they probably would have pivoted at some point across the 3 starter sets they released.

Don’t we expect GW to at least have Thunderhawks readily available for the LI launch or at least shortly thereafter? Or am I wishlisting?

 Fugazi wrote:
Don’t we expect GW to at least have Thunderhawks readily available for the LI launch or at least shortly thereafter? Or am I wishlisting?

I'd expect them to go quickly. Already a popular model before the re-boxing, looks to be good in game AND it's one of the more difficult models to find a good proxy/3d print for.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Fugazi wrote:
Don’t we expect GW to at least have Thunderhawks readily available for the LI launch or at least shortly thereafter? Or am I wishlisting?

I'd expect them to go quickly. Already a popular model before the re-boxing, looks to be good in game AND it's one of the more difficult models to find a good proxy/3d print for.

LI will be the first Epic game I buy. I feel like I can’t do it without Thunderhawks lol

 Breotan wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
For my purposes, if LI is good, I don't see myself playing much titanicus anymore.

I suppose it depends on how many Titans you can reasonably field in a standard game of LI. Depending on how points are structured, we may rarely, if ever, see an Iconoclast/Warmaster on the table or even multiple Warlords. I hope my pessimism is unfounded.

As far as I'm concerned, this game should be called Legions Basius Decoratum. I look forward to some of the kits, but from a gameplay standpoint someone can wake me when I can use my Epic Tyranids.

 Fugazi wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Fugazi wrote:
Don’t we expect GW to at least have Thunderhawks readily available for the LI launch or at least shortly thereafter? Or am I wishlisting?

I'd expect them to go quickly. Already a popular model before the re-boxing, looks to be good in game AND it's one of the more difficult models to find a good proxy/3d print for.

LI will be the first Epic game I buy. I feel like I can’t do it without Thunderhawks lol

I feel like I want several, with that said, I'm not sure if they're fun to build or more of chore. I've also seen third party kits that add details like interior detail to the front for modelling with front hatch open.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Its ironic that it did crash and burn, as its the only one of the specialist games to feature xenos, which many seem to believe is necessary and essential for HH, AT, and even LI to be successful.

Not really, its failures had far more to do with the game being a "take a decent game and make it worse in every way" reboot that launched hopelessly incomplete and then promptly got dumped from GW's marketing efforts. The presence or absence of xenos models had very little impact on the success of the game.

This seems to be the case. AI never really felt like it was supported properly. It got stale real fast, too.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sure it is going to have more demand, it's always hard to say how much though. It's always the same handful of folks discussing it on the forums, and while the LI handful might be bigger than the AI one, I dunno if it's astronomical.

I do recall hearing that AI sold pretty well at launch and died pretty soon after.

Yep. And how many of the "that looks cool" talk is going to turn into significant sales? How many people are going to be holding off on buying the game at launch because they want GW to finish it before committing time and money to units that won't make it into their final army? How many people are hyped for new rules but plan to use their old Epic collections with few or no new purchases? How many people are going to complain about the price of the official stuff and use 3d printed alternatives? I don't see anything even remotely approaching certainty that LI is going to be a success.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sure it is going to have more demand, it's always hard to say how much though. It's always the same handful of folks discussing it on the forums, and while the LI handful might be bigger than the AI one, I dunno if it's astronomical.

I do recall hearing that AI sold pretty well at launch and died pretty soon after.

Yep. And how many of the "that looks cool" talk is going to turn into significant sales? How many people are going to be holding off on buying the game at launch because they want GW to finish it before committing time and money to units that won't make it into their final army? How many people are hyped for new rules but plan to use their old Epic collections with few or no new purchases? How many people are going to complain about the price of the official stuff and use 3d printed alternatives? I don't see anything even remotely approaching certainty that LI is going to be a success.

Well having none of the baggage of having played any prior edition of epic, but having focused primary on titanicus for the last 3 years, I can say LI looks good to me, in that it's seemingly much more approachable than titanicus. A primary example, titanicus's space requirement for terminals meant multiplayer or just large games were very difficult, had many physical hurdles to overcome, in addition to time. LI seems much more practical for larger multi player games. 3d printing also lightens the load/burden on terrain.

As for the lack of xenos, one thing I can say is it should not be difficult to do count as with the existing armies, but also, assuming the usr's cover a lot of bases, it shouldn't be difficult to write fan made xenos rules as its basically pick a unit type, movement state, save, CAF and what weapons/usr's it gets. That's actually not too bad.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Not really, its failures had far more to do with the game being a "take a decent game and make it worse in every way" reboot that launched hopelessly incomplete and then promptly got dumped from GW's marketing efforts...

So, by that measure, LI will fail as well?

In all seriousness, Aeronautica didn’t do well because it never had the same level of nostalgia or cool factor as the other specialist games. I think even man-o-war would have stirred up more warm memories than AI could ever hope to. The original version of the game was resin only, and was never really given much attention by the GW marketing, and consequently was not commonly played.

Also, GW games are release driven, which makes a game that had between 2 and 3 box sets per faction, with each release separated by a year, fit in like a football bat.

The hex grid was always the biggest turnoff for AI. The game itself was pretty solid in how it captured the dynamics of aerial combat, but it did feel a little simplistic due to the lack of unit variety.

At this point it seems pretty safe to assume that AT and AI were always meant to be stepping stones along the way to LI. Long-term commitment to either game seems increasingly unlikely.

artific3r wrote:
The hex grid was always the biggest turnoff for AI. The game itself was pretty solid in how it captured the dynamics of aerial combat, but it did feel a little simplistic due to the lack of unit variety.

At this point it seems pretty safe to assume that AT and AI were always meant to be stepping stones along the way to LI. Long-term commitment to either game seems increasingly unlikely.

AT is a solid game on its own. Hopefully LI will mean more plastic releases for Titans- Dire Wolves and new Warhound weapons are great starts. Converting more of the Warlord and Reaver weapons over to plastic would be useful for both games as well, and hopefully will happen. And more terrain is always good.

semajnollissor wrote:
So, by that measure, LI will fail as well?

I can't honestly say, I didn't play Epic and I haven't seen enough of LI's rules to know how well it works. But the point about AI was less about failing to capture nostalgia being the reason for its failures and more that it was just an irredeemably bad game and "a worse in every way version of the game we already had" is the best way I can describe it. AI could have succeeded without being an improved version of its predecessor if it had been a good game on its own merits but we never got the chance to find out, GW published half-finished trash and then promptly dumped it when sales didn't immediately set a new record.

Similarly, I think LI can work fine without needing to rely on nostalgia if it is a good game. Will it be? Who knows. But like AI it's releasing in an obviously incomplete state and I really hope GW doesn't kill it off before they can bring it to its full potential.

And now even the buildings have stat lines ..

A post doing the rounds on the FB groups at the moment, apparently from the rules leaks/community page releases seen *so far* there are 56 keywords/rule reference terms used in the stats. Those of us who struggle to remember what we had for tea yesterday evening may struggle.. !

 Breotan wrote:
Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

WYSIWYG at Epic scale? Mother of God we used to just put banner poles on Ork Boyz stands for Nobz and on Guardians for Warlocks, how times change..

Yeah, in my eyes, the rules for AI were way too abstract and really didn't capture the feeling of dogfighting very well.

That really limited my ability to support the line - not the existance or absence of xenos.

AT had fun rules that worked well, and thus my support. Nothing to do with xenos there either.

LI will likewise live or die by the quality of the ruleset. We'll see...

AI was... interesting, I've played one game, what it had going for it was the 40k background and some nice looking models

that was it basically

there are far better air combat games out there

the hex grid was ok, but the map is about a quarter the area is needed to be

Agree these side games live or die by the rules being decent

AT was a surprise to me, very different from the 1st edition, but still enjoyable to play

AI was terrible. No offense to anyone who liked it but I went all in expecting it to be GW X-wing and got... I dunno, maybe a ruleset for 9 year olds. And not the clever ones. Dreadfleet had way more game.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
AI was terrible. No offense to anyone who liked it but I went all in expecting it to be GW X-wing and got... I dunno, maybe a ruleset for 9 year olds. And not the clever ones. Dreadfleet had way more game.

Oooofffff

I was going to comment on GW's failings with Aeronautica, but that's a separate topic altogether.

What I will say is that we are comparing one of GW's most iconic wargames to one of it's lesser known spin-offs. Of course there is much more demand for a new Epic game that includes everything that can be possibly plopped onto the battlefield, than a game that only focuses on aircraft.

And while it was the game that introduced the Epic series, the same goes for Adeptus Titanicus as it only focuses on giant Imperial robots. Even when that was released in 2018..."When's Epic coming? Where's the little soliders and tanks?".

That said, I see Legions Imperialis being the game that The Horus Heresy should have been from the start. Its not only set in the 30K setting but also has both the correct model scale and ruleset to accomodate large scale battles.

SamusDrake wrote:
That said, I see Legions Imperialis being the game that The Horus Heresy should have been from the start. Its not only set in the 30K setting but also has both the correct model scale and ruleset to accomodate large scale battles.

+1 to this. I have some reservations about the level of granularity we've seen so far, but slightly embiggened micro armor is the perfect scale for the sorts of battles described in the 30K fluff. It's also just a generally convenient scale to paint, transport, and actually play with.

 Pacific wrote:
And now even the buildings have stat lines ..

A post doing the rounds on the FB groups at the moment, apparently from the rules leaks/community page releases seen *so far* there are 56 keywords/rule reference terms used in the stats. Those of us who struggle to remember what we had for tea yesterday evening may struggle.. !

 Breotan wrote:
Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

WYSIWYG at Epic scale? Mother of God we used to just put banner poles on Ork Boyz stands for Nobz and on Guardians for Warlocks, how times change..

Well when 40k leaned heavily on usr's it had a lot, the point was they didn't change and that was the beauty of the concept, a player's reward for really internalizing them was being able to pick up a new codex on release and understand a lot of it because although it was new it still used the core usr's.

When 8th ed dropped an GW started doing the muh bespoke crap it all fell apart. But assuming those 56 words get referenced again and again with future releases, that certainly better than bloating that number more and more. This may be the benefit of few factions, its more difficult to bloat it up like necromunda or 40k.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I feel like I want several, with that said, I'm not sure if they're fun to build or more of chore. I've also seen third party kits that add details like interior detail to the front for modelling with front hatch open.

I think they’re great fun to build, did another couple in August after not having built any for a long time and remembered how much I enjoyed it.

I have been very tempted by those custom interiors.

Im increasingly wary of the LI ruleset, but I'll buy the hell out of the range anyway. Worst case scenario is I find another ruleset to use them with or write my own. At that scale, its not actually that hard to do as WYSIWYG is of lesser importance (with regards to all the fiddly little secondary weapons, etc.) and you tend to want less detailed rulsets for such small minis anyway.

I have questions about rules that were leaked, but I don't think we've seen enough yet to become concerned.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Im increasingly wary of the LI ruleset, but I'll buy the hell out of the range anyway. Worst case scenario is I find another ruleset to use them with or write my own. At that scale, its not actually that hard to do as WYSIWYG is of lesser importance (with regards to all the fiddly little secondary weapons, etc.) and you tend to want less detailed rulsets for such small minis anyway.

I think for sanity you definitely want some kind of rule like the whole squad has to have the same loadout. At the same time, the people that want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on wysiwyg can be very entitled the other way if its too laisez fair. It's one thing to be asked to remember "this squad has lascannons and not heavy bolters. That sort of thing can get just as taxing, again depending how laise fair the whole thing is, you have to draw a line somewhere though, before "these leman russes are really malcadors".

If its also a case of people modelling before reading the rules, again I'm less sympathetic with "every heavy bolter you see is a lascannon" at that point.

 Breotan wrote:
I have questions about rules that were leaked, but I don't think we've seen enough yet to become concerned.

I think it is more 2nd ed than 4th ed, which I think is probably the right move for GW players, if not wargamers.

 Crablezworth wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Im increasingly wary of the LI ruleset, but I'll buy the hell out of the range anyway. Worst case scenario is I find another ruleset to use them with or write my own. At that scale, its not actually that hard to do as WYSIWYG is of lesser importance (with regards to all the fiddly little secondary weapons, etc.) and you tend to want less detailed rulsets for such small minis anyway.

I think for sanity you definitely want some kind of rule like the whole squad has to have the same loadout. At the same time, the people that want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on wysiwyg can be very entitled the other way if its too laisez fair. It's one thing to be asked to remember "this squad has lascannons and not heavy bolters. That sort of thing can get just as taxing, again depending how laise fair the whole thing is, you have to draw a line somewhere though, before "these leman russes are really malcadors".

If its also a case of people modelling before reading the rules, again I'm less sympathetic with "every heavy bolter you see is a lascannon" at that point.

At Epic scale I'm not noticing what small arms the infantry dudes are equipped with and quite frankly it really shouldn't matter.

If you do wanna get specific on infantry weapons just split it in “small arms” (rifles and pistols), “heavy anti infantry” (heavy bolters, stubbers, autocannon, rotary cannon), and “heavy anti vehicle” (lascannon, plasma, melta)

I think another bit of unnecessary detail in LI that has already been shown off has to do with the ranges of the different weapons available to a given unit. Couldn’t they have just used 6” increments like they do in 40K? I mean, how much is added to the gaming experience by having a 12” gun, a 16” gun, a 22” gun, etc?

semajnollissor wrote:
I mean, how much is added to the gaming experience by having a 12” gun, a 16” gun, a 22” gun, etc?

I haven't checked this, but I'd guess that they're trying for some specific fraction of the 40K ranges.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Im increasingly wary of the LI ruleset, but I'll buy the hell out of the range anyway. Worst case scenario is I find another ruleset to use them with or write my own. At that scale, its not actually that hard to do as WYSIWYG is of lesser importance (with regards to all the fiddly little secondary weapons, etc.) and you tend to want less detailed rulsets for such small minis anyway.

For massive battles I recommend Epic 3rd ed. (Epic 40k).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I have questions about rules that were leaked, but I don't think we've seen enough yet to become concerned.

I think it is more 2nd ed than 4th ed, which I think is probably the right move for GW players, if not wargamers.

Agreed.

GW blatantly lied about this game having the best elements of previous editions of Epic. It has ABSOLUTELY nothing from Epic 40k (3rd ed) and from Epic Armageddon (4th ed.).

Not a single rule, not a single reference, not a single design style, nothing.

But rules bloat (like in 40k) is very present.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Im increasingly wary of the LI ruleset, but I'll buy the hell out of the range anyway. Worst case scenario is I find another ruleset to use them with or write my own. At that scale, its not actually that hard to do as WYSIWYG is of lesser importance (with regards to all the fiddly little secondary weapons, etc.) and you tend to want less detailed rulsets for such small minis anyway.

I think for sanity you definitely want some kind of rule like the whole squad has to have the same loadout. At the same time, the people that want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on wysiwyg can be very entitled the other way if its too laisez fair. It's one thing to be asked to remember "this squad has lascannons and not heavy bolters. That sort of thing can get just as taxing, again depending how laise fair the whole thing is, you have to draw a line somewhere though, before "these leman russes are really malcadors".

If its also a case of people modelling before reading the rules, again I'm less sympathetic with "every heavy bolter you see is a lascannon" at that point.

At Epic scale I'm not noticing what small arms the infantry dudes are equipped with and quite frankly it really shouldn't matter.

Oh but they do matter. Pistols are used!! at this scale such small weapongs shouldn't matter indeed.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
And now even the buildings have stat lines ..

A post doing the rounds on the FB groups at the moment, apparently from the rules leaks/community page releases seen *so far* there are 56 keywords/rule reference terms used in the stats. Those of us who struggle to remember what we had for tea yesterday evening may struggle.. !

 Breotan wrote:
Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

WYSIWYG at Epic scale? Mother of God we used to just put banner poles on Ork Boyz stands for Nobz and on Guardians for Warlocks, how times change..

Well when 40k leaned heavily on usr's it had a lot, the point was they didn't change and that was the beauty of the concept, a player's reward for really internalizing them was being able to pick up a new codex on release and understand a lot of it because although it was new it still used the core usr's.

When 8th ed dropped an GW started doing the muh bespoke crap it all fell apart. But assuming those 56 words get referenced again and again with future releases, that certainly better than bloating that number more and more. This may be the benefit of few factions, its more difficult to bloat it up like necromunda or 40k.

I hated universal special rules in 40k.

Special rules should be, ya know, special. When every unit has one or two or three they become burdensome and slow the game down, and slow down learning the game.

I don't want to be rewarded for "internalising" the rules, I want a game where I don't have to be intimately familiar with page after page of exceptions to the regular rules.

Some people might like it in 40k because it adds "character", I dislike it in 40k and I'm going to dislike it even more in a game like Epic where the focus should be on armies not individuals anyway.

As much as is possible, I like to see "special" units represented within the framework of the core rules (of course without making the core rules as dense as lead).

So rather than have 1 rule to remember in 10 units you prefer 10 units with same but maybe different rule...

Imagine fun when transport rule, teleports etc have to read from every unit to make sure it's same as on other unit

It's very important that Furious Charge, Furious Assault, and Berserk Charge all exist simultaneously! No I can't remember the differences.

These 56 rules presumably include such things as Transport X, Invulnerable save X+?

I think we might be overselling the complexity somewhat.

The previous games got around it by having rules built into the profile of the weaponry or the unit. So you didn't have to say something was especially deadly against vehicles by giving it a special rule, you just gave it a -3 save modifier which would have the same effect. Very occasionally you wanted something to be a titan killer, so it has a special rule of +3 to damage rolls or similar. And of course you did have sheets with key words, but even for something like Armageddon they were vastly smaller in number than those we have seen so far for LI. I think we can also expect various 'combination' rules to add further complication, I expect each of the Legions will have special rules to go along with the ones we have seen for the SA already.

This is from one of the FB groups

Ah yes. Shock horror spending 30mln to read rules once.

If you can read through, say, the HH2.0 rules exactly once and then remember every single USR on every unit and weapon and what they do, you must be a savant. Good quick-reference material is a must and even then it's a lot to keep track of.

I'm really not sold on LI's granular representation of weapons and avalanche of special rules, particularly in contrast to more abstract/functional mechanics like just rolling off and adding your CAF.

E:A had what I consider an ideal level of detail- differences between units mostly baked into the profile, with a limited number of special rules used mostly at the army level rather than individual units.

But I'm content to wait and see how this turns out.

I doubt it will be half the issue some people think it will be, firstly you will have an army and likely work through the rules that apply to it in a few games, your opponent likewise

and you don't need to bother initially with special rules that do not apply to models neither of you are using.

hopefully it will be set out a bit like the first edition, it probably won't, but that started you off with vehicle on vehicle combat only, brings in movement, shooting saves, cover etc without the assault phase stuff, transport etc really being a thing. a few short scenarios for tanks fighting tanks

then you added some infantry, not much initially for infantry v infantry games, with just tactical bods shooting alone isn't enough so you learn the melee stuff

wasn't hard to pick up and it had more weapon profiles than we have seen here, different stats based on target types, short & long ranges with different profiles etc

a lot of it flowed nicely, if they have gone back to 2nd that was pretty similar

tneva82 wrote:
So rather than have 1 rule to remember in 10 units you prefer 10 units with same but maybe different rule...

Imagine fun when transport rule, teleports etc have to read from every unit to make sure it's same as on other unit

For one, no, I think most things don't need to be "special rules" at all and can fit within the framework of the core rules.

Exception based rules systems I just find cumbersome to play and cumbersome to learn/teach.

For two, it's not like there was "1 rule to remember", there were dozens of the bastards. As for 10 units having 10 different rules, I mean kinda, if the special rule can fit within a single line of text on the unit card then why not just put it on the unit card instead of putting the name of the rule and having to recall what that rule was. But more than anything, special rules should be special, rather than just the norm for damned near every unit.

But we'll see what it's like in Epic, maybe it'll all be fine, my point was just "but 40k...." is a terrible argument to me because 40k sucked

I don't hold high hopes for Epic, as much as I'm an enthusiast for Epic, 3D printing is what brought Epic back to life for me, not GW remaking it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
I doubt it will be half the issue some people think it will be, firstly you will have an army and likely work through the rules that apply to it in a few games, your opponent likewise

and you don't need to bother initially with special rules that do not apply to models neither of you are using.

hopefully it will be set out a bit like the first edition, it probably won't, but that started you off with vehicle on vehicle combat only, brings in movement, shooting saves, cover etc without the assault phase stuff, transport etc really being a thing. a few short scenarios for tanks fighting tanks

then you added some infantry, not much initially for infantry v infantry games, with just tactical bods shooting alone isn't enough so you learn the melee stuff

wasn't hard to pick up and it had more weapon profiles than we have seen here, different stats based on target types, short & long ranges with different profiles etc

a lot of it flowed nicely, if they have gone back to 2nd that was pretty similar

I just want a simple set of rules that I can learn in a couple of games and scales from small games to massive games nicely But then I'm a fan of Epic 40k (3rd edition) where you could go from not knowing the game at all to competently playing in an afternoon, and play a truly massive game also in an afternoon (maybe not the same afternoon ). I know for many people they found it to be an oversimplification though... but I think for me the narrative happens in my head and I just want the game to function well as a game.

But we'll see, maybe it'll be awesome, I haven't really been following the announcements beyond a casual glance, so maybe I'm a mile off in how it'll work.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes. Shock horror spending 30mln to read rules once.

you are looking at the wrong rules
this is GWs Legions Imperialis, not MGs Warpath

if you managed to get thru everything within 30 minutes, put whatever pdf you are reading aside and take the hardcover book with the GW logo on the front

chaos0xomega wrote:


At Epic scale I'm not noticing what small arms the infantry dudes are equipped with and quite frankly it really shouldn't matter.

But you actually have to be, because some have lasrifles, some have flamers, some have axes, that not actually like, up to you. Those are distinct bases of models, you need some way to tell them apart.

Yeah, I definitely can't remember every rule in HH through one read through. The real problem is that for many of us HH, LI, etc. are not "regular" games that you will be playing consistently long term. They are the game you play with your mate once every few months, maybe you get lucky and have a league where you play it consistently over the course of a few weeks, but many of us will not have that experience with it where we are playing it consistently enough to dedicate the mental resources to rote memorization of 56+ USRs, etc. Even the handful of rules which might apply to the units and faction we are playing will be cumbersome to learn and memorize without the ability to put in consistent time with the game to develop that muscle memory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


At Epic scale I'm not noticing what small arms the infantry dudes are equipped with and quite frankly it really shouldn't matter.

But you actually have to be, because some have lasrifles, some have flamers, some have axes, that not actually like, up to you. Those are distinct bases of models, you need some way to tell them apart.

No, you really don't. This is an irrelevant level of detail for a game this scale. If I wanted that, I'd play 40k. If thats the experience LI has to offer me, I will be going in a different direction and finidng a more sensible set of rules where I can ignore that level of silliness.

 Crablezworth wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


At Epic scale I'm not noticing what small arms the infantry dudes are equipped with and quite frankly it really shouldn't matter.

But you actually have to be, because some have lasrifles, some have flamers, some have axes, that not actually like, up to you. Those are distinct bases of models, you need some way to tell them apart.

for 15mm scale games, and planned for this as well, I use colour on the rear part of the base edge to distinguish units and special equipment, commanders etc if its not easily clear when looking at the rear of the models.

for Flames of War this was further modified to duplicate on the front of the base edge (e.g. flamer thrower units have a bright orange patch)

makes it quite clear at a glance.

though from the marines we have seen so far we appear to have

- tactical marines
- support marines (plasma guns)
- heavy support marines (rocket launchers)
- assault marines (manic party dudes)
- command marines (flag waving nutters)
- terminator marines (who ate all the pies?)

of which only really the support ones could do with identification from the back, paint scheme dependent maybe something on the front also

I suspect telling models apart for infantry will be quite simple, and even for vehicles its probably not that had to add "Titan Recognition Markings" somewhere in the paint scheme to identify units and equipment

Comparing 15mm and ~8mm is... yeah.

You realize that the LI minis are half the size of their Flames of War counterparts, right? Like, its a silly comparison to make, and what works for 15mm minis doesn't necessarily work for these.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Comparing 15mm and ~8mm is... yeah.

You realize that the LI minis are half the size of their Flames of War counterparts, right? Like, it's a silly comparison to make, and what works for 15mm minis doesn't necessarily work for these.

Did you read the suggestion? Marking colours on base edges to tell things apart easily works at literally any scale where models are based.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Comparing 15mm and ~8mm is... yeah.

You realize that the LI minis are half the size of their Flames of War counterparts, right? Like, its a silly comparison to make, and what works for 15mm minis doesn't necessarily work for these.

yes, which is why I specifically noted the markings are on the base edge, which is not too dissimilar in size, for the infantry it has got sweet gorks feet to do with the actual models (though a plasma glow may help from the front). this is about a colour patch maybe 4mm wide the full height of the base rim, probably front and back to distinguish units and then similar adjacent to distinguish any 'special' models

for vehicles the sort of markings I mean worked perfectly fine for the 1st edition of Space Marine, where the vehicles were smaller.

so perhaps not so silly after all, and something I have been doing with success for several years, down to 6mm scale Napoleonic infantry units

also especially for marines in 8mm scale solid colours on shoulder pads, or differently coloured helmets will stand out easily, more so than they did for the older 6mm models where its perfectly viable

for my FoW stuff the actual infantry is in period appropriate colours, or close to them, so there are few differences between say a German Grenadier team and a German Pioneer team when you step back a bit, however the fact one has a bright yellow patch front and back on the base stands out very clearly

leopard wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


At Epic scale I'm not noticing what small arms the infantry dudes are equipped with and quite frankly it really shouldn't matter.

But you actually have to be, because some have lasrifles, some have flamers, some have axes, that not actually like, up to you. Those are distinct bases of models, you need some way to tell them apart.

for 15mm scale games, and planned for this as well, I use colour on the rear part of the base edge to distinguish units and special equipment, commanders etc if its not easily clear when looking at the rear of the models.

for Flames of War this was further modified to duplicate on the front of the base edge (e.g. flamer thrower units have a bright orange patch)

makes it quite clear at a glance.

though from the marines we have seen so far we appear to have

- tactical marines
- support marines (plasma guns)
- heavy support marines (rocket launchers)
- assault marines (manic party dudes)
- command marines (flag waving nutters)
- terminator marines (who ate all the pies?)

of which only really the support ones could do with identification from the back, paint scheme dependent maybe something on the front also

I suspect telling models apart for infantry will be quite simple, and even for vehicles its probably not that had to add "Titan Recognition Markings" somewhere in the paint scheme to identify units and equipment

That’s about how many different marine squads we had in 2nd edition, and I never had trouble distinguishing those units at 6mm scale. This is fine.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, I definitely can't remember every rule in HH through one read through. The real problem is that for many of us HH, LI, etc. are not "regular" games that you will be playing consistently long term. They are the game you play with your mate once every few months, maybe you get lucky and have a league where you play it consistently over the course of a few weeks, but many of us will not have that experience with it where we are playing it consistently enough to dedicate the mental resources to rote memorization of 56+ USRs, etc. Even the handful of rules which might apply to the units and faction we are playing will be cumbersome to learn and memorize without the ability to put in consistent time with the game to develop that muscle memory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


At Epic scale I'm not noticing what small arms the infantry dudes are equipped with and quite frankly it really shouldn't matter.

But you actually have to be, because some have lasrifles, some have flamers, some have axes, that not actually like, up to you. Those are distinct bases of models, you need some way to tell them apart.

No, you really don't. This is an irrelevant level of detail for a game this scale. If I wanted that, I'd play 40k. If thats the experience LI has to offer me, I will be going in a different direction and finidng a more sensible set of rules where I can ignore that level of silliness.

If one chooses not to play on account not liking a REQUIREMENT OF THE RULES, that does't change that it's a requirement of the rules. I have yet to see a wargame where being able to distinguish unit type isn't a baseline requirement.

 Pariah Press wrote:
That’s about how many different marine squads we had in 2nd edition, and I never had trouble distinguishing those units at 6mm scale. This is fine.

I'll have problems if there can be units of the same type with different weapons (for example, support marines can have plasma/flamers/meltas, and each separate base can have different ones, or if a captain or squad leader can have power swords/power fists/chainswords/bolt pistol/plasma pistol).

Which is what they seem to have done with vehicles, apparently down to coax guns and pintle mounts. That I would have a problem with.

Having different unit types is another thing altogether that all Epic rulesets have.

Having different infantry archetypes is one thing, but can the different units then choose between different weapon load outs? That’s when it gets confusing.

 Crablezworth wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah, I definitely can't remember every rule in HH through one read through. The real problem is that for many of us HH, LI, etc. are not "regular" games that you will be playing consistently long term. They are the game you play with your mate once every few months, maybe you get lucky and have a league where you play it consistently over the course of a few weeks, but many of us will not have that experience with it where we are playing it consistently enough to dedicate the mental resources to rote memorization of 56+ USRs, etc. Even the handful of rules which might apply to the units and faction we are playing will be cumbersome to learn and memorize without the ability to put in consistent time with the game to develop that muscle memory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


At Epic scale I'm not noticing what small arms the infantry dudes are equipped with and quite frankly it really shouldn't matter.

But you actually have to be, because some have lasrifles, some have flamers, some have axes, that not actually like, up to you. Those are distinct bases of models, you need some way to tell them apart.

No, you really don't. This is an irrelevant level of detail for a game this scale. If I wanted that, I'd play 40k. If thats the experience LI has to offer me, I will be going in a different direction and finidng a more sensible set of rules where I can ignore that level of silliness.

If one chooses not to play on account not liking a REQUIREMENT OF THE RULES, that does't change that it's a requirement of the rules.

Huh? I never said it wasn't a requirement of the rules? The point is that if it is a requirement of the rules that I have to concern myself with whether I put 1 guy with a bolt pistol on a base vs 1 guy with a bolter vs 1 guy with a heavy bolter, I'm not really interested in playing that game.

I have yet to see a wargame where being able to distinguish unit type isn't a baseline requirement.

We are not talking about distinguishing unit types though, we're talking about distinguishing *models* on a given base within a given unit (or detachment, in LI parlance) and the effect that has on rules and gameplay, and thats a dumb overly granular level of detail for a game like this. The combat ability and the rules of a squad in a game that features multiple models on a single base should be based on the collective capability of the whole base, rather than the individual ability of each model on the base. Every tactical base should have the same stats and profile, regardless of if you put the guy with the tiny flamer or the tiny missile launcher on the base. Every devastator base should have the same stats and profile, regardless of if you gave them lascannons or heavy flamers, etc. If they want you to select a weapon for a unit, then that should be an upgrade that effects every base in the unit (similar to how FOW does it) or which adds a separate base with a special weapon profile (again, similar to FOW). Having you take a unit where every base in a given unit/detachment has a potentially different weapon profile based on whether you put the little guy with the tiny pistol or tiny whatever it is on it is purely asinine, no game in this scale does that. Hell, it doesn't even look like LI quite does that, as hte only leaks and previews I've seen seem to indicate that as far as infantry go all bases in a given detachment are the same, with the singular exception (so far) of the Auxilia Lasrifle Tercio which is a bit of a point of concern as a single unit can be composed of dudes with lasrifles, dudes with flamers, dudes with pistols and axes, or ogryns, but at least these are whole bases with consistent armament rather than needing to pick out the one guy with the snowflake weapon. The fact that the vehicles seem to allow you to mix and match weapons from model to model within a unit however is still a big concern.

My point the entire time always was the bases have dudes who are all armed the same way, but a base with 5 guys with flamers isn't 5 guys with lasrifles, and having to tell 2 different units apart based on what they're armed with seems pretty core given the weapon in their hand is the only different between units. This seems to be how it is for both faction, marines, all 5 same weapon, but that wysiwyg matters because its the only difference often.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The fact that the vehicles seem to allow you to mix and match weapons from model to model within a unit however is still a big concern.

Agreed, the first house rule I'm envisioning is making it so vehicles in the same unit/squadron must have the same loadout, for sheer sanity. The malcador alone as an example is pretty nuts, 4 hull options, 3 turret options, 3 sponson options. The weird one too is, the hull, one of the options is a demolisher cannon, so it seems auto take anyway. The extra bizarre thing is, the only weapon upgrade I've seen in the leaks is on thunderbolt, where for 3pts you can upgrade the quad autocannon to avenger bolt cannon. I guess in that case same idea, you'd have upgrade the whole squadron if that's the plan, but it's weird that its the only place so far where there are points involved with that decision/upgrade outside of adding more units to a squad.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The real problem is that for many of us HH, LI, etc. are not "regular" games that you will be playing consistently long term. They are the game you play with your mate once every few months, maybe you get lucky and have a league where you play it consistently over the course of a few weeks, but many of us will not have that experience with it where we are playing it consistently enough to dedicate the mental resources to rote memorization of 56+ USRs, etc.

How many people are investing the time and money to make full armies for a game they rarely play? It works ok for Kill Team or 30k where you use your existing 40k models with a different set of rules but for a game that needs an entire new army of models that can't be used in any other game? That doesn't sound appealing unless you're getting regular games with that army.

And if it's a game you play regularly having ~50 USRs isn't a big deal. A lot of them are obvious ones you'll learn quickly, some won't be relevant because they aren't in your army, and the rest can be handled by a concise reference sheet.