The other one is the mass combat of mass combat games.
Polar opposites in terms of desired/required unit variety.
Okay, so in skirmish games the last faction can get its new sprue 2 years after the first because skirmish games don't need variety but they're getting new sprues at all because...?
Chopstick wrote: People believed GW didn't think LI will profit must have missed the gazillion of plastic kits revealed, that's several years worth of other Specialist games releases combined.
They dont even need to release multiple kits. Every kit they release is expected to make profit. They don"t do kits they don"t expect to sell more than it takes them to design, produce and sell it.
That's how companies work. If they released kits and games expecting to fail to get profit they aren't even staying in business. They would need to get loans until they go bust.
And as above guy said gw is not gambling. They go for steady predictable profit. They don't take risky gambles. Maybe they miss on max profit on good day but they avoid bad disasters more likely.
Regarding GW`s pricing, profit making etc., here`s fun little excercise: cheapest 3rd party seller I could find in Poland online right now which offers LI core set pre-order has it listed at 528 PLN, which at current exchange is ~105 GBP. GW`s listing is 120 GBP, and we need to remember that the 3rd party shop also has to make profit. So GW is able to still at the very least break even at this kit selling it at less than 15 GBP below regular price, keeping in mind that the content of this box is already discounted compared to buying all the parts separately. Gives an interesting insight how high GW`s profit margins could be.
Don't ever let yourself think about what GW's margins "could" allow. Once tooling is done a plastic sprue costs pennies. Wargame Atlantic used to joke about it every time GW cried about being "forced" to raise prices.
GW could easily sell everything they make for half price and still turn profits, but they like being seen as a boutique product.
Well I would expect the cost of making said tooling is split among the price of however many sets they expect to sell. I`m the last person to be defending GW or any other manufacturer in terms of pricing, but we have to remember that the price of a kit is a lot more than just the cost of plastic - GW`s enormous marketing has to be financed somehow as well, and it`s always the customer who pays for that. Even trivial things like boxes in which we get the models can cost a surprising amount.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Don't ever let yourself think about what GW's margins "could" allow. Once tooling is done a plastic sprue costs pennies. Wargame Atlantic used to joke about it every time GW cried about being "forced" to raise prices.
GW could easily sell everything they make for half price and still turn profits, but they like being seen as a boutique product.
They literally could not, as MDG has just demonstrated with sourcing.
And those figures include GW's licensing operations, which are significantly better margin wise than product is.
Nothing new, means you lose audience attention. Lose audience attention, and you are gonna lose sales, because there’s no impetus to buy more.
Keep releasing new stuff? People need/want to buy the new stuff, or even add something to their existing force to counter whatever the new thing might do.
This is pretty basic marketing stuff. And indeed a core of capitalism.
Crablezworth wrote: Has anyone seen a review that goes in depth on the terrain rules? There would seem to be far more pages of rules than the 1 page titanicus had.
Yeah the GMG rules review posted here earlier covers terrain in detail, and with a lot of enthusiasm.
It was surely the best so far, ash said the in depth terrain video is coming on wed. Just trying to figure out if ruins are destructible or not, will affect some terrain projects for LI, I have hear about titans stomping structures, but we already knew those were destructible, just hoping other scatter terrain is as well.
Nothing new, means you lose audience attention. Lose audience attention, and you are gonna lose sales, because there’s no impetus to buy more.
Keep releasing new stuff? People need/want to buy the new stuff, or even add something to their existing force to counter whatever the new thing might do.
This is pretty basic marketing stuff. And indeed a core of capitalism.
As lamentable as it is to feel like the first supplement is day one DLC, for people who aren't as obsessed or excited just in terms of work and life commitments, I can definitely see it being preferable to take it all in in waves, especially if they're collecting both armies and not splitting the starter.
I think the biggest problem is reviews can't feel that "complete" and it also makes discussing balance a challenge in that could see it upended quickly with the supplement. But ya I still prefer this to titanicus where the books just added endless tiny variations/factions rules that sorta worked against learning anything by heart because it was constantly shifting with wargear/mutations and new factions rules.
I've seen some speculation that the cyclops will have the usr that allows them to damage structures, Hoping that's true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If memory serves, one of the early articles confirmed destructible terrain, but you’ll need the right tool for the job.
For instance, the Macro Cannon used to be able to blat buildings, but the Volcano Cannon could not. At least according to my hazy memory.
I think artillery could as well, but it wasn’t easy.
Warcom confirmed structures, but not if stuff like ruins will also be able to be removed.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m gonna have to go out on a limb and doubt that. I mean, GW stitched to a weekly release cycle from a monthly one for a reason.
And super wild I know? I’m gonna go further and suggest that just maybe GW know more about running their business than folks online.
You seem to be reading a criticism of GW here somewhere, there isn't one.
Obviously GW should keep releasing new stuff, like you say it grabs attention and builds hype. Not only for the new releases themselves but everything else.
They do have a huge demand that they can't keep up with, that's hardly a controversial observation.
Cyclops are described as demolitions, so that would be cool.
Only grump from me about Week One releases is I can’t add Predators, Leman Russ or Sicaran. Or I suppose Malcadors, but I’ve never been a fan of their design. So I can immediately start building up what’s in the box.
Hopefully it won’t be long though. At £24 a set from a discounter, I’m happy to be able to drop £100 a month to expand. Spesh as Epic is a doddle to paint.
The previewed enough in the warcom terrain article below to show that structures are separate from ruins which are separate from area terrain, again its specificity here im looking for in regards to ruins with concepts that are already out there. I undesrtand structures can be destroyed, the problem is you replace structures with area terrain and not ruins. Ruins have their own rules, but as with area terrain they just gave a few bullet points in an infographic in the article.
I pre ordered a box of the new ruins, so just concerned about how its all gonna come together rules wise. People are envisioning replacing structures with ruins, but going by the warcom article that isn't how it will work, the destroyed structures are replaced with area terrain.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m gonna have to go out on a limb and doubt that. I mean, GW stitched to a weekly release cycle from a monthly one for a reason.
And super wild I know? I’m gonna go further and suggest that just maybe GW know more about running their business than folks online.
You seem to be reading a criticism of GW here somewhere, there isn't one.
Obviously GW should keep releasing new stuff, like you say it grabs attention and builds hype. Not only for the new releases themselves but everything else.
They do have a huge demand that they can't keep up with, that's hardly a controversial observation.
Even just with HH they have no shortage of units to make that are yet to have been made 1/4 scale.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And super wild I know? I’m gonna go further and suggest that just maybe GW know more about running their business than folks online.
That's so weird, because somehow folks online always understand enough about GW's business to deflect any criticism aimed at it, sometimes even with contradictory statements in different threads
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Don't ever let yourself think about what GW's margins "could" allow. Once tooling is done a plastic sprue costs pennies. Wargame Atlantic used to joke about it every time GW cried about being "forced" to raise prices.
GW could easily sell everything they make for half price and still turn profits, but they like being seen as a boutique product.
Ah yes. Tooling, salary of guy designing mini's. Arts, warehouse, store staff all obviously shouldn't be put to price. Only material. Yes that makes sense. I'm sure goterment/banks are happy to donate cash for rest.
Unless my eyes deceive me, looking at the Predator Sprues? Seems we get six turrets for three hulls. So whilst the sponsons need a bit of faff for Swapsies, we can at least fairly freely swap between Destructor and Annihilator turrets.
Same maybe be true for the Malcador as well, as the main turrets look like you just need to trim them down, and you’ll be able to slide them in and out (oooer).
Leman Russ however appear “built it that way, stuck that way” one the turrets.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Don't ever let yourself think about what GW's margins "could" allow. Once tooling is done a plastic sprue costs pennies. Wargame Atlantic used to joke about it every time GW cried about being "forced" to raise prices.
GW could easily sell everything they make for half price and still turn profits, but they like being seen as a boutique product.
I mean technically you're not wrong, as they already do this now. GW products are sold to trade customers at 50-60% of the retail price depending on region. Approximately half of their overall sales are made this way.
The issue is; if they were to reduce the current retail prices by 50% can they then also afford to make a corresponding cut to the trade sales too? If they don't then many of these smaller businesses will reduce buying or cease trading altogether, affecting half of GW's sales. If they do reduce trade pricing to 25-30% of current retail that may well actually make GW unprofitable.
Unless my eyes deceive me, looking at the Predator Sprues? Seems we get six turrets for three hulls. So whilst the sponsons need a bit of faff for Swapsies, we can at least fairly freely swap between Destructor and Annihilator turrets.
Yeah a few reviewers have confirmed you can build the turrets for both predator variants and just swap between them. Doesn't even need magnets, the turret just pops in.
Apparently the baneblade turret is built with magnet holes like AT weapons.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Except to maintain current profit levels, any price cut needs a matching uplift in sales, because the first thing you lost is your profit margin.
Running at 36%? That’s a hell of an increase in sales you’d need.
And they clearly don't need to do it, because they are struggling to meet demand as it is.
It also depends on what metric they consider "profit". Eg it might be that at 50% they could profit in terms of the raw production cost; but that might not be factoring any marketing/design investment into it.
It's a little like "how much does a Hollywood film cost" is a value that can vary by massive margins depending on the slant they want to put the film on and at what point in development you take the value. Eg just the raw cost of the film can be a much lower number than the cost of the film plus its proomtional/marketing material.
To be fair, I am far from being a cranky, hater, and meant no antagonism. I've got four starters of LI ordered, and am a proper happy idiot to have the game.
I simply meant there are countless variables that leave us all non-experts. Hell, hypothetically if GW slashed prices by half, a dummy like me would eagerly buy four times as much. Business theory-craft is an art as much as a science, so just fun to conjecture about.
To be fair, I am far from being a cranky, hater, and meant no antagonism. I've got four starters of LI ordered, and am a proper happy idiot to have the game.
I simply meant there are countless variables that leave us all non-experts. Hell, hypothetically if GW slashed prices by half, a dummy like me would eagerly buy four times as much. Business theory-craft is an art as much as a science, so just fun to conjecture about.
It’s very possible, even very likely they price things to make the discount at FLGS look good. They still make sales, and hold a big market share.
And still get people diving in and buying mountains of plastic no matter what they do.
I think the Warhounds are really what damages the value proposition of it all
On the one hand, I agree. Players who played AT likely already have more Warhounds than they're likely to want. So they're an unneeded addition to the box for AT players. Further, given that there's two of them, they're a big, clunky addition points-wise, since you're restricted in how you can use them when putting your army together.
Fundamentally a starter box is always going to be a better deal for some players than others. I've seen a few people talk about how the HH AOD box didn't work well for their particular legion, while other players were happy to pick up more than one copy.
In time we'll see LI discount boxes, and possibly a new starter set in a few years once the range has grown a bit. Those will help to pick up new customers with different requirements.
Yes, starter boxes are naturally more of a good deal for some people more than others, but it seems like a rather small subset that this one is a good deal for to me.
You already have something you bought for AT? Not a great deal. You only want to build a small army? Not a great deal because you can't use most of it until higher points values. You don't have a friend**** to split it with? Not a great deal.
If they release discount boxes that will be a different story, but it would have been nice to see some battleforce type boxes available now to make the game more appealing IMO.
The 30% allies rules does feel a bit annoying to me anyway, the HH was very much a combined arms thing with large forces of marines fighting alongside large forces of regular humans fighting alongside titan legions. Seems odd to crop it at 30% allies.
We know it's sold out quickly, so maybe GW did the right thing with what they've done, but it also may have sold out due to lack of copies, given the delays it wouldn't be surprising if they released less than they originally planned.
****On the topic of not having friends to split it with.... anyone in Melbourne interested in splitting a couple of boxes? Haha. Even splitting boxes I'm not 100% sure if it's worth it for me as I, like I imagine many others, already have a few titans.
Even if people have a bunch of warhounds from/for AT they haven't done a reprint, they are giving them a whole new set of weapons- 2 that were resin and 2 completely new ones.
Agreed. I have four warhounds from AT already. I don’t need any more, although the new weapons are of some interest. It definitely lowers the value a second box would have for me though.
Thanks. I'm not thrilled about getting more Warhounds (I think I have 8 ) but at least it sounds like I only need 1 of that sprue to kit out a bunch of them.
In some ways its quite clever of GW to create a starter box you will want one of, maybe want two of but see little value in three or more of
its the same as the Flames "Open Fire" box, a decent deal for the models within it, but not worth more than two as you wouldn't want more than two lots of the models
Yeah, I dont like the contents of the starter either. I also think that 30% limitation for titans etc is daft, I already imagined it'd present fun narrative mission prospects if you had to defend yourself against a force consisting of 100% Titans or flyers
I'll be either waiting for a Marine-centric battleforce, or just give up on any savings altogether and collect one kit at a time, building and painting it before buying the next one. I don't want Warhounds (they hardly count as Titans in my books, I want Reavers or larger) and I don't want SA (not at first anyways), and getting rid of those will be too much work. Also, the Marine vehicles in the starter only contain half a kits worth of sprue, so one would need more of them almost immediately. The starter only makes sense if you are startng LI with a friend and you both split your boxes, one starter is an odd duckling with too many lowest tier titans and too little of the other stuff.
leopard wrote: In some ways its quite clever of GW to create a starter box you will want one of, maybe want two of but see little value in three or more of
They've created a starter box that I can't even decide if I want one of, let alone multiples
But even if people only want one, the question is whether it's a turn off to people starting the game at all. I reckon GW primarily want people spending money regardless of what they're spending it on, they'd rather have people buying multiple starters than not buying anything.
really strange bit is that starter mission they have up for download apparently isn't in the box.
so you get a rulebook, unmatched forces and some "support" titans that according to the rules you cannot use
inclined to agree with a review I watched that said it would have been better to not include the warhounds but instead to have a box of the terrain included
also thin card tokens? unless GW have a pack of them in plastic coming that seems a very poor choice when other games they do have thicker cardstock.
Guess first job here is to design and print some order tokens, and ones that can be slightly more colourful with the actual order in text written on one side
however its nice to have also seen a review noting the marines are ~9mm tall, which is good as that matches the ones I have printed
MajorWesJanson wrote: Even if people have a bunch of warhounds from/for AT they haven't done a reprint, they are giving them a whole new set of weapons- 2 that were resin and 2 completely new ones.
Sounds very "Malibu Stacy's new hat" to me
That said, if I do get the boxed set, you can be sure I'll be equipping the Ursus Claws and yelling out "FIRE THE URSUS CLAWS!" at every opportunity.
Might even do a World Eaters army just for the hell of it (are Ursus Claws mentioned in any context other than the World Eaters? ).
tauist wrote: Yeah, I dont like the contents of the starter either. I also think that 30% limitation for titans etc is daft, I already imagined it'd present fun narrative mission prospects if you had to defend yourself against a force consisting of 100% Titans or flyers
That wouldn't go very far with zero ability to control objectives. All you need is other side survive in one objective for one turn and win. Best 100% titan force will get is draw and that requires getting rid of everything in every objective as they move in. Fail even once and you lose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: really strange bit is that starter mission they have up for download apparently isn't in the box.
so you get a rulebook, unmatched forces and some "support" titans that according to the rules you cannot use
Heh. One thing that's standard in GW starter sets is illegal armies. Or total way off the point values.
They are never meant to be matched play ready go armies...
Has anyone come across sprue pics for the Sicaran? They’re missing from the GW website, and I’d like to know if, like the Predators, they come with excess turrets for super easy Swapsies of main weapon systems.
tauist wrote: Yeah, I dont like the contents of the starter either. I also think that 30% limitation for titans etc is daft, I already imagined it'd present fun narrative mission prospects if you had to defend yourself against a force consisting of 100% Titans or flyers
That wouldn't go very far with zero ability to control objectives. All you need is other side survive in one objective for one turn and win. Best 100% titan force will get is draw and that requires getting rid of everything in every objective as they move in. Fail even once and you lose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: really strange bit is that starter mission they have up for download apparently isn't in the box.
so you get a rulebook, unmatched forces and some "support" titans that according to the rules you cannot use
Heh. One thing that's standard in GW starter sets is illegal armies. Or total way off the point values.
They are never meant to be matched play ready go armies...
Even in the fluff Titans always have ground troops supporting to stop enemies just walking up to them and taking them out.
But 30% is still tiny, if you wanted to recreate many of the battles in the books you'd need more like 50 to 90% titans, not 30%.
But I agree the 30% is daft, it was more common than not for Legions to be accompanied by large numbers of regular humans and Titans, 30% feels way too small.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Has anyone come across sprue pics for the Sicaran? They’re missing from the GW website, and I’d like to know if, like the Predators, they come with excess turrets for super easy Swapsies of main weapon systems.
Crablezworth wrote: The previewed enough in the warcom terrain article below to show that structures are separate from ruins which are separate from area terrain, again its specificity here im looking for in regards to ruins with concepts that are already out there. I undesrtand structures can be destroyed, the problem is you replace structures with area terrain and not ruins. Ruins have their own rules, but as with area terrain they just gave a few bullet points in an infographic in the article.
I pre ordered a box of the new ruins, so just concerned about how its all gonna come together rules wise. People are envisioning replacing structures with ruins, but going by the warcom article that isn't how it will work, the destroyed structures are replaced with area terrain.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but by re-reading those terrain rules, ruins are indeed area terrain, so:
- Difficult area terrain: rubble and such.
- Obstructing area terrain: ruins, forests and such
- Dangerous area terrain: toxic waste, lava...
- Structures: not exactly area, garrisoning is possible
As ever, Sponsons look to be too faffy for Swapsies (at least to me), but again we’re seeing swappable turrets.
That may affect perceived value, as we’re not forced to choose between a fixed load out or fiddling around. Which in turns means if you start out thinking Weapon A is what you need, but experience shows perhaps Weapon B might work best, we don’t have to go buy a new box to set that right.
Shame that doesn’t extend to the Leman Russ kit though.
tauist wrote: Yeah, I dont like the contents of the starter either. I also think that 30% limitation for titans etc is daft, I already imagined it'd present fun narrative mission prospects if you had to defend yourself against a force consisting of 100% Titans or flyers
That wouldn't go very far with zero ability to control objectives. All you need is other side survive in one objective for one turn and win. Best 100% titan force will get is draw and that requires getting rid of everything in every objective as they move in. Fail even once and you lose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: really strange bit is that starter mission they have up for download apparently isn't in the box.
so you get a rulebook, unmatched forces and some "support" titans that according to the rules you cannot use
Heh. One thing that's standard in GW starter sets is illegal armies. Or total way off the point values.
They are never meant to be matched play ready go armies...
totally off point values yes, seldom Marines getting the short end though, but not usually stuff you, according to their rules, flat out cannot use - except when you get some starter scenarios in the box to get around the oddball contents - contents usually picked to demonstrate all aspects of the game (e.g. 40k sets with infantry, a vehicle, a bike or some sort, a walker etc)
tauist wrote: Yeah, I dont like the contents of the starter either. I also think that 30% limitation for titans etc is daft, I already imagined it'd present fun narrative mission prospects if you had to defend yourself against a force consisting of 100% Titans or flyers
That wouldn't go very far with zero ability to control objectives. All you need is other side survive in one objective for one turn and win. Best 100% titan force will get is draw and that requires getting rid of everything in every objective as they move in. Fail even once and you lose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: really strange bit is that starter mission they have up for download apparently isn't in the box.
so you get a rulebook, unmatched forces and some "support" titans that according to the rules you cannot use
Heh. One thing that's standard in GW starter sets is illegal armies. Or total way off the point values.
They are never meant to be matched play ready go armies...
1st: as already seen with SM, some formations give special rules about capturing/contesting objectives. Titan formations could have a rule that increases their TacticalStrength/whatever.
2nd: army is not illegal, and contents of the box can be perfectly used: just not in tournament play. I think people are obsessed with matched play. like there is no other way.
keep in mind though at some point you will get titan army rules (probably) and knight army rules (again probably) where they are the 70% and the small dudes wandering about are the 30%
or failing that just go in effect 2v2 and have a 50-50 split with each "half" having its own allied bit if they want it.
Having seen a few games demoed though I do think movement is vastly too fast, using inches is a mistake, if at this scale stuff is in combat on the second turn something is wrong as its removing movement and manoeuvring for position from the game. Also if infantry can run 15" in this scale, and only face a single round of weapons fire doing so, hopping from cover to cover works.
but perhaps more interestingly, whats the value of transports again? when the little guys were going 8cm, or 16cm at a cost of not firing suddenly the 20/30cm a turn of a Rhino mattered
As ever, Sponsons look to be too faffy for Swapsies (at least to me), but again we’re seeing swappable turrets.
That may affect perceived value, as we’re not forced to choose between a fixed load out or fiddling around. Which in turns means if you start out thinking Weapon A is what you need, but experience shows perhaps Weapon B might work best, we don’t have to go buy a new box to set that right.
Use blu-tac, the parts are tiny enough to hold for sure.
As for perceived value, I'd perceive more value if there were simply 4 tanks in less parts to a sprue rather than 2 where I can swap turrets Frankly I'm amazed it only comes with 2 of the 4 turret options, implying there's gonna be a second Sicaran sprue...
tauist wrote: Yeah, I dont like the contents of the starter either. I also think that 30% limitation for titans etc is daft, I already imagined it'd present fun narrative mission prospects if you had to defend yourself against a force consisting of 100% Titans or flyers
That wouldn't go very far with zero ability to control objectives. All you need is other side survive in one objective for one turn and win. Best 100% titan force will get is draw and that requires getting rid of everything in every objective as they move in. Fail even once and you lose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: really strange bit is that starter mission they have up for download apparently isn't in the box.
so you get a rulebook, unmatched forces and some "support" titans that according to the rules you cannot use
Heh. One thing that's standard in GW starter sets is illegal armies. Or total way off the point values.
They are never meant to be matched play ready go armies...
totally off point values yes, seldom Marines getting the short end though, but not usually stuff you, according to their rules, flat out cannot use - except when you get some starter scenarios in the box to get around the oddball contents - contents usually picked to demonstrate all aspects of the game (e.g. 40k sets with infantry, a vehicle, a bike or some sort, a walker etc)
Many starter sets you CANNOT use in matched play. Same as this.
Matched play rules != everything and starter sets don't follow matched play rules. You often need to play narrative like in LI to use starter set contents.
Starter set following matched play giving you legal army is actually rarity...Something always too much or too little.
40k 10th is one rare exception but of course that's because they dropped pretty much all restrictions...
And even THAT wasn't initially legal requiring codex release to actually be legal
quite, however while the various previous edition 40k sets were of dubious game legality (usually if you combat squadded the inevitable tactical squad into two five marine squads it worked though), and Warhammer wasn't exactly know for perfect armies either (though usally at least legal if not actually any good)
the point being you got a set of starter scenarios in the box that used the forces in the box to get you going
here you have a rulebook with army creation stuff, which if followed leave the two large centrepiece models sitting in the box
most will go for "matched play" as its usually the easiest option until you know the game balance well enough to start making your own scenarios up, removing the "getting started" missions into a downloadable PDF and not including them in the box seems penny pinching or shows someone didn't realise until quite late.
and so far short of the getting started type missions I can't think of a single GW game thats had to be "narrative" out of the box, AoS had starter scenarios, heck even Necromunda comes with them
I haven't really followed recent 40k and AoS releases. I seem to recall the boxed sets I've bought in the past were either a legal army or not far off one (if perhaps not the most optimised one).
But I think here the thing that stands out is just how far away it is from a legal force or a desirable force for that matter. For a game which is just loyalist versus traitor, it's odd and disappointing that you can't just build it into a big army like the AoD set, and can't even make 2 smaller legal armies, and it comes with models a lot of players will already have and can't legally take more of anyway.
I have to say when the contents of the boxed set escaped the fact it wasn't 100% marines was a surprise to me.
then easily splitable or able to combine, I suspect this box is designed to stop people buying too many to get just the bits they want
does mean eBay will be likely stuffed with sprues shortly though so there is that
also a slight surprise they haven't gone the way 2nd edition did, pick a company card, that can have support cards added and a "special" card. but nothing stopping you really having a marine company card with a guard company card other than they cannot "share" support slots
then it would have been very easy to have a marine company, two tactical detachments and support stuff, a guard one the same and then both bring a Titan
in an instant the whole box is perfectly usable as one force, and can also be reasonably easily split into two not quite equal parts.
that said there is nothing stopping someone taking a titan detachment organisation from AT and building a force around that really, and I think a fair few games early on will be like that as people have titans built & painted
Boxed set is there to get us started, with a little bit of different unit types to showcase the mechanics. And here, we also get some allies whichever side we pick overall.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Boxed set is there to get us started, with a little bit of different unit types to showcase the mechanics. And here, we also get some allies whichever side we pick overall.
it is what it is, suspect it is designed to try and deal with people thinking "sod it, I'll just get another starter" when they want a few more units
regardless I've got a copy on pre-order, with the potential for a second once I've gotten my paws on it
while I can print better looking infantry with no shadowing for the price its not too bad for the vehicles and titans, because a 5th & 6th Warhound will be nice to have, once the weapons get magnetised to go into the weapons pool they all share. Spare rulebook doesn't hurt, one for the shelf and one for the gaming bag (or one to cut the binding from and hole punch).
Oh, but I am going to come up with missions where objectives matter flock all, and a defender must defend some sort of point or a structure from being destroyed, and attacker has 90% - 100% of their force as Titans/Kinights or Flyers. Flock matched play, that's for pickup game people, not filthy garagehammerists like the people in our group.
If required, I can come up with some unit choice restrictions for the defender so that they cannot blow the entirety of their points into units which are hard counters to whatever it is that is attacking them
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Boxed set is there to get us started, with a little bit of different unit types to showcase the mechanics. And here, we also get some allies whichever side we pick overall.
Boxed sets, IMO, are mainly there to get people interested and sufficiently invested that they want to continue spending.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: Oh, but I am going to come up with missions where objectives matter flock all, and a defender must defend some sort of point or a structure from being destroyed, and attacker has 90% - 100% of their force as Titans/Kinights or Flyers. Flock matched play, that's for pickup game people, not filthy garagehammerists like the people in our group
Each to their own, I find it far easier to convince people to start a game if the rules are solid and make sense as written out of the box, then maybe on our 10th game we might start exploring house rules
Are the people I play with closed minded? Perhaps, but they are the people I play with...
tauist wrote: Oh, but I am going to come up with missions where objectives matter flock all, and a defender must defend some sort of point or a structure from being destroyed, and attacker has 90% - 100% of their force as Titans/Kinights or Flyers. Flock matched play, that's for pickup game people, not filthy garagehammerists like the people in our group
Each to their own, I find it far easier to convince people to start a game if the rules are solid and make sense as written out of the box, then maybe on our 10th game we might start exploring house rules
Are the people I play with closed minded? Perhaps, but they are the people I play with...
I dont intend to make that mission be any of our first games either.. but I am for sure going to do it when our model collections allow it. Sounds far too cinematic and thematic not to do it
Another one I feel we have to do is some sort of "last stand" mission, where everyone takes turns being a defender, and the only objective is to remain on the board for as many turns as possible..
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Boxed set is there to get us started, with a little bit of different unit types to showcase the mechanics. And here, we also get some allies whichever side we pick overall.
In fact you get twice as many Allies as you get your own dudes, no matter which side you pick, and in fact you get so many Allies you still can't field them all at 3000 pts
It's a innovative new cash grab, create an illusion of value by packing the box with stuff but make it so you have to replace most of it to have a legal force.
Of course you can also do swaps with other players, but I suspect the preference for Astartes / Solar split won't be even remotely split 50/50
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Boxed set is there to get us started, with a little bit of different unit types to showcase the mechanics. And here, we also get some allies whichever side we pick overall.
In fact you get twice as many Allies as you get your own dudes, no matter which side you pick, and in fact you get so many Allies you still can't field them all at 3000 pts
It's a innovative new cash grab, create an illusion of value by packing the box with stuff but make it so you have to replace most of it to have a legal force.
Of course you can also do swaps with other players, but I suspect the preference for Astartes / Solar split won't be even remotely split 50/50
My feelings are similar.. the box is a bunch of stuff that creates an illusion of value, but will actually just create incentive to buy more
I think I am leaning towards splitting a box of Adeptus Titanicus with a mate instead, and buying the infantry and tanks separately
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Boxed set is there to get us started, with a little bit of different unit types to showcase the mechanics. And here, we also get some allies whichever side we pick overall.
In fact you get twice as many Allies as you get your own dudes, no matter which side you pick, and in fact you get so many Allies you still can't field them all at 3000 pts
It's a innovative new cash grab, create an illusion of value by packing the box with stuff but make it so you have to replace most of it to have a legal force.
Of course you can also do swaps with other players, but I suspect the preference for Astartes / Solar split won't be even remotely split 50/50
I was gonna go Space Marines, but the Solar Auxilia are singing my Epic Song.
Baneblades, Artillery, Bamboo. Artillery, Baneblades, Bamboo. All backed up with hordes of little guys.
leopard wrote: In some ways its quite clever of GW to create a starter box you will want one of, maybe want two of but see little value in three or more of
its the same as the Flames "Open Fire" box, a decent deal for the models within it, but not worth more than two as you wouldn't want more than two lots of the models
I don't see it, as my FLGS has the starter set for €6 less than 4 sets of infantry & tanks. You effectively get the warhounds & rulebook (plus gubbinz) for 'free'.
I'll likely only buy starter sets when I want to expand on infantry for both forces as its cheaper than even buying the sets at discount. I could bin the warhounds and still have saved money. Likely hood is that you could probably still get a €10 back for the warhounds from the AT players.
Granted, you do need to buy two starters to get a full set of any of the tanks. So if you want to expand that way, it might be better to buy full kits once they arrive separately.
I'll probably keep buying starters and only expand when I need to add more to both forces at once. I like really, really large games though.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Boxed set is there to get us started, with a little bit of different unit types to showcase the mechanics. And here, we also get some allies whichever side we pick overall.
In fact you get twice as many Allies as you get your own dudes, no matter which side you pick, and in fact you get so many Allies you still can't field them all at 3000 pts
It's a innovative new cash grab, create an illusion of value by packing the box with stuff but make it so you have to replace most of it to have a legal force.
Of course you can also do swaps with other players, but I suspect the preference for Astartes / Solar split won't be even remotely split 50/50
I was gonna go Space Marines, but the Solar Auxilia are singing my Epic Song.
Baneblades, Artillery, Bamboo. Artillery, Baneblades, Bamboo. All backed up with hordes of little guys.
If you want mega savings as an SA player, maybe wait a bit and watch the 2nd hand marketplace fill up with bargain bin prices for the SA half? Would be my recommendation.. if your patience can handle the wait, that is
leopard wrote: In some ways its quite clever of GW to create a starter box you will want one of, maybe want two of but see little value in three or more of
its the same as the Flames "Open Fire" box, a decent deal for the models within it, but not worth more than two as you wouldn't want more than two lots of the models
I don't see it, as my FLGS has the starter set for €6 less than 4 sets of infantry & tanks. You effectively get the warhounds & rulebook (plus gubbinz) for 'free'.
I'll likely only buy starter sets when I want to expand on infantry for both forces as its cheaper than even buying the sets at discount. I could bin the warhounds and still have saved money. Likely hood is that you could probably still get a €10 back for the warhounds from the AT players.
Granted, you do need to buy two starters to get a full set of any of the tanks. So if you want to expand that way, it might be better to buy full kits once they arrive separately.
I'll probably keep buying starters and only expand when I need to add more to both forces at once. I like really, really large games though.
You are including the fact that the box only comes with 50% of all individual vehicle kits, into your calculations of value I hope? That to me was the kicker.. I dont want to buy several boxes, and one vehicle sprue per unit is suboptimal for most builds
I suspect that until they're released separately Leman Russ & Malcadors will have much higher demand on ebay than the infantry models. Far more players will be interested in armoured companies than infantry hordes.
However once they are available they'll be one of the better options at 300pts+ per box.
Sooo I saw someone post on one of the LI facebook groups a summary of detachments for Marines and interestingly, it contained info about predator detachment max size being 9, and sicaran 6. If that would be true, it would mean that getting a regular box of each combined with starter set would allow to make full detachment of those without any leftovers. Seems almost too good to be true, anybody can confirm that?
Kretualdo wrote: Sooo I saw someone post on one of the LI facebook groups a summary of detachments for Marines and interestingly, it contained info about predator detachment max size being 9, and sicaran 6. If that would be true, it would mean that getting a regular box of each combined with starter set would allow to make full detachment of those without any leftovers. Seems almost too good to be true, anybody can confirm that?
Seems par for the course, GW does that a lot: one box is not enough for a full box, but two has leftovers. In this case the leftover is half a box, which is what you are getting of the armor options
I'm not getting the "this boxed set seems like it was cleverly designed to make it so you only want to buy one copy" arguments, honestly.
I'm looking at it and thinking that if I want to acquire any of the units contained in the box, its better for me to just buy more starter boxes and sell the stuff I don't want (which is currently nothing, so I'll be buying as many copies of this as I can afford and keeping it all to myself - with the exception of the extra rulebooks which I will dump online for a third of GWs price) than it is to go and buy the individual kits. The rulebook and warhound titans are basically free when looking at the value of the individual kits. UNless you're going for a very specailized army, chances are you want 2-4 sets of the contents of the box for your Marines or Auxilia list anyway.
Kretualdo wrote: Sooo I saw someone post on one of the LI facebook groups a summary of detachments for Marines and interestingly, it contained info about predator detachment max size being 9, and sicaran 6. If that would be true, it would mean that getting a regular box of each combined with starter set would allow to make full detachment of those without any leftovers. Seems almost too good to be true, anybody can confirm that?
Seems par for the course, GW does that a lot: one box is not enough for a full box, but two has leftovers. In this case the leftover is half a box, which is what you are getting of the armor options
I`m not sure if I understand correctly what you mean here.
Starter set has 3 preds, individual box will have 6, for a total of 9, which happens to be exactly a full detachment of preds, without leftovers. Same with sicarans, 2 in starter, 4 in individual box for a total of 6 in full legal detachment. All that is, if the info I got from facebook is correct regarding detachment sizes.
Which is a nice surprise, since for example with kratos you get 4 in a box, and full detachment is 6.
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm not getting the "this boxed set seems like it was cleverly designed to make it so you only want to buy one copy" arguments, honestly.
I'm looking at it and thinking that if I want to acquire any of the units contained in the box, its better for me to just buy more starter boxes and sell the stuff I don't want (which is currently nothing, so I'll be buying as many copies of this as I can afford and keeping it all to myself - with the exception of the extra rulebooks which I will dump online for a third of GWs price) than it is to go and buy the individual kits. The rulebook and warhound titans are basically free when looking at the value of the individual kits. UNless you're going for a very specailized army, chances are you want 2-4 sets of the contents of the box for your Marines or Auxilia list anyway.
its not designed to get you to buy only one, I think its designed so one is ok, two is good but three or more starts to rapidly become less worthwhile. in effect its not the default way to get infantry and armour as its a bit too much of a mix
I think two copies is good, looking to get a second maybe but I want my hands on the contents first. for the rest extras are worthwhile if there are a few of you swapping stuff around, otherwise the actual boxes to just get the bits you want look better.
regardless, the equation varies between individuals as to what is and is not worth it
lord_blackfang wrote: Yea prospective Solar players will for sure have a much easier time collecting cheap starter halves.
Maybe, one thing the Solar has going for them.... it seems cheaper to build an army, lol, at least at this point. Maybe when the Land Raiders and whatnot come out it'll flip around.
Playing around with the points values, it seems the starter box gives...
660pts titans
442pts marines but it seems like maybe that can't be a legal army as you can't fill out enough compulsory choices to fill an armour company, but also can't take both the preds and sicaran as supports for an infantry detachment (unless I missed something?)
574pts of Solar Auxilia, but similar issue with maybe not being able to fill out enough compulsory choices?
And not much option for allies.
From there, filling out the choices...
Solar Auxilia: Buy a box of Baneblades, this bumps it to 774pts and is now a legal army. It's also enough points that you can take a Warhound ally, so can make an 1104pt army including the Warhound.
Space Marines, not as cheap. A box of Kratos bumps you to 702pts, still can't take a Warhound ally, a box of Rhinos gets you to 802pts (but is it a good 802pts? Doesn't feel like it) or a Thunderhawk gets you to 852pts, and now you can take a Warhound to get roughly 1200pts.
From there, maybe just paint that up and see what comes out next? Or get some aircraft? Or another box of Infantry to get a bit more flexibility?
Kretualdo wrote: Sooo I saw someone post on one of the LI facebook groups a summary of detachments for Marines and interestingly, it contained info about predator detachment max size being 9, and sicaran 6. If that would be true, it would mean that getting a regular box of each combined with starter set would allow to make full detachment of those without any leftovers. Seems almost too good to be true, anybody can confirm that?
Seems par for the course, GW does that a lot: one box is not enough for a full box, but two has leftovers. In this case the leftover is half a box, which is what you are getting of the armor options
The unit rules are implemented in multiples of the sprue quantity. That means while a regular box of that unit might have two copies of the sprue now, other sets might well have a very different number as we've seen in the starter set. Potentially they can do things like a marine armoured company battleforce with 1 Kratos sprue, or in future decide to rebox predators as 3 sprues for £40.
It's also entirely possible that when the rules were written and sent to print, they didn't know the final box quantities. Perhaps the original plan was to have 9 predators in a box.
So do we know how GW are approaching the rulebook?
This one doesn't have all the units, so are we expecting a new expensive rulebook down the line that will replace this one, or are we thinking we'll always need this giant tomb and additional rules will be added as supplements?
GW has a standard approach? I thought they did different things for different games these days (AI had campaign books that introduced new units, Blood Bowl does the Spike/Almanac thing, Kill team does their expansion book thing, Necromunda does the... err... buy a library of books and guess which one has the correct rules thing?).
But if it's going to be Codex/Battletome.... does that mean they're going to release one for Marines, one for Solar, one for Titans?
Rule book, Expansion book with new units and rules.
Here, it seems to be Campaign Books with new units for both. And I suspect the campaign will be conveniently themed to focus on those new units and their overall role in a battle.
Good news is this could also be used to expand into 40K. Just pick a historical scrap (Ullanor, Armageddon, Pariah Nexus, Fall of Iyanden) and boof, reason, excuse and opportunity to bring in Xenos and 40K Imperial stuffs.
You are including the fact that the box only comes with 50% of all individual vehicle kits, into your calculations of value I hope? That to me was the kicker.. I dont want to buy several boxes, and one vehicle sprue per unit is suboptimal for most builds
Yes. I'm counting each side as 1 box each ie: 2 malcador &4 leman russ = one €36.50 set (as per my FLGS cost).
There is definitely some diminishing returns on starters if you are looking to get specific tanks or have a specific set up you want to play with. The starter will loose some favour with me once we have access to a leman russ separate release.
Kretualdo wrote: I`m not sure if I understand correctly what you mean here.
Starter set has 3 preds, individual box will have 6, for a total of 9, which happens to be exactly a full detachment of preds, without leftovers. Same with sicarans, 2 in starter, 4 in individual box for a total of 6 in full legal detachment. All that is, if the info I got from facebook is correct regarding detachment sizes.
Which is a nice surprise, since for example with kratos you get 4 in a box, and full detachment is 6.
I mean that is incidental because the starters only have half a box of the armor units ^^, and that that's the way GW usually design boxes (...or did, lately they seemed to have gotten better): legal if you buy one, but with excedent if you buy two.
Here, it seems to be Campaign Books with new units for both. And I suspect the campaign will be conveniently themed to focus on those new units and their overall role in a battle.
Good news is this could also be used to expand into 40K. Just pick a historical scrap (Ullanor, Armageddon, Pariah Nexus, Fall of Iyanden) and boof, reason, excuse and opportunity to bring in Xenos and 40K Imperial stuffs.
Have they confirmed any of that or are we just guessing?
I'm thinking in terms of whether it's likely the main rulebook will be invalidated or replaced in the near future with something more complete, or are we thinking we'll always (within this edition at least) require the same rulebook that comes in the boxed set now, just with expansions added on top.
AI, for example, reproduced the core rules in the campaign books, but they also never released a single core rulebook for the campaign books to conflict with and the unit rules were spread out (e.g. Lightning was in one book, but Thunderbolt was in a completely different book... it was annoying).
The only official confirmation we have is the WD article saying the first expansion book includes rules for units like drop pods and jetbikes. We don't know if that's the only place to get those rules, and beyond that everything else is speculation:
They'll probably release more unit datacards, but that's not guaranteed
It's possible additional unit rules are included in the model boxes, like AT and Aeronautica
It's also possible additional unit rules are made available digitally in some form, as has happened for several GW games in the last year
tauist wrote: Oh, but I am going to come up with missions where objectives matter flock all, and a defender must defend some sort of point or a structure from being destroyed, and attacker has 90% - 100% of their force as Titans/Kinights or Flyers. Flock matched play, that's for pickup game people, not filthy garagehammerists like the people in our group.
If required, I can come up with some unit choice restrictions for the defender so that they cannot blow the entirety of their points into units which are hard counters to whatever it is that is attacking them
If you make own missions matched play rules aren't your concern now is it or frankly any rule as you are at the point you can do whatever you want. 30% limit is no concern for you.
Just to add my $0.02 to the multiple starter discussion, I do have to agree that anytime GW bundles anything for any game together you get absolutely massive swings in the usefulness of buying multiples.
Last week I ordered two Votann battleforces, and it is just an insane slam-dunk. One likely wants every bit of two boxes outside of a character or two, and they functionally build the majority of an excellent army right out of two boxes...
With LI... my wife and I like absolute idiots, ordered four starters... BUT we're excited about that due to ultra-specific circumstances, namely...
- Leman Russes and Malcadors are her favorite tanks
- She wants to do Solar Auxillia, and I Marines
- We already have three friends who want the extra rulebooks
- We actively love Titanicus and wanted the new/FW-only Warhound weapons
- We both rank Epic as one of our all-time favorite games
It takes ALL of those very specific circumstances, us being a two-gamer-household, and getting a deep discount on preorders, to justify how hard we went.
I definitely wouldn't say GW calibrated this box to deter multiple sales, but it definitely crapped the bed as it stands.
We have a few local players getting ready for the game, and as a group we have already decided to omit the allies 30% rules altogether, just so we can get 1500-2000pt games going that much sooner.
Likewise, a few of my influencer buddies are swearing to me that the game dramatically feels better on a 6'x4' table, at 2000pts, as GW's intended "average sizes" just feel crowded and clunky.
tauist wrote: My feelings are similar.. the box is a bunch of stuff that creates an illusion of value, but will actually just create incentive to buy more
I mean...that IS kind of the box's job though, right?
I have no interest in this game beyond what it might bring to AT, but this box reminds me of the old Calth box for 30K. That was certainly a ton of tactical marines at a great value...until people started realizing how few tactical marines they actually needed in the armies that they wanted to field.
Malika2 wrote: I wonder when we’ll be seeing any actual new units that don’t have a 40k scaled counterpart…
We already have. The heavy sentinels for Solar Auxilia. Also the Dire Wolf Titans.
EDIT - Oh and Palisade Drop Pods
The Direwolf was already available in Adeptus Titanicus. Perhaps the melta cannon for the Warhound and the Malcador tank with Vanquisher cannon are new items too. But I feel there is so much more potential out there, think of giant dropships, super heavy artillery, and what not
We have a few local players getting ready for the game, and as a group we have already decided to omit the allies 30% rules altogether, just so we can get 1500-2000pt games going that much sooner.
.
Made 1st go at list myself and just 4 additions(rhino, marine infantry, kratos, thunderhawk) gets myself 2k list. Have even options as I could swap some marines for sa allies.
The biggest problem with the infantry kit is that its the only way to get assault marines or terminators, but you only get a pair of each per set. Unless they start releasing a variety of additional infantry sets, it makes it prohibitively expensive to build certain force structures.
I'd expect ebay sellers starting to offer single stands sooner rather than later. Still early days though, since nobody on ebay is selling anything LI in the EU area (plenty in the UK and US but taxes & shipping dont make using em viable)
I've been researching into AT more today, and think I might actually want to start with Titanicus before collecting LI stuff. Do you reckon one could easily houserule some sort of hybrid system, which used mainly AT rules, but added some way to include LI models in the game?
Why would I prefer AT at this stage? The game is already very mature and has nothing in it I'd need to wait to release.. whereas with LI, I'm looking at 6 months minimum before I'd have all my Marine stuff out I'd like to field (Land Raiders, Drop Pods, Landspeeders, Tarantulas).. The AT stuff I get now could all find a use in LI later, not planning to go crazy on them maniples
Theres certainly a way. According to James Hewitt, IIRC, he wrote up concept rules to expand the AT ruleset into handling infantry, tanks, and the like, so the engine natively supports that (why they opted to design a new game engine from the ground up for LI I dont know).
More simply, you can probably use your LI infantry stands to represent the titan hunter infantry strategem.
chaos0xomega wrote: Theres certainly a way. According to James Hewitt, IIRC, he wrote up concept rules to expand the AT ruleset into handling infantry, tanks, and the like, so the engine natively supports that (why they opted to design a new game engine from the ground up for LI I dont know).
More simply, you can probably use your LI infantry stands to represent the titan hunter infantry strategem.
Might be cool to include some Kratos & Baneblades to start with hybridization.. everything in AT needs that console thingamajig?
The gist of it being, as much as I like LI rules for the tanks and infantry, I feel like the Titan rules have been neutered a bit too heavily.. no hit locations or anything, just some wounds and ablative shields..
I recall seeing/hearing a comment or post of his, either in a reddit AMA or maybe here on dakka that he had done up some unofficial homebrew rules for it that he had shared with a select few close friends and trusted individuals, which was based on some of his playtesting and design work but more refined and better developed, but he was reluctant to share them widely because he was concerned about it technically violating his NDA. Actually, he might have said that he had briefly posted it online and then pulled it down almost immediately out of concern or something.
I feel like I remember him cryptically mentioning that the rules are out there if you know who to ask or where to look or something like that as some folks got their hands on them one way or another but they aren't being widely shared.
chaos0xomega wrote: I recall seeing/hearing a comment or post of his, either in a reddit AMA or maybe here on dakka that he had done up some unofficial homebrew rules for it that he had shared with a select few close friends and trusted individuals, which was based on some of his playtesting and design work but more refined and better developed, but he was reluctant to share them widely because he was concerned about it technically violating his NDA. Actually, he might have said that he had briefly posted it online and then pulled it down almost immediately out of concern or something.
I feel like I remember him cryptically mentioning that the rules are out there if you know who to ask or where to look or something like that as some folks got their hands on them one way or another but they aren't being widely shared.
Fascinating.. I bet this topic will be revisited in the near future, now that a new Epic scale game has released
I hope so. I haven't seen much posted by James since I quit twitter, dont think hes done an AMA or whatever in a few years, havent seen him post here in a while either.
ALTHOUGH....
no, no... that would be too cool....
I think I may have just accidentally connected some dots that would explain a few things not quite related to AT whatsoever, and if it is what I think it is I am VERY excited, but its also a wild guess with little to really base it off of aside from some seemingly random data points that suddenly clicked together for me.
If a Tankhead tabletop miniatures game comes out with minis by Tim Popelier and rules by James Hewitt, you heard it here first.
You'd do well to get some STLs before they get taken offline then..
Lastly, regarding Adeptus Titanicus, just noticed its starter being back in stock at GW.. Do you reckon they have added in LI bases to the box? Very tempted to grab one.. Already found the free command terminal PDF from WHC, contemplating on the feasibility of dojng an interactive terminal for my dataslate.. wouldn't take more than a weekend to create.. for personal use only obvs hehehe!
chaos0xomega wrote: Theres certainly a way. According to James Hewitt, IIRC, he wrote up concept rules to expand the AT ruleset into handling infantry, tanks, and the like, so the engine natively supports that (why they opted to design a new game engine from the ground up for LI I dont know).
More simply, you can probably use your LI infantry stands to represent the titan hunter infantry strategem.
Might be cool to include some Kratos & Baneblades to start with hybridization.. everything in AT needs that console thingamajig?
The gist of it being, as much as I like LI rules for the tanks and infantry, I feel like the Titan rules have been neutered a bit too heavily.. no hit locations or anything, just some wounds and ablative shields..
A potential problem with adding infantry and tanks en masse to AT is that the game could bog down quickly unless you're grouping those other units into fairly large clumps. The game just works better with a more limited number of activations and with the 'other' units in a sidecar capacity to the Titans. Even Knight armies tend to make the system creak a bit.
AT is however a fantastic game for simulating Titan battles, and the starter set is a terrific deal if you can get your hands on one. I believe they're still out of stock in the US...
There are projects like Daniel's AT+ that try to integrate other units into AT, but as an avid AT and Epic player, personally that just feels like climbing a tree butt-first. The game emphasis is on titans, their resource management and their maneuvers. Everything smaller only dilutes the focus and makes for a lesser game (in a matched environment, I love little touches in narrative games but as an extra rather than built into the lists). In Titanicus, titans are rock-stars of war. In Epic, they are one part of the combined effort, where we shouldn't be lavishing all the same details on them. Both approaches produce better games by understanding their focus and sticking to it.
Not to focus too much on AT in a Legions thread, but House vs House games would definitely benefit from a sprinkling of tanks'n'troops. Where Titans are concerned I'd say that the Baneblade variants would be of some use in the supporting role.
For those worried about matched play - why not open play? GW keeps telling us they have 3-ways to play, but don't release anything for open play - a mode of play for experimentation, for both game designers and players alike. They need to put their money where their mouth is.
I mean what can GW release for Open Play. Open Play is "do what the freaking heck you want".
I get the "3 ways" is marketing, but I kinda don't see the point in the company telling me I can play with toys "my own way". They don't need to tell me that; that's a given
For GW they don't have to release anything. Narrative they can do campaign rules; release campaign packs and even run campaigns and such; Matched is dead simple too; but for Open its a free for all on what you do. Heck just introducing 1 house-rule to Matched Play makes it "open play"
And I agree with the points about AT and LI being different systems that work better being different rather than trying to merge the two. Whilst it can sound fun in theory; in practice it not only ends up splitting the game into two systems trying to run alongside each other; but it can also end up increasing the complexity of how the game mechanically works. This can be a huge thing when players have to do the mechanics themselves. IT can slow things down; make it harder to learn how to play and also can end up just lacking that fun element.
Overread wrote: I mean what can GW release for Open Play. Open Play is "do what the freaking heck you want".
I get the "3 ways" is marketing, but I kinda don't see the point in the company telling me I can play with toys "my own way". They don't need to tell me that; that's a given
For GW they don't have to release anything. Narrative they can do campaign rules; release campaign packs and even run campaigns and such; Matched is dead simple too; but for Open its a free for all on what you do. Heck just introducing 1 house-rule to Matched Play makes it "open play"
And I agree with the points about AT and LI being different systems that work better being different rather than trying to merge the two. Whilst it can sound fun in theory; in practice it not only ends up splitting the game into two systems trying to run alongside each other; but it can also end up increasing the complexity of how the game mechanically works. This can be a huge thing when players have to do the mechanics themselves. IT can slow things down; make it harder to learn how to play and also can end up just lacking that fun element.
Open play is a great way to present rules that don't quite offer balance in matched play, but to still provide players with fun alternatives that they might not have thought about in a more relaxed session.
GW was doing pretty well with open play in Age of Sigmar; Skybattles, AoS:Skirmish, The Glymmsforge Catacombs, the Anvil articles. In Kill Team 2018, they presented custom specialists for open play. "Army of One" characters in the recent Quest games are used in a way that goes against the narrative ways in which those games are intended to be played( they just play a one-off expedition ).
You're right in that "do what you want" on it's own isn't a proper mode of play, but GW can be offering players ideas on how to better enjoy their games.
I mean my other argument is that the double turn be taken out, shot, quartered, burned, buried in 2 corners of the globe and the other 2 parts yeeted into outer space. Having it go into the Open Play lets GW keep marketing it as a feature; whilst letting matched play have an actual chance at balanced gameplay (I mean as far as GW rules allow)
I'll see what I can come up with myself then. But the point remains, even if AT & LI dont mix, I feel like the Titan rules implementation in LI is to shallow for my tastes. I already envision myself playing LI eventually as 1500 - 2000 point games, and you only get one or two titans per side in such games, will not hurt to have something to give them more flavour
Yeah, I do agree that a mixing of Titanicus and LI, with more focus on the Titans but a nice mix of availability of smaller units like tanks and heavy weapon troops, would be pretty cool.
As it is, Epic looks to be shaping up to be a relatively snappy game once you've got the USRs under your belt, which is probably good.
We also haven't really seen any batreps yet because so much stuff isn't in people's hands. I'm looking forward to seeing people make batreps of different legions fighting, different kinds of formations fighting against each other, different combinations of allies and titans, see how planes and bombing runs do, all that stuff, that we're just not going to get right away.
I had another look at the October White Dwarf battle report now that we know the formations in the book and as I already expected there are other formations used in that battlereport we don't have yet. The Blood Angels army has a Sky Hunter Phalanx and a Drop pod Assault in addition to the known Armoured Company.
The Sky Hunter Phalanx in the battlereport focuses on bikes, jetbikes, javelins and proteus speeders which according to the symbols used are all vanguard slots for five slots used in total. So while we don't know how many of those are compulsory and how many are optional we at least know that every compulsory slot in this formation is a vanguard slot as there are no non-vanguard units in this formation. This formation makes sense since none of the current formations really allows big vanguard armies since we only have a single slot in the Demi-Company and another single slot in the Aerial Assault.
The Drop Pod Assault formation seems to be close or the same to the Demi-Company just that it allows you to upgrade every detachment with Drop-Pods instead of Rhinos.
For anyone not yet knowing how Transports work, as far as I understood it unless the formation itself has a special Transport rule you need to use transport detachment slots for any transport you buy and since the Demi-Company is the only formation that even has transports slots for SM you won't be able to use any for the Garrison Force/Armoured Company/Aerial Assault. Transports bought in generic transport slots can be used for any detachment in the formation. In addition any formation can have a special transport rule that allows you to upgrade your detachments with a transport without using a slot but the transport can only be used by the detachment is was purchased for in this case. The Demi-Company for example allows you to buy Rhinos for any Infantry only detachments and the Aerial Assault formation allows you to buy Storm Eagles and Thunderhawks as transports for any detachment in the formation (Though you could still bring them as Aerial Support detachments anyway) The only questionmark for me is how the Deathguard player got rhinos for their Garrison Force in the Battlereport. The formation doesn't have any transport slots or transport rules and neither the rhino nor the Tactical detachment has a rule that allows them to be purchased together even if there are no Transport slots or special rules. Maybe the mission they played had a special rule or the Garrison Force will be changed in the expansion book or they just made a mistake, no idea
Overread wrote: I mean what can GW release for Open Play. Open Play is "do what the freaking heck you want".
I get the "3 ways" is marketing, but I kinda don't see the point in the company telling me I can play with toys "my own way". They don't need to tell me that; that's a given
For GW they don't have to release anything. Narrative they can do campaign rules; release campaign packs and even run campaigns and such; Matched is dead simple too; but for Open its a free for all on what you do. Heck just introducing 1 house-rule to Matched Play makes it "open play"
And I agree with the points about AT and LI being different systems that work better being different rather than trying to merge the two. Whilst it can sound fun in theory; in practice it not only ends up splitting the game into two systems trying to run alongside each other; but it can also end up increasing the complexity of how the game mechanically works. This can be a huge thing when players have to do the mechanics themselves. IT can slow things down; make it harder to learn how to play and also can end up just lacking that fun element.
They can offer ways to play that isn't matched play but neither has story behind.
So matched play with less restrictions. More varied scenarios. Asymmetric scenarios.
I mean my other argument is that the double turn be taken out, shot, quartered, burned, buried in 2 corners of the globe and the other 2 parts yeeted into outer space. Having it go into the Open Play lets GW keep marketing it as a feature; whilst letting matched play have an actual chance at balanced gameplay (I mean as far as GW rules allow)
Ah yes. Pamper to players of bad skill who just want to see game result from lists who don't know how to screen, deploy etc.
Who can never imagine playing as well as say season of war guys who reqularly get into position they want to force opponent to take double as it is bad spot to be in for opponent...
As sayig goes. Bad players complain, good players laugh and win either way.
I mean my other argument is that the double turn be taken out, shot, quartered, burned, buried in 2 corners of the globe and the other 2 parts yeeted into outer space. Having it go into the Open Play lets GW keep marketing it as a feature; whilst letting matched play have an actual chance at balanced gameplay (I mean as far as GW rules allow)
Exalted. The double turn is my biggest gripe with Age of Sigmar because it's so easy to make the game not fun.
tauist wrote: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to dealing with messed up systems"
Its only messed up if you are bad player.
Bad players whine, good players laugh at bad players and win anyway as it's matter of skill who wins. Not double turn which rarely decides game anyway(and indeed in some games only way one side CAN win is threat of getting or forcing double turn. Without double turn one side in certain matchups never wins/never loses)
tauist wrote: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to dealing with messed up systems"
Its only messed up if you are bad player.
Bad players whine, good players laugh at bad players and win anyway as it's matter of skill who wins. Not double turn which rarely decides game anyway(and indeed in some games only way one side CAN win is threat of getting or forcing double turn. Without double turn one side in certain matchups never wins/never loses)
I haven't the foggiest whaat you are talking about. Anyways, lets just agree to disagree and move on
tauist wrote: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to dealing with messed up systems"
Its only messed up if you are bad player.
Bad players whine, good players laugh at bad players and win anyway as it's matter of skill who wins. Not double turn which rarely decides game anyway(and indeed in some games only way one side CAN win is threat of getting or forcing double turn. Without double turn one side in certain matchups never wins/never loses)
The double turn is fine. Players need to adjust their style of play to account for the potential impact of it, the gameplay that emerges from the ruleset as a result creates space where players can choose to play aggressively and throw caution to the wind (this means that if they get a double turn they can try to maximize the benefit to themselves, but if they get double turned they are more likely to lose dramatically) or play conservatively and try to minimize and mitigate the potential risk (this means that if they get a double turn the impact and benefit of it is often minimal, but if their opponent gets the double turn there isn't much pain to be felt from it). In my experience, if both players take a conservative approach, it leads to a slower-paced tactical game with lower lethality levels more along the lines of 4th/5th era 40k, which I myself (and many others) generally enjoy. If both players elect aggressive, then the game is just as lethal and killy as any modern game of 40k is/was in the 9th edition era. When one chooses aggressive and the other chooses conservative, then you can get some really interesting and tactical games of cat and mouse going, BUT this kind of strategy mis-match is also where differences in player skill becomes apparent, if both players are relatively highly skilled the gameplay can be phenomenal, if one player is considerably better than the other then it can be a bit lopsided.
My experience introducing people to AoS is that a lot of people dislike the double turn in theory because they have heard about it online and it seems like something which is logically obvious to result in some sort of feelsbad, but after actually playing through a game or two and experiencing it they realize its not really much of a problem and an interesting mechanical quirk that helps create interesting gameplay. My own personal experience is that the double turn doesn't really impact the outcome of games the way many people believe it does (at least not in the current edition).
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs.
I guess going to a new scale and the associated costs depends how many are contributing to the terrain.
for earlier games printed card etc for buildings works fine, ditto books for hills (though hills can be made to be scale agnostic, ditto rocky outcrops etc)
can get terrain quite cheaply when you go back a bit old school, and if you consider the time taken clipping and cleaning plastic custom made is probably faster too
best way in a group is you all make or get "some" then share it out
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs.
leopard wrote: I guess going to a new scale and the associated costs depends how many are contributing to the terrain.
for earlier games printed card etc for buildings works fine, ditto books for hills (though hills can be made to be scale agnostic, ditto rocky outcrops etc)
can get terrain quite cheaply when you go back a bit old school, and if you consider the time taken clipping and cleaning plastic custom made is probably faster too
best way in a group is you all make or get "some" then share it out
Yeah, if you want to make a full urban board with GWs plastic boards and buildings, it'll cost a fortune. If you make roads and/or make or buy older cardstock buildings and play on a Mousemat board, it'll cost a fraction. Generic home made polystyrene hills will be fine.
chaos0xomega wrote: The double turn is fine. Players need to adjust their style of play to account for the potential impact of it, the gameplay that emerges from the ruleset as a result creates space where players can choose to play aggressively and throw caution to the wind (this means that if they get a double turn they can try to maximize the benefit to themselves, but if they get double turned they are more likely to lose dramatically) or play conservatively and try to minimize and mitigate the potential risk (this means that if they get a double turn the impact and benefit of it is often minimal, but if their opponent gets the double turn there isn't much pain to be felt from it). In my experience, if both players take a conservative approach, it leads to a slower-paced tactical game with lower lethality levels more along the lines of 4th/5th era 40k, which I myself (and many others) generally enjoy. If both players elect aggressive, then the game is just as lethal and killy as any modern game of 40k is/was in the 9th edition era. When one chooses aggressive and the other chooses conservative, then you can get some really interesting and tactical games of cat and mouse going, BUT this kind of strategy mis-match is also where differences in player skill becomes apparent, if both players are relatively highly skilled the gameplay can be phenomenal, if one player is considerably better than the other then it can be a bit lopsided.
My experience introducing people to AoS is that a lot of people dislike the double turn in theory because they have heard about it online and it seems like something which is logically obvious to result in some sort of feelsbad, but after actually playing through a game or two and experiencing it they realize its not really much of a problem and an interesting mechanical quirk that helps create interesting gameplay. My own personal experience is that the double turn doesn't really impact the outcome of games the way many people believe it does (at least not in the current edition).
The double turn is gak and I have won ninety percent of games my shooting army (ko) got the double before I quite playing aos
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs.
Funny you should say that...
And the thumbnail isn't even photoshopped
Fun video, but his buildings are all way too big imo. They'd be big in titanicus, but by all indications building for height, more than a couple levels for LI won't be very helpful. Lack of roads was quite apparent.
I also think the spire set is sortof a waste of LI, because of the garrisoning of building, general advice on how to build them to my mind shift towards maximizing roof space to place infantry bases, which the spires sorta compete with.
Has anyone been able to ascertain whether or not ruins will be destructible in LI?
it does appear buildings can be destroyed, and turned into ruins presumably, Epic has had ever since I played it had the issue of buildings being death traps but ruins being perfectly safe..
leopard wrote: it does appear buildings can be destroyed, and turned into ruins presumably, Epic has had ever since I played it had the issue of buildings being death traps but ruins being perfectly safe..
Yah that's already an incongruity I can't quite wrap my head around, I get not wanting a middle stage to destruction as the logistics would just explode, same time it seems the logistics have exploded if we need to make little area terrain the same dimensions as each structure.
My concern if ruins, even if they're their own weird third thing, aren't destructible like structures, it will be very weird mechanically, Like a titan can destroy a structure but ruin force it to go around? Seems very strange, especially seeing as they didn't base or glue down any terrain in the battel reports.
I'm excited to tear through the ruin set, I'm just hoping the rules makes sense.
Has anyone been able to ascertain whether or not ruins will be destructible in LI?
From squinting at the rulebook pages in GMG's review I'm 95% sure that ruins won't be destructable. They're listed in the 'area terrain' section alongside things like rivers & cliffs, and simply grant a weak cover save to units inside.
Meanwhile there's a separate 'structures' section for undamaged buildings which covers the list of building types we've seen previewed. These have rules for garrisons, assaults, and being targeted / destroyed.
Edit: "When a Structure collapses it is removed from the battlefield and replaced with an area of Difficult Terrain that occupies roughly the same area as the Structure."
to be honest the solution is, and always has been, simple yet not in the rules
a building has a profile, and when destroyed its replace by ruins, with the associated consequences for those inside
add in that ruins also have a profile, and can also be destroyed, replaced with ruins, with again consequences for those inside
i.e. you are never clearing the ruins away, but can cause further collapses (using the same building) making them a bit more risky than an intact building, but probably still better than being in the open as only certain weapons can collapse them
Has anyone been able to ascertain whether or not ruins will be destructible in LI?
From squinting at the rulebook pages in GMG's review I'm 95% sure that ruins won't be targetable. They're listed in the 'area terrain' section alongside things like rivers & cliffs, and simply grant a weak cover save to units inside.
Meanwhile there's a separate 'structures' section for undamaged buildings which covers the list of building types we've seen previewed. These have rules for garrisons, assaults, and being targeted / destroyed.
the problem this causes is basically as you advance on a building you want to fire upon and collapse it, so it cannot be collapsed once you are inside it, which seems a bit nuts
but then this is the Warhammer universe so whatever really
leopard wrote: the problem this causes is basically as you advance on a building you want to fire upon and collapse it, so it cannot be collapsed once you are inside it, which seems a bit nuts
From what I've seen ruins give substantially less benefits for defense than an intact building, so this is probably moot. If your dudes are in area terrain they can just be targeted normally and maybe they get a 6+ save.
Yeah standard ruins placed on the table at the start of the game will give you 5+ cover (obstructing terrain, above).
However the point I was making is that you're usually going to be much better off keeping a building intact if you intend to take it. Ruins placed as a result of a destroyed building (difficult terrain) only give a 6+ cover save, compared to the 3+/4+ cover that building would normally grant if you didn't blow it up. In addition difficult terrain has a movement penalty, the hit penalty for area terrain is only -1 rather than the -2 from a garrisoned structure, and area terrain doesn't give defender CAF benefits.
Also when re-reading that article I just noticed this, which should answer the original question!
Unlike regular terrain, however, these structures can themselves be attacked and brought tumbling down
leopard wrote: I guess going to a new scale and the associated costs depends how many are contributing to the terrain.
for earlier games printed card etc for buildings works fine, ditto books for hills (though hills can be made to be scale agnostic, ditto rocky outcrops etc)
can get terrain quite cheaply when you go back a bit old school, and if you consider the time taken clipping and cleaning plastic custom made is probably faster too
best way in a group is you all make or get "some" then share it out
Yeah, if you want to make a full urban board with GWs plastic boards and buildings, it'll cost a fortune. If you make roads and/or make or buy older cardstock buildings and play on a Mousemat board, it'll cost a fraction. Generic home made polystyrene hills will be fine.
If you go full homemade, you could end up with:
Spoiler:
When people post pics of the best version of Epic ever (for me!), it gets me thinking I might just stick with it instead!
The_Real_Chris wrote: Other than goonhammer has anyone reviewed the game system yet? Preferably with comparisons to 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition?
Probably not many yet. It seems the 'influencer' program doesn't extend to the small number of actual Epic content creators. It will be a while before people mostly familiar with old editions get their hands on the rulebooks & models.
There are some threads on the epic groups discussing it, as people are watching the 'reviews' & rulebook 'unboxings' already out.
We'll probably start to see honest/practical reviews in another two to three weeks.
Yeah standard ruins placed on the table at the start of the game will give you 5+ cover (obstructing terrain, above).
However the point I was making is that you're usually going to be much better off keeping a building intact if you intend to take it. Ruins placed as a result of a destroyed building (difficult terrain) only give a 6+ cover save, compared to the 3+/4+ cover that building would normally grant if you didn't blow it up. In addition difficult terrain has a movement penalty, the hit penalty for area terrain is only -1 rather than the -2 from a garrisoned structure, and area terrain doesn't give defender CAF benefits.
Also when re-reading that article I just noticed this, which should answer the original question!
Unlike regular terrain, however, these structures can themselves be attacked and brought tumbling down
It's also confusing because i could see on one of the pages a diagram marking area terrain with ruin corners and seemingly invisible lines. Sketchy.
"your structure has been destroyed, replace it with area terrain" looks at diagram, area terrain demarcated by corner ruins. Look at infographic, corner ruins aren't area terrain... wtf? I'm glad this book has 4x as many pages dedicated to terrain rules than titanicus, but my god man if its a jumble of confused concepts with constant "its up to you to define" stuff its going to be less than helpful. I'm already thinking like 5-6 actual structures now that ihave to go and make precise dimensions of each one in area terrain, which I don't mind doing but having a damage model for every piece of terrain I own is getting very much into video game territory and a bit far from tabletop wargaming. Worse still if the rulebook is telling me to both replace a destroyed stucture with ruins and also not replace it with ruins but a magical imagined area demarcated by nothing at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prometheum5 wrote: Ash from GMG said in his review video that he'll be doing a comparison to Space Marine, which I am very curious for.
I believe he's doing a video on the terrrain rules tomorrow.
I'd personally solve this by using cardboard or plasticard, making same shaped areas as the buildings and using those for representing destroyed buildings. You could then add some extra bits or ruins on the edges of those areas. IIRC the Original Space Marine game just used cardboard pieces with rubble graphics on them, which you slapped on the ceiling of a building to denote it as having been destroyed..?
The_Real_Chris wrote: Other than goonhammer has anyone reviewed the game system yet? Preferably with comparisons to 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition?
The only ones I found were made by people with absolutely no idea of Epic (they call the orders+alternate activation "modern mechanics", when they actually come from the 80s).
But seeing that the system is basically Space Marine, you can get an idea. Basically an over-complicated arcade Epic game.
-----
Edit: Also, what is the point of First Fire??, if a charging unit can contact & remove the FF order.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Other than goonhammer has anyone reviewed the game system yet? Preferably with comparisons to 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition?
The only ones I found were made by people with absolutely no idea of Epic (they call the orders+alternate activation "modern mechanics", when they actually come from the 80s).
But seeing that the system is basically Space Marine, you can get an idea. Basically an over-complicated arcade Epic game.
-----
Edit: Also, what is the point of First Fire??, if a charging unit can contact & remove the FF order.
I thought I saw something about units with First Fire being able to shoot units as they approached, with some "defensive" weapons? 1st Edition had "Snap Fire" as an option to First Fire ordered units and here it seems that first fire shooting comes prior to melee.
need to see exactly how they have done it but I think the point of First Fire is to have the opportunity to react to enemy movement before mobile units get to engage
The_Real_Chris wrote: Other than goonhammer has anyone reviewed the game system yet? Preferably with comparisons to 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition?
The only ones I found were made by people with absolutely no idea of Epic (they call the orders+alternate activation "modern mechanics", when they actually come from the 80s).
But seeing that the system is basically Space Marine, you can get an idea. Basically an over-complicated arcade Epic game.
-----
Edit: Also, what is the point of First Fire??, if a charging unit can contact & remove the FF order.
I thought I saw something about units with First Fire being able to shoot units as they approached, with some "defensive" weapons? 1st Edition had "Snap Fire" as an option to First Fire ordered units and here it seems that first fire shooting comes prior to melee.
need to see exactly how they have done it but I think the point of First Fire is to have the opportunity to react to enemy movement before mobile units get to engage
Overwatch.
But Advance orders also give you the chance to Overwatch. So First Fire has really no point against chargers, only against enemy units with Advance orders themselves. Disappointing, as there is almost no defense against chargers (point defense (mostly light weapons), and little more, that will hit on 6s anyways...).
But Advance orders also give you the chance to Overwatch. So First Fire has really no point against chargers, only against enemy units with Advance orders themselves. Disappointing, as there is almost no defense against chargers (point defense (mostly light weapons), and little more, that will hit on 6s anyways...).
Yeah picked up on that in the W+ Bat Rep. Bit surprised, I liked 2nd Ed way of doing it (First fire only can shoot at chargers)
Maybe it should be easier to hit if on first fire v advance.
Quite interesting gameplay, it will take a while for me to wrap my head around activation sequencing with oddities like Advance Fire being better against melee units than First Fire.
With FF, you get to shoot at chargers before the combat, with Advance you shoot after the combat has resolved. Advance being more useful than FF is therefore situational, since if the combat doesn't end in one turn, you will be unable to mop up survivors
Overwatch is a mixed bag as well, everything besides point defence weapons hitting on a 6+ means its not going to be very effective.. I wonder how something such as Heavy Flamers will fare for Overwatch, in regular 40K & HH they are among the best defensive weapons against chargers
You can often drive a tank through a building as walls etc are relatively thin (as plenty of WWII film shows,
but once you've done so it is much harder to get the same tank through the piles of rubble, unstable remaining walls, holes where cellars were etc hence the need to bring in bulldozers, and add 'dozer blades to a lot of the tanks
so i don't think it's unreasonable for LI to have buildings you can move though, but once you've converted them to rubble that becomes impassable (representing a combination of it genuinely being much harder to do, and the significant risk of getting stuck, falling over etc so no commander is going to be willing to risk it during battle)
The only real beef I see right now is the absolutely wild melee resolution, with 2d6 opposed and just 1 point of stat difference between guard and marines the stat might as well not be there.
lord_blackfang wrote: The only real beef I see right now is the absolutely wild melee resolution, with 2d6 opposed and just 1 point of stat difference between guard and marines the stat might as well not be there.
Indeed. 2D6 gives insane amt of randomness to CC outcomes. I'm not a mathhammer expert, but have been thinking you will want that 6+ to your CAF when charging, ie. anything worse in melee than dreads might still backfire badly for the first 1:1 fights.. Outnumbering your opponent will be the most common way to ensure favourable outcomes in melee I'd bet
lord_blackfang wrote: The only real beef I see right now is the absolutely wild melee resolution, with 2d6 opposed and just 1 point of stat difference between guard and marines the stat might as well not be there.
Indeed. 2D6 gives insane amt of randomness to CC outcomes. I'm not a mathhammer expert, but have been thinking you will want that 6+ to your CAF when charging, ie. anything worse in melee than dreads might still backfire badly for the first 1:1 fights.. Outnumbering your opponent will be the most common way to ensure favourable outcomes in melee I'd bet
Disagree. Made quick program that goes 100000 fights. 2d6 added together, add CAF, compare. Reroll ties(not sure how ties are done). CAF3 vs 2 resulted 65% more wins for CAF3. With CAF4 almost triple.
2d6 results in LESS swings as worst result happens only 1/36 times vs 1/6 and closest to averages(6, 7, 8) happens 44% times. Ie almost half the time roll is going to be close to the average.
It's why charges is much less swingy as single attacks for example in 40k.
65% more wins with 1 blip more of CAF is pretty significant. You want lower CAF to automatically die?
lord_blackfang wrote: The only real beef I see right now is the absolutely wild melee resolution, with 2d6 opposed and just 1 point of stat difference between guard and marines the stat might as well not be there.
Indeed. 2D6 gives insane amt of randomness to CC outcomes. I'm not a mathhammer expert, but have been thinking you will want that 6+ to your CAF when charging, ie. anything worse in melee than dreads might still backfire badly for the first 1:1 fights.. Outnumbering your opponent will be the most common way to ensure favourable outcomes in melee I'd bet
Disagree. Made quick program that goes 100000 fights. 2d6 added together, add CAF, compare. Reroll ties(not sure how ties are done). CAF3 vs 2 resulted 65% more wins for CAF3. With CAF4 almost triple.
2d6 results in LESS swings as worst result happens only 1/36 times vs 1/6 and closest to averages(6, 7, 8) happens 44% times. Ie almost half the time roll is going to be close to the average.
It's why charges is much less swingy as single attacks for example in 40k.
65% more wins with 1 blip more of CAF is pretty significant. You want lower CAF to automatically die?
Unless you are using a more sophisticated random number generator, your statistics will not reflect real world outcomes. Computerized randomness isn't trivial to do right
Vorian wrote: 2d6 will result in more consistent results, you don't need sophisticated random number generators to tell you that.
No, that's not how it works, it's not more "consistent", it's a win/lose scenario, like an elaborate coin toss which is somehow biased. Admittedly probability was never my strong point, but...
2D6 versus 1D6 just means a bonus of X has a smaller effect.
For 1D6 + bonus where the bonus is 0,1,2,3 or 4, the side with the bonus will win 50%, 68%, 81%, 91% and 97% of the time respectively.
For 2D6 + bonus where the bonus is 0,1,2,3 or 4, the side with the bonus will win 50%, 62%, 74%, 83% and 90% of the time respectively.
That's rerolling draws.
You could then say if you fight 100 battles, what's the % chance you win Y amount of the time... which will follow the typical rules for a binomial distribution, it doesn't matter how the wins and losses were generated, only the chance of success of each "trial".
tauist wrote: With FF, you get to shoot at chargers before the combat, with Advance you shoot after the combat has resolved. Advance being more useful than FF is therefore situational, since if the combat doesn't end in one turn, you will be unable to mop up survivors
Overwatch is a mixed bag as well, everything besides point defence weapons hitting on a 6+ means its not going to be very effective.. I wonder how something such as Heavy Flamers will fare for Overwatch, in regular 40K & HH they are among the best defensive weapons against chargers
AFAIKFF you do not shoot chargers before combat, as they remove your FF order on contact.
It is more consistent because you do not have an equal spread of chances, like you will get in a d6.
You will more consistently score results in the middle - but, like the earlier "swingy" discussion, it doesn't really matter.
2d6 or 1d6 won't make things swingy but you're right in that it'll flatten out what CAF will do. They will have had to do this so things like Titans can coexist with SA infantry in the game.
Vorian wrote: It is more consistent because you do not have an equal spread of chances, like you will get in a d6.
You will more consistently score results in the middle - but, like the earlier "swingy" discussion, it doesn't really matter.
2d6 or 1d6 won't make things swingy but you're right in that it'll flatten out what CAF will do. They will have had to do this so things like Titans can coexist with SA infantry in the game.
2D6 does have a triangular distribution, but the highest probability (a 7) has the same probability as any outcome on a D6, 1/6. So while you are most likely to get close to a 7, there's no one value that's any more likely than any outcome on a D6 roll, and it has a broader spread of values. So it's not really more consistent unless you're writing a system that takes advantage of the triangular distribution.
But the combat thing is my 2D6 roll versus your 2D6 roll, meaning it's a win/lose scenario and the broader triangular distribution really factor into it other than decreasing the value of each point of CAF.
Yes, exactly. It's more consistent in a way that is meaningless for what we're discussing.
I think people are underwhelmed by CAF because we're seeing people who are very unfamiliar with the game committing to fights they shouldn't be.
Stuff that isnt a Knight or Titan can get swamped quite quickly. Charging stuff in buildings when outnumbered will not go well even for things you think are close combat units. Etc.
Prometheum5 wrote: Ash from GMG said in his review video that he'll be doing a comparison to Space Marine, which I am very curious for.
2nd ed Space Marine or 1st?
With regards for 2D6 + caf...
It will generate more extreme results, but overall both sides will be rolling 6/7/8 44% of the time, so getting a +3 will be pretty effective. Though roll D6/2D6/3D6 etc., pick the highest, +caf might have been more flexible.
One more thing I have to add: 2d6 + CAF allows for a more granular representation of close combat skill while simultaneously still giving a chance for a weak unit to defeat a melee monster.
In D6 + caf system, a +6 CAF unit auto wins with anything with +0 CAF, so realistically, we need to cap it at +5 for the most brutal units in the game.
In 2d6, we can allow for much greater variance in CAF values across units, while still allowing the +1 CAF unit to sometimes tie or win with close combat specialist. Of course many people will dislike that (fair enough, I`m also not a fan of that system), but it means that more often than not, the close combat isn`t a foregone conclusion long before rolling the dice, but the players have to actually gamble a bit and choose their fights carefully.
If anyone is still on the fence about what they want next, I've made something that might help. Points values can vary slightly depending on how units are added to an army. For example you can take two detachments of 2 Kratos each for 300pts, or one detachment of 4 Kratos for 260pts.
Units in italics aren't released yet so the price isn't official, but some of these were previously available for AI and AT.
The Imperial Fists legion special rules gives infantry detachments with specific weapons the accurate trait if they get the first fire order. Those weapons are the bolters, combi bolters, bolt pistols and missile launchers which are all on the current infantry models. But there are also plasma cannons, lascannons and autocannons listed. With the lascannon they could mean the Tarantula lascannon battery depending on if it has to be the same name or just include the word lascannon which isn't 100% clear in the rule but even then there are no plasma cannons or autocannons on any infantry. (Dreadnoughts are walkers)
Looking at HH the only units with plasma cannons or autocannons other than dreadnougts are the Jetbikes and Land speeders which both shouldn't be infantry and the heavy support squad. So that basically confirms more support squads in addition to the plasma gun and missile launcher variants in the future.
There are also the Reaper Autocannon and Plasma Blaster as special weapons on the Terminators but I think those are less likely than more support squads
lord_blackfang wrote: Nice detective work, not that I didn't already assume that the entire unit range will get models.
I was also always pretty sure every HH unit would get models but different weapon options for already existing models is another step further so nice to get confirmation for that too
SamusDrake wrote: What was the Emperor's own marine chapter called, or does he just hang out with the Custodes during the 30K era?
During the Horus Heresy, he's sat on the throne mostly. But he rocked about with the Custodes and whichever legion he wanted to mooch places with. He "took" Mars with the 1st legion for example.
During the Horus Heresy, he's sat on the throne mostly. But he rocked about with the Custodes and whichever legion he wanted to mooch places with. He "took" Mars with the 1st legion for example.
Oh, I see. I knew he had that fight with Horus onboard The Vengeful Spirit, but not much before that.
Maybe the big man will show up in a boarding operations supplement?
Here's the assembly instructions from mfr's website.
Looks pretty HIPSy to me - pretty sure you couldn't cast either of those sprues in resin reasonably.
Has Da Grotmas Gitz Holiday miniature got a better LI scale infantry Marine on it that is better than any of the Marine infantry available for the actual game?
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Has Da Grotmas Gitz Holiday miniature got a better LI scale infantry Marine on it that is better than any of the Marine infantry available for the actual game?
Yeah, because it's primaris. Aka model with actual 'strong, adult human' proportions, as opposed to gak, garbage looking '5 year old child' head to height ratio squatmarines have (and even that is a big improvement, before the DW/CSM/HH/Heroes refresh squattus had proportions of a chimpanzee, at no age humans have spine that short, arms so thin and long, and hips so broken/wide with piddly bowlegged legs plus thighs thinner than forearms).
On the GW website they say 10am AWST (West Australia time) which is 1pm Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane time (I don't know why they used AWST instead of AEST, as the vast majority of the population is on the East coast rather than the West coast). Normally GW preorders are 12pm... and it seems TheCombatCompany went live just now at 12pm as usual, but other sites (including GW) haven't gone live yet.
So TCC jumped the gun I guess. Annnnnnnd it's gone.
Pretty much instantly went out of stock, but I guess it's hard to judge as they were the first to go live, anyone watching multiple sites would have snapped it up from TCC.
The tanks actually went out of stock before the starter set did.
EDIT: Looks like TCC realised their error and have now taken down the preorders! Interesting...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gone live on all the other sites too now, most independents are sold out of the starter set. It seems like the Baneblades and Kratos were extremely low stock, GapGames gives stock levels and when I checked soon after they went live, they had 45 starter sets but only 1 each of the Kratos and Baneblades.
The official GW site still has stock (in spite of not having a queue in place). I think the high price here pushes people to independents even more than other countries, or maybe GW just hordes more of the stock for themselves in Oz compared to other places.
It released at $335, which is higher than I was expecting based on similarly priced kits released recently.
Cards are direct only and $52.50 which feels a bit crazily expensive. Do the cards only have rules for what's just been released? If they have rules of the future releases maybe that's not too bad.
$80 for 4 itty bitty tanks that fit in the palm of your hand?
Yes the prices are horrendous here in Aus for this game.
Having said that most stores online sold out extremely fast. Even GW sold out of quite a few kits.
I missed out on a Thunderhawk when it launched in Aeronautica Imperialis and now I've missed out again in Legion Imperialis.
All I can hope is that LI will restock it at some point.
$80 for 4 itty bitty tanks that fit in the palm of your hand?
The prices on this release actually aren’t far off US pricing. $50USD is $75AUD.
They screw us slightly more on the starter set though, everywhere else the starter set is 4x the individual box prices, here they decided to throw on an extra $15.
Vorian wrote: Do things sell out on the morning if release like they do in the rest of the world?
Are the starters, cards, terrain and bases all going to be gone today/early next week?
Similar to the rest of the world I suppose.
The independent retailers offering 10-20% discount all sell out pretty fast. The GW official store takes a lot longer to sell out.
The online stores I normally frequent all sold out within minutes, the GW store 8 hours later has sold out of the cards, the Baneblades, the Thunderhawk, the terrain, and I think that's about it, everything else still seems to be in stock, including the starter.
The independents... Gap Games and The Combat Company are probably the largest ones and they're all sold out of everything. Some of the smaller ones still have some stuff but are sold out of bits and pieces.
I fully suspect that my FLGS, that doesn't offer a discount, will have a few boxes on release day. Based on past experience with previous GW releases, it seems like they sell a handful of preorders then get a few extra boxes on the day and they remain in stock for a while, nothing like the 10's of boxes that go through the online retailers, just a handful sold to the regulars.
Maybe this is too much of a stereotype, but it seems GW in Australia these days is mostly middle aged guys with enough excess cash that dropping a few grand on GW products isn't a big deal. I don't see much in the way of a younger audience like back when I started, or if there is they don't hang around the stores or groups I do.
Not sure I want that sort of army. I don’t mind Titan allies, or indeed Knights. But for reasons I can’t explain, Solar Auxilia and Marines just doesn’t sit right for me.
I know that stance is against the background, but not everything in my head makes sense.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Not sure I want that sort of army. I don’t mind Titan allies, or indeed Knights. But for reasons I can’t explain, Solar Auxilia and Marines just doesn’t sit right for me.
I know that stance is against the background, but not everything in my head makes sense.
I’m not super familiar with the fluff for Auxilia, I assume in game terms they’re a stand in for any human troopers fighting alongside or against re marines?
I was thinking of using my 6mm not-dkok from Vanguard as Auxilia.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: They’re sort of peak Mere Smelly Hoomans. Arguably more Kasrkin than Guardsman type stuff.
Fair enough. When do they actually start popping up in the fluff? I think I'm about a third the way through the HH books (with lots of skipping, only read about 15 to 20 books) and yet I don't recall the Solar Auxilia being mentioned at all. Lots of mention of regular humans fighting alongside the Legions, don't think I recall seeing "Solar Auxilia" specifically mentioned though.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the Auxilia models, but I like tanks, so I'll maybe do some tank companies (I already have 20 or so Basilisks and 20 or so Leman Russes at Epic scale) but don't see me buying any infantry.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: They’re sort of peak Mere Smelly Hoomans. Arguably more Kasrkin than Guardsman type stuff.
Fair enough. When do they actually start popping up in the fluff? I think I'm about a third the way through the HH books (with lots of skipping, only read about 15 to 20 books) and yet I don't recall the Solar Auxilia being mentioned at all. Lots of mention of regular humans fighting alongside the Legions, don't think I recall seeing "Solar Auxilia" specifically mentioned though.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the Auxilia models, but I like tanks, so I'll maybe do some tank companies (I already have 20 or so Basilisks and 20 or so Leman Russes at Epic scale) but don't see me buying any infantry.
It wouldn't surprise me if Solar Auxilia is a bit like the Imperial Guard now being the Astra Militarum. Ergo its a semi-new name that means the same thing, but which just won't appear in earlier books and lore because that wasn't what they were called back then.
But the solar auxilia isn`t like a really brand new thing introduced recently, is it? I`m not that familiar with the fluff, but the SA infantry have been available in 28 mm from forge world for years. And according to the info on the various wikis, they are supposed to be the best non-marine troops out there, so more like tempestus scions rather than imperial guard. Although for the time being SA will probably be the main component of the imperial army in LI since I doubt that GW will suddenly release another guard-like army. Especially with the mechanicum being another important part of the horus heresy.
Edit: I`ve found that the SA have been introduced in 2014 book "The Horus Heresy Book Four - Conquest", so depending on how you look at it - it`s relatively recent addition to fluff, but at the same time, it`s already been almost 10 years.
Edit: I`ve found that the SA have been introduced in 2014 book "The Horus Heresy Book Four - Conquest", so depending on how you look at it - it`s relatively recent addition to fluff, but at the same time, it`s already been almost 10 years.
Kretualdo wrote: But the solar auxilia isn`t like a really brand new thing introduced recently, is it? I`m not that familiar with the fluff, but the SA infantry have been available in 28 mm from forge world for years. And according to the info on the various wikis, they are supposed to be the best non-marine troops out there, so more like tempestus scions rather than imperial guard. Although for the time being SA will probably be the main component of the imperial army in LI since I doubt that GW will suddenly release another guard-like army. Especially with the mechanicum being another important part of the horus heresy.
Edit: I`ve found that the SA have been introduced in 2014 book "The Horus Heresy Book Four - Conquest", so depending on how you look at it - it`s relatively recent addition to fluff, but at the same time, it`s already been almost 10 years.
There has been an “Imperial Army” of regular humans as long as there’s been a Horus Heresy but the Solar Auxilia are a more recent extension of the fluff where whole regiments of elite troops were raised and given the best gear that could be mass-produced in relevant numbers. We have to presume there were always elite sections of the Imperial Army, by dint of sheer numbers if nothing else, and the solar auxiliaries are just a new name to be applied to them.
Solar Auxilia is just one template for a military force meant to operate in the void or other hostile environments, modelled after the way Saturnine Ordos fought in the early conquest of our solar system. It's a large minority of the whole Imperial Army, at most one fifth or fourth of it at their peak, but a minority nonetheless. They just happen to be aesthetically distinct and interestingly different from the regular 40k Guard, thus getting their focus in the 30k product branding. Most of the imperial war effort was made up of a gazillion different forces with their unique idiosyncracies, which is comparatively much less standardised and thus less easily defined with its own faction identity.
Vorian wrote: Do things sell out on the morning if release like they do in the rest of the world?
Are the starters, cards, terrain and bases all going to be gone today/early next week?
Similar to the rest of the world I suppose.
The independent retailers offering 10-20% discount all sell out pretty fast. The GW official store takes a lot longer to sell out.
The online stores I normally frequent all sold out within minutes, the GW store 8 hours later has sold out of the cards, the Baneblades, the Thunderhawk, the terrain, and I think that's about it, everything else still seems to be in stock, including the starter.
The independents... Gap Games and The Combat Company are probably the largest ones and they're all sold out of everything. Some of the smaller ones still have some stuff but are sold out of bits and pieces.
I fully suspect that my FLGS, that doesn't offer a discount, will have a few boxes on release day. Based on past experience with previous GW releases, it seems like they sell a handful of preorders then get a few extra boxes on the day and they remain in stock for a while, nothing like the 10's of boxes that go through the online retailers, just a handful sold to the regulars.
Maybe this is too much of a stereotype, but it seems GW in Australia these days is mostly middle aged guys with enough excess cash that dropping a few grand on GW products isn't a big deal. I don't see much in the way of a younger audience like back when I started, or if there is they don't hang around the stores or groups I do.
Man that's opposite to my experience. Warhammer site sold out of starter sets and many of the new things within about 2 hours max. My local store is also only going to get a couple of the starter boxes in the shop and that's it.
I think different countries got different measures of allocation, but generally North America sells a much higher volume than other sections of the world, but we'll see how it all pans out. I'm hoping a lot of the stuff comes back in stock. I'd still love another baneblade kit.
have seen a few videos where people have the tile boxes on show, guessing there isn't all that much to say about them though.
picking my copy up on Saturday, as is a fried, back to another club after - taking some of my printed stuff over to move a few models around and roll a few dice
If there is another release this year it would be in stores on Dec 23rd. Apparently the new Kill Team set was listed in the xmas gifts leaflet, so perhaps that will be the final thing released for 2023.
Given that it's only three weeks since the massive opening release, I can't see anything substantial for LI coming this side of New Year. At best we might get the limited edition knight & titan bundle boxes alongside KT. More likely I think GW will wait until people are flush with xmas cash, and do another large epic-scale wave in January.
xttz wrote: The road tiles are on sale now as direct-only. I'm guessing they weren't sent out to content creators for review like the other products.
I got the tiles here, but haven't gotten around to do a review yet. Any specific questions? The box contains 6 plastic tiles in 3 different designs, no clips or attachment system.
They don't normally release anything on the days around christmas (Except made to order) so there should be nothing on the 23rd and 30th and because of the two week preorders I also wouldn't expect anything on the 6th January as that would need a preorder on the 23rd so around christmas.
So the next possible preorder date would be the 30th for release on the 13th January and that is likely to be Kill Team.
I also get the feeling that over the years GW has learned to balance Christmas out so that its less of a roadblock and more of rumble strip.
So we've seen releases of new things push closer and closer either side. They also clearly bundle up a week or two's worth of marketing to keep their online system going over that period.
stahly wrote: I got the tiles here, but haven't gotten around to do a review yet. Any specific questions? The box contains 6 plastic tiles in 3 different designs, no clips or attachment system.
How to keep them together was my main question, a bit curious about the weight as well.
stahly wrote: I got the tiles here, but haven't gotten around to do a review yet. Any specific questions? The box contains 6 plastic tiles in 3 different designs, no clips or attachment system.
How to keep them together was my main question, a bit curious about the weight as well.
They have a thickness of exactly 5mm. Don't have the Necromunda ones for reference, but I imagine it must be similar. Can't see any magnet holes.
The back is molded in circular shapes for stability. The pattern seems to be visible on the front side when unpainted, but I guess it wouldn't be noticeable when painted.
Was someone saying something about buildings being death traps because they could be brought down? Can I as if you took into account that a) only four weapon traits that I’ve seen even allow you to make damage rolls vs buildings and even when you do, they roll saves on 2d6? Because that’s a thing, apparently.
Meanwhile occupants of buildings take half hits from barrages and get the extra cover saves and CAF while getting to draw LoS from the building footprint.
Sounds like 2nd Ed Epic again, where Buildings could be destroyed, but it was hard work to do so.
Unless you walk up to it with a Warmaster Iconclast and play a very unsubtle game of Knock-Down Ginger (Ding Dong Ditch is another name). Though I don’t think that Titan has Legions rules at present?
Should be getting my boxed game on Saturday (assuming I can get my lardy carcass out my pit and flapped down to Chaos Cards for opening), so will look it up then
Mr_Rose wrote: Was someone saying something about buildings being death traps because they could be brought down? Can I as if you took into account that a) only four weapon traits that I’ve seen even allow you to make damage rolls vs buildings and even when you do, they roll saves on 2d6? Because that’s a thing, apparently.
Meanwhile occupants of buildings take half hits from barrages and get the extra cover saves and CAF while getting to draw LoS from the building footprint.
I was confused why the Warmaster had an AP -7 weapon, but 2D6 saves would certainly explain that!
has anyone seen anything about one model/stand in a detachment being a "leader"? or doesn't that matter?
(asking as basing up some models and just wondering if say a tactical detachment matters if its two squads of ten or one squad of twenty?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr_Rose wrote: Was someone saying something about buildings being death traps because they could be brought down? Can I as if you took into account that a) only four weapon traits that I’ve seen even allow you to make damage rolls vs buildings and even when you do, they roll saves on 2d6? Because that’s a thing, apparently.
Meanwhile occupants of buildings take half hits from barrages and get the extra cover saves and CAF while getting to draw LoS from the building footprint.
that was me, and its excellent to hear GW have sorted that one out
Automatically Appended Next Post: further question
assuming if a detachment gets into Rhinos, and one such Rhino goes pop "accidentally" its bad news for those inside in some way.
does it specifically matter which stands are in which rhino? or is it just "the unit takes x hits" (with/without saves?)
pondering if the old tactical markings on the top hatch matter or not?
MarkNorfolk wrote: You don’t need a leader figure for each detachment. Commander stands can join a similar detachment type.
For the Auxilia tank formations, one tank becomes a Tank Commander, but that is a ‘formation commander’ and is to help with the Chain of Command rule.
sorted, will be easy to mark one up for the SA but for marines it doesn't matter.. nice.. I do have squad sergeant models, distinct from the actual command stands was more hoping, and it seems hoping right, that four stands having a pair of sergeant models doesn't matter.. excellent
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, the markings atop Rhinos were originally there so friendly Titan Crew could tell what was moving up in support.
Which is why, being a Good Old Grumpy Grognard Git, I’ll be ensuring my Rhinos are suitably marked.
Mine likely will in reasonably short order, have some nice Damocles models to use for command rhinos currently
Ok that's what I was assuming. You can pick who dies, but you need to know who's in which Rhino for that. In a casual game you could just pull whichever Rhino and declare the contents but that doesn't feel as authentic.
Mr_Rose wrote: Was someone saying something about buildings being death traps because they could be brought down? Can I as if you took into account that a) only four weapon traits that I’ve seen even allow you to make damage rolls vs buildings and even when you do, they roll saves on 2d6? Because that’s a thing, apparently.
Meanwhile occupants of buildings take half hits from barrages and get the extra cover saves and CAF while getting to draw LoS from the building footprint.
Exactly this. Forget about those comments, it is clear that they came from people that never playd any version of Epic.
Buildings are a massive cover bonus. The useful trait here, more even than Demolisher, is Ignore Cover.
for reference, and reference only, the 2nd edition building rules are thus (reference because what matters going forward is what is written now)
Buildings cannot normally be damaged by weapon fire as they are far too large and substantial. However, they can be destroyed by barrages and also by some special weapons as described later.
When firing a barrage, position the burst template over your chosen target as normal. If the template lies of a building roll to hit as normal. Buildings are very solid - so they have an armour save as shown on the reference sheet. Saving throws for buildings are taken by rolling 2D6 rather than 1D6, as is usually the case. The extra dice reflects the size and solidity of the building. This saving throw is modified by the weapon's saving throw modifier in the same way as saving throws for vehicles.
Buildings that fail their save asre destroyed along with any troops that are inside. Remove the building model, and place rubble counters on the area to mark where it stood. Rubble can affect your troops' movement. Refer to the Terrain Chart on the playsheets for the penalties for moving over rubble.
Hence why I noted buildings were death traps, yes not everything could bring them down but a decent artillery barrage could be the death for the troops inside them, both by killing them and by collapsing the building.
but you could not collapse rubble any further
This seems to be being brought over, except that buildings now have more than one hit point and at least initially we do not have artillery
Automatically Appended Next Post: and for a bonus, I 100% agree that "ignores cover" is going to be huge
Structures that collapse are replaced with difficult terrain, which includes ruins, which cannot be destroyed further. Units garrisoned in a building that collapses get a save (at -1).
The LI version of Barrage does not damage structures, but Heavy Barrage does - and you see if you destroy the building before resolving attacks on any garrisoned detachment. In effect those guys will be attacked twice - once by the collapsing building and once by the heavy barrage that brought it down.
I'll have to play some games before seeing how 'death trappy' Structures turn out to be. I imagine that in a big enough game and appropriate weaponry, if you really wanted to bring a particular building down in a turn, you would be able to do so.
For what it’s worth, I don’t recall buildings feeling particularly death trappy in 2nd Ed. The risk was always there it’d be blown up under you, but the benefits balanced the risk.
But. I guess that’s going to depend how common stuff like Heavy Barrage turns out to be. If they’re numerous in lists, that’s naturally going to skew things.
They've summerised all the weapon profiles on the back two-and-a-half pages. There's a few 'Demolisher' weapons, a couple of 'Bunker Buster' weapons, the Heavy Barrage seems to be titan Apocalypse Missile Launchers.
Also, titans can attack a building pretty much by leaning on it.
MarkNorfolk wrote: They've summerised all the weapon profiles on the back two-and-a-half pages. There's a few 'Demolisher' weapons, a couple of 'Bunker Buster' weapons, the Heavy Barrage seems to be titan Apocalypse Missile Launchers.
Also, titans can attack a building pretty much by leaning on it.
I think this is the full list of weapons that can attack structures:
Bombing Run, Bunker Buster, Demolisher, Heavy Barrage, Heavy Beam, Wrecker
Most of these weapons mounted on vehicles have fairly low AP values, and things like demolisher cannons might struggle to bring down a target in one turn unless spammed.
The 8" Kratos melta cannon seems like the strongest anti-structure option currently not on a titan, hitting structures at AP -8 with armourbane (forces rerolls of successful saves).
By far the biggest threat to architecture is the Warmaster Iconoclast, which can punch 8 wounds off buildings at AP -7
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For what it’s worth, I don’t recall buildings feeling particularly death trappy in 2nd Ed. The risk was always there it’d be blown up under you, but the benefits balanced the risk.
But. I guess that’s going to depend how common stuff like Heavy Barrage turns out to be. If they’re numerous in lists, that’s naturally going to skew things.
I don't remember them being deathtraps in 2nd edition, either. But they were in Final Liberation, which was the video game released by SSI that was based on 2nd Ed. Epic.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For what it’s worth, I don’t recall buildings feeling particularly death trappy in 2nd Ed. The risk was always there it’d be blown up under you, but the benefits balanced the risk.
But. I guess that’s going to depend how common stuff like Heavy Barrage turns out to be. If they’re numerous in lists, that’s naturally going to skew things.
I don't remember them being deathtraps in 2nd edition, either. But they were in Final Liberation, which was the video game released by SSI that was based on 2nd Ed. Epic.
Epic 2nd ed was my prime GW I think...still got armies for it. also loved final liberation (Sanctus reach ok but not as good).
I think if I recall, with my IG army, Bombards were pretty good for hitting buildings to try bring em down. Were Eldar Wave Serpent shields also pretty good or have I imagined that....
I wonder if the old Card n Plastic 2nd ed epic buildings will work at all with LI....might be a bit small.
Me. I’m stupid. Because all these “if memory serves, if I recall correctly things” are things I can properly answer, as I have those old books under me bed.
Flinty wrote: I am now picturing HBMC poised with a tiny bag of sand in front of the GW altar, just waiting to be betrayed by Doc Ock…
You throw me the idol Rhino, I throw you the whip!
I'm not very versed in HH; I'm guessing a lot of IG specific vehicles don't exist yet? Like, SolAux will use Rhinos because Chimeras aren't a thing yet?
Flinty wrote: I am now picturing HBMC poised with a tiny bag of sand in front of the GW altar, just waiting to be betrayed by Doc Ock…
You throw me the idol Rhino, I throw you the whip!
I'm not very versed in HH; I'm guessing a lot of IG specific vehicles don't exist yet? Like, SolAux will use Rhinos because Chimeras aren't a thing yet?
Chimeras aren't really a thing, but Solar have their own unique transports these days instead of the rhino. The Arvus lighter is already available as a FW Aeronautica model, the Dracosan was recently announced, and the Aurox transport currently exists as a 28mm model but might show up in LI later.
Flinty wrote: I am now picturing HBMC poised with a tiny bag of sand in front of the GW altar, just waiting to be betrayed by Doc Ock…
You throw me the idol Rhino, I throw you the whip!
I'm not very versed in HH; I'm guessing a lot of IG specific vehicles don't exist yet? Like, SolAux will use Rhinos because Chimeras aren't a thing yet?
Chimeras aren't really a thing, but Solar have their own unique transports these days instead of the rhino. The Arvus lighter is already available as a FW Aeronautica model, the Dracosan was recently announced, and the Aurox transport currently exists as a 28mm model but might show up in LI later.
Yeah I'm hoping we see the Aurox and Carnodon for Solar Auxilia soon, it's basically the last few things that they need to have everything that's in their current 30k range.
Me, old school epic gamer that I am, would like to see the gorgon.
Obvioulsy the next things we're going to see are the fire support expansion boxes (as they're in the rulebook) as well as extra Predator, Sicaran, Leman Russ and Malcadors sets. Probably just after new year.
Should be getting my boxed game on Saturday (assuming I can get my lardy carcass out my pit and flapped down to Chaos Cards for opening), so will look it up then
Lucky you. GW deliveries on new product buggy here AGAIN. Basically weekly occurence. Looks like GW needs to go to 3 week preorders if it wants to ensure products are in stores on launch days.
Better that than clear message they won't be pickable on saturday :/
Seriously how did GW manage to go to 2 week preorder window without any real improvement on reliability when items are at stores? Do they need 3 week window to get items in time for delivery to flgs's...
Seriously how did GW manage to go to 2 week preorder window without any real improvement on reliability when items are at stores? Do they need 3 week window to get items in time for delivery to flgs's...
There was a noticable improvement for UKFLGS since the summer. There were many issues with stores not getting enough stock in time for the release weekends, including my Tyranid order in September. Not long after that they switched to the two-week window and I haven't heard of any similar (UK) issues since. I've also seen several people mention this week that they've either picked up their copy of LI or had a shipping notification for it.
It might not have worked everywhere, but it has worked somewhere.
