I think bringing BFF back epic is a great idea, setting in the 30k millennium is also fine but I think they’ve made it clear this is an extension of playing out the Horus Heresy. So no Xenos…..
I really hope that’s not how it plays out but I think that’s where is going.
mrFickle wrote: It’s called legions imperialis, I.e. legions of the imperium. I think that tells us everything.
But let me change the question, will you be disappointed if this game excludes non imperial fabctions
I think you can only be really dissappointed if you let yourself get hyped up by rumour mill nonsense that was clearly way overblown for anyone with a sense of realism (Rangda! Orks! Great Crusade era setting with Alien forces nobody ever heard of before!) - a new scale is generally automatically a much more risky venture than doing different things in an existing scale, it was pretty clear (at least to me) that they would start out by playing it safe, and that means Marines and more Marines, and then Marines on top for starters. I'm even positively surprised that we get Imperial Army in the starter box...
IMHO their title for the game and the little box with 'Epic Scale' is grounds for cautious optimism: i see it as a sign that the first edition of this game is mostly 'imperial', i.e. early-heresy and uncorrupted stuff that is usable for both loyalists and traitors, and if that is succesful enough we may get a second edition / new starter maybe titled Legions: Traitoris with demons or whatever, and if that is also succesful we may (may) get something like Legions: Xenos or Legions: Crusade or something like that in ~10 years time, for effectively 3rd edition of this. If it survives that long, that is.
Anyone who has followed the credible rumours in recent months shouldn't be surprised by how things are turning out. Launching in the 30K setting means that only 1 faction needs to be catered for. The same was true for Adeptus Titanicus, so I don't see why people would be surprised by how things have played out.
What does surprise me is that the Solar Auxilia are represented in the launch box. I thought it would be just Space Marines. Maybe we'll see Adeptus Mechanicus too.
I would love to see a full blown relaunch of Epic, being able to represent any 40K 28mm army in Epic scale, plus all those other Titans, tanks and aircraft (and monstrous creatures where applicable) which can't easily be represented in the larger scale. This requires a massive investment from GW though, so I think it's going to be some time before we see that happen. If the sales of 30K Epic disappoint then we may never see a 40K version.
I certainly hope we will see the Ad Mech. If they are doing epic scale we need to see units that we wouldn’t see in other games. The old walking cathedrals probably didn’t exist in 30k but something of that size needs to be in the game
I didn't buy into AT as a game as it was imperials only. I've zero interest in a warhammer game that doesn't have orks or orcs.
But I did buy some of the AT models for use with E40k. They are lovely models. I have a number of 'spare' armies to lend out to my group to play against my orks and happy to paint up new models for forces I'm not that interested in myself.
I'm not that excited for a 30k focused release for Epic, but I'm not that bothered. If these models do match the more modern scale that passes for 6mm warhammer & alternatives, then I'll buy plenty of the starter set and bin the rules. Orks are well covered by other companies, as is almost every other 40k race.
Epic has done fine without GW for years now, and mediocre re-release of marines & pals isn't going to change that.
(On the flip side: Had this been a full Epic 40k release, I'd have probably sold off almost every other game I own including a vast WFB collection I've been adding too over lockdowns and brought enough of the new kits to pay for the moulds myself!)
You can play any sort of epic scale game with the new models, the interwebs is full of them rules
If Epic Imperialis sells well, more "Epic Scale" branded GW games will probably follow suit
Yeah its kind of crazy just how many games/rules you can now play with a single set of Epic scale models, most of which require little no modification of a force to be completely playable.
Whilst people might be used to using 28mmminis across various games, its unusual for such a specialist scale/model line to be so usable & flexible.
I'm not a fan of the 'if we buy it, they will better support it/release more races going forward'. Its a poor way to get people to otherwise spend money on items they don't really want. But you are correct, if the game sells well enough we should see more releases going forward. I'd not be too disappointed if they added new races one at a time in campaign sets similar to this starter.
They could easily add Orks in the same way here- one set of minis split into two clans.
Yes, yes. We've all heard it before. Forge World didn't include your favorite faction so now some people are butthurt.
Well, I expect the people over at NetEpic will whip up a NetEpic:LI companion ruleset to cover whatever is missing, including all the 40k stuff as well as all the xenos stuff. Or, you and your friends could just play the current edition of NetEpic.
As for the missing models, there are plenty of people around who will 3D print them and send them to you for a "small" fee.
My concern currently is not with the game itself, it looks great, but with GW's current approach to "testing the waters".
They like to use the Horus Heresy as a testing ground. They can make half the amount of miniatures/sprues, sell twice as many miniatures, and gauge if it was successful or not before comitting to any Xenos forces. However, as it seems interest in Horus Heresy is lower than in 40K due to the lack of Xenos, I worry that this game won't reach the sales required in order for GW to commit to expanding the new "Epic Scale" rule set to 40K and Xenos.
It's a catch-22 - I see many people saying "I won't buy this as there's no Xenos", but unless people buy it GW won't bother with Xenos.
Don't really think this is a testing ground for Epic 40k (and for the naming I settle with Epic HH for now)
simple as the overall target group for HH themed games is a different one than for 40k, in addition the HH game aims for exiting players while an Epic 40k would aim at new ones
also GW would have different games for different themes, so EpicHH and Epic40k using the same rules as base would be unique
if you want Xenos you need to make sure this is going to sell out is a bold statement, specially as GW themselves never said that
But if GW brings back Mortheim next year this I will give credit for it being true (as if you want Mortheim back, buy Cursed City to show GW that we want that game instead)
Overall by now I am not really hyped, this might change with the price and the rules, but just from the box it feels like missing halve the content for an Epic game or at least 2 sprues of transports or terrain
so if the box is cheaper than expected this is less of a problem, also if the rules are good because it will be worth buying the box for the book
yet buying the box for the usual core box price with a rulebook you won't using and half the minis missing (not only the amount but the type) is not something I look forward to
mrFickle wrote: It’s called legions imperialis, I.e. legions of the imperium. I think that tells us everything.
But let me change the question, will you be disappointed if this game excludes non imperial fabctions
Epic was originally called Space Marine.
They’re following the established origin story for Epic. Make it a civil war to kick off, so you don’t have to worry about making too much of an investment. When it takes off, more can be added. Even if it’s a second version for 40K, and not simply adding Xenos, most of which had been thoroughly rekt by the Crusade or their own god birthing whoops-a-doodle, to the Heresy setting, that’s a job for the future.
It not being likely to be done in next couple of years doesn’t make it never going to happen.
But let me change the question, will you be disappointed if this game excludes non imperial fabctions
Nope.
beast_gts wrote: The rumour is that AI Xenos sales are so low they decided to just go Imperials for the Epic relaunch.
lol, whered you see/hear that?? I posted something to that effect on saturday I think, but it was meant as a tongue in cheek joke, not an actual rumor lol.
(On the flip side: Had this been a full Epic 40k release, I'd have probably sold off almost every other game I own including a vast WFB collection I've been adding too over lockdowns and brought enough of the new kits to pay for the moulds myself!)
Probably why they went the route they did. They don't mind cannibalizing their 30k/HH sales, cannibalizing their 40k sales is a no-go.
beast_gts wrote: The rumour is that AI Xenos sales are so low they decided to just go Imperials for the Epic relaunch.
lol, whered you see/hear that?? I posted something to that effect on saturday I think, but it was meant as a tongue in cheek joke, not an actual rumor lol.
It's just one of these self-perpetuating internet wisdoms. We know almost nothing about GWs sales, outside of a very few anecdotes that come straight from the horses mouth and have been mentioned now and then, but are in the most cases also severely dated (stuff like the initial sales of LotR coming close to Space Marines, or like the SM Tactical Squad box outselling entire lines of Warhammer Fantasy etc.). The more detailled such folk wisdom is said to be, the more you can bet on it having no factual basis whatsoever.
beast_gts wrote: The rumour is that AI Xenos sales are so low they decided to just go Imperials for the Epic relaunch.
Yea ok, that is purly GW`s own fault by making a game that is worse then the orginal FW AI from 07, so blaming the buyers for having a good sense of judgment and not buying a bad product, as a reason for not placing epic in 40k where it belongs!, is REALY low.
This is an automatic pass for me aslong as all xeno factions are NOT confirmed to be added from GW in plastics. 30k that is what AT is for!
But still not superior to what Grimdark Terrain already put out there...
Well, now I am disappointed.
Judging by the contents of the box, and the comments about rules, it seems 99% based on 1st/2nd edition. By far the least appropiate rules for big battles at this scale. Nothing from 3rd of 4th edition.
Yes I didn’t realise that AI was a game set in 30k and that the models would be part LI. This give me hope for Xenos on an epic scale
It wasn't, AI was firmly a 40k game until last year, when they launched the AI: The Horus Heresy expansion.
Saying that, when they introduced Marines into the game (very late, only two years ago) it was obvious to most that they were going to be tying it into The Horus Heresy. From the choice of aircraft to the amount of kits and detail that went into them, compared to Eldar which came out at the same time, and received only two very basic kits (with further craft being Forge World resin). It was unsurprising when they released The Horus Heresy expansion, and with the effort that went into the Marine kits the rumor was that they were all eventually intended to be used in Titanicus/Epic.
Absolutely not, as a new official game means new players getting into the game and playing Epic. Honestly, I thought it was a travesty that the scale was unsupported officially for so long, so I'm glad GW have finally decided to re-release it.
I'll waive any other concerns until I have had an evening reading the rulebook and played a game. Absolutely worst case scenario (horribly over priced and the rules are a car-crash) it should at least bring in some new players into the Epic community, who otherwise might not have. Best case scenario, it takes its rightful place on the throne, and drives all other games before it
Like most people here, I wanted Epic to come back, complete with all the original Xenos and Heretic factions.
However, that seems unlikely to happen. GW know that the HH setting is one that has a very loyal fan base, and is a setting for those who want a bit more in their games. That and it means one set of models can work as both traitor and loyalist. The setting of HH, is also one that facilities big battlè between huge forces (with Titans, Tank companies, fleets of aircraft, etc) very well. So, it was only natural that GW release Epic in the HH setting.
What is going to be interesting to see, is how the release of HH Epic impacts on both AI and AT. I suspect those games will be allowed to fade away, while the parts that work in HH Epic get moved over to their new home.
That said, it might be time for me to buy that Ork fleet I've always wanted, before they disappear.
If they kept to the design principles of old Epic, they could have done the whole 40k range within the production investment they spent on just Marines and Solar. But they chose to do embiggened, fully detailed, multi part tanks instead... they probably even have undersides. A Legions Rhino probably takes more sprue space than 10 Epic Rhinos did. And so we can't have xenos.
I have always wanted to try out Epic, but at the same time I find HH to be the most boring setting in wh40k (Space Marine mirror matches forever is a nightmarish idea for a game IMO).
I appreciate that GW doesn't give us Marines vs Marines in the starter, but the product still holds no appeal to me in its current form.
Yes it would be nice to have proper proper Epic returning. But whilst I still have Hope, my long years of life have taught me to embrace the moment.
Epic is back. That’s the important thing. And like a bairn or a plant? It will need our help and support if we want to see it grow into something worthwhile.
It will be nice to have more people willing to play the scale, though, even if only with Imperial factions. Once they have the minis, it should be relatively easy to convince them to play the other versions.
Jepp, if anything this release has firmly semented 6mm epic in its place. You lure them in with a demo game of this thing, and if inntrest still remains then show them the REAL epic.
Only challenge from now is to make 6mm print 40k, that looks like 40k whitout getting striked down.
It will be nice to have more people willing to play the scale, though, even if only with Imperial factions. Once they have the minis, it should be relatively easy to convince them to play the other versions.
That'd be me. I'm down for playing any flavour of Epic, as long as I can use my 2023 GW minis for representing my army on the tabletop
It will be nice to have more people willing to play the scale, though, even if only with Imperial factions. Once they have the minis, it should be relatively easy to convince them to play the other versions.
This is my feeling about it too.
On a side note, it will also be nice to be able to support my local gaming store too with some purchases. One of the problems with a community supported game is that generally you're buying miniatures from small online companies and garage casters, and you don't tend to get those minis for sale in shops.
It will be nice to have more people willing to play the scale, though, even if only with Imperial factions. Once they have the minis, it should be relatively easy to convince them to play the other versions.
This is my feeling about it too.
On a side note, it will also be nice to be able to support my local gaming store too with some purchases. One of the problems with a community supported game is that generally you're buying miniatures from small online companies and garage casters, and you don't tend to get those minis for sale in shops.
Yeah, here's hoping the prices are not pants-on-head crazy. The prices when Epic went to Specialist Games with E:A killed it overnight here in Spain. They almost tripled.
On the price, it will of course be best judged not just on “how much for a box, Bob” but also “and how many such boxes would I need for a reasonably sized army”.
Because we all know most, if not outright all game systems, have a definite minimum game size.
Epic30k is alive and well, but not at all disappointed we get plastic support as well in addition to printing.
We can use the models with either ruleset. The hidden orders thing i LI makes me think they cherry picked from previous editions, myself preferring EA en EpicAU I will be giving it a few tries but can always switch back.
Hoping for narrative scenario and campaign content. Isstvan etc
Happy to see Solar in there! Here's hoping for plastic Mechanicum too (in both 8/32mm).
We'll see the price I guess, people without printers are also going to have to buy a box of Rhinos and Land Raiders which lifts up the price for a functional starter. Download the stl files now is my tip.
I want mk II/III/V and not VI and the 3rd party sculpts are good for III and V so that doesnt put me off but I might trade much of the marine half.
It will be nice to have more people willing to play the scale, though, even if only with Imperial factions. Once they have the minis, it should be relatively easy to convince them to play the other versions.
How do new players get into epic? How can I buy new minis for it?
They would either find some existing players, or gather some likeminded friends and start collecting. Rules and army lists are available freely on netEA or epicUK.
Minis can be found in several ways, fpr example:
Ebay, vanguard miniatures, scourge scenics, onslaught miniatures, micro world games, or with stls and a 3dprinter
beast_gts wrote: The rumour is that AI Xenos sales are so low they decided to just go Imperials for the Epic relaunch
It's not a rumor, xeno planes never managed to sell out once ever. But then again, almost no xeno release ever does, most languishing on the shelves for months if not years and only going away after if goes OoP, go figure
mrFickle wrote: The old walking cathedrals probably didn’t exist in 30k
They very much did:
Gitdakka wrote: vanguard miniatures, scourge scenics, onslaught miniatures, micro world games
I like how 3/4 of these are at least trying something new/do their own minis, and then you have scourge who are usual worthless parasites stealing GW designs, doing lazy copy low detail paste, and then charging massive premium for it making FW profit % look cheap. No thanks
Gitdakka wrote: They would either find some existing players, or gather some likeminded friends and start collecting. Rules and army lists are available freely on netEA or epicUK.
Minis can be found in several ways, fpr example:
Ebay, vanguard miniatures, scourge scenics, onslaught miniatures, micro world games, or with stls and a 3dprinter
Yup. Kinda like what you do with any game not GW, particularly historicals.
SgtEeveell wrote: Don't the Titans date clear back to the Dark Ages of Technology? The tech certainly does, even if some of the actual units aren't quite that old.
The Age of Strife is when Mars started producing Titans. They likely used older technology possibly from the Dark Ages to do so, but that was when the Collegia Titanica officially started.
It will be nice to have more people willing to play the scale, though, even if only with Imperial factions. Once they have the minis, it should be relatively easy to convince them to play the other versions.
How do new players get into epic? How can I buy new minis for it?
SgtEeveell wrote: Don't the Titans date clear back to the Dark Ages of Technology? The tech certainly does, even if some of the actual units aren't quite that old.
The Age of Strife is when Mars started producing Titans. They likely used older technology possibly from the Dark Ages to do so, but that was when the Collegia Titanica officially started.
There's this one horrible Grey Knight book where they meet the STC ur-father of all titans, much more powerful than an Imperator, who is also a sentient AI and possessed by Daemons, that promptly never gets mentioned again because it's an incredibly dumb concept that goes against established background
There's this one horrible Grey Knight book where they meet the STC ur-father of all titans, much more powerful than an Imperator, who is also a sentient AI and possessed by Daemons, that promptly never gets mentioned again because it's an incredibly dumb concept that goes against established background
I vaguely recall (was more than a decade ago) reading that Grey Knights omnibus, and while it definitely has some questionable lore choices and is not within the upper tier of Black Library by any means, it was actually partially responsible for getting me back into consuming 40k lore via novels after a long hiatus funnily enough!
Anyone who thinks GW actually cares about non marine armies is dragging out the inevitable.
HH is showing them that they can in fact get away with just marine on marine games. So why would they care about putting any more effort into non marine armies.
There's this one horrible Grey Knight book where they meet the STC ur-father of all titans, much more powerful than an Imperator, who is also a sentient AI and possessed by Daemons, that promptly never gets mentioned again because it's an incredibly dumb concept that goes against established background
I vaguely recall (was more than a decade ago) reading that Grey Knights omnibus, and while it definitely has some questionable lore choices and is not within the upper tier of Black Library by any means, it was actually partially responsible for getting me back into consuming 40k lore via novels after a long hiatus funnily enough!
Oh, i know that feeling, sometimes you just need some over-the-top, pro-wrestling style absurd bolter porn, and most of BL hits that itch. It was the Deathwatch novels for me
Anyone who thinks GW actually cares about non marine armies is dragging out the inevitable.
HH is showing them that they can in fact get away with just marine on marine games. So why would they care about putting any more effort into non marine armies.
By marine on marine you mean Imperium on Imperium? because there already are Solar Auxilia + Knights + Titans + problably Mechanicus in the future.
Anyone who thinks GW actually cares about non marine armies is dragging out the inevitable.
HH is showing them that they can in fact get away with just marine on marine games. So why would they care about putting any more effort into non marine armies.
By marine on marine you mean Imperium on Imperium? because there already are Solar Auxilia + Knights + Titans + problably Mechanicus in the future.
The core of the game is still built around Marine VS Marine. But yes Marine and Imperial often go hand in hand. Even if they have very different designs its still the "humanity" factions. So its still locking out all Xenos and even warped Chaos monsters/beasts. Although considering HH has a few of those here and there in FW models; there's a hope that the new Epic will at least get demons
Am I happy that a Epic scale game has been released?
- Yes
Did I think it would be set in the Horus Heresy?
- Yes, especially with all the rumours etc.
Are you disappointed it wasn't set in 40k.
- Yes
Are you angry/upset that it is set in the Horus Heresy?
- No
Any further comments?
-I am happy that Epic was released. I don't mind that is set in the Horus Heresy, but I would have preferred that it was set in 40k. I fear that it won't change to the 40k era, and that could hurt its long term lifespan.
SU-152 wrote: By marine on marine you mean Imperium on Imperium? because there already are Solar Auxilia + Knights + Titans + problably Mechanicus in the future.
Don’t forget that Legions Imperialis already has Custodes too, by way of the Ares Gunship from AI, for which the rules are in the core book at launch.
SgtEeveell wrote: Don't the Titans date clear back to the Dark Ages of Technology? The tech certainly does, even if some of the actual units aren't quite that old.
The Age of Strife is when Mars started producing Titans. They likely used older technology possibly from the Dark Ages to do so, but that was when the Collegia Titanica officially started.
There's this one horrible Grey Knight book where they meet the STC ur-father of all titans, much more powerful than an Imperator, who is also a sentient AI and possessed by Daemons, that promptly never gets mentioned again because it's an incredibly dumb concept that goes against established background
Dark Adeptus by Ben Counter. I greatly enjoyed the book actually. It never gets mentioned again because it's a big galaxy, and like most black library novels the events discussed don't matter and have no significance to the wider setting.
beast_gts wrote: The rumour is that AI Xenos sales are so low they decided to just go Imperials for the Epic relaunch
It's not a rumor, xeno planes never managed to sell out once ever. But then again, almost no xeno release ever does, most languishing on the shelves for months if not years and only going away after if goes OoP, go figure
If the only plastics Xenos had access to were the same as came in the starter boxes, it's not surprising they didn't shift the extra boxes. The rest of the range was Forge World.
Which leads to the prices. The Imperial ground defenses were 1/3 the price of the Xenos versions, because they were plastic, and came with twice as many pieces.
SgtEeveell wrote: Don't the Titans date clear back to the Dark Ages of Technology? The tech certainly does, even if some of the actual units aren't quite that old.
The Age of Strife is when Mars started producing Titans. They likely used older technology possibly from the Dark Ages to do so, but that was when the Collegia Titanica officially started.
There's this one horrible Grey Knight book where they meet the STC ur-father of all titans, much more powerful than an Imperator, who is also a sentient AI and possessed by Daemons, that promptly never gets mentioned again because it's an incredibly dumb concept that goes against established background
Dark Adeptus by Ben Counter. I greatly enjoyed the book actually. It never gets mentioned again because it's a big galaxy, and like most black library novels the events discussed don't matter and have no significance to the wider setting.
I enjoyed it as well. The superduper STC is a bit wacky, sure, but the book is otherwise a very enjoyable take on a Dark Mech planet and Mechanicus personnel in general. Even the depicted Grey Knights manage to occasionally come across as professional soldiers with a conviction rather than pure bolter porn for its own sake.
With all this new talk about scale and comparing new and old, I was feeling left out. So, I grabbed some of my stuff and took some pictures. I edited them to make the Knight look as close to the same as possible in every picture.
• The first row is a 40k Knight with a 40k Baneblade, an AT Knight with a FW Epic Baneblade, and an AI Knight with a GW metal Baneblade.
• The second row is a 40k Knight with a 40k Land Raider and an AT Knight with a GW metal Land Raider.
• The third row is an AT Knight with a FW Epic Russ and an AI Knight with a GW metal Russ.
• The last row is a a 40k Knight with a 40k Vindicator and an AT Knight with a GW metal Vindicator.
We'll have to see how the new models look, but this should give you some sense of how the old models compare to the AT scale stuff.
beast_gts wrote: The rumour is that AI Xenos sales are so low they decided to just go Imperials for the Epic relaunch
It's not a rumor, xeno planes never managed to sell out once ever. But then again, almost no xeno release ever does, most languishing on the shelves for months if not years and only going away after if goes OoP, go figure
If the only plastics Xenos had access to were the same as came in the starter boxes, it's not surprising they didn't shift the extra boxes. The rest of the range was Forge World.
Which leads to the prices. The Imperial ground defenses were 1/3 the price of the Xenos versions, because they were plastic, and came with twice as many pieces.
Exactly. GW set so many roadblocks in the way of any xenos faction ever being successful, it's no wonder people don't buy them.
I bought a small eldar fleet for AI shortly after they released the two plastic kits, I'd have loved to expand it with more (and more exciting) units, but all the other releases were forgeworld and were outrageously expensive. £34 for two tiny bits of resin? £37 for one single, slightly larger bit of resin?
I can't even imagine being a Necron player in AI... and Drukhari never even got a single plane!
I think the interesting thing for me is that none of those minis actually look 'wrong' in terms of scale, and you could get away with using any of it.
The only time I have had a problem with scale (and this goes for any wargame, not just Epic) is when you have some things that are meant to be the same, but are in different scale, alongside each other. I had some printed Rhinos for example which were almost double the size of the tiny GW originals. Next to each other on the tabletop they looked out of place.
But, I think it's a sliding scale (also very subjective), and for factions like Orks or Chaos for example I think you have a lot more room for manoeuvre with scale ranges.
If I get into it I'll simply wait for someone to measure the new plastic models and I'll size my prints to that while aggressively expanding my Ignore list with anyone going full mental about the numerical scale of it.
Anyone who thinks GW actually cares about non marine armies is dragging out the inevitable.
HH is showing them that they can in fact get away with just marine on marine games. So why would they care about putting any more effort into non marine armies.
^^^^ This guy gets it.
We may return to the Kirby-era style GW sooner than I would expect!
Well you have to hope that, even if surrounded by bean counters, there are still a core of designers and creatives within the company who want to create things other than large shoulder pads.
Pacific wrote: Well you have to hope that, even if surrounded by bean counters, there are still a core of designers and creatives within the company who want to create things other than large shoulder pads.
I think they are all hiding in the Age of Sigmar design studio - possibly even just in the Warcry department!
Disappointed by the scale increase, base size increase, battlefield size decrease. That combined with questionable movement speeds (aircraft vs infantry for example) and 2nd ed based rules means it isn't going to be a wargame like 4th ed, but more a game in the vein of GW's other stuff.
To be fair GW games can be played on tables of any size - GW has been pushing for smaller but that's mostly cause its just what randomly fits in their boxes rather than any intentional balanced aspect.
I think the size increase honestly works well, we get far more detail on the models, but it is an utter pain for old collections
You will be amazed though Overhead by how many people will do *exactly* what they are told with the rules - someone in an FB group was bemoaning that they were now going to have to cut a foot of length off their custom gaming board for the new game. I would guess they are re-basing everything onto circular bases too. It infuriates me
My main worry (and I will reserve judgement until I have rulebook in hand and played a few games) is that GW are targeting experienced wargamers with loads of time on their hands, rather than more casual hobbyists and players. From what we have seen the rules already look vastly more complex than SM 2nd edition, and I have always thought that part of the reason that older game did so well, and lasted so long, was that it captured the essence of mass, epic scale warfare without getting bogged down with too much granular detail. I know this probably isn't a popular opinion on here as lots of people do love that level of detail, but my concern is that it, like Necromunda, will be "a game for us, not for them" and the long term sales and popularity of the game will suffer as a result.
Oh true I've seen and heard all of the crazy "I must cut my table up" people and such. I also "tend" to notice it seems to be a little bit more of a USA thing than a UK thing, but that could just be selective bias (or just the sheer number of people in the USA).
I would agree that it seems to be more of an American gamer thing, anecdotally I haven't seen UK gamers react the same way to that sort of thing. When 9th ed 40k came out it was like a 1984 "we've always been at war with Eastasia" type moment, overnight a number of people I knew were posting tips to get clean cuts on their 6x4 mousepad mats, etc. The more sensible folks just laid down tape (more or less permanently it seems) on their playmats to demarcate the new table sizes. Totally silly.
Disappointed? Nah, rather the opposite. I am on the hype train. After waiting twenty years there is again the opportunity to play the game I fell in love during the 90s. And this time I won´t sell it.
Looking forward to paint my mini marines and also contemplating of doing a second Legion which would be too costly doing in HH 2.0.
Overread wrote: To be fair GW games can be played on tables of any size - GW has been pushing for smaller but that's mostly cause its just what randomly fits in their boxes rather than any intentional balanced aspect.
I think the size increase honestly works well, we get far more detail on the models, but it is an utter pain for old collections
They can - but its a wargaming thing rather than a gaming thing. Bigger tables affects manoeuvre and coverage. Just like bigger bases does.
I should add armies are also a lot bigger than 3rd/4th edition in terms of units in their recommended army sizes.
While obviously none of this matters, it does matter in one area, which is playtesting. Which leads to balance. Balance tends to be done in fixed formats. Play 40k on a 10x6 table and you will have a different experience with your guard artillery army to one on a small table.
Pacific wrote: My main worry (and I will reserve judgement until I have rulebook in hand and played a few games) is that GW are targeting experienced wargamers with loads of time on their hands, rather than more casual hobbyists and players. From what we have seen the rules already look vastly more complex than SM 2nd edition, and I have always thought that part of the reason that older game did so well, and lasted so long, was that it captured the essence of mass, epic scale warfare without getting bogged down with too much granular detail. I know this probably isn't a popular opinion on here as lots of people do love that level of detail, but my concern is that it, like Necromunda, will be "a game for us, not for them" and the long term sales and popularity of the game will suffer as a result.
Yes it is odd. On one hand they are going back to 2nd ed, but then adding 1st ed like levels of detail, with tanks having multiple lines of weapons, weapons getting multiple universal keywords (funny arguments on facebook between people who say I love keywords and those that prefer stats written on the card in front of them). I get going for a more GW game style of play to match the expectations of many of their players rather than the more wargame approach of 4th ed, and I know GW believe their players like chrome to feel it is a proper game (they are probably right), but this does feel oddly complicated, which is worrying as GW tend to use complication as a substitute for complexity in their less tactical game systems. 2nd ed was fun when I was a kid, but playing it again recently reminded me I quite like the manoeuvre of 4th ed rather than the somewhat linear grinding into each other of big armies in 2nd.
I definitely think each version has it's strengths. The mega-game we ran earlier in the year for about 20k pts was only possible with 2nd edition rules, because it was so quick to teach people to play as a participation game, and also we managed to get through about 4 turns in the course of an afternoon.
This game looks like it may be adding too much complication, but if they are using 2nd edition mechanics it won't have the tactical nuance of something like Armageddon. So actually the worst of both worlds.. and then they have removed Titan hit charts and damage tables, replacing it will a dull wounds counter, which was literally the one piece of 2nd edition that I don't think I ever heard anyone saying a bad word about in all of the years I played the game.
Liked this on one of the FB pages.. I know there are gamers like this that exist, and I salute them!
Pacific wrote: This game looks like it may be adding too much complication, but if they are using 2nd edition mechanics it won't have the tactical nuance of something like Armageddon. So actually the worst of both worlds.. and then they have removed Titan hit charts and damage tables, replacing it will a dull wounds counter, which was literally the one piece of 2nd edition that I don't think I ever heard anyone saying a bad word about in all of the years I played the game.
One of the rules writers hated getting their Warlord shot in the reactor all the time?
Lets see. I believe weapon points would have made sense for Titans, if nothing else.
Btw the internal points cost spread of Titans looks a bit interesting. 385p for a Direwolf w essentially one anti shield system and one longer ranged big weapon vs 600p for a Warlord with 3 powerful systems, not to mention a lot more Void Shields looks strange. Hopefully the Warlord gets limited in ay construction somehow, as a Warlord can be taken in a 2000p game (<30%) with that low cost.
Dredging up memories, I seem to recall that most tanks and models had zero weapon options, I think the most was an option for a demolisher cannon on the leman russ tanks. Even then it might have been "1 per unit of X" rather than spare turrets.
So I can well see that even with slightly larger tank kits we might have limited to no weapon variations for many kits. So it will make sense that there might not be granular weapon prices because a different weapon unit will be a different named model.
Titans I can see benefitting from point costs for weapons because they do come with a good variety of weapons and they are going to change the performance of a titan.
westiebestie wrote: Lets see. I believe weapon points would have made sense for Titans, if nothing else.
Btw the internal points cost spread of Titans looks a bit interesting. 385p for a Direwolf w essentially one anti shield system and one longer ranged big weapon vs 600p for a Warlord with 3 powerful systems, not to mention a lot more Void Shields looks strange. Hopefully the Warlord gets limited in ay construction somehow, as a Warlord can be taken in a 2000p game (<30%) with that low cost.
We dont power game, but some do.
That's the thing, even without internal cost differences for weapons loadout, the point costs from unit to unit do matter, and they seem a bit weird between the dire wolf and the warlord.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: shh, don't let facts get in the way of the points granularity crusade some members of the community have been on since 40k 10th dropp
To add granularity without accounting/costing for it doesn't help.
2nd edition/Titan Legions just had a set points cost per Titan. This meant that you heard stories of people gaming it and giving 4 quake canons on a Warlord and flattening all buildings on turn 1, but I have to be honest I didn't ever see that in practice.
Interestingly, for the community-produced version of 2nd edition (NetEpic) they did introduce points values for Titans and weapons combinations - which I think says a lot.
I seem to remember the favoured weapon load out being 2 barrage missile launchers, a deathstrike centreline cannon, 2 carapace multilasers, the funny boots, the biggest plasma cannon thingy that could fire once every 2 turns and another weapons I can't remember.
Regardless you can either balance things against each other, or cost them and try and balance them against all the other pointed options and units. Weapon balance is normally considered a bit easier, but both have min maxing.
One of titanicus's problems is that they didn't leave much room to cost weapons properly, not to mention not all weapons were/are perfectly conceived. It gets ever more apparent when you get down to knight weapons, because they're using integers of 5, it becomes ever more difficult to really nail a point cost that seems right at that level. The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan. Even with individual unit costs you can see that with titans like the warhound, the most common loadout is plasma blastgun/vulcan megabolter because its just the best performing overall combination. Why people are convinced that won't happen with the warlord or other titans when one doesn't even have to pay individual weapons costs is beyond me.
Crablezworth wrote: The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan.
I'd be surprised if Legions doesn't have Legios and Houses as their own factions. If not in the core book then surely in a later supplement.
Crablezworth wrote: The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan.
I'd be surprised if Legions doesn't have Legios and Houses as their own factions. If not in the core book then surely in a later supplement.
I actually think that is my main disappointment with the game. That it has adopted the current "churn books all DLC like" way of doing business that is current GW and has driven me all the feth away from Necromunda.
Yes, Necromunda is yet another GW game where one needs to spend a rather considerable amount of pennies just to get a damn game going, let alone keep up with the Joneses. Went with Stargrave instead.
Crablezworth wrote: One of titanicus's problems is that they didn't leave much room to cost weapons properly, not to mention not all weapons were/are perfectly conceived. It gets ever more apparent when you get down to knight weapons, because they're using integers of 5, it becomes ever more difficult to really nail a point cost that seems right at that level. The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan. Even with individual unit costs you can see that with titans like the warhound, the most common loadout is plasma blastgun/vulcan megabolter because its just the best performing overall combination. Why people are convinced that won't happen with the warlord or other titans when one doesn't even have to pay individual weapons costs is beyond me.
Agreed.
Weapon costs for Titans would have made sense.
I do hope many players will play Epic30k in a narrative/rule of cool way though so we will see a plethora of loadouts when playing that type of opponent.
Crablezworth wrote: The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan.
I'd be surprised if Legions doesn't have Legios and Houses as their own factions. If not in the core book then surely in a later supplement.
I actually think that is my main disappointment with the game. That it has adopted the current "churn books all DLC like" way of doing business that is current GW and has driven me all the feth away from Necromunda.
Yeah that business model scares me away from Necro too.
Shame they seem to be going non full army lists DLC approach with LI. However once we have the full Solar/Astartes expansions, all else should be optional. Like ZM for HH.
But, I'll probably buy Isstvan V/Siege of Terra campaigns books for LI too by choice.
Crablezworth wrote: The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan.
I'd be surprised if Legions doesn't have Legios and Houses as their own factions. If not in the core book then surely in a later supplement.
I actually think that is my main disappointment with the game. That it has adopted the current "churn books all DLC like" way of doing business that is current GW and has driven me all the feth away from Necromunda.
Necromunda is a real weird one, so many great models, such fantastic terrain, but for some reason its impenetrable because it basically throws any attempt at matched play out the window and the odds of actually starting a campaign let a lone finishing one is pretty much non-existent, at least in my case. But there should at least be a book/supplement with all the gang army lists and wargear and some straight forward scenarios. I think it's a core problem for gw and the player base, when these things like kill team used to spin off from 40k, they weren't meant initially to be revenue streams, they were simple little mods you could learn and play very quickly because they were mostly edits and formats of larger rulesets which was very efficient. When you look at kill team or necromunda now, the amount of books is a bad joke. A massive red flag. At least for AT, the core game is actually mostly contained in the rulebook and a lot of the expansions simply add more factions/historical missions. I hope LI takes that route as its easy to ignore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SamusDrake wrote: Yes, Necromunda is yet another GW game where one needs to spend a rather considerable amount of pennies just to get a damn game going, let alone keep up with the Joneses. Went with Stargrave instead.
Yeah I still don't understand how GW can see the wisdom in a matched play book for AT but not one for necromunda. So many great models for that game too.
Crablezworth wrote: One of titanicus's problems is that they didn't leave much room to cost weapons properly, not to mention not all weapons were/are perfectly conceived. It gets ever more apparent when you get down to knight weapons, because they're using integers of 5, it becomes ever more difficult to really nail a point cost that seems right at that level. The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan. Even with individual unit costs you can see that with titans like the warhound, the most common loadout is plasma blastgun/vulcan megabolter because its just the best performing overall combination. Why people are convinced that won't happen with the warlord or other titans when one doesn't even have to pay individual weapons costs is beyond me.
Agreed.
Weapon costs for Titans would have made sense.
I do hope many players will play Epic30k in a narrative/rule of cool way though so we will see a plethora of loadouts when playing that type of opponent.
Crablezworth wrote: The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan.
I'd be surprised if Legions doesn't have Legios and Houses as their own factions. If not in the core book then surely in a later supplement.
I actually think that is my main disappointment with the game. That it has adopted the current "churn books all DLC like" way of doing business that is current GW and has driven me all the feth away from Necromunda.
Yeah that business model scares me away from Necro too.
Shame they seem to be going non full army lists DLC approach with LI. However once we have the full Solar/Astartes expansions, all else should be optional. Like ZM for HH.
But, I'll probably buy Isstvan V/Siege of Terra campaigns books for LI too by choice.
I think rule of cool will subjective as always. I don't mind a or b options like the new basilisk medusa kit they previewed, but the titans I feel will probably tend towards certain builds.
My initial concerns with even just marines and solar aux is legion rules on the marine side, I also sorta don't want to have that one more factor, because again I don't have a lot of trust in there not being just objectively better legion rules for some factions over others. I also sorta don't want to see that expand into titan legion rules, as personally those are some of the most mixed aspects of titanicus. Sorta one layer too much on the cake. Part of that too is not really knowing how tight or loose the army construction will ultimately be even with the 70/30. I really do want the game to sorta force people into combined arms regardless of the ratios of unit type to unit type, what I don't want, and what I fear is possible is really big skew lists that are all tank or all plane ect. Because rules are so easy to ignore with a gentleman's agreement to try, for example all titan/knights, I'm glad the 70/30 thing at least exists or the game would be quite silly from the out set IMO.
I think if Legions didn't offer a solid alternative for Knight House forces then I'm not sure my heart would be in it.
Their implementation in AT is frustrating to say the least. Epic would be an ideal system for them, as they're at least vulnerable to smaller arms fire and can give as good back, and having the Armigers to effectively act as their troops. Otherwise what other game can they possibly feel right at home in? Too fragile for Titanicus and too few and powerful in 40K / 30K. Too big for Kill Team...
If we're not getting Xenos then the least they can do is a good job with what few factions they do have in the Heresy era.
SamusDrake wrote: I think if Legions didn't offer a solid alternative for Knight House forces then I'm not sure my heart would be in it.
Their implementation in AT is frustrating to say the least. Epic would be an ideal system for them, as they're at least vulnerable to smaller arms fire and can give as good back, and having the Armigers to effectively act as their troops. Otherwise what other game can they possibly feel right at home in? Too fragile for Titanicus and too few and powerful in 40K / 30K. Too big for Kill Team...
If we're not getting Xenos then the least they can do is a good job with what few factions they do have in the Heresy era.
Just how I feel about it, mind.
Personally an entire knight faction is just boring in AT and LI seems like its for combined arms. Awful ever since their inception in 40k (3 unit army? oof!). I agree they're shoehorned into AT, A problem with 40k was stuff like greynights/custodes/knights/inq really pooped the bed when they went from really cool allied unit to having their own faction. I think it's equally silly to insist on all tank or all plane armies imo. Knight household vs knight household might be ok in LI/AT but sound sorta meh.
Knights began in Epic and belong to Epic. Pure knight armies tend to struggle, but they're cool when you bring companies of their household infantry, AA batteries, planes and the rest of it along.
Sherrypie wrote: Knights began in Epic and belong to Epic. Pure knight armies tend to struggle, but they're cool when you bring companies of their household infantry, AA batteries, planes and the rest of it along.
That I'm fine with, knight households with actual support elements and skitarii. I just dislike knight only armies, if they were more varied in unit types they'd be a lot more palatable in 40k.
Without going too much into 40K / 30K, the Armigers are what I like best about the Knights as they're just numerous enough to work in medium games and it would be a rare player who objects to them.
That said, GW hasn't figured smaller games into the equation( 500 points ), for a smaller unit would work wonders. Essentially we're back to the 3-unit problem again. The Paragon warsuit, or Bretonnian-like soliders(with lasguns or something) are what I'd recommend. Also, in the case of Imperial Knights only, the Armigers need far more variety in weapons to at least make games more interesting.
What really annoys me about GW is that they will not consider a once-in-an-edition supplement for solo play, as the Chaos Knights - along with Tyranids - excel in this style of play. I won't go into how we came up with our homemade system for this, as that would be a topic for another day...
Sherrypie wrote: Knights began in Epic and belong to Epic. Pure knight armies tend to struggle, but they're cool when you bring companies of their household infantry, AA batteries, planes and the rest of it along.
Agreed.
Lets see if they can be the main 70% in LI on the future with about 30% support. Other way around currently which means pretty few of them, but promotes combined arms with lots of Infantry and support, which probably puts them in a way better place than Knight only.
Meanwhile Knight only or Knight main is possible in the current Epic30k.
Sherrypie wrote: Knights began in Epic and belong to Epic. Pure knight armies tend to struggle, but they're cool when you bring companies of their household infantry, AA batteries, planes and the rest of it along.
Agreed.
Lets see if they can be the main 70% in LI on the future with about 30% support. Other way around currently which means pretty few of them, but promotes combined arms with lots of Infantry and support, which probably puts them in a way better place than Knight only.
Meanwhile Knight only or Knight main is possible in the current Epic30k.
I believe it's possible in 30k as well, equally as ugh IMO. As part of a mechanicum force sure, but sadly 30k knights don't really have a fleshed out army with support elements so its just knights/armigers again like in 40k.
In the old Titan Legions there were loads of different kinks of Knight and Titan - the Imperial side could certainly have done a whole army of nothing but. Sure it would have had some gaps, but even back then it could be done.
30K and 40K Knights suffer more because each one is so expensive that unless its a huge points game beyond normal, you can't get enough specialist knight/titans into play before you run out of points.
But yeah I can see people running knight/titan only armies in the new Epic. Heck its a great way to get your AT collection all on the table at once! Esp before you've bought and collected loads of troops and tanks and such.
Which is probably why the rules don't support it, at least not up-front. They want to make sure theres no free-riders on launch and the folks with knights and titans have to go out and buy infantry and tanks.
Just looking at the amount of special rules/traits for the different weapons systems and loadouts on the Avenger sheet, - 9 different traits for a single unit. I have said it before and I will say it again now, I am *not* going to be able to sell this game to casuals. This makes the weapon loadout & lookups for something like a battleship in Victory at Sea look like utterly simple by comparison.
I cannot understand - why did they not look at how Armageddon was configured for unit profiles of they wanted some complexity of weapon effects, rather than producing something that is going to have people looking through sheets and referencing rules every time they fething shoot with a unit? I think this combined with the points values that have been indicated for a 'standard' game.. unless there are some major efficiencies that haven't yet been revealed, this is going to beyond that vital and unspoken golden rule of 'playable in one evening'.
chaos0xomega wrote: Which is probably why the rules don't support it, at least not up-front. They want to make sure theres no free-riders on launch and the folks with knights and titans have to go out and buy infantry and tanks.
With models that you can use in different games, it is easy to buy a rulebook and switch back if you don't like it
If you need to buy 100€ worth of models to start playing in addition to what you have, it is not that easy stop as you want make your investment worth
Hence GW want their players to invest a lot of money as this makes them stay even if the rule are not that good
Shouldn't matter. Actually, you should look to invest them in the new game with little or no extra cost... you want as big of a player pool as possible, particularly on the start, for the game to grow healthy.
Sherrypie wrote: Knights began in Epic and belong to Epic. Pure knight armies tend to struggle, but they're cool when you bring companies of their household infantry, AA batteries, planes and the rest of it along.
Agreed.
Lets see if they can be the main 70% in LI on the future with about 30% support. Other way around currently which means pretty few of them, but promotes combined arms with lots of Infantry and support, which probably puts them in a way better place than Knight only.
Meanwhile Knight only or Knight main is possible in the current Epic30k.
I would house rule it, and swap the percentages. It should be ok in friendly games ( 70% knight banners, 30% support).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: Just looking at the amount of special rules/traits for the different weapons systems and loadouts on the Avenger sheet, - 9 different traits for a single unit. I have said it before and I will say it again now, I am *not* going to be able to sell this game to casuals. This makes the weapon loadout & lookups for something like a battleship in Victory at Sea look like utterly simple by comparison.
I cannot understand - why did they not look at how Armageddon was configured for unit profiles of they wanted some complexity of weapon effects, rather than producing something that is going to have people looking through sheets and referencing rules every time they fething shoot with a unit? I think this combined with the points values that have been indicated for a 'standard' game.. unless there are some major efficiencies that haven't yet been revealed, this is going to beyond that vital and unspoken golden rule of 'playable in one evening'.
Agreed, it is so ridiculous
I am already thinking about ways to speed up play.
The avenger like the kratos one is confusing in terms of what weapons it will actually have. It's hard to see a and b options, can assume autocannon/lascannon but then the avenger also has two types of missiles and bombs, can't see all the loadouts having all those.
With models that you can use in different games, it is easy to buy a rulebook and switch back if you don't like it
If you need to buy 100€ worth of models to start playing in addition to what you have, it is not that easy stop as you want make your investment worth
Hence GW want their players to invest a lot of money as this makes them stay even if the rule are not that good
Shouldn't matter. Actually, you should look to invest them in the new game with little or no extra cost... you want as big of a player pool as possible, particularly on the start, for the game to grow healthy.
if this would be a company that actually cares about people playing the game, yes
GW does not are about a healthy player base or if people play at all, they want to sell as much as possible on release to those that might want to play
And any possibility that would let people play with as little extra cost as possible is something that works against that
So Ian Wood over on the Epic FB pages did some calculations on the number of key word/rule references that have been added so far - up to 56, and that's just the ones we have seen!I'll try and find the post to link it.
My earlier point about this game not being suitable at all for casual play is reinforced. The issue here is that if they are targeting those who played the game back in the day, most of us are in our late 30s, 40s and even 50s now. We have families, jobs and busy lives that do not allow for the dissection of 50+ special rules - and no doubt at all these will be contradictory and work in confusing combinations. I'm very fortunate that I have a fair amount of leisure time (and at least enough to spend time posting crap on forums..!) but my gaming group doesn't, and a pile of reference books balancing on top of buildings and looking through rules in the two free hours you've got after putting a toddler to bed is not what you want. The more I see of this, the more I see it going the way of Necromunda, and us continuing to use the miniatures but changing to One Page Rules (or more likely an older Epic version in this case).
I honestly wonder who this game is for,.and the target market.. although in the same way as Necromunda, I suspect it is for the people creating it, where they have hours every day playing with each other.
Its worth mentioning that Titanicus came with three levels of complexity, which made it easier for beginners and also those who just wanted a faster game.
Pacific wrote: So Ian Wood over on the Epic FB pages did some calculations on the number of key word/rule references that have been added so far - up to 56, and that's just the ones we have seen!I'll try and find the post to link it.
My earlier point about this game not being suitable at all for casual play is reinforced. The issue here is that if they are targeting those who played the game back in the day, most of us are in our late 30s, 40s and even 50s now. We have families, jobs and busy lives that do not allow for the dissection of 50+ special rules - and no doubt at all these will be contradictory and work in confusing combinations. I'm very fortunate that I have a fair amount of leisure time (and at least enough to spend time posting crap on forums..!) but my gaming group doesn't, and a pile of reference books balancing on top of buildings and looking through rules in the two free hours you've got after putting a toddler to bed is not what you want. The more I see of this, the more I see it going the way of Necromunda, and us continuing to use the miniatures but changing to One Page Rules (or more likely an older Epic version in this case).
I honestly wonder who this game is for,.and the target market.. although in the same way as Necromunda, I suspect it is for the people creating it, where they have hours every day playing with each other.
Well that does sound daunting, on the upside, the usr's at least seem to be a big core of what makes units special/unique in some way so as armies get added hopefully they all pull from that same set of usr's and not introduce a whole whack more. At the same time, I've yet to look at a unit and see more than a couple usr/wargear, like the ogyrns, the only special rule is furious charge, whatever that does, I can assume it's like 40k and it's combat related. I can definitely agree the weapon granularity is going to be a problem, as instead of one stat line for a weapon type, stats change like shot ammount or which usr's it has based on mounting, like co-axial or the trait that allows it to shoot on the move. I can see house rule forcing units to be all armed the same for sheer practicality and speed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albertorius wrote: The more info we get on the game, the more it cements my opinion that this is a game completely unsuited for what I want out of my Epic scale gaming.
I'm a bit concerned about how it all comes together, mainly people getting large enough forces to make it worthwhile gaming wise. For example, I could see initial games be basically mirror matches of the starter box content, and that will seem mighty small on a 4x5 board.
Pacific wrote: Just looking at the amount of special rules/traits for the different weapons systems and loadouts on the Avenger sheet, - 9 different traits for a single unit. I have said it before and I will say it again now, I am *not* going to be able to sell this game to casuals. This makes the weapon loadout & lookups for something like a battleship in Victory at Sea look like utterly simple by comparison.
.
A while back there was a rumour going around that LI was the last game Jervis Johnson was involved in before retiring. But the fiddly rules we've seen so far seem to contradict that. Very much not his style.
Unless it's all part of his long-awaited revenge. "They laughed at me, the fools! They said I stripped out too much flavour for Epic 40K! They said players like chrome! Bah! Very well. I'll give them chrome all right. I'll give them more chrome than a Necron in a car shop! Mwahahaha!!!"
LI seem unsuited for casual play but also in my oppinion unsuited for tournament play too. Too many rules on the unit cards and standard game at 3000 pts, when a unit of 2 fighter planes cost around 90pts. And with one on one combat resolution, can the game time be any less than 4 hours?
I can't say for sure as the rules in how the game plays out have not been properly marketed, but I'll stick to epic UK for sure. Not bitter, the game might be a source of more minis and epic players, but i worry that they mismanage the game design.
Gitdakka wrote: LI seem unsuited for casual play but also in my oppinion unsuited for tournament play too. Too many rules on the unit cards and standard game at 3000 pts, when a unit of 2 fighter planes cost around 90pts. And with one on one combat resolution, can the game time be any less than 4 hours?
I can't say for sure as the rules in how the game plays out have not been properly marketed, but I'll stick to epic UK for sure. Not bitter, the game might be a source of more minis and epic players, but i worry that they mismanage the game design.
Not exactly, it is aprox 90 pts per plane, not per 2 planes.
But indeed, compared to Epic: Armageddon (which also uses 3000 pts as the "default" game size), the costs in points of most troops is 1/2 or 2/3 (so many many more minis + more complicated and bloated rules). Planes stay more or less the same cost as in E:A, but with a brutal increase in firepower.
I hope 1500 or 2000 pts could be an alternate nice standard too, so games don't take 4 hours to complete...
Think I generally agree with the complaints about the amount of rules and associated time this is going to take for a game. Having the AT style of multiple levels of rules (AI had expanded damage and other bits and pieces that turns a small game into a far too long affair) would be a good idea.
Those that collected AT and/or AI are going to see the most benefit early on and I think GW are probably relying on that consumer base to get the game off the ground aside from HH/Marine fans wanting little versions of their bigger minis. It'll be a tough ask for folk to have more unique armies unless the launch has a bunch of options outside the starter box.
For me, I don't think I'll have a problem filling a 4x5 or 3k with the titans and aircraft I have ready to go. The problem arises when you have no one to play against with all the toys!
Gitdakka wrote: LI seem unsuited for casual play but also in my oppinion unsuited for tournament play too. Too many rules on the unit cards and standard game at 3000 pts, when a unit of 2 fighter planes cost around 90pts. And with one on one combat resolution, can the game time be any less than 4 hours?
I can't say for sure as the rules in how the game plays out have not been properly marketed, but I'll stick to epic UK for sure. Not bitter, the game might be a source of more minis and epic players, but i worry that they mismanage the game design.
GW wants us to put more kits and books in our baskets than we actually need, so I'd take the 3000 points "standard" recommendation with a pinch of salt.
you can play any point size you want and given how GW rules work, about 2/3 of the suggested size still works well
but I doubt that a 2000 points game will be that much faster than a 3000 points game as the stuff that takes up time in GW games is usually not something that scales linear with points
that GW wants us to buy more kits than we need, this is already with the core box as there are to many models for a single player (30% Allies means you either can use the Titans or the other faction given, not both) but not enough for 2 players
Lets be fair the kind of player drawn to a game like LI is not someone looking for a skirmish game. It's the kind of game that people who want big blocks of tanks and troops come for because the scale allows it; and if they can throw down multiple titans then that's a huge plus too.
Overread - the references to points values relate to the fact that some people have done some rough demo lists and they are larger in volume (of miniatures) than any previous version, in terms of a 'standard' game size. This is more of an issue given that it looks like there is a fair amount of complexity to the game (if it is more complex and has more miniatures on the board than previous versions, which could already take an evening to play for example).
But the previous versions of the game had a perfectly fine 'mass combat' appeal at just standard point values, taking a 4000pt game of SM 2nd/Titan Legions for example, most of the old battle reports were played at that level, it gave an opportunity for a good mix of combined arms and looked pretty cool on the tabletop.
Pacific wrote: Just looking at the amount of special rules/traits for the different weapons systems and loadouts on the Avenger sheet, - 9 different traits for a single unit. I have said it before and I will say it again now, I am *not* going to be able to sell this game to casuals. This makes the weapon loadout & lookups for something like a battleship in Victory at Sea look like utterly simple by comparison.
.
A while back there was a rumour going around that LI was the last game Jervis Johnson was involved in before retiring. But the fiddly rules we've seen so far seem to contradict that. Very much not his style.
Unless it's all part of his long-awaited revenge. "They laughed at me, the fools! They said I stripped out too much flavour for Epic 40K! They said players like chrome! Bah! Very well. I'll give them chrome all right. I'll give them more chrome than a Necron in a car shop! Mwahahaha!!!"
Haha.. I think what we have seen so far absolutely disproves that Jervis had involvement, or certainly not in the final product. I really don't want to be too critical until I've played some games, but what I have seen so far would suggest to me 'murder by committee' - where just a bunch of ideas around special rules have been added, but with no strong lead or project manager to rein those in and produce a coherent final vision. Hence why you can have 'armourbane' and 'armour-piercing' as two separate, special rules.
kodos wrote: you can play any point size you want and given how GW rules work, about 2/3 of the suggested size still works well
but I doubt that a 2000 points game will be that much faster than a 3000 points game as the stuff that takes up time in GW games is usually not something that scales linear with points
that GW wants us to buy more kits than we need, this is already with the core box as there are to many models for a single player (30% Allies means you either can use the Titans or the other faction given, not both) but not enough for 2 players
Well they did say that there was some special formation that made the box content game legal, I don't know if that's a good sign or not.
kodos wrote: you can play any point size you want and given how GW rules work, about 2/3 of the suggested size still works well
but I doubt that a 2000 points game will be that much faster than a 3000 points game as the stuff that takes up time in GW games is usually not something that scales linear with points
that GW wants us to buy more kits than we need, this is already with the core box as there are to many models for a single player (30% Allies means you either can use the Titans or the other faction given, not both) but not enough for 2 players
Well they did say that there was some special formation that made the box content game legal, I don't know if that's a good sign or not.
It would point to the regular formations not being very flexible, for one.
This is the game for older nostalgic players, who might get 1-2 games per month
Mass battle with large number of models/units but also more detailed rules than small scale games and possible prices like other manufacturers 28mm models
Depending on the price I get a small SW Formation for the shelf but this won't be a game I will ever play
Apple fox wrote: Is it a situation where you should just assume that GW will make the worst version of their idea for the game?
Honestly I do think it’s a few little things that seem odd.
Especially if they want to use it for some extra special rules after for each legion.
Well, given that the game hasn't been released yet, it pays to keep an open mind until the reviews are in. And as always give the game a go first before buying in to it, if you can.
Yep, we discussed that a few pages back (or maybe that was the other thread). That's more or less how apoc or one of the older editions of epic worked, weapons had a profile vs infantry and another vs vehicles. That alone probably eliminates like a half dozen USRs
I think the good news it won't be difficult in theory to edit unit cards to only have the relevant weapons, and in addition one could add the updated AP / stats shown above to again help make things easier.
What's nice as well is making rules/stats for new units shouldn't be too difficult.
As well as the above, a couple of other effeciencies that spring to mind, based on either other versions of Epic or other games:
- Display all of the weapons for a vehicle variant in one clearly demarcated area, even if it means reprinting the same weapon profiles. Means you can just move your finger down the profiles until you find the one you need, no confusion and reliance on someone knowing a tank doesn't use the whole list of weapons.
- Fire arcs not needed, just have 180 degrees front-facing for every vehicle. This isn't some sort of naval warfare game with only a dozen ships where you need that granular detail, Lords of War or Titans could have arcs if necessary.
- Point Defence: just allow weapons to fire if the vehicle is on first fire and is charged. You could limit this to not allow barrage or 'main' guns if you wanted.
-ArmourBane: why the need for causing armour save re-rolls here and making people roll more dice for *some* of the hits? Just make it -3 or -4 for the same statistical effect.
- Anti-tank: The AP0 against infantry is just un-necessary granular detail. People don't generally use powerful guns against infantry as it's a waste of firepower, as those guns should be used against armour. We all have a laugh when a volcano cannon is used on an infantry stand, but really it's a waste of that units potential if that is all it is firing at. That sort of granular detail is what you would see in something like Flames of War, a platoon-level game, not a company level game with vastly more miniatures on the board.
To me it feels like the game will do better with a smaller model count than even something like Armageddon, as you are going to spend so much time looking up weapons profiles, checking which guns can fire in melee etc. It's going to be quite a stop-start affair.
Splitting the AP profile would do so much to remove extraneous traits.
Simple ideas are often the best. That indeed removes a lot of trait/USR mental look-ups for light, light AT, AT at least.
I also hope there will be a simple way to get simplified detachment cards with only the weapons you choose, to print. Simpler than photoediting I mean. Maybe even adding the weapon trait rules to the bottom of the card?
Play time is the major thing that has me worried, with all these traits, rules, terrain charts etc. So I am thinking everything that can help the game run in an evening will be valuable given preview indications of more models AND more complexity than previous editions.
Epic:Armageddon HH is so fast this game has a challenge the size of a mountain to climb in my opinion.
Again, my interest in LI is for what I can use in AT and the base decoration potential. But IMO what you see here is a studio that's still gunshy (going on what, 30 years later?) about introducing a stripped-down Epic game to its customer base. I realize that E:A is still more streamlined than LI appears to be. But this is a larger, more mainstream release closer to Epic 40K's, and I'm gonna guess they felt pressure to bake 30K/40K-style fiddliness into the game. Basically focusing on familiarity ("yes, you get to shoot each individual weapon on your Leman Russ just like in 40K") instead of challenging the players with new concepts.
gorgon wrote: Again, my interest in LI is for what I can use in AT and the base decoration potential. But IMO what you see here is a studio that's still gunshy (going on what, 30 years later?) about introducing a stripped-down Epic game to its customer base. I realize that E:A is still more streamlined than LI appears to be. But this is a larger, more mainstream release closer to Epic 40K's, and I'm gonna guess they felt pressure to bake 30K/40K-style fiddliness into the game. Basically focusing on familiarity ("yes, you get to shoot each individual weapon on your Leman Russ just like in 40K") instead of challenging the players with new concepts.
Which IMHO, is the absolutely worst way to go about it. Would have been nice if they learned something from CGL and the Battletech/Alpha Strike divide.
gorgon wrote: Again, my interest in LI is for what I can use in AT and the base decoration potential. But IMO what you see here is a studio that's still gunshy (going on what, 30 years later?) about introducing a stripped-down Epic game to its customer base. I realize that E:A is still more streamlined than LI appears to be. But this is a larger, more mainstream release closer to Epic 40K's, and I'm gonna guess they felt pressure to bake 30K/40K-style fiddliness into the game. Basically focusing on familiarity ("yes, you get to shoot each individual weapon on your Leman Russ just like in 40K") instead of challenging the players with new concepts.
Which IMHO, is the absolutely worst way to go about it.
gorgon wrote: Again, my interest in LI is for what I can use in AT and the base decoration potential. But IMO what you see here is a studio that's still gunshy (going on what, 30 years later?) about introducing a stripped-down Epic game to its customer base. I realize that E:A is still more streamlined than LI appears to be. But this is a larger, more mainstream release closer to Epic 40K's, and I'm gonna guess they felt pressure to bake 30K/40K-style fiddliness into the game. Basically focusing on familiarity ("yes, you get to shoot each individual weapon on your Leman Russ just like in 40K") instead of challenging the players with new concepts.
I wonder how much of this comes from the rules writers / designers themselves, and how much from marketing and management.
People tend to blame 'the designers' for everything--much as they blame 'the writers' for everything wrong with a TV show or film. Some of that is happening in this very thread. But sometimes the designers can see a better way to do something, yet are told by Higher Powers they must do it the less-than-ideal way, in order to appeal to a perceived sales demographic. Then the designers cop all the blame for something they didn't want to do in the first place.
As for using LI minis for AT - yep, it's amazing how much it adds to the visual scale of the Titans when you have a few vehicles and men scattered around the board. Buildings alone don't seem to show off the size of the giant robots as well as the occasional abandoned car or tank does. At least to me.
gorgon wrote: Again, my interest in LI is for what I can use in AT and the base decoration potential. But IMO what you see here is a studio that's still gunshy (going on what, 30 years later?) about introducing a stripped-down Epic game to its customer base. I realize that E:A is still more streamlined than LI appears to be. But this is a larger, more mainstream release closer to Epic 40K's, and I'm gonna guess they felt pressure to bake 30K/40K-style fiddliness into the game. Basically focusing on familiarity ("yes, you get to shoot each individual weapon on your Leman Russ just like in 40K") instead of challenging the players with new concepts.
I wonder how much of this comes from the rules writers / designers themselves, and how much from marketing and management.
People tend to blame 'the designers' for everything--much as they blame 'the writers' for everything wrong with a TV show or film. Some of that is happening in this very thread. But sometimes the designers can see a better way to do something, yet are told by Higher Powers they must do it the less-than-ideal way, in order to appeal to a perceived sales demographic. Then the designers cop all the blame for something they didn't want to do in the first place.
As for using LI minis for AT - yep, it's amazing how much it adds to the visual scale of the Titans when you have a few vehicles and men scattered around the board. Buildings alone don't seem to show off the size of the giant robots as well as the occasional abandoned car or tank does. At least to me.
In the case of AT, the debacle with the warmaster seems more about marketing making everyone's life worse. It's already apparent with things like knights in AT that they were sorta shoehorned in as they almost just function to be the games eternal whipping boys, and the fact that players are expected to get terminals for them as well just to keep track of wounds on a tiny track, that felt and feels more like marketing than the design department, Back to warmaster, a big titan like that is already a niche within a niche in terms of making it work in game, but to make believe its two distinct titans to try and bait double purchase is so nakedly a marketing move by someone who clearly doesn't play the game. It already took people raising a stink for them to sell he warlord weapon sprues separately and they never even had that on offer for the iconoclast sprue. All this in a game that's core feature is modularity, so much so you need weapons cards to go with your titan terminal, to try and go 180 mid stream like that with the iconoclast was a bridge too far.
As far as LI goes, the fact that gw is delaying the game to re-print the books in the uk to fix all the errors/problems is a good sign that design might be able to win some arguments or that marketing is at least capable of shame, and leaks have been mostly positive, especially the terrain stuff. I think even with the granularity in terms of weapons/wysiwyg, titanicus isn't in a great state for that either given the prevalence of mutations/corruptions and titan upgrades, all of which move very far away from the core of AT which is about looking at a titan and knowing its stats/weapons, not having to accoiunt for a million invisible upgrades/abilities. At least with LI there doesn't appear to be a whole added layer of invisible wargear to account for.
I find that the 3,000points amount they used for the battle report being too high. Going by the somewhat limited battlefield (loss of the 6' by 4'), I can see a 2,000pts per side being a more "realistic" size, expressly for more room to maneuver and placement, as well as not being bunched up/cluttered all around the table. Though I say this without having seen the rules yet and certainly not having played yet.
Further, Titans might become overly dominant as well, if players max out with their 30% allotment. (though again, I can appreciate allied rules/etc. having an effect as well)
Props for varied victory conditions and missions. These were sorely missing.
Much of the community chatter has followed a similar opinion. This version is going to have more miniatures on the tabletop than ever before, with a smaller table, and a granularity of rules that mean rule referencing and game pauses are going to be regular for anyone that doesn't live and breathe the game.
If a smaller game of SM or Armageddon, which were more straightforward to play, still take an evening to play then where will that leave Legions? You're right that it might be possible that 3000pts are too many, and the community swings to a lower score. Ultimately, tournament organisers will decide this, not GW.
The caveat here is that there are some time saving effeciencies in the rest of the mechanics that make the rest of the game faster to play. But TBH the fact that something like a terminator has eight special rules, there are tanks with profiles filling *an entire page* (!) does not fill me with hope. I wish I was, but I'm no longer a student and can sit with my mates playing for 5-6 hours at a time until 2am, which might be who this game has been made for.
I find that the 3,000points amount they used for the battle report being too high. Going by the somewhat limited battlefield (loss of the 6' by 4'), I can see a 2,000pts per side being a more "realistic" size, expressly for more room to maneuver and placement, as well as not being bunched up/cluttered all around the table. Though I say this without having seen the rules yet and certainly not having played yet.
Further, Titans might become overly dominant as well, if players max out with their 30% allotment. (though again, I can appreciate allied rules/etc. having an effect as well)
Props for varied victory conditions and missions. These were sorely missing.
Fully agreed, the battle rep looked like a terrible parking lot with no space for a war of manouver, outflanking etc. They even put all terrain along the sides so they could push their clumps towards eachother in the middle..
Most of us will play at a bigger table if we can, 6x4 will look better.
But 3000 is still too many miniatures so 2000 is my guess about where we will settle in.
Play time will decide though, how many pts can be played in an afternoon or evening.
I dunno, most depictions of HH combat is shown as being kinda... rank and file-ish. Like, large masses of troops in clusters which are in close proximity to other clusters. The density just feels appropriate to me
Pacific wrote: Much of the community chatter has followed a similar opinion. This version is going to have more miniatures on the tabletop than ever before, with a smaller table, and a granularity of rules that mean rule referencing and game pauses are going to be regular for anyone that doesn't live and breathe the game.
If a smaller game of SM or Armageddon, which were more straightforward to play, still take an evening to play then where will that leave Legions? You're right that it might be possible that 3000pts are too many, and the community swings to a lower score. Ultimately, tournament organisers will decide this, not GW.
The caveat here is that there are some time saving effeciencies in the rest of the mechanics that make the rest of the game faster to play. But TBH the fact that something like a terminator has eight special rules, there are tanks with profiles filling *an entire page* (!) does not fill me with hope. I wish I was, but I'm no longer a student and can sit with my mates playing for 5-6 hours at a time until 2am, which might be who this game has been made for.
...conversely at the price tag games this size seem like they'll carry in models, I reckon that student better be running a 3d printer. It's weird. I'm still building stuff because I really hope it will work out after all, but... yeah.
chaos0xomega wrote: I dunno, most depictions of HH combat is shown as being kinda... rank and file-ish. Like, large masses of troops in clusters which are in close proximity to other clusters. The density just feels appropriate to me
Dunno, most troop amounts given in the HH and 40k battles/campaigns will look positively spare when spread over the theatre they are supposed to be fighting over.
For me, I don't play current 40k with the suggested army sizes and table sizes because it looks horrible to me and it basically devolves into a run to the middle with little or not tactics, so this approach (or an even more crowded one) don't really appeal to me.
chaos0xomega wrote: I dunno, most depictions of HH combat is shown as being kinda... rank and file-ish. Like, large masses of troops in clusters which are in close proximity to other clusters. The density just feels appropriate to me
Dunno, most troop amounts given in the HH and 40k battles/campaigns will look positively spare when spread over the theatre they are supposed to be fighting over.
For me, I don't play current 40k with the suggested army sizes and table sizes because it looks horrible to me and it basically devolves into a run to the middle with little or not tactics, so this approach (or an even more crowded one) don't really appeal to me.
These are my thoughts too. So many games these days look the equivalent of a group of eight year-olds playing football at school, where there is a just a mob group smashing together in the centre and no thoughts involved.
I did used to really like the old art in 1st edition space marine, the ones of hundreds of tiny marines fighting. But, just having two armies covering almost every spare cm of table (sorry.. inch of table now!) just doesn't leave any tactical agency to the player. No flanking, no defence in depth, no sneaking to objectives. I don't think the very dry delivery in the battle report helped things: "unit A destroyed unit B, then unit C destroyed unit A" - boy is something missing when you read them these days. Will have to wait of course and play, but I might do a write-up of things that can be inferred from the battle report, as there was quite a lot of interest in there.
Pacific wrote: I don't think the very dry delivery in the battle report helped things: "unit A destroyed unit B, then unit C destroyed unit A" - boy is something missing when you read them these days. Will have to wait of course and play, but I might do a write-up of things that can be inferred from the battle report, as there was quite a lot of interest in there.
That's my core concern as well, there was very little "unit a shot and unit b, unit b made most of its saves".
The granularity seems sorta wasted by the trajectory of every unit being perhaps too scale-able. I guess it makes sense if most units activations are just removing other units wholesale if the units are maxed out.
It's been mentioned before but one of the first house rules I could see is trying to get players to arm units the same way for sanity. There's granularity and then there's just making the whole thing a headache for no real gain/reason, especially considering some units don't even have any options anyway like the heavy sentinels, or units that are basically a or b options, like russes, I'm not sure anyone is jumping to give those heavy bolters on the front, so to my mind they're basically a and b given the turret options.
Once you get into the heavy tanks though it seems like it could get a bit silly.
