I guess now the focus will shift from WHEN to HOW MUCH..?
And also when the WD teased first expansion containing the Core transport units for Astartes (Land Raiders, Spartans, Drop Pods) will come out. Foot slogging Terminators has never been a thing after all. Yes they might Teleport but the game can't be considered a complete release without Land Raider rules imho. A bit sad GW chose this route although not surprised. But distributing core unit rules over several books is not good for gaming I guess in the end GW will compile them in a single book, like with Titanicus, thus selling us the rules at least twice.
Edit: They also added 4 Kratos to the Starter box image, but confirmed in official FB feed that's a mistake..
Definitely looking forward to it. So happy I decided to not go for battleforce set this year. My kids have all been sent a list of items to choose to get for my Xmas.
They know I don't play favourites but whoever gets the best item.....
This is the most excited I have been for a GW game in decades, been working on my XVth for a few months now as time allows and look forward to expanding them and getting them on the table (well, and also maybe painting them...). Cant wait to draw up a firm army list after all this time.
I've lost interest during the delay, and needing to buy a second book for House force rules hasn't raised my spirits much. If the core book is around £35...we'll see.
I'm going in halves with a mate, really hoping that the £120 is accurate as hopefully that will be closer to the £100 point when bought from a retailer.
I already have a pretty large marine force so will be doing the Imperial Army contingent, friend will be doing Legion forces.
Looking forward to the new influx of blood the game will bring into Epic scale. If the prices are monstrous or game itself is a bore-fest we will just go back to playing NetEpic or Armageddon.
Looking forward to the new influx of blood the game will bring into Epic scale. If the prices are monstrous or game itself is a bore-fest we will just go back to playing NetEpic or Armageddon.
Can't wait to see what the community does with new models.
Not looking forward to dealing with hundreds of reports on the 6mm group as its a 'gw game' or 'not really 6mm', and people having a stink over the edition wars.
The At titans were already sculpted in 8mm scale. Whilst Epic appearing wasn't guaranteed, they designed both the AT and AN models to the same 8mm scale to fit with a potential return of Epic.
What Overread said. I think the whole "sculpted so that space marines are 8mm tall" thing might have been some misunderstanding - I haven't been able to find any reference to it on Warcom, which means it either was never there or it got edited out at some point. I seem to recall seeing it myself at one time so I'm thinking it was the victim of an edit, but there is an AT article on Warcom that says directly that they were sculpted at 8mm scale.
8mm scale in general means an average Human is 8mm tall. Genetically enhanced superhumans wearing space boots should then be 9-10mm tall and the new marines seem to be about 9.5mm.
Overall what GW have said is that it will be 1/4 scale of HH. Internal scales will vary just as it does for the big scale with everything scaled down.
But yeah, LI/AI/AT will be in scale with eachother within those variations
Telling the difference between infantry at this scale is also a bit tricky. A lot of details will be over-enlarged to compensate for making the models easily identifiable on a game board; for making them practical to play with; and to cast with plastics.
So even between marines and human infantry there won't be a vast height difference. Some yes, but not a night day difference that you see at 28-32mm of regular tabletop wargames.
Overread wrote: Telling the difference between infantry at this scale is also a bit tricky. A lot of details will be over-enlarged to compensate for making the models easily identifiable on a game board; for making them practical to play with; and to cast with plastics.
So even between marines and human infantry there won't be a vast height difference. Some yes, but not a night day difference that you see at 28-32mm of regular tabletop wargames.
Yeah, at 6mm that was certainly the case.
It does look like they differentiated a bit more at 8mm. Previews indicate a visible difference between Solar humans and marines.
Scale wise I reckon anything within 2 or even 3mm isn't really noticeable on the tabletop and at arms length. My own stuff is a mix of GW classics, Vanguard (about 8mm-ish for a marine) and some larger 3d printed. I will say the new stuff (certainly infantry) won't mix well with the classic GW 6mm marines just because of the bulk difference, but again thats a subjective thing. I am fairly relaxed with scales, but I know some people break out the micrometer with this sort of thing.
Looking forward to the new influx of blood the game will bring into Epic scale. If the prices are monstrous or game itself is a bore-fest we will just go back to playing NetEpic or Armageddon.
Can't wait to see what the community does with new models.
Not looking forward to dealing with hundreds of reports on the 6mm group as its a 'gw game' or 'not really 6mm', and people having a stink over the edition wars.
So far I think the community groups have been pretty chilled out. Both by the existing members commenting about the new game (mostly just some jokes and nothing genuinely mean-spirited) and the many new members joining, with the 30k epic group in particular which renamed itself as Legions Imperialis 30k within hours of the game being announced and has now swelled to about 3 times it's original size. A couple of the new people have got funny about people posting vanguard or printed minis and having large collections already (including one who, from his profile pic, looks like he is probably serving his majesty's pleasure for GBH), but I think considering they have had 5-6000 new members that is not bad.
Overread wrote: Telling the difference between infantry at this scale is also a bit tricky. A lot of details will be over-enlarged to compensate for making the models easily identifiable on a game board; for making them practical to play with; and to cast with plastics.
So even between marines and human infantry there won't be a vast height difference. Some yes, but not a night day difference that you see at 28-32mm of regular tabletop wargames.
Yeah, at 6mm that was certainly the case.
It does look like they differentiated a bit more at 8mm. Previews indicate a visible difference between Solar humans and marines.
Yeah but you're talking about a close up photo zoomed in to represent the minis at like 4-5x their actual size. At a tables distance you wont much notice that 1-2mm height difference.
Overread wrote: Telling the difference between infantry at this scale is also a bit tricky. A lot of details will be over-enlarged to compensate for making the models easily identifiable on a game board; for making them practical to play with; and to cast with plastics.
So even between marines and human infantry there won't be a vast height difference. Some yes, but not a night day difference that you see at 28-32mm of regular tabletop wargames.
Yeah, at 6mm that was certainly the case.
It does look like they differentiated a bit more at 8mm. Previews indicate a visible difference between Solar humans and marines.
Yeah but you're talking about a close up photo zoomed in to represent the minis at like 4-5x their actual size. At a tables distance you wont much notice that 1-2mm height difference.
Aha, that's what you meant. At table top perspective it all blurs for sure. I mostly see basing when playing.
It's subjective though. I notice the bulk difference enough to make the new solar & Astartes look different next to eachother in zoomed out pics, squinting. So they probably did a good job with relatives scale there. 7-8 & 9-10 is spot on for 8mm scale regardless.
I'm pretty chilled with minor scale variations I should add so would not be a deal breaker for me either way.
chaos0xomega wrote:What Overread said. I think the whole "sculpted so that space marines are 8mm tall" thing might have been some misunderstanding - I haven't been able to find any reference to it on Warcom, which means it either was never there or it got edited out at some point. I seem to recall seeing it myself at one time so I'm thinking it was the victim of an edit, but there is an AT article on Warcom that says directly that they were sculpted at 8mm scale.
I know the reference was made by one of the designers of AT, but it was made a on a facebook post. I'm sure they mention it in one of the videos about making the AT titans, but I dont' recall which one and war com is a mess of articles and bad edits that finding it would be a chore at this point.
I just dont care enough about made up fluff to worry that models are a mm or two bigger. I'll be mixing whatever I like. I just find it amusing that some people get so hung up on it and tried to get the new stuff banned from the 6mm wargames group.
Pacific wrote:Scale wise I reckon anything within 2 or even 3mm isn't really noticeable on the tabletop and at arms length. My own stuff is a mix of GW classics, Vanguard (about 8mm-ish for a marine) and some larger 3d printed. I will say the new stuff (certainly infantry) won't mix well with the classic GW 6mm marines just because of the bulk difference, but again thats a subjective thing. I am fairly relaxed with scales, but I know some people break out the micrometer with this sort of thing.
Looking forward to the new influx of blood the game will bring into Epic scale. If the prices are monstrous or game itself is a bore-fest we will just go back to playing NetEpic or Armageddon.
Can't wait to see what the community does with new models.
Not looking forward to dealing with hundreds of reports on the 6mm group as its a 'gw game' or 'not really 6mm', and people having a stink over the edition wars.
So far I think the community groups have been pretty chilled out. Both by the existing members commenting about the new game (mostly just some jokes and nothing genuinely mean-spirited) and the many new members joining, with the 30k epic group in particular which renamed itself as Legions Imperialis 30k within hours of the game being announced and has now swelled to about 3 times it's original size. A couple of the new people have got funny about people posting vanguard or printed minis and having large collections already (including one who, from his profile pic, looks like he is probably serving his majesty's pleasure for GBH), but I think considering they have had 5-6000 new members that is not bad.
Saw the same thing with the AT "official" "not official" group, with the mods banning people and crying over people using vanguard. I think most of the long-term epic players just moved on from that group and stopped paying them attention. That E30k group changed overnight and started the same rubbish. I guess these groups are desperate for GW to notice them and give them free plastic. Thankfully when GW stop hyping the game and it settles down, we'll go back to people just enjoying small scale warfare and most of the loud mouths will move on to the new hype.
It is great to see a lot of people interested in the scale/new game. Not only does it show GW that people want more in this scale, but it will direct more sales to other 6mm companies as well. It will be noisy for a few months, but then it will settle down into a golden age of small scale 40k again. Even if I'm not excited for the rules, I can't wait to see what GW bring out down the line & what places like vanguard do to supplement the scale!
It's cool that LI is finally happening, but I'm not feeling the relatively costly entry to the game, unless one wants to go with a hardback rulebook and the starter box. The digital version of the rulebook and at least the infantry detachments should be more aggressively priced.
Upside being that the launch box is not going to be a limited run item, so for once, there is no need to let FOMO dictate people's buying decisions.
BTW, any bets on how many minutes it will take for the new Epic scale terrain bundle to sell out?
chaos0xomega wrote: What Overread said. I think the whole "sculpted so that space marines are 8mm tall" thing might have been some misunderstanding - I haven't been able to find any reference to it on Warcom, which means it either was never there or it got edited out at some point. I seem to recall seeing it myself at one time so I'm thinking it was the victim of an edit, but there is an AT article on Warcom that says directly that they were sculpted at 8mm scale.
It's not a misunderstanding, that's precisely what Andy Hoare said in 2018 when Titanicus released. The WarCom articles, which originally contained videos of this particular designers' interview, then wrote that down as "8 mm scale" and the whole kerfuffle started. The misunderstanding was made by WarCom and then spread like wildfire all over the internet, causing the mess we see today.
At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter as small stuff is still small stuff regardless of their proportions, but it has been amusing to follow how hung up people have at times gotten over the whole 8 mm mistake as if we didn't regularly, almost every week for years now, see WarCom talk out of their arses on each and every topic they're told to promote. Just look at the Kratos thing right now
Yeah, no. If you compare the new LI minis to the old supposedly "definitely 6mm" minis of old epic, its very transparently clear that the new minis are not sculpted at 6mm scale (as would be required for the arguments that it isn't 8mm scale to hold true), and that they consistently - regardless of whether they are astartes or solar auxilia - sit about 30-40% larger than their older counterparts. Its 8mm scale.
chaos0xomega wrote:What Overread said. I think the whole "sculpted so that space marines are 8mm tall" thing might have been some misunderstanding - I haven't been able to find any reference to it on Warcom, which means it either was never there or it got edited out at some point. I seem to recall seeing it myself at one time so I'm thinking it was the victim of an edit, but there is an AT article on Warcom that says directly that they were sculpted at 8mm scale.
I know the reference was made by one of the designers of AT, but it was made a on a facebook post. I'm sure they mention it in one of the videos about making the AT titans, but I dont' recall which one and war com is a mess of articles and bad edits that finding it would be a chore at this point.
I just dont care enough about made up fluff to worry that models are a mm or two bigger. I'll be mixing whatever I like. I just find it amusing that some people get so hung up on it and tried to get the new stuff banned from the 6mm wargames group.
Pacific wrote:Scale wise I reckon anything within 2 or even 3mm isn't really noticeable on the tabletop and at arms length. My own stuff is a mix of GW classics, Vanguard (about 8mm-ish for a marine) and some larger 3d printed. I will say the new stuff (certainly infantry) won't mix well with the classic GW 6mm marines just because of the bulk difference, but again thats a subjective thing. I am fairly relaxed with scales, but I know some people break out the micrometer with this sort of thing.
Looking forward to the new influx of blood the game will bring into Epic scale. If the prices are monstrous or game itself is a bore-fest we will just go back to playing NetEpic or Armageddon.
Can't wait to see what the community does with new models.
Not looking forward to dealing with hundreds of reports on the 6mm group as its a 'gw game' or 'not really 6mm', and people having a stink over the edition wars.
So far I think the community groups have been pretty chilled out. Both by the existing members commenting about the new game (mostly just some jokes and nothing genuinely mean-spirited) and the many new members joining, with the 30k epic group in particular which renamed itself as Legions Imperialis 30k within hours of the game being announced and has now swelled to about 3 times it's original size. A couple of the new people have got funny about people posting vanguard or printed minis and having large collections already (including one who, from his profile pic, looks like he is probably serving his majesty's pleasure for GBH), but I think considering they have had 5-6000 new members that is not bad.
Saw the same thing with the AT "official" "not official" group, with the mods banning people and crying over people using vanguard. I think most of the long-term epic players just moved on from that group and stopped paying them attention. That E30k group changed overnight and started the same rubbish. I guess these groups are desperate for GW to notice them and give them free plastic. Thankfully when GW stop hyping the game and it settles down, we'll go back to people just enjoying small scale warfare and most of the loud mouths will move on to the new hype.
It is great to see a lot of people interested in the scale/new game. Not only does it show GW that people want more in this scale, but it will direct more sales to other 6mm companies as well. It will be noisy for a few months, but then it will settle down into a golden age of small scale 40k again. Even if I'm not excited for the rules, I can't wait to see what GW bring out down the line & what places like vanguard do to supplement the scale!
Don't know what groups you are referencing but I am in both major Epic30k FB groups since before LI was announced and I have not seen any of what you are mentioning. Both 6mm and 8mm posts happen, for example I still post a lot of classic 6mm Epic30k and have gotten 0 bad mouthing and lots of hearts. Some new comers asking how we got our armies, sure, but if anything its's their ignorance that has been made fun of. Vanguard often recommended in posts & comments, never seen anything like that talked negatively about or removed by admins. Oh and the groups arent just renamed to Legions Imperialis, they've added that after Epic30k in the group names.
Are you guys sure you are not overrreacting or letting fears talk..?
There will be continued room for Epic hobbying in 6-8mm with GW models/rules or community rules, Vanguard, 3dprint etc. Sure LI posts will outnumber the rest a while after release but that's logical and probably good. It wont be "us or them".
It's great that we get more hobbyists and players into the Epic setting and yeah I agree I hope this goes well for GW so they keep developing new smaller scale stuff.
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, no. If you compare the new LI minis to the old supposedly "definitely 6mm" minis of old epic, its very transparently clear that the new minis are not sculpted at 6mm scale (as would be required for the arguments that it isn't 8mm scale to hold true), and that they consistently - regardless of whether they are astartes or solar auxilia - sit about 30-40% larger than their older counterparts. Its 8mm scale.
The fundamental hangup here is that X mm isn't a scale to begin with, as much as it is a reference size, but let's roll with that. As a shorthand for regular humans, 6 mm tends to already fluctuate between 1:250 and 1:300 depending on the manufacturer. Older Epic minis have likewise fluctuated a lot over time, as have the 40k models they are to be compared with. Nominally, Epic infantry settled towards 1:300 by the end of the millennium but there were always kits that were out of line and had 1-2 mm over other similar units. Lots of handwaving over there. Nowadays, as GW uses CADs to keep everything more or less on the same reference levels, they can be a bit more serious about consistency. Like they did with AT and AI and the accompanying kits of terrain, AA batteries and such, we know everything is 1/4th of their regular stuff which similarly varies somewhere between 28-30 mm for regular humans. This will be just the same in LI.
Let's look at this picture from WarCom a while back, attached with a grid overlay.
We can see that the old marines (those are not the oldest marines, but 2nd ed bulk nonetheless) are 3:4 compared to the new marines or about a head smaller. I also have lots of those particular old marines in my hand here and the classic bolter boy in a wide power pose measures 6 mm from the feet to the top of their head. The one-third increase in height with the modern marines thus corresponds to 8-9 mm tall models, who also stand straighter and do not have slot-inserts into their bases. This is then the part where understanding what scale means here comes to play: marines are not reference humans. Marines are described in the lore as 7-8 feet tall transhumanistic monsters. They do not represent the standard to which things are measured *but* they are finally sized like marines should be in the lore while the older marine models were not, in Epic nor in 40k. A regular human model, in turn, is then smaller than 8 mm and a model which is somewhere around 7 mm tall is still well within the traditional variance of things that are called 6 mm overall. Personally I prefer "heroic 6 mm" to account for GW proportions being rather buff to begin with
That's the problem with the internet conception of "8 mm". It is, and has been from the onset, nonsense spurred on by WarCom media team talking without understanding what they're talking about.
Overread wrote: The At titans were already sculpted in 8mm scale. Whilst Epic appearing wasn't guaranteed, they designed both the AT and AN models to the same 8mm scale to fit with a potential return of Epic.
Except when you measure model it adds up to 33m...in 6mm scale.
Measuring is handy thing.
So for it to be 8mm needs fluff change for titans be smaller. Warlord 25m vs 33m
Let me make thissimpler. LI is 1/4 40k scale. Nominally (in the minds of fanboys who remember when the minis were actually 28mm and refuse to acknowledge that the scale creep thats occurred over the past 20 years means its no longer 28mm), that means its 1/4 of 28mm, which would be 7mm, not 6mm. A modern Cadian mini stands more like 32mm erect, which actually puts 1/4 scale at 8mm. Imagine that. The new HH Marines are between 36-40mm roughly in their most erect poses, which at 1/4 would be 9-10mm.
It actually matters a lot, it's a 33% difference in size. For larger units you're talking about pretty significant and very noticeable variations in size.
It matters in terms of coherent model sizes. It may matter if they aren't using area terrain rules in terms of height, and it may matter depending on rules when it comes to base size.
You guys are repeating a discussion I have seen on historicals message boards for at least the last two decades, it's a very common occurrence when you are mixing miniatures from different manufacturers.
In that instance you get both people arguing for exact uniformity and those arguing it's not necessary and/or noticeable. I'll disregard for a moment The_Real_Chris's comment about base sizes/dimensions, as that's a different thing and obviously you need to make sure your army follows that rule.
My own feelings follow a principle of 'does it look right?' If I mount vanguard marines (approx 8-8.5mm) on the same base with classic 6mm marines there is an obvious disparity looking at the base (I find you can get away with it with Orks, but not for Marines as they are more uniform). But, if I have a base of one unit in one area, and another a few feet away on the tabletop? I think it looks fine.
But, I think this is very much a subjective thing. I'm quite relaxed about it, but I've heard of people spend insane amounts of money trying to get OOP Napoleonics miniatures (that were cast in the 80s) because they are not willing to get a new plastic equivalent, despite there only being a few mm size difference on a 28mm scale mini! And personally, I would find playing against a grey horde army much more unpleasant than someone who is even more relaxed about scales than I am - but YMMV!
I play a lot of 6mm Moderns which is actually two scales (1/285th and 1/300th) the difference is tiny but noticeable if you know what you are looking for but I have never come across anyone having an issue playing against either or a mix.
That said though I am interested to see how all the guesstemated scaled prints hold up against the official models.
chaos0xomega wrote: It actually matters a lot, it's a 33% difference in size. For larger units you're talking about pretty significant and very noticeable variations in size.
Not for the infantry, as the base size is all that matters.
Let me make thissimpler. LI is 1/4 40k scale. Nominally (in the minds of fanboys who remember when the minis were actually 28mm and refuse to acknowledge that the scale creep thats occurred over the past 20 years means its no longer 28mm), that means its 1/4 of 28mm, which would be 7mm, not 6mm. A modern Cadian mini stands more like 32mm erect, which actually puts 1/4 scale at 8mm. Imagine that. The new HH Marines are between 36-40mm roughly in their most erect poses, which at 1/4 would be 9-10mm.
Making things simple, you are slightly incorrect here and that relates to what I previously said on *scale* versus *size*. For one, that modern Cadian mini is a particularly bad example of non-creep:
The modern baseline Cadians and Kriegers are slimmer and have less heroically oversized proportions, but that's it. They are even smaller than 20 year old Vostroyans. The situation here is the same as it was with the advent of Primaris marines: the scale isn't meaningfully changing, they're just finally making the models align more consistently with each other and the fictional background, where marines should tower over regular mortals (and have abdomens, damn if the old marines don't look like child soldiers). That's not changing the scale as much as it is finally aligning to one properly after decades of handwaving.
As for the nominal numbers, remember that "x mm" is a colloquial moniker rather than an exact number in most cases just like 28 mm has worked for half a century while there's been discrepancies between various manufacturers. 7 mm for our regular 180 cm reference human would be around 1:260 scale, which is still within the 1:250 - 1:300 bracket of "6 mm", with that sprinkle of "heroic" in it for exaggerated weapons and limbs. And as for "imagine that", we don't have to imagine when we've been able to reliably measure the situation for over five years now after AT launched. Compared to the canonical numbers for titan heights given by GW in their technical drawings (AT rulebooks for the latest printings, but basically the same as they've been for most of this millenium in Apocalypse books and the like), the AT models end up around 1:267 or rounded to 1:270 in scale, which means that our 180 cm reference human model would wind up around 6.7 mm tall (thus, "heroic 6 mm"). This also aligns with many other observations the community has made over the same five years, like looking at the various doors in titans and the AT terrain kits GW has made, which certainly aligns better with regular humans who are very much not 8 mm tall.
See here for example, on the right side of this image a smaller door in the large door (2018 AT plastic) next to a 90's space marine tactical who measures exactly 6 mm tall.
chaos0xomega wrote:It actually matters a lot, it's a 33% difference in size. For larger units you're talking about pretty significant and very noticeable variations in size.
In real life gaming terms, no, it doesn't. Epic players have dealt with size discrepansies for decades and it hasn't been any particularly problematic. For example, here are some pictures of our recent games where we're happily mixing old 90's models, larger modern prints, AT / AI models from GW and third party metals. It doesn't jump out badly even in the harsh zoom that a camera gives you, and even less when you're looking at stuff at over an arm's length.
Spot the old guardsman / crewmate crouching by the armpit door
And ultimately, from across the table, it's all a wash:
With larger units like Baneblades and such, yes, there will be a noticable difference between oldest models and modern models, but that's not due to changing the scaling as much as it is, once again, finally getting the scale done correctly in a way that is internally cohesive (which old Epics were not, the infantry was in a different scale to the tanks which were in different scale to the titans and so on).
And that's what matters, really: having a nice, cohesive line of small scale soldiers on the FLGS shelves for more people to play with.
I'm one for voting that, yes, there is a difference between 6mm and 8mm. I printed my Marines at 8mm, and have some Vanguard not-Imperial-Guard that are 6mm, and the 6mm look like midgets next to the 8mm Marines... then I have my old Epic40k Marines that were closer to 5mm and they look like midgets next to the 6mm Vanguard models.
6mm to 8mm is like a 6 foot person standing next to an 8 foot person, it is noticeable even when they are a long way away
Maybe you personally don't care, and maybe Wargamers have been dealing with scaling discrepancies for decades.... but that doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference
Sherrypie wrote: 8 mm *tall* marines are obviously *taller* than 6 mm guardsmen, because they should be but they are still in the same scale, which *isn't* 8 mm
Thing is the marines are taller than 8mm, and the guardsmen are taller than 6mm, which means they *arent* 6mm.
Sherrypie wrote: 8 mm *tall* marines are obviously *taller* than 6 mm guardsmen, because they should be but they are still in the same scale, which *isn't* 8 mm
From my measurements, the Solar Auxilia are going to be about 7 to 7.5mm to the eye, and about 7.5 to 8mm to the top of the head, Marines are going to be 8 to 8.5mm to the eye. I call 40k 32mm scale, I call nuEpic 1/4 of 40k scale, therefore nuEpic is 8mm to me
So I'm going to call that 8mm, regardless what size the hatch on the back of a titan happens to be (because surely humans would never make undersized hatches for military vehicles)
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'm one for voting that, yes, there is a difference between 6mm and 8mm. I printed my Marines at 8mm, and have some Vanguard not-Imperial-Guard that are 6mm, and the 6mm look like midgets next to the 8mm Marines... then I have my old Epic40k Marines that were closer to 5mm and they look like midgets next to the 6mm Vanguard models.
6mm to 8mm is like a 6 foot person standing next to an 8 foot person, it is noticeable even when they are a long way away
Maybe you personally don't care, and maybe Wargamers have been dealing with scaling discrepancies for decades.... but that doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference
It might make a visual difference at 10 cm, yes. It won't make a difference in gameplay because they're on bases anyways.
The old plastic SMs are really really tiny, though, true xD. Except the scouts ^^
In hindsight I was foolish trying to make a placatory post over something that has had spilled much blood, even fatwahs declared, probably ever since wargaming existed
Think Sherry's posts above do a pretty good job of showing how little it matters at Epic scale, and sweet baby Jesus and the holy donkey stay away from historicals if that is not acceptable to you.
I will say, just do what feels right for *your* army. Your gaming group does the same. If you have micrometer eyes and pick out one marine standing 2mm taller than another with a line of sight check from two tables away and in-between someone's sweaty cargo pants then 'the most important rule' applies, be polite and please keep it to yourself
So, can we leave the scale/size thread derail now and go back to discussing the LI release?
I saw indications that Unit cards are launch and direct only, will not come back.
Tiles are not listed in independent stockist pricing, indicating they are gw only. (No problem for me personally, I dont want uniform Urban with perpendicular roads)
Strangest thing though is the separate rulebook might be GW only as it's not on the list. I am hoping that's not correct and it's simply released later on.
Sherrypie wrote: 8 mm *tall* marines are obviously *taller* than 6 mm guardsmen, because they should be but they are still in the same scale, which *isn't* 8 mm
From my measurements, the Solar Auxilia are going to be about 7 to 7.5mm to the eye, and about 7.5 to 8mm to the top of the head, Marines are going to be 8 to 8.5mm to the eye. I call 40k 32mm scale, I call nuEpic 1/4 of 40k scale, therefore nuEpic is 8mm to me
So I'm going to call that 8mm, regardless what size the hatch on the back of a titan happens to be (because surely humans would never make undersized hatches for military vehicles)
Who measures hatches when you can measure whole titan...
westiebestie wrote: So, can we leave the scale/size thread derail now and go back to discussing the LI release?
I saw indications that Unit cards are launch and direct only, will not come back.
Tiles are not listed in independent stockist pricing, indicating they are gw only. (No problem for me personally, I dont want uniform Urban with perpendicular roads)
Strangest thing though is the separate rulebook might be GW only as it's not on the list. I am hoping that's not correct and it's simply released later on.
The GW facebook post suggested that everything is going to be available long term. But then again, I never trust what they say and we only have to look at necromunda to see how they plan to support this game.
For the cards, I'd say they will be sold out within 7 minutes, never restocked again, missing anything thats not available at time of release, and actually outdated within 2 hours of the games actual release day.
I was tempted to get them on the very slim chance I do ever fancy playing the new rules (very doubtful, but I'll try any game at least once). But then remembered how bad their website is anyway and want to make sure I get my tiles at least. So gave up even trying to snag a set.
ingtaer wrote: I play a lot of 6mm Moderns which is actually two scales (1/285th and 1/300th) the difference is tiny but noticeable if you know what you are looking for but I have never come across anyone having an issue playing against either or a mix.
That said though I am interested to see how all the guesstemated scaled prints hold up against the official models.
Aren't you forgetting all those 1:350 plastic aircraft you can get...
westiebestie wrote: So, can we leave the scale/size thread derail now and go back to discussing the LI release?
I saw indications that Unit cards are launch and direct only, will not come back.
Tiles are not listed in independent stockist pricing, indicating they are gw only. (No problem for me personally, I dont want uniform Urban with perpendicular roads)
Strangest thing though is the separate rulebook might be GW only as it's not on the list. I am hoping that's not correct and it's simply released later on.
The GW facebook post suggested that everything is going to be available long term. But then again, I never trust what they say and we only have to look at necromunda to see how they plan to support this game.
For the cards, I'd say they will be sold out within 7 minutes, never restocked again, missing anything thats not available at time of release, and actually outdated within 2 hours of the games actual release day.
You need to check again, they confirmed cards are one-time, gone when they're gone.
And yeah, probably as you say regarding their longevity, sadly.
Anyway for the off chance that this a game they won't faq/errata, like big scale HH, I want the cards as the prospects of looking up all these weapon profiles spread over multiple pages and books, until we learn them, will make a potentially slow game painfully slow.
Sometimes I wish GW didn't do cards - they clearly factor cards into their design ethos, but their updating policies and stocking rates means that they are of limited functional use. Esp if you come to a game/army long after they've been released and card stocks are basically a case of hunting every3rd party store and GW store to see if any have a set hiding on the shelf.
I still don't get why GW can make a free and functional army bulider for AoS that honestly works well and is great to dip into to test out the builds for a new army; but can't do it for other games
40k is a big game with a big community behind it that will keep coming back no matter what nonsense GW throws at them.
AoS is a small game with a small community that needs to be protected and nurtured. AoS prices are generally lower than equivalent 40k prices (compare the price of a Vanguard box to a Combat Patrol box), and the policies surrounding the way AoS is marketed and sold is generally more consumer friendly than 40k is. They are doing it to drive and accelerate growth by making AoS more attractive to enter than 40k, basically.
Overread wrote: I still don't get why GW can make a free and functional army bulider for AoS that honestly works well and is great to dip into to test out the builds for a new army; but can't do it for other games
It is really good actually. I've recently been collecting a few bits for AoS and was pleasantly surprised to see the App. Would be nice if something similar comes along for Legions, as although there is a community built army builder for Armageddon it's not on the same level as the Yaktribe/Necromunda gang builder (which is really awesome)
40k is much to my surprise even better. Generally identical but it has huge life improvement. Going from list to reference and back to builder gets you straight to list you had open.
Wish that came to aos side. And similar to LI as well
Cards-wise I will be very surprised if there aren't community-made unit summaries available pretty quickly following the game release. In fact someone had already done some to show a better way of displaying the rules than in GW's own war-comms article!
And.. I'm checking out of the N&R thread and just going to post here from now on. Too much poisonous nastiness from one poster in particular who I think, thankfully, hasn't noticed this section of the forum or at least this thread so far. And life is too short
To be fair, nearly the entire N&R thread is dumping on the game (and any other small scale game someone has never played before but think they are the authority on, sounds like the internet)...
I've registered my interest with my FLGS for a copy of the base game. I am undecided on whether to go for a Legion or SA but I'd kinda like both
Tyranid Horde wrote: To be fair, nearly the entire N&R thread is dumping on the game (and any other small scale game someone has never played before but think they are the authority on, sounds like the internet)...
I've registered my interest with my FLGS for a copy of the base game. I am undecided on whether to go for a Legion or SA but I'd kinda like both
For sake of cash efficiency i would like to stick with my beloved blood angels fully but SA is so rare doubt I can find splitter...
How expensive titans were? In 3k could you field 1-2 warhound and some SA feasibly?
Tyranid Horde wrote: To be fair, nearly the entire N&R thread is dumping on the game (and any other small scale game someone has never played before but think they are the authority on, sounds like the internet)...
I've registered my interest with my FLGS for a copy of the base game. I am undecided on whether to go for a Legion or SA but I'd kinda like both
For sake of cash efficiency i would like to stick with my beloved blood angels fully but SA is so rare doubt I can find splitter...
How expensive titans were? In 3k could you field 1-2 warhound and some SA feasibly?
Warhounds are ~330 points, Reaver is ~415, Warbringer 525, Warlord 600, Warmaster 750. Allies are 30% of the points allocation but I am unsure if you can take both SA and Titans as allies in the same list (900 points @3k).
the idea that any "cards" and a one & done issue is frankly ridiculous and they need to stop doing it as its going to harm adoption by people later in the day
even if they are just then a free to download pdf with a "go sort your own print solution" idea its better
Yeah I would like the pdf print your own version if nothing else. I think back at the heyday of Fantasy Flight Games: they were really good at getting pdfs of things downloadable (rules, reference sheets, etc)
Still too crowded, still basically everything was resolved by melee, still everything mostly touched by the end of turn 1. Also, it appears buildings are god (unless you charge them with ogryns, apparently xD).
To be fair there weren't many tanks/artillery in the game and even one of the titans was rocking a close combat weapon.
Got to say though I'm hyped - granted this is the scale and type of wargame that got me into wargaming; but still there's a nostalgic feel seeing a game like this back in the flesh (er plastic) from GW and being played that I really hope transforms in a BIG wave of popularity boosting for this scale of game.
I probably need to constrain myself because I've a feeling mechanicus would be a very good army for me - loads of titans, mechs and such!
any game where things get an armour save, but you can bypass that in melee when most won't is going to end up dominated by melee - its going to always be the quickest way to kill stuff
I will be pre-ordering the box, in 1st & 2nd edition this was my main game, wish I still had it all.
boards can feel crowded or not, you can adjust the size of game, and the board to change that reasonably easily - I just like the idea that its possible to run armour without it being bumper to bumper. 8mm/25% scale offers that visual spectacle in a way even 15mm can struggle with
leopard wrote: any game where things get an armour save, but you can bypass that in melee when most won't is going to end up dominated by melee - its going to always be the quickest way to kill stuff
I will be pre-ordering the box, in 1st & 2nd edition this was my main game, wish I still had it all.
boards can feel crowded or not, you can adjust the size of game, and the board to change that reasonably easily - I just like the idea that its possible to run armour without it being bumper to bumper. 8mm/25% scale offers that visual spectacle in a way even 15mm can struggle with
You can also run armour without requiring half a room to field the tanks; and a massive bank account/timesink to buy/build/paint a whole armoured force of tanks.
Plus you can field titans in games that aren't just two lines mashing against each other; which is fun but not AS fun as having actual room to move around in.
leopard wrote: any game where things get an armour save, but you can bypass that in melee when most won't is going to end up dominated by melee - its going to always be the quickest way to kill stuff
I will be pre-ordering the box, in 1st & 2nd edition this was my main game, wish I still had it all.
boards can feel crowded or not, you can adjust the size of game, and the board to change that reasonably easily - I just like the idea that its possible to run armour without it being bumper to bumper. 8mm/25% scale offers that visual spectacle in a way even 15mm can struggle with
You can also run armour without requiring half a room to field the tanks; and a massive bank account/timesink to buy/build/paint a whole armoured force of tanks.
Plus you can field titans in games that aren't just two lines mashing against each other; which is fun but not AS fun as having actual room to move around in.
for sure, one of the reasons in the early days I liked Space Marine more than 40k was the way hardly anything could hit a target right across the board, stuff had to move, it made moving matter
and the order system provided a penalty for moving, you fired after stuff that didn't, hence forcing your enemy to move could lead to an advantage
had some wonderful games where critical points were not immediately obvious initially, that small hill, that cluster of buildings, stuff that provided cover from enemy fire until it was occupied when it become a firebase and harder to approach
and the way you can actually carry a large army in a sensible sized box..
Still too crowded, still basically everything was resolved by melee, still everything mostly touched by the end of turn 1. Also, it appears buildings are god (unless you charge them with ogryns, apparently xD).
I'm wondering how much of this is how the game is 'meant to be played' and how much is GW trying to sell the board pieces and building kits - which is fair enough, but it will be interesting how things turn out when the game is played by punters. I'm not sure I like the sound of everything mashing together in a scrum in the centre of the table, like a bunch of school kids playing football at lunchtime, but that might be a consequence of either unit density or the weapon ranges being quite short compared to previous editions.
Still too crowded, still basically everything was resolved by melee, still everything mostly touched by the end of turn 1. Also, it appears buildings are god (unless you charge them with ogryns, apparently xD).
I'm wondering how much of this is how the game is 'meant to be played' and how much is GW trying to sell the board pieces and building kits - which is fair enough, but it will be interesting how things turn out when the game is played by punters. I'm not sure I like the sound of everything mashing together in a scrum in the centre of the table, like a bunch of school kids playing football at lunchtime, but that might be a consequence of either unit density or the weapon ranges being quite short compared to previous editions.
I also watched the battle report and it looked way better than the one in White Dwarf.
It was 1100 points, and visually and tactically appealing.
Quite a lot of melee, but it makes some sense because there were quite a lot of HtH units, and lots of LoS blocking terrain. And it was not everything in the middle.
I liked what I saw. I think 1500 - 2000 points could be a very nice point range for pick up games.
Yeah I for one believe/hope a bigger and wider board, less points per playing area, and more tactically minded players, will mean space for manouvre. Not a fan of the push-everything-towards-tge-middle look and tactics GW promote in their hype material.
Weapon ranges are longer than EA30k so it should be possible to manouvre and fire and try to stay out of melee at least in part as long as the table is not too cramped.
Also non Urban boards will help shootier armies.
I also feel 1500-2000 and a 6x4 is going to be far better recommendation for good games than 3k/5x4. We'll see after a few games.
I'm pretty hyped. Loved epic:a but think these rules work and l prefer small model, big battles games.
To start think i'll go big box, infantry box, kratos box and rhino's to get blood angels. Warhounds to be painted legio solar and repaint loyalist titan legion in that scheme as well.
Maybe eventually expand sl if i can't swap them for more marines.
Now pure ba or make mix since one can mix legions...probably go for pure ba at least for now. Dark angels for second appeals though
Yeah, I'd like to test a couple games by myself at about 1500 points on a 6 by 4, see how that goes... the amount of special rules kind of worries me, but we'll see.
Problem is, most of my friends want to play xenos >_>
Be interested in seeing what's on the core book lists... and more importantly, what's not. And what will be added in the supplement (we know drop pods and speeders IIRC) and what will be left for the next one.
That is really great to read SU-152 about the battle report.
Albertorius wrote: Yeah, I'd like to test a couple games by myself at about 1500 points on a 6 by 4, see how that goes... the amount of special rules kind of worries me, but we'll see.
Problem is, most of my friends want to play xenos >_>
There is a thread on Bolter & Chainsword about adapting rules for Xenos and I am sure the community will do something. Depending on how close the.game is to SM 2nd it might be straightforward to port over some classic Ork rules for example, although my concern would be how simple SM rules were (usually a line of stats) vs. some of those for Legions (some tanks had stats covering an entire page).
Imagining a Battlewagon stat page: 'wagon with a little dakka', then 'wagon with lots of dakka', 'go fasta wagon with lots of extra dakka'
I'm quite whelmed after watching Ash's "How to play" video. Seems too swingy for my liking, and infantry moving faster than the range of their guns feels dumb.
Now I'm going to get the models for sure, but will probably be playing some other rules with them. Like 2nd ed Space Marine (with all expansions) or NetEpic
Re:the hateable limited gaming aid - cards. Decided to buy and split the decks with a friend, this ordering from the new GW web store. Oh The Anti-Climax after waiting since June. Queued for 45 minutes, got in 1007, cards etc still in stock, had it all in my basket and then payment crashed, probably site overload. After that I lost my place in the queue, have to start over. Repeated twice over the next 45 minutes. With items dropping out of availability while in basket causing additional problems. What a load of crap their new website is. 🤬
Ordered the starter from an independent dealer with a good track record of getting their allocation instead.
Not a good thing these limited edition gaming aids causing FOMO & scalping - I guess we as a community need to make printable Unit cards to help ease of play especially for the first period until the stats become in memory.
ingtaer wrote: Has anyone come across a review showing the measured size of the new vehicles? Seen infantry and bases but no vehicles yet.
Tales of the painters has a video up that shows some good comparisons to 1997 & original vehicles. They don't measure them but it has some good shots against the new ones.
tauist wrote: I'm quite whelmed after watching Ash's "How to play" video. Seems too swingy for my liking, and infantry moving faster than the range of their guns feels dumb.
tauist wrote: I'm quite whelmed after watching Ash's "How to play" video. Seems too swingy for my liking, and infantry moving faster than the range of their guns feels dumb.
Hmm does that not happen in SM2 and EpicGold too?
I usually play E:A and find it far supperior.
Perhaps it does? Been so long since I last played it.
On the topic of Legions Imperialis, I found a 1500 points batrep video and after watching it, have changed my mind. The game seems decent and I will be jumping onboard, what bothered me with the early videos was the fact the gaming examples used the contents of the starter, which just doesn't work well IMHO - When played with a more "typical" 1500 point army, the swinginess disappears and Epic gameplay of olde returns. I am actually getting hyped to be honest!
I do intend to give Epic: Armageddon a spin with the models as well though, never played it.
tauist wrote: I'm quite whelmed after watching Ash's "How to play" video. Seems too swingy for my liking, and infantry moving faster than the range of their guns feels dumb.
Hmm does that not happen in SM2 and EpicGold too?
I usually play E:A and find it far supperior.
Most infantry in SM2 have a 10cm range (20cm on charge) and most guns are 50cm, with assault-type troops at 25cm and heavy.at 75cm. So you usually get at least one turn of shooting in, and you can go on First Fire if you think you are about to be charged to get an extra defensive shot.
I think it looks the same in Legions from what I have seen, and they now also have an 'overwatch' rule which looks like it replicates Snap-fire from Titan Legions - basically allows you to shoot out of sequence while the opposing side is moving. Will really have to watch some games (or eventually play them!) to see if they have got the movement/ranged/melee balance correct.
Pretty happy to see that the Predators & Sicarans come with full dual turrets, so you can build both set weapon variants without fidfling with mini magnets, blu tack or similar. 👍
For anyone not wanting to wait for a battlescribe version, I created a quick LI army builder sheet that calculates points and upgrade costs: Just create a copy of the sheet and fill out the dropdown fields to enter your units (and the additional grey fields for SM)
For Knights and Titans if you want to take more than one detachment of the same kind just overwrite the automatic points, didn't manage to do it better with the time I had
Yes I am kind of in the same boat Albertorius. I think a lot of the existing epic playing community too, something like the Land Raider not being available from launch just seems a bit to OTT. I expect something like Legion-specific units not being available, but not something that fundamental. So you are now going to have this slow, expansion-lead drip feed and the game won't be 'complete' for some time yet.
I am going to dip my toes in the water, give the new game a play, and it will be great loads of more people will be moving into the epic hobby. But, for the time being it is definitely not a valid replacement for 30k Armageddon, NetEpic, Imperius Dominatus etc.
Matrindur wrote: For anyone not wanting to wait for a battlescribe version, I created a quick LI army builder sheet that calculates points and upgrade costs:
Just create a copy of the sheet and fill out the dropdown fields to enter your units (and the additional grey fields for SM)
For Knights and Titans if you want to take more than one detachment of the same kind just overwrite the automatic points, didn't manage to do it better with the time I had
Excellent - thank you! This is the sort of thing I love about the Epic community
for me its not that the game won't be "complete" for a while, for me the question is how many books will I end up lugging around? and how heavy will they be?
Heresy in 28mm is heavy enough as it is, can see here the army fitting, nicely, into a single 4l Really Useful Box, but having to lug several heavy books about just to play it when whats needed is a smaller summary thats just the stuff you need without the fluffier bits or hard backing
leopard wrote: for me its not that the game won't be "complete" for a while, for me the question is how many books will I end up lugging around? and how heavy will they be?
Heresy in 28mm is heavy enough as it is, can see here the army fitting, nicely, into a single 4l Really Useful Box, but having to lug several heavy books about just to play it when whats needed is a smaller summary thats just the stuff you need without the fluffier bits or hard backing
More than this feels excessive to me
Note: This are small format books xD (about A5). Rulebook is 48 pages, Battle book (scenarios and the like, as well as hobby material) is 112 pages, and the armies book is also 112 pages.
leopard wrote: for me its not that the game won't be "complete" for a while, for me the question is how many books will I end up lugging around? and how heavy will they be?
leopard wrote: for me its not that the game won't be "complete" for a while, for me the question is how many books will I end up lugging around? and how heavy will they be?
None, just bring the cards.
The limited edition cards that took all of 30 minutes to be out of stock, and only have the stuff from the core book.
That said... do we know what's actually in the cards? Only stats, or also rules references and the like?
leopard wrote: for me its not that the game won't be "complete" for a while, for me the question is how many books will I end up lugging around? and how heavy will they be?
Heresy in 28mm is heavy enough as it is, can see here the army fitting, nicely, into a single 4l Really Useful Box, but having to lug several heavy books about just to play it when whats needed is a smaller summary thats just the stuff you need without the fluffier bits or hard backing
More than this feels excessive to me
Note: This are small format books xD (about A5). Rulebook is 48 pages, Battle book (scenarios and the like, as well as hobby material) is 112 pages, and the armies book is also 112 pages.
Nothing more wonderful than seeing those 3 books appear!
If anything, I'm grateful for the new game to having given me a kick up the butt to want to get more stuff finished. I've been tied up with a huge LotR project thats eating into most of my hobby time. But I'm trying to set aside a slot of time every week to do something with the vast collection of unpainted and abandoned epic projects.
The last E40k game I had organised was abandoned due to lockdowns and I've just not motivation to get more done and something re-organised.
Yall grognards still using physical rulebooks to play? How wonderfully anachronistic. I'll take my cards and my dataslate, 128GB of storage covers more than enough rulebooks for all my games
So I have been looking through the weapon keywords and special rules and there are a few interesting ones who aren't currently used on any model:
Neutron Flux: No model currently that uses a neutron weapon (Except the Dire Wolf but that one doesn't have this rule), looking at 28mm HH Neutron weapon are used by the Sabre tank, Predator and Sicaran versions, Falchion and the Cerberus Tank, all of which we don't have in LI yet. The first thought would be the Sabre/Falchion/Cerberus as those are completely new but the Neutron Flux is actually also used in HH and only for a single weapon, the Neutron-flux warheads of the Sicaran Arcus. That makes me think we will get that Sicaran version in the future which means they are open to make new versions of already existing models. Which opens up endless possibilities for further model options, for example different Predators/Support Squads/Heavy Weapon Squads
Loyalist/Traitor: The Loyalist keyword is used by the Warlord Sinister Psi Titan but the Traitor keyword isn't actually used for anything yet. And the only thing that would really make sense with that would be characters and Primarchs. As they already kinda teased Primarchs those should be pretty locked in.
Same for the Unique keyword, only really makes sense on characters and Primarchs
Battlesmith is also not used currently, not even for the Iron Hands special rules where I would have expected it. In HH in appears on Techmarines, two Consuls and Iron Hands specific characters/Ferrus Manus. Could be further confirmation for Primarchs with Ferrus Manus, could be a 5 man base of Techmarines or could be a sign that we will get individual models like Consuls or characters.
Other weapon keywords I have no idea where they could be used are Power Capacitor (double dice with first fire order) and Ripple Fire (reroll hits of 1 if order is first fire) For special rules there is Phosphex which is used by the Leviathan in HH but he doesn't have that weapon in LI. There are other Phospex weapons for SM not yet in LI like on Destroyers or on the Arquitor but then again its not a weapon keyword but a unit special rule (Models engaged with unit with this rule gain no positive modifiers on their CAF for being garrisoned) Sounds like something we could see with Mechanicum?
Then there is stuff you can already guess like Attached Deployment which should be the SA Cyclops
tauist wrote: Yall grognards still using physical rulebooks to play? How wonderfully anachronistic. I'll take my cards and my dataslate, 128GB of storage covers more than enough rulebooks for all my games
Yeap. I work remotely in IT and spend most of the day staring at digital documentation and logs. Whilst I have digital copies of almost every game I like, I will buy books & print rulebooks to play games.
I refuse to have a laptop in my gaming room at this point as I have a minimum of one computer in all the other rooms of the house (not counting my phone). The gaming room is a analogue sanctuary to the point I'm still using a 1990s cd player and own a huge collection of audio books/dramas on CD & tape for when I'm on proper painting sessions.
Digital rules for Epic are handy for referencing when I'm on forums etc, but I'd only ever play actual games via books or printouts. I'd not even allow phones for rules/apps at the table these days.
leopard wrote: for me its not that the game won't be "complete" for a while, for me the question is how many books will I end up lugging around? and how heavy will they be?
None, just bring the cards.
the limited edition blink and you missed them cards?
Yeah unfortunately its been clear for a few months that a lot of Core units are missing in the rulebook army lists, most notably LR/Spartans. So its not possible to play an Epic30k game with a typical army using LI rules until the first expansion book comes... Sadly. Such a bad idea to spread core unit rules over several books for many reasons
We will dip our toes and get a feel for LI ruleset using the units that have rules for a few games. If we like it we'll houserule some units until the expansion book, of not we go back to our loved EA30K. And then probably a new try later on when it's more complete.
A good thing is definitely the plastic regardless. And I know some talented 30k painters that will jump on board so I will get to play with some more beautiful armies regardless of ruleset.
Re: physical books, I too work in digital/IT and try to avoid screens at all costs when relaxing and playing. So I really prefer the old school physical paper book for gaming.
Will print some mashup ref cards instead of the GW Unobtainium ones to use as gaming aids.
tauist wrote: Yall grognards still using physical rulebooks to play? How wonderfully anachronistic. I'll take my cards and my dataslate, 128GB of storage covers more than enough rulebooks for all my games
Yeap. I work remotely in IT and spend most of the day staring at digital documentation and logs. Whilst I have digital copies of almost every game I like, I will buy books & print rulebooks to play games.
I refuse to have a laptop in my gaming room at this point as I have a minimum of one computer in all the other rooms of the house (not counting my phone). The gaming room is a analogue sanctuary to the point I'm still using a 1990s cd player and own a huge collection of audio books/dramas on CD & tape for when I'm on proper painting sessions.
Digital rules for Epic are handy for referencing when I'm on forums etc, but I'd only ever play actual games via books or printouts. I'd not even allow phones for rules/apps at the table these days.
Funny thing. I work with analog machinery at my day job, and when I get home, I dont want to deal with anything analog if a more convenient digital solution exists. I suppose you could say our outlooks are at polar opposites to each other
I have heard similar comments from a gynaecologist
Does anyone know what the exact rules are for base sizes? I know the Warcomms article said Legions will be base agnostic, I was hoping to base the Auxiliaries on square bases (which I think suits horde forces a bit better than round as you can rank them up) but not sure if it will be 20 X 20mm or 25 X 25mm
Base agnostic means agnostic, and likely size won't be covered in rules. Square base size certainly won't be regulated either way.
I.e. pick any base size and be a d*ck about it, as internet humour would put it.
There will be advantages and disadvantages with bigger or smaller, e.g how many bases can fit in base contact (smaller is better for you) vs under a flame template (bigger is better for you). Presumably only the Warhound Inferno cannon uses a template anyway, and likely some artillery later on. So choose what you like the look of.
I do 30mm round for 6mm, don't like the crowded look so might do bigger than the 25mm ones supplied.
westiebestie wrote: Yeah unfortunately its been clear for a few months that a lot of Core units are missing in the rulebook army lists, most notably LR/Spartans. So its not possible to play an Epic30k game with a typical army using LI rules until the first expansion book comes... Sadly. Such a bad idea to spread core unit rules over several books for many reasons
Actually, for most notably... is there any artillery unit in the core? Because now I think about it, I'm not sure there is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: Yall grognards still using physical rulebooks to play? How wonderfully anachronistic. I'll take my cards and my dataslate, 128GB of storage covers more than enough rulebooks for all my games
No artillery rules is pretty mad. Does that mean the rules themselves are not included (for the mechanic) or just the units themselves don't yet have rules?
westiebestie wrote: Base agnostic means agnostic, and likely size won't be covered in rules. Square base size certainly won't be regulated either way.
I.e. pick any base size and be a d*ck about it, as internet humour would put it.
There will be advantages and disadvantages with bigger or smaller, e.g how many bases can fit in base contact (smaller is better for you) vs under a flame template (bigger is better for you). Presumably only the Warhound Inferno cannon uses a template anyway, and likely some artillery later on. So choose what you like the look of.
I do 30mm round for 6mm, don't like the crowded look so might do bigger than the 25mm ones supplied.
There is a precedent though.. I think Armageddon had rules for total base size?
Kind of hoping Artillery is a straight (or near enough) port of 2nd Ed, where each gun in a Battery had a Barrage Point value, and when fired, those were added together as a single blast template.
Given their often extreme range, and not needing LoS, being able to erode their effectiveness kept things fun.
Oh, and Basilisks could be fired twice. Be nice if that’s kept!
Matrindur wrote: For anyone not wanting to wait for a battlescribe version, I created a quick LI army builder sheet that calculates points and upgrade costs:
Just create a copy of the sheet and fill out the dropdown fields to enter your units (and the additional grey fields for SM)
For Knights and Titans if you want to take more than one detachment of the same kind just overwrite the automatic points, didn't manage to do it better with the time I had
Thanks. Only issue had is can't figure out how to remove say battle tank from detachment. Also for demi company point total didn't factor rhino's and heavy battle tank. This makes below list over points actually.
Seems with my first purchases will get 2k list fairly well. Demi company with hq, 2x4 tactical, 4 devastator, 4 support, 10 rhino. Armoured formation with 2 sicaran, 3 predator, 4 kratos. And air assault with command, 2x4 tactical, 4 terminator, 4 assault, thunderhawk, 8 terminators(probably something has to go to regular company). Warhound and questor knight(1) and I'm at 2020. Argh! 20 pts over...
Thanks. Only issue had is can't figure out how to remove say battle tank from detachment.
Do you mean the actual units so Predator/Sicaran? Those you need to click on the cell with the drop down (Not the drop down itself but the cell its placed in) and use the delete button. That way the drop down menu gets cleared. Be careful if you do that on an empty dropdown list the dropdown itself gets deleted
Gone for a core box plus one of the extras bar titans and complete buildings (which I have plenty of). Missed out on the cards, but I might just write out my own summaries in Word or something.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Kind of hoping Artillery is a straight (or near enough) port of 2nd Ed, where each gun in a Battery had a Barrage Point value, and when fired, those were added together as a single blast template.
Given their often extreme range, and not needing LoS, being able to erode their effectiveness kept things fun.
Oh, and Basilisks could be fired twice. Be nice if that’s kept!
I hope they keep something in line with this. I really liked the Flames of War 'spotting' system and I know that has a feel for the way artillery works in 'real life', but I think at this scale, this level of abstraction, a simple 'direct/indirect' system with combination barrage points and a hit score based on that would stop things from bogging down too much.
At this point, if the barrage rules are being introduced in an expansion.. maybe something Imperial Fists vs. Iron Warriors, one of those big battles and a bunch of fortification rules (including some new plastic fortifications) introduced at the same time? Perhaps something like that.
One hopes if artillery is the "barrage point" system the old earlier edition cheese of "fire them all individually" is gone and they have to combine
no more firing basilisks individually at titans to strips all the shields for example
easy way if the do combine, and then critically, all scatter as one, avoiding the other bit where stuff scattered individually making artillery time consuming when it missed.
my 3d printed Whirlwinds & Vindicators are sitting ready
I don't think it was clearly stated either way, the 2BP from a basilisk shot on its own was rubbish, but it would strip a void shield if it hit, a battery of three of the things got to fire six such shots
or combine into a pair of 6BP shots which were much better at actually hurting things.
I think the way it was written the idea was the three would each drop their templates, roll to hit, scatter, and then you worked out the effective BP based on what was under the template - so two hitting and one scattering a bit could see some hit by 6BP where they overlapped, some by 4 and some by just 2.
just got a bit time consuming so many fired them individually or counted them as one weapon.
1st edition was in someways even easier, each weapon dropped a template, individually
westiebestie wrote: No artillery in the LI core book, no.
Whirlwinds/Scorpius, Basilisk, Medusa etc presumably in next book. Or next next.. :p
Not even the quad launcher?? Since rapiers/tarantulas are in the book, I was expecting light artillery payload...
Yes, Rapiers are in the lists.
Mole launcher & quad launcher Could use barrage rules, but could also be a straight up roll to hit like the shown Demolisher cannon. We'll see.
Parking my Whirlwinds & Land Raiders for the first trout games at least.
So many units teased for coming release already though, so not expecting it to take long before those & the expansion book with Transports (other than Rhinos ), fast attack & artillery units comes out.
Curious to see if the Barrage points mechanic is kept.
I don't think I ever saw a game played where you could choose to split artillery fire into separate barrages? Will need to check my rulebook.
I remember there was a specific titan weapon (a 1 shot missile) which laid down multiple templates, and possibly the manticore missile launcher had separate ones(?) - that was balanced out by needing a turn to reload.
westiebestie wrote: No artillery in the LI core book, no.
Whirlwinds/Scorpius, Basilisk, Medusa etc presumably in next book. Or next next.. :p
That makes me cry in Iron Warriors.
Yeah, I have just planned printing Fellblades, Typhons & Cerberus for IH & IW. Don't even know if SHTs are in the coming LI expansion or if that's in the next, next book. Drip feed rules..
Anyway we can also play the existing rulesets so I can play them there meanwhile.
For anyone wondering about the barrage stuff, here is the datasheet for the SA Rapier which has the barrage rule on the quad launcher:
Spoiler:
And here is the Barrage rule:
Spoiler:
Its a bit hard to make out but as far as I can see the rule says:
Can target detachments without line of sight, at a -1 to hit. You also choose to allocated hits only to models within line of sight (Not detachments its talking about the individual bases here), if you do then you don't get the -1 to hit. But then no hits can be allocated to out of line of sight models even if you roll more than needed for the in line of sight models.
If targeting a garrisoned detachment, target all detachments inside the garrison instead. Each enemy detachment gets half the normal number of hit dice rolled against instead. So while you can hit everyone you only hit each with half the normal dice. Barrage weapons also can't be used for overwatch
Of course real artillery could still have other different rules but at least for what we currently have this is it
Thanks! That's interesting, and it appears that they feel that doing "direct fire" with artillery is a little bit more accurate.
In E:40k you had three rules for these kinda units:
- Artillery (Unit Special ability), which allows a unit to shoot out of LoS units (that's the rule, you don't need LoS to shoot, that's it) and to make preparatory bombardments, a special order that allows the detachment to shoot immediately before or after the opponent starts their part of the Movement phase, but only with the artillery units, and the detachment cannot move (it counts as being in Overwatch the rest of the turn)
- Barrage (type of weapon), which allowed you to put a barrage template over an enemy detachment (just one, no matter how many barrage units shot), then you count how many enemy units are under the template, and that's the total firepower for the attack, multiplied for the number of barrage units that shot.
- Heavy Barrage (type of weapon), same as Barrage, but the FP is double the number of enemy units under the template.
Albertorius wrote: Thanks! That's interesting, and it appears that they feel that doing "direct fire" with artillery is a little bit more accurate.
In E:40k you had three rules for these kinda units:
- Artillery (Unit Special ability), which allows a unit to shoot out of LoS units (that's the rule, you don't need LoS to shoot, that's it) and to make preparatory bombardments, a special order that allows the detachment to shoot immediately before or after the opponent starts their part of the Movement phase, but only with the artillery units, and the detachment cannot move (it counts as being in Overwatch the rest of the turn)
- Barrage (type of weapon), which allowed you to put a barrage template over an enemy detachment (just one, no matter how many barrage units shot), then you count how many enemy units are under the template, and that's the total firepower for the attack, multiplied for the number of barrage units that shot.
- Heavy Barrage (type of weapon), same as Barrage, but the FP is double the number of enemy units under the template.
And that was about it ^^
Those Barrage rules are more like the Blast rule for LI:
Place the 3"/5" Blast template over the enemy and scatter it via the scatter dice. Then make a hit roll for each detachment under the template with a number of dice equal to the number of models (Again this should be individual bases) fully inside the template multiplied by the dice value of the weapon. In addition you roll one D6 for each model partially inside the template and on a 4+ its counted as fully inside.
As far as I can see this rule currently only appears on Titans and only starting with the Warbringer BUT those only have the Blast (5") rule on their weapons so its likely some future artillery will get the blast (3")
There is also one more rule I missed before which is Heavy Barrage again only on Titans for now as far as I can see:
Same as the Barrage rule but can damage structures too
So it seems the Barrage rule is basically the old Artillery rule which gives you indirect fire but instead of preparatory bombardments it has better shooting against stuff inside garrisons.
And the Blast rule is similar to old barrage with it being a template and number of hit rolls depending on bases underneath
Matrindur wrote: So it seems the Barrage rule is basically the old Artillery rule which gives you indirect fire but instead of preparatory bombardments it has better shooting against stuff inside garrisons.
And the Blast rule is similar to old barrage with it being a template and number of hit rolls depending on bases underneath
Something like that, it seems, with the added differences of how Firepower works in E40k. And artillery having a malus when being used as artillery, apparently?
Another interesting bit about the Neutron Flux rule I missed the first time is that is references the Cybernetic Cortex special rule which isn't in the book at all. So not only do we have the Neutron flux rule which no unit in the book has, its about getting bonuses against units with a rule that isn't even in the book. Neutron Flux:
Hits scored by a Neutron Flux weapon against a model with the Cybernetic Cortex special rule count as having the armourbane and shred traits
Cybernetic Cortex also screams Mechanicum to me which would make sense why its not in the book as they probably developed all the special rules but cut any that isn't Space Marines or Solar Auxilia from the book since other factions aren't announced yet. Neutron Flux and some other rules that aren't on any current model are fine to be in the book since they are from the SM/SA factions even if the models they come on aren't announced yet. But Cybernetic Cortex isn't in the book as the faction itself isn't announced yet. But if that is true what it tells us is that the rules for Mechanicum where already developed together with the other stuff so it shouldn't take years until we get them as a faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I had another look at the October White Dwarf battle report now that we know the formations in the book and as I already expected there are other formations used in that battlereport we don't have yet.
The Blood Angels army has a Sky Hunter Phalanx and a Drop pod Assault in addition to the known Armoured Company.
The Sky Hunter Phalanx in the battlereport focuses on bikes, jetbikes, javelins and proteus speeders which according to the symbols used are all vanguard slots for five slots used in total.
So while we don't know how many of those are compulsory and how many are optional we at least know that every compulsory slot in this formation is a vanguard slot as there are no non-vanguard units in this formation.
This formation makes sense since none of the current formations really allows big vanguard armies since we only have a single slot in the Demi-Company and another single slot in the Aerial Assault.
The Drop Pod Assault formation seems to be close or the same to the Demi-Company just that it allows you to upgrade every detachment with Drop-Pods instead of Rhinos.
For anyone not yet knowing how Transports work, as far as I understood it unless the formation itself has a special Transport rule you need to use transport detachment slots for any transport you buy and since the Demi-Company is the only formation that even has transports slots for SM you won't be able to use any for the Garrison Force/Armoured Company/Aerial Assault. Transports bought in generic transport slots can be used for any detachment in the formation.
In addition any formation can have a special transport rule that allows you to upgrade your detachments with a transport without using a slot but the transport can only be used by the detachment is was purchased for in this case. The Demi-Company for example allows you to buy Rhinos for any Infantry only detachments and the Aerial Assault formation allows you to buy Storm Eagles and Thunderhawks as transports for any detachment in the formation (Though you could still bring them as Aerial Support detachments anyway)
The only questionmark for me is how the Deathguard player got rhinos for their Garrison Force in the Battlereport. The formation doesn't have any transport slots or transport rules and neither the rhino nor the Tactical detachment has a rule that allows them to be purchased together even if there are no Transport slots or special rules. Maybe the mission they played had a special rule or the Garrison Force will be changed in the expansion book or they just made a mistake, no idea
Going on the rules being mentioned/used (or not) I suspect the game was written in its entirety, and then Mr. DLC entered the room and started editing which rules item was going to be in which release. That would explain why there are things like formations used in the battle report that aren't even in the first expansion.
With a rulebook of that page count (I believe I have read 100+ pages of rules with fairly dense text?) there are bound to be bits missed that should in the 2nd or 3rd expansion, for example.
The way I see it is that the core book goes further than most GW games, which is one bloody expensive rules-only book that then requires at least one other suchbook, to even begin looking at what units you can put on the table.
Although I'm not jumping in with Legions for the moment, the one-off £37.50 direct-only price would work out at £18.75 for the core rules and another £18.75 for a very healthy list of units and a hobby section. At that point one might then continue with additional books, or find that they'd like to explore Titanicus and Aeronautica, which are equally generous in getting new players started with their core rule books.
Pacific wrote: Going on the rules being mentioned/used (or not) I suspect the game was written in its entirety, and then Mr. DLC entered the room and started editing which rules item was going to be in which release. That would explain why there are things like formations used in the battle report that aren't even in the first expansion.
With a rulebook of that page count (I believe I have read 100+ pages of rules with fairly dense text?) there are bound to be bits missed that should in the 2nd or 3rd expansion, for example.
*conspiracy theory*
Maybe they recalled the rulebook as it had too many rules in it
Really looking forward to Mechanicum myself. Maybe its in this scale I shall do them..
I wonder if we'll later on have some way for Astartes to include Mechanicum units That are organic and not as Allies. Similar to the Praevian, Forge Lord consuls & the Brethren of Iron RoW in big 30k.
Mechanicum appearing in LI would bode well for plastic Mechanicum also in 28mil. As I want those Thallax for my Angels, preferably in both scales, I would like this very much!
Got my pre-order in with Dark Sphere and picking up the SA of a mate's box set which I think leaves me in a good enough spot to start playing the game.
I watched the GMG reviews and bat rep and I have to say I am on board with the game. I really enjoy the building hopping and combat mechanics.
I may have to house rule the titans though, taking all the fire at once instead of weapon by weapon like in AT is silly imo.
I may have to house rule the titans though, taking all the fire at once instead of weapon by weapon like in AT is silly imo.
Thats just going to nerf titans and make them more fragile.
I mean, my change by taking them back to how they function by going weapon by weapon in AT would see a marked increase in power. In LI, it is the opposing player's choice how they take saves on titan weapons. So they could take a Volcano or Plasma to shields before taking a gatling or mega-bolter which would strip shields. So not sure if you misunderstood me, but this would not be a nerf.
That means titans go down faster though. So they are suddenly less durable. How is that not a nerf?
Automatically Appended Next Post: One irritation is legion bonuses are wildly uneven. Unfortunately that happens with gw when subfactions gets involved :/
Wolves got particularly short stick.
Ec is powerful but once per game. Rest playing without turn. Maybe enough.
World eaters hard counter blood angels. When your bonus depends on winning combat and other flat out wins most combats...and big part of bonus if you do win is...get to other combat you are unlikely to win!
Imperial fist feels powerful. Soh maybe. Ultramarines also depending partially on how the rerolls work. Aka within detachment scoring hit with gun a gives rerolls for rest of weapons? But rerolls generally good.
Iron warriors. Bonuses for objective control always good.
Yeah, what tneva said (wow, cant believe I said that).
Currently I, as the controlling player of a titan being targeted, can decide the order in which my damage is taken in such a manner as to enable me to minimize and negate the harm being inflicted on me. Firing at me with light weapons like bolters? I'm going to assign them to my void shields first to completely negate them and prevent you from doing chip damage to my titan as a result.
If you shift it to weapon by weapon, I can no longer do that - instead you're going to hit me with weapons optimized for dropping void shields first, and then lay into me with everything else to strip damage off without recourse.
Thats a big difference to survivability, and only really nerfs titans. The damage system exists in the format it does basically because of titans and to ensure their survivability is mTaximized Your concern seems to be that titans are not powerful enough when fighting other titans, but the real concern is that titans are not survivable against a table full of smaller guys that can concentrate firepower to overwhelm it and remove it from th e board without recourse.
I agree. Letting me choose the order to absorb your shots in gives me some agency in the fate of my Titan, and forces my opponent to make decisions of their own, including in army design.
Consider the humble Leman Russ. You have 5 Vanquisher Cannon, and 4 Battle Cannon in a squadron of 9. I have a Titan with 4 void shield.
You give me some Dakka. I of course take the Vanquisher rounds first, as they’re better off knocking down my shields than my Nads. Then any Battle Cannon hits I’ll risk against my armour save.
However. If you have the same 9 Leman Russ, with the same load out, but split across two units? Well now that option is gone for me. Fire away with your Battle Cannon first to collapse my shields, and then let the Vanquisher rounds do what they’re meant for.
And keep in mind from what we’ve seen, large squadrons benefit from a Points Discount. The above example is quite possibly why!
Generally speaking, I dont think maximizing your units in terms of size is a good idea to begin with. If we can learn aything from KT21, it is that you'll want to be maximizing the amount of activations per turn, ie many smaller units is better than a few big ones. Now obviously you dont want to take this too far and reduce unit survivability too much but yeh
From what little battle reports are out there currently, it does seem like bigger units are probably the way to go (thanks to the survivability and point discount). Stuff dies relatively easy in small units, and because you have to decide on the orders at the start of the turn for all units, IMO it slightly negates the usefulness of having more activations than enemy. One example above with stripping void shields with two units instead of one sounds reasonable, but then again titans consist only a small portion of the overall force (at least in official rules), and one bigger unit will be just cheaper, allowing to field more firepower overall. Of course this all might change once more battle reports are out, but that`s the feeling I got so far.
Edit: another problem with running multiple small units - you have to adhere to formations, so it might not even be possible to run too many units without paying hefty tax on mandatory units, unless of course those mandatory units are what the player wants. Also, isn`t there a rule for formation breaking and running away if too many of it units get destroyed? Possibly futher making it difficult to run many small units in weak formations.
Yes, which is why you dont want to go with too small units either. There's some goldielocks zone for every unit which is probably somewhere between the minimum and maximum amount of models per detachment
tauist wrote: Mechanicum appearing in LI would bode well for plastic Mechanicum also in 28mil. As I want those Thallax for my Angels, preferably in both scales, I would like this very much!
Same here, yearning for Thallax and especially in poseable material. The resin Thallax are fragile and easily fall apart due to their leg design, with no possibility to pin either.
Rules exist already for Mechanicum in EpicAU 30k and many models are available to print. But plastic would be a blessing (in both scales)!
Off topic but really hoping Mech is the Mystery Army release scheduled for big 30k this winter, although logically it's much more likely that it's SA given they obviously just did new CAD models of them. And although you can't just scale them up 4x I assume they use some kind of parametrized models and/or could re-use a lot with modifications. The reverse would be true if it indeed was Mech, I assume they could simplify, scale down and modify.
Okay, so I see your points tneva and chaos0xomega about them being more survivable against the smaller dudes running around but as it stands it sort of makes the range of weapons titans come with a bit pointless as in AT you need a mix of shield stripping weapons and anti-armour to be successful while in LI as it stands it feels like you could just Lanchester Square Law it and ping a titan down that way.
My idea is that while it would make things more vulnerable, it makes it actually worthwhile taking a volcano or plasma over a gatling or mega-bolter if you know the hit isn't just gonna be straight into voids. Far better to take a one dice, high AP volcano weapon that immediately gets nullified on voids first then chipping voids from a mega-bolter so you only have lower AP attacks to take (you need to hit voids with AP-1 or greater to have an effect so no normal bolters unless they have Shieldbane). A lot of "Light AT" weapons on vehicles mean that they can't hit shields due to being counted as AP0.
It also makes movement and buildings more important, but maybe I am just clinging to AT rules a bit too much.
warhounds, working in pairs, one configured to strip shields and splat infantry, the other able to put on some hurt once shields are down?
wondering also if when/if Titans do get the ability to be a core force if the formations they have in AT come over, the one where a warhound can drop shields then immediately a Reaver can open fire on the same target for example?
I'm wondering though at the actual utility of Titans, remains to be seen just how tough they are but on first glance the same points in battle tanks across a couple of units seems far more dangerous
Tyranid Horde wrote: Okay, so I see your points tneva and chaos0xomega about them being more survivable against the smaller dudes running around but as it stands it sort of makes the range of weapons titans come with a bit pointless as in AT you need a mix of shield stripping weapons and anti-armour to be successful while in LI as it stands it feels like you could just Lanchester Square Law it and ping a titan down that way.
My idea is that while it would make things more vulnerable, it makes it actually worthwhile taking a volcano or plasma over a gatling or mega-bolter if you know the hit isn't just gonna be straight into voids. Far better to take a one dice, high AP volcano weapon that immediately gets nullified on voids first then chipping voids from a mega-bolter so you only have lower AP attacks to take (you need to hit voids with AP-1 or greater to have an effect so no normal bolters unless they have Shieldbane). A lot of "Light AT" weapons on vehicles mean that they can't hit shields due to being counted as AP0.
It also makes movement and buildings more important, but maybe I am just clinging to AT rules a bit too much.
Or maybe it's not good that titan can just point and automatically delete titan? He who shoots first wins?
It literally isn't "he who shoots first wins" when the smallest titan is walking around on 2 voids and 4 wounds but okay, nice discussion. GW literally say in their articles "this is great against shields!" or "this is great against unshielded titans!" only for you to be forced to fire everything at once and have your opponent pick what he's nullifying with voids due to the fact you're gimped by the number of titans you can bring.
The Arming Of A Titan, By Necessity, Must Always Be A Compromise.
If you’ve armed your Titan solely for big game? What’s it gonna do if I’ve not fielded big game?
Short answer? Not an awful lot.
Now, arm it with some flexibility (Mega Bolters mash infantry, and strip shields equally well, and something for blatting enemy armour) and not that Titan starts to become your Flexible Threat, as its choice of “properly worth it” targets widens.
Well I've already got my eyes on my first house rule, which is to just use the hit location charts from 2nd/Titan Legions.
I can't understand why they would remove what was one of the most fun elements of the previous game. I know people said it slowed down the game too much (although this was not my experience), but I don't think that area mattered to the design team looking at the granular detail that has been added in other areas.
So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?
At this moment, I'll play if offered, but I'm not interested in what's being released... the rules are basically a 180 of what I look for in a game of this scale, and the minis are... either undercut hell for the infantry or entirely too involved to assemble.
I like to read games and pick on interesting design ideas, so yeah I'll get it and a new guard-adjacent army while at it. There are interested people at our club, with whom to try it out on its own merits and if it falters, who can then be persuaded to try E:A or E40k with their new toys.
Pacific wrote: Well I've already got my eyes on my first house rule, which is to just use the hit location charts from 2nd/Titan Legions.
I can't understand why they would remove what was one of the most fun elements of the previous game. I know people said it slowed down the game too much (although this was not my experience), but I don't think that area mattered to the design team looking at the granular detail that has been added in other areas.
do have to say given the idea is you do not have too many titans adding a bit more flavour for them works, in some ways its a pity they couldn't have found a way to integrate the actual Adeptus Titanicus stuff in with the command terminals, but at the very least some damage charts so the things "wounds" represent the generic structure but you can also disable individual weapons etc.
meaning lighter guns maybe cannot bring a titan down, but can "mission kill" it.
easily done with a few tokens really and an A5 card for each titan class
mind you I still think both carapace mounts on a warlord should be individual and you should be able to strip weapons to enhance speed or shield power etc
I'll be jumping in, and playing the new rules. Partly because it's a retread of 2nd edition and partly because for any new players, this is the rules. But hey, if a fellow grognard wants to dust off 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th edition I'm up for a spin. There's a few other locals who are picking up the set so we should see some play of the new LI/5th edition.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?
I have played 3rd ed, and I play 4th ed extensively. And I am getting into LI, mainly to check if it is some fun (the rules are at very best mediocre), and I could use the minis for Epic Armageddon too (the infantry at least, others would be too big).
There is some local interest so why not (I'll build a new guard/solar aux army).
Pacific wrote: Well I've already got my eyes on my first house rule, which is to just use the hit location charts from 2nd/Titan Legions.
I can't understand why they would remove what was one of the most fun elements of the previous game. I know people said it slowed down the game too much (although this was not my experience), but I don't think that area mattered to the design team looking at the granular detail that has been added in other areas.
do have to say given the idea is you do not have too many titans adding a bit more flavour for them works, in some ways its a pity they couldn't have found a way to integrate the actual Adeptus Titanicus stuff in with the command terminals, but at the very least some damage charts so the things "wounds" represent the generic structure but you can also disable individual weapons etc.
meaning lighter guns maybe cannot bring a titan down, but can "mission kill" it.
easily done with a few tokens really and an A5 card for each titan class
mind you I still think both carapace mounts on a warlord should be individual and you should be able to strip weapons to enhance speed or shield power etc
Leave that to AT please. This is another kind of game, no room for those over complications.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?
Minis- yes. I'll be using a huge amount of new stuff to complement my already huge Vanguard and original Epic collection.
Rules- nope. I'll not touch the new rules, only reason I'll even have the rulebooks is from picking up multiple starter sets. I really don't see the point in adopting a new ruleset that is piecemealed out and offers less content than previous iterations of the game.
3rd Ed does exactly what I need it to and I've yet to see a single good reason to switch rule sets.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?
Yes. Wil give it a spin. I suspect with my original models as no time to paint though.
2nd ed was ok 30 years ago, I prefer 4th Ed, so as club people will slavishly play new GW only, maybe a few will be tempted over to 4th ed once the interest drops off (through a combination of rules and release schedule).
so sorted my pre order, got 1 box that I will swap the marines for more solar aux for, 1 set of marauder bombers, 1 set of lightnings, 1 set of baneblades and I can add my warhounds as allies.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?
At the very least I'm getting some of the new Solar Aux and will probably split the main boxset. I love 2nd edition so am fine there, and looking forward to having some more Epic players at the club that this new release will bring.
I think community wise it is pretty split from what I have seen as I asked this very question in the groups. Many are going to give the new game a try I think and at very least get the new minis. Some that are really into Armageddon are really not into this release as they think GW has dropped the ball by basing the new game on an 'inferior' system. I agree in some respects, but you can't blame GW for basing the new game on the system that was by far the most successful commercially and that most customers from that era will be familiar with.
Epic: Armageddon was a great system, and I was there (when 'there' means online) in those heady days of playtesting and discussion, as it developed.
But I played huge games of 2nd ed (and 3rd too) where large numbers of infantry gave their lives in a futile cause and a lot of god-engines crashed to the earth. E;A didn't really scratch that itch.
MarkNorfolk wrote: Epic: Armageddon was a great system, and I was there (when 'there' means online) in those heady days of playtesting and discussion, as it developed.
But I played huge games of 2nd ed (and 3rd too) where large numbers of infantry gave their lives in a futile cause and a lot of god-engines crashed to the earth. E;A didn't really scratch that itch.
Yeah that was always my problem with EA. Good game, but really just felt like it was made to handle pocket sized 40k games. Sure, I've seen some really big mega games using EA rules, but its not as common.
In the Olden Days, a Predator was a Predator, and a Leman Russ was a Leman Russ. Single profile with identical weapons.
Now of course, those units can receive fine tuning via weapon options. And naturally that directly affects their potential impact on a game.
So far we’ve seen some of new kits offer in-built flexibility, such as Marine tanks coming with additional turrets, so we can freely switch up between games. But that doesn’t really expand to Sponsons.
That makes me wonder how Epic Players might view WYSIWYG, as before now that’s only really been a concern about Titans.
I’m very much of the opinion of “it’ll depend”. If you’ve got a 9 strong unit of Predators, and you declare them to all have Lascannon Sponsons regardless of what’s modelled? That’s easy enough for me to keep track of, so I’d most likely be game. But, if you have multiple squadrons, some where they are Heavy Bolters, others modeled as Heavy Bolters but actually Lascannon? Not so much for me.
And in either case? I’d want that declared in your army list, before we start deployment. Not that I don’t trust folk, but I’d rather remove the temptation of waiting to see what I’m fielding before deciding what might be most beneficial to you.
Epic has had differentiation between units for a long time even without WYSIWYG rules. Heck, the first marines in the first expansion for AT88 only had one model but multiple rules requiring different coloured bases or flags to keep track of who's who. Later for example in E:A, Leman Russ battletanks are different than Leman Russ Demolishers just as much as Predator Annihilators are different than Predator Destructors. Even regular dreadnoughts could choose to go for a fist or two guns.
I`m firmly in a camp of "if the entire unit is equipped the same, then I don`t care if the actual models have different loadout, but I need to know this before game". But if my oppontent wants to have mixed loadout in a unit, then I expect the models to represent that, because I`m for sure forgetting what they are armed with the second after game starts.
MarkNorfolk wrote: Epic: Armageddon was a great system, and I was there (when 'there' means online) in those heady days of playtesting and discussion, as it developed.
But I played huge games of 2nd ed (and 3rd too) where large numbers of infantry gave their lives in a futile cause and a lot of god-engines crashed to the earth. E;A didn't really scratch that itch.
Yeah that was always my problem with EA. Good game, but really just felt like it was made to handle pocket sized 40k games. Sure, I've seen some really big mega games using EA rules, but its not as common.
After so many years of playing EA, IMO the only solution to play bigger battles without a serious activations problem, is to greatly increase the size of formations (i.e. lots of upgrades), instead of increasing the number of them. This should be agreed amongst players, otherwise having double the activations or so is going to be a huge advantage...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wonder if a huge advantage in number of activations (detachments) is also going to be a huge advantage in LI.
Having more activations is somewhat beneficial, but not a huge deal in LI as it works in phases unlike E:A. Everybody moves before anyone fights, thus making it very hard to kite the enemy out of any meaningful choices when it's violence time.
Titanicus does the same and activation economy is pretty huge there, but that's due to the much more pronounced maneuvering game with restricted firing arcs that are not present in LI (and in Titanicus, you can hurt the other guy in the movement phase through First Fire and Charges, which you can't really do in LI).
I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the rules to have a good study of them. However as I'm strictly a non competitive player, as is my group, then anything we don't like we'll houserule same as we do with every other game. The most important thing for me is more toys to play with and paint.
I remember having to add flags to stands of Eldar Guardians to denote Aspect Warrior and Farseer stands! As we just had the one sculpt initially and we got some serious mileage from that starter set
I think as long as people explain what things are before the game then that's fine, but agree it has added a level of complexity that did not exist before - one of the reasons it may have been a bit better to keep at least a bit of abstraction for the sake of people's eyesight at this scale..
Just looking through some previews of the rules and one thing that is standing out is that they seem to have gone through the AoD-route of making the books, graphic design, artwork as dull as possible. I know these games are possibly being marketed at more mature gamers, but please GW do you not think we have any imaginations any more?
We know GW are still employing a bunch of talented artists as the new 40k and AoS releases are full of some really beautiful artwork, so why take this route with Heresy-era stuff? I mean even if you are trying to cut down costs you had several books-worth of art in the TCG artbook collections, much of which would have been perfect to use. And there are just empty half pages in the new rulebook, in between the grey and black. I guess they are going to try and go for an Imperial Armour books-type aesthetic, but it just looks ugly and does nothing to fire the imagination.
So we have gone from these....
To this. That dead marine about to be crushed by the tank pretty much sums up how I feel about that cover!
Welcome to the colour pallet of modern fantasy/scifi. Being grim, dark, gritty and realistic means having a muted colour pallet of greys, browns and mud.
Honestly GW are not that bad at it (yet). The worst are fantasy where everything is following the skyrim style of bleak colour pallets. Personally I think its mostly done on TV to let them under-expose a bit so they can hide the fact that its all fake set stuff. And likely to make the clothing budget cheaper.
There is a lot of grey, artwork on the pages as a background to the text, usually giving a smoky battlefield look, blurring the details. But I agree, the colour art is few and far between. There is also no 'margin art' at the sides of the pages, or those narrow horizontal banners to break up sections of text. more associated with the 'gothic' look for 40k, rather than the 'Romans in Space' look of the Heresy, but still....
I guess 'Age of Darkness' means gloomy art. It does make the colour plates of the titans in the back really stand out though.
Activation advantage in LI should not be that big by prediction. You can't move after everything shoots, and you can't shoot before anything moves. It's a hybrid system.
I love the classic colour explosion artwork of the 90s era! Codex Eldar from 2nd Ed perhaps being the peak. But, there was a big discrepancy between this style and the grimdark universe in the lore. Exaggerated by the non-existance of weathering in the parade style painting and green grass battlefields and basing. Nowadays, the muted art is way more grimdark. That said, I'd be happy if they mixed styles more.
Re: order tokens I will for sure want to print & paint some.
MarkNorfolk wrote: But I played huge games of 2nd ed (and 3rd too) where large numbers of infantry gave their lives in a futile cause and a lot of god-engines crashed to the earth. E;A didn't really scratch that itch.
Yeah that was always my problem with EA. Good game, but really just felt like it was made to handle pocket sized 40k games. Sure, I've seen some really big mega games using EA rules, but its not as common.
Yes it was very much more towards the wargame side of things. 2nd and GW in general is more towards the game side of things. Get the toys on the table, roll lots of dice and take things off in droves. E:A time to play scaled pretty much with the number of units, wonder if Legions will scale in the same way or be faster to play with more. It was also hard to make asymetric scenarios for, the balance was fairly fine so was hard to do balanced scenarios, wonder if Legions will be more forgiving in that aspect. 2nd certainly was for stuff like numberless hordes of regening Orks and sillyiness like that.
I want to get my copy, nip home, spray the Marine Infantry, maybe thrash them out super quick, then grab the rule book and disappear up the pub for a pint and some reading.
I'm right there with you Doc, this week is going by so slowly. I'll be standing outside the store nose pressed to window looking like little orphan Annie waiting for them to open.
If there's any delay I'll be starting a one man riot.
In the meantime, however, I found some discount AI models that I snapped up for future grand battles.
I guess there’s no real rush. It’s too cold to prime anyway.
Can you please state which company you are getting your minis from?
I’m asking as I don’t have an minis right now and I wish to find some Eldar proxies… I’m trying to forecast ahead as I’m sure Xenos rules and minis are nowhere close to being released by GW.
Looks like one of the places near here has already had their delivery ready to ship out, or at least some of them given the stack of boxes I saw last night.
heard a few comments on some of the tanks along the lines of "how many parts?" from one or two who had seen inside the copy they got for the shop itself
and curiously both the guys at the shop who are getting it have gone for SA, this apparently is not in any way because they out point the marines and they are planning some escalation thingy starting with just the box contents..
Just got a notice I can pick up mypreorders from the local LG, so they are arriving to the stores. Might as well pick up the LI coin and a free Rhino while I'm at it
In the meantime, however, I found some discount AI models that I snapped up for future grand battles.
I guess there’s no real rush. It’s too cold to prime anyway.
Can you please state which company you are getting your minis from?
I’m asking as I don’t have an minis right now and I wish to find some Eldar proxies… I’m trying to forecast ahead as I’m sure Xenos rules and minis are nowhere close to being released by GW.
I was talking about leftover Aeronautica Imperialis stock. I haven’t found any Legions preorders. I asked a similar question about a month or two ago, and folks suggested Vanguard Miniatures and Onslaught Miniatures for Xenos and imperial proxies.
Doc I *think* in one of the reviews they showed a rule reference sheet with page reference. Not sure if that was just the USR list in the book though (apparently there is a sequence of about 20 pages with them all listed)
leopard wrote:I think the fact the order tokens are all the same shade of grey and lack text is some sort of crime
planning here for 3d printed order tokens, in silver, recess on one side that can be filled with a suitably bright colour and actual text
Yes the grey order tokens are a bit of a disappointment. I used to have trouble remembering to do stuff even with the coloured ones so have no chance with those! Am probably just going to use my old 2nd edition ones..
In the meantime, however, I found some discount AI models that I snapped up for future grand battles.
I guess there’s no real rush. It’s too cold to prime anyway.
Can you please state which company you are getting your minis from?
I’m asking as I don’t have an minis right now and I wish to find some Eldar proxies… I’m trying to forecast ahead as I’m sure Xenos rules and minis are nowhere close to being released by GW.
If it's infantry you are after, yes it's Vanguard miniatures. They do a really nice proxy line called the 'Eloi', it's not comprehensive (there are a few aspects and some other bits missing) but it does cover most of it. They are nicely scaled for 'modern' Epic as well, I'm collecting them at the moment and supplementing with classic GW stuff.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For those who’ve watched unboxing and rule book previews? Do we have a proper index to help us find the USRs?
There's no index (boo!). Nor are they listed on a summary sheet (boo!). But the weapon traits and USR chapters are next to each other in the middle of the rule book, so quite easy to find. (er...hooray..ish).
In the Olden Days, a Predator was a Predator, and a Leman Russ was a Leman Russ. Single profile with identical weapons.
Now of course, those units can receive fine tuning via weapon options. And naturally that directly affects their potential impact on a game.
So far we’ve seen some of new kits offer in-built flexibility, such as Marine tanks coming with additional turrets, so we can freely switch up between games. But that doesn’t really expand to Sponsons.
That makes me wonder how Epic Players might view WYSIWYG, as before now that’s only really been a concern about Titans.
I’m very much of the opinion of “it’ll depend”. If you’ve got a 9 strong unit of Predators, and you declare them to all have Lascannon Sponsons regardless of what’s modelled? That’s easy enough for me to keep track of, so I’d most likely be game. But, if you have multiple squadrons, some where they are Heavy Bolters, others modeled as Heavy Bolters but actually Lascannon? Not so much for me.
And in either case? I’d want that declared in your army list, before we start deployment. Not that I don’t trust folk, but I’d rather remove the temptation of waiting to see what I’m fielding before deciding what might be most beneficial to you.
WYSIWYG sorta has to be the name of the game, some units have no options like the sentinels, some units like the malcador or kratos have a lot of options. I'm already wanting to humbly put forth a house rules suggesting units arm the same for simplicity.
The malcador alone, 4 different hull weapons, 3 different turrets, 3 different sponsons i believe. The other reason for my suggested house rule, is also so if one is making or generating unit cards, the card could list just the relevant weapons and not have to list 2/3 that may not be relevant. But with or without that homerule idea, I'd probably want to be pretty strict on WYSIWYG.
And I mean, even more so without it if someone has a unit of 6 heavy tanks and each one is its own permutation of loadouts.
My own solutions have been, coming to terms with sponsons as i don't want to mag them, and just swapping turrets where possible. For me and retailers its sortof a good prolbem in that its probably what will get me to acquire more tanks/planes ect just like with titanicus.
I'm a bit confused with mixed detachments, I'd be clear I don't think those are as complicated as some of the heavy tanks/planes ect.
tauist wrote: The sheet I posted isn't even 2 full pages long, if GW manages to spread those out to 20 pages, I din't know what to tell you
Maybe the list is really well abridged and the stuff on the pages is big font or written like its trying to fill a box of space. So far so good with the list.
or some illustrations, related to the rules, or totally unrelated
keep in mind how the Age of Darkness book has a good few pages with nice illustrations and photographs.
have to get the book to feel like its a "premium" product (and to be fair the AoD one manages that for the most part, I expect this one will be similar)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For those who’ve watched unboxing and rule book previews? Do we have a proper index to help us find the USRs?
I seem to remember a reviewer saying there were about 20 pages of USRs.
Weapon traits are 45 individual rules on 9 pages
Special rules are 51 individual rules on 12 pages
But that includes everything so even one sentence rules like unique (no more than one of this unit) or arcs (can only target in arc)
The usr's seem decent if its 51. The weapons are where I sorta got a bit irritated. I think it's one thing to have a few iterations of largely the same base weapon with different usr's attached, but it starts to get a ltitle silly at times when they randomly decide to tack on a unit's name to a weapon. Sir this is no mere lascannon, oh no, it's a kratos lascannon, elephant, elephant seal, totally different animal you see. This is also expressed in some of the titan weapons being different seemingly for the sake of it from one titan to another. The dire wolf in titanicus had a hit buff in short range band to its weapons, though this was never tied explicitly to wargear/upgrades or anything the fluff had dire wolves being sorta lone hunter/snipers/lurkers waiting to land a shot, For some reason though the volcano cannon on the reaver arms are better, and you can take two of them. I guess its the one area they could maybe trim/consolidate or develop a mount system to account for the different types of similar weapons.
I'm a bit worried that with weapons not having any related point cost with a few exceptions consideredd "upgrades", there will be some loadouts that are just far and away better than others. Everyone has taken notice of how powerful/broken warp missiles are. That's a good starting point too because something like a one use only weapon isn't common in AT but one could at least in theroy FAQ/ERRATA the point costs at a minimum, here the system doesn't really account for it. If any weapon stands out as maybe at least make it an upgrade for x points, warp missile is at the front of that list. Good on gw for at least honouring the weapon models they've made for AT and giving them rules in LI, but man, titans really stand out from other units. Not just the ever growing lists of weapons as you go up in scale but, the ability to mount 3+ of them. I get that if weapons all had costs it would mess with the 30% allies thing, constantly sorta dancing across the threshold from list to list. And granted the 30% rule all but ensures titans remain a rarity in most games in terms of numbers, even running a couple warhounds adds up pretty quickly and requires games over 2000pts.
I think some of the usr's that deal with how AP is applied to different targets could have also just maybe been visualized with an extra column in unit listing dividing vehicles and infantry. Someone had posted and example of that a few months back in the rumours thread and it immediately helped navigate some of the usr's with less than straightfoward sounding names like light AT, anti tank ect. Overall though what I'm immediately liking more than titanicus is just how much easier its going to be to come up with home brew rules for new units, I also feel like this is going to be a game that is much easier to recruit/bring new players into over titanicus. Just not needing terminals is a big bonus, those always scared the crap out of people I showed the game to, a little unit card with pertinent info seems a lit more straightfoward.
I liked how the first edition of AT, and then Codex Titanicus handled Titan weapons
a las-cannon is a las-cannon, but different titans carried different "grades" of them, same rules, ranges etc, but larger ones rolled more dice for a more powerful attack
I suspect the pages for weapons are again like the AoD ones, grouped into general types, with a bit of fluff text then a table, then some space, and spaced out so the tables don't span page gaps
a bit like how a university "project document" goes from five or six pages to about 20 once the "format standards" are applied
tauist wrote: The sheet I posted isn't even 2 full pages long, if GW manages to spread those out to 20 pages, I din't know what to tell you
Maybe the list is really well abridged and the stuff on the pages is big font or written like its trying to fill a box of space. So far so good with the list.
There are no images per se, just the background and the font is the same as everywhere else in the book but the pages also aren't full of text and the rules are written pretty wordy so if you simplify some of what they have written it should cut the pages in half
For example look at flyer here which takes up a full page by itself:
Jesus wept. That is so dry I've seen more spunk in legal document disclaimers for household insurance.
And so much for my hope for a game 'for the masses'. I could get someone to start rolling dice in 10 minutes with SM2, a little more than that for Armageddon, but I guess this is going to be the one that everyone wants to play now. Good luck to you guys running the demo tables and reading out these rules sequences.
EDIT: Apologies for moaning! I do still genuinely want to play this game. And I want Epic to succeed, so get dispirited when these un-necessary barriers to that have been added to the new game.
I find it remarkable that they've written a page of rules like that, in 2023, is more excessively verbose than the rulebook it is based on from the early 90s. It actually reminds me of reading incredibly dry home-published rulesets of historical gaming of stuff from the 80s, I'm not sure if it's just the lack of colour, illustration or just me imagining that it must be read in nasaly tones.
It's completely at odds with what the rest of the industry is doing, and with good reason (I'm not familiar with the new 40k, but they seem to be cognisant of that with the AoS quick starter rules as those are much more effeciently written?) Take Infinity for example, a game which has 10 times the depth/complexity of this game, and is translated (often poorly) from Spanish and yet still doesn't make my sphincter constrict in the same way as reading these screen grabs did they have a word/page count that they needed to hit, or to use text in place of artwork/illustration?
The sad reality of it is that with large flagship games, be they Warhammer 40k or WotC D&D, they attract a large following from people who do not want to diverge from the written word yet are also very vocal about any problems within it. To avoid that, many developers choose to overwrite their rules in legalese and crowd their FAQ's with utterly idiotic timewasters like defining an inch.
On one hand, clarity is nice, but on the other, 95% clarity in intent with one tenth the verbiage is also nice when played with sensible people.
It's comical how well the summation of the usr's did a good job of like hitting the bullet points. Reminds me a bit of titanicus when a rule would jus throw a math equation at you, this upgrade is 2x the base cost of the weapon x (I've gone cross-eyed).
Jaxmeister wrote: I'm right there with you Doc, this week is going by so slowly. I'll be standing outside the store nose pressed to window looking like little orphan Annie waiting for them to open.
If there's any delay I'll be starting a one man riot.
Here we DID get delay...
GW can't get new releases reliably, they go 2 week. Still no reliability. This isn't even rare these days but almost weekly.
Extra "fun" if your store is 50km away and would like to arrange game alongside to make it more sensible. Good luck doing THAT when you don't even know what day the delivery might be...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: I find it remarkable that they've written a page of rules like that, in 2023, is more excessively verbose than the rulebook it is based on from the early 90s. It actually reminds me of reading incredibly dry home-published rulesets of historical gaming of stuff from the 80s, I'm not sure if it's just the lack of colour, illustration or just me imagining that it must be read in nasaly tones.
It's completely at odds with what the rest of the industry is doing, and with good reason (I'm not familiar with the new 40k, but they seem to be cognisant of that with the AoS quick starter rules as those are much more effeciently written?) Take Infinity for example, a game which has 10 times the depth/complexity of this game, and is translated (often poorly) from Spanish and yet still doesn't make my sphincter constrict in the same way as reading these screen grabs did they have a word/page count that they needed to hit, or to use text in place of artwork/illustration?
I will stop there!
So how do you suggest they could shrink down word count while not exposing rule arguments seeing GW games are riddled with players who dead seriously claim they could shoot infinite amount of times their unit resulting in GW having to FAQ it "no you CAN'T!"?
If GW doesn't write water proof rules they are going to get complains how their rules don't work and are badly written as well. They need to be written so there's literally no loop hole whatsoever left.
tneva82 wrote: So how do you suggest they could shrink down word count while not exposing rule arguments seeing GW games are riddled with players who dead seriously claim they could shoot infinite amount of times their unit resulting in GW having to FAQ it "no you CAN'T!"?
If GW doesn't write water proof rules they are going to get complains how their rules don't work and are badly written as well. They need to be written so there's literally no loop hole whatsoever left.
GW writes rules like crap, they walk around the rule in a conversational tone instead of getting to the point. It results in rules that deserve 2 sentences taking up 3 paragraphs.
Esoteric Gamer in his review gave some examples (admittedly some that weren't great examples, lol), like there's a whole faff intro into the "core principles" section of the rulebook explaining what core principles are and why it's important to learn them when literally the title "core principles" is all that was needed.
But I noticed it in Kill Team also, I found the rules painful to read.
In some cases, yes, they are trying to cover off different scenarios, but 90% of the time they're just being excessively verbose and conversational in tone that leads to something that takes ages to read, ages to find the information you need, and isn't quick to scan.
Here's an example from Aeronautica Imperialis since I was just reading that book...
Directly Overhead It is important to note, whilst discussing Fire Arcs, that
it may sometimes happen that an aircraft occupies
the same hex as a Ground Defence or a ground
target. When this occurs, the aircraft is said to be
Directly Overhead.
When an aircraft is Directly Overhead a ground target,
it is still considered to be within the Ground Defence’s
All Round Fire Arc. Similarly, when an aircraft is
Directly Overhead a Ground Defence or ground target,
these are considered to be within the aircraft’s Rear
Fire Arc.
Let's rewrite that so it's not terrible:
Directly Overhead An aircraft is Directly Overhead a Ground Target when they
both occupy the same hex. An aircraft which is Directly
Overhead is in the Ground Target's All Round Fire Arc,
while the Ground Target is in the aircraft's rear Fire Arc.
If I opt to go for it(and there's some left at local store whenever it actually arrives to stores) how would you recommend buiding the big terrain box to get most impact for the bucks? What size of buildings looks like would be most useful? Height? More for ensuring infantry doesn't get annihilated too fast. Less worry about titan height.
tneva82 wrote: If I opt to go for it(and there's some left at local store whenever it actually arrives to stores) how would you recommend buiding the big terrain box to get most impact for the bucks? What size of buildings looks like would be most useful? Height? More for ensuring infantry doesn't get annihilated too fast. Less worry about titan height.
Guess some 2 level buildings could go for?
Single storey is fine for infantry, as garrisons are abstracted. They don't particularly care about height as long as you can intuitively make a distinction between buildings that are small and buildings that are large enough to hold multiple detachments. You can make a whole lot of fist-sized blocks and flats from that box, especially if you're willing to expand a bit with plasticard flooring and scratchbuilt pieces on the walls. Single storey is also already tall enough to block LoS for tanks and walkers. I'd make a few rowhouse-style strips, as that gives you multiple LoS blocking pieces that can be arranged into interesting layouts and added to the sides of bigger buildings. Combine with some nice copses of trees or bigger industrial reactor bits and such for visual variety.
It is a very flexible kit, and as said beautifully scaled for the game.
How high you want to build may need to take into account Warlord and Warmaster Titans. If those are likely to be common, you may well want to Build High For Happiness, lest those giants of the game have near unfettered LoS.
And of course, that will in turn affect how many buildings you get out of each big kit.
Beyond that? Variety is the spice of life! Have some simple boxes, others of varied levels etc.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For those who’ve watched unboxing and rule book previews? Do we have a proper index to help us find the USRs?
I seem to remember a reviewer saying there were about 20 pages of USRs.
Weapon traits are 45 individual rules on 9 pages
Special rules are 51 individual rules on 12 pages
But that includes everything so even one sentence rules like unique (no more than one of this unit) or arcs (can only target in arc)
The usr's seem decent if its 51. The weapons are where I sorta got a bit irritated. I think it's one thing to have a few iterations of largely the same base weapon with different usr's attached, but it starts to get a ltitle silly at times when they randomly decide to tack on a unit's name to a weapon. Sir this is no mere lascannon, oh no, it's a kratos lascannon, elephant, elephant seal, totally different animal you see. This is also expressed in some of the titan weapons being different seemingly for the sake of it from one titan to another. The dire wolf in titanicus had a hit buff in short range band to its weapons, though this was never tied explicitly to wargear/upgrades or anything the fluff had dire wolves being sorta lone hunter/snipers/lurkers waiting to land a shot, For some reason though the volcano cannon on the reaver arms are better, and you can take two of them. I guess its the one area they could maybe trim/consolidate or develop a mount system to account for the different types of similar weapons.
I'm a bit worried that with weapons not having any related point cost with a few exceptions consideredd "upgrades", there will be some loadouts that are just far and away better than others. Everyone has taken notice of how powerful/broken warp missiles are. That's a good starting point too because something like a one use only weapon isn't common in AT but one could at least in theroy FAQ/ERRATA the point costs at a minimum, here the system doesn't really account for it. If any weapon stands out as maybe at least make it an upgrade for x points, warp missile is at the front of that list. Good on gw for at least honouring the weapon models they've made for AT and giving them rules in LI, but man, titans really stand out from other units. Not just the ever growing lists of weapons as you go up in scale but, the ability to mount 3+ of them. I get that if weapons all had costs it would mess with the 30% allies thing, constantly sorta dancing across the threshold from list to list. And granted the 30% rule all but ensures titans remain a rarity in most games in terms of numbers, even running a couple warhounds adds up pretty quickly and requires games over 2000pts.
I think some of the usr's that deal with how AP is applied to different targets could have also just maybe been visualized with an extra column in unit listing dividing vehicles and infantry. Someone had posted and example of that a few months back in the rumours thread and it immediately helped navigate some of the usr's with less than straightfoward sounding names like light AT, anti tank ect. Overall though what I'm immediately liking more than titanicus is just how much easier its going to be to come up with home brew rules for new units, I also feel like this is going to be a game that is much easier to recruit/bring new players into over titanicus. Just not needing terminals is a big bonus, those always scared the crap out of people I showed the game to, a little unit card with pertinent info seems a lit more straightfoward.
Agree fully with this. The Titans do seem very strong for their points in general, but the weapons aren't equally strong. So points for options there would make sense.
Large multi-wound models seem very strong by rules design per se, with no pinning and no degradation of stats/damage effects..
On the other hand, Titans don't contribute to holding objectives at all.
My first thought (as someone who never misses a chance to roll a one when the odds are 2+) that the warp missile wasn't so bad (you've got to take a Reaver and it's giving up a gun) but on re-reading the Warp trait it does pack quite a punch, and you only losing a 'warhound' scale weapon. Might get nerfed in the first FAQ/eratta (d6 attacks or something, rather that one per wound/model).
Titans also rapidly devour your ally points if I’m right in thinking?
Warp Missiles have pretty much always been able to one-shot most Titans. They’re described as skipping in and out of Warp Space, so they appear inside the enemy Titan then explode.
And as Mark Norfolk points out, they’re one and done, leaving the Reaver down a weapon system. Not to mention you’re painting a fat old target on Mr Reaver just by fielding it.
We’re also yet to really get a feel for the game, and how giving up a weapon system will affect a Reaver’s overall usefulness.
It`s also not that usefull if your opponent doesn`t bring any titans, no? So while probably very strong against other titans, a bit of a list-making gamble if you don`t know what to expect from an opponent.
It does get a good attack on ‘regular’ detachments, but what, if you’ve got one, should you fire it at? Blast a Titan or super heavy detachment and leave loads of pesky objective grabbing infantry unmolested. Shoot an infantry detachment (a big one if possible) and let the big guns shoot back at you? Or leave until the late game to clear the enemy off an objective so you can move in… and risk not getting to use it all?
And then you tell yourself “I wish I’d taken the Vulcan Mega-bolter!”
It would be good if that similar balance with the Warp Missile has been maintained from the previous game. I guess it's whether that 1 in 6 is the equivalent of the missile somehow scattering and going in-between the target titan's legs in SM2, which seemed to happen way to often!
Pacific wrote: It would be good if that similar balance with the Warp Missile has been maintained from the previous game. I guess it's whether that 1 in 6 is the equivalent of the missile somehow scattering and going in-between the target titan's legs in SM2, which seemed to happen way to often!
That Warlord Reactor square was too tempting to pass up!
westiebestie wrote: Titans and Knights should be pretty common. If only for the fact "everyone" now gets 2 Warhounds in the starter.
From my experience of 2nd Ed? Warhounds don’t really [i]Titan[/b].
Oh they can do some serious damage, no argument there like. But they’re awfully squishy, so need to be used with genuine care, lest your not insignificant points investment be jumped on and beaten up by all and sundry!
Got to use them like ambush predators. Keep out of sight, don’t bite off more than you can chew, don’t get overwhelmed. Surgical precision on their own, or a solid line breaking back up for combined arms.
You wanna muscle your way to victory? Reaver or Warlord is what you need
leopard wrote: means decent sized games though, or house rules to let the titans be either more than 30% or have them as the primary force
I suspect having titans loaded to kill troops and tanks while having some tanks able to go titan hunting as well as heavy tank hunting works
otherwise you have a titan that may kill an enemy titan but is then not all that useful
You can include a Warhound already at 1100points and a Reaver at 1400..
But yeah since the launch lists are very limited and lacking lots of Heavy units, the initial duels might be Titans vs normal tanks. Should be more interesting once rules for e.g Fellblades & Falchion come. Then its more use for Engine Killer(x) weapons, both ways.
Anyway I don't power game, I will vary between the weapons I find cool. Looking forward to the Warhound Inferno Gun with it's template attack even though it might mean the Warhound gets toastedein return.
Anyhow, soon the guesswork will be gone, my parcel is on the Terminal.. 🥳
Its odd that Fellblades and Falchions don't seem to be part of the initial release waves tbh.
Also, you think they'll include the Glaive? I've noticed that volkite weapons/variants seem to be conspicuously absent from the rules thus far. Almost makes me wonder if they are saving them for a future Great Crusade expansion.
So what sort of list people are painting first? Obviously bit limited on options. But here's what I'll be getting first model wise(some spare models as I swap SA for marine half) and painting up first go.
Can't wait to add drop pods, bikes and other air planes to the mix.
chaos0xomega wrote: I've noticed that volkite weapons/variants seem to be conspicuously absent from the rules thus far. Almost makes me wonder if they are saving them for a future Great Crusade expansion.
There are more than half a dozen volkite weapons, including on the titans, on a knight, on the leviathans, and auxilia commander.
Got the rulebook epub, a box of Astartes infantry and a free Rhino from the local GW. Didn't get the coin as I wasn't aware I'd need to spend 80€ in the shop to qualify - GW shouldn't be a DIKK about it, just state out loud on the WHC coin articles that you can only get the coins by spending money. FFS! ebay time..
The Rhino had quite a lot of parts, I mean I knew there would be but it only sunk in as I was cutting the parts from the sprue. Only 1 Havoc launcher & 1 HK missile per sprue AFAICS
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reading the rulebook ATM. Even the narration style feels faithful to the original Space Marine boxed game. Adjectives are kept to a reasonable amount. Awesome miniature-based Photoshops (page 10 for example) inside as well!
tauist wrote: Got the rulebook epub, a box of Astartes infantry and a free Rhino from the local GW. Didn't get the coin as I wasn't aware I'd need to spend 80€ in the shop to qualify - GW shouldn't be a DIKK about it, just state out loud on the WHC coin articles that you can only get the coins by spending money. FFS! ebay time..
I think different stores have different policies. I gave up trying to get the free stuff from my local GW as the manager uses the free things to guilt you into buying that faction/game/etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: The Rhino had quite a lot of parts, I mean I knew there would be but it only sunk in as I was cutting the parts from the sprue. Only 1 Havoc launcher & 1 HK missile per sprue AFAICS
Aeronautica Imperialis was similar. They're surprisingly fiddly to assemble. But for AI you only need a half dozen to a dozen planes, hoping LI tanks aren't too arduous to build given the number required.
Good news is it seems the LI models aren't as typical with 40k/aos part A goes ONLY with part B. Every track goes to every hull. So you can do pile of tracks, pile of hulls and then mass assembly.
Not like in 40k where you better not cut and clean every part and only then assemble. Good luck figuring out is this tiny odd looking part supposed to go with what. Or that arm A only goes to body B so good luck remembering which body was body B.
Assembling 200 clanrats at once no problem as you could just do it in so order. I much prefer assembling 200 clanrats over 10 blissbarb archer and it's not number of pieces model has...It's the one can be mass assembled, one you need to assemble practically model by model.
BTW terrain question. Do you think fields(as in corn fields) have any sensible terrain purpose or would they be more of decoration?
Looking at GW's terrain article obscuring seems way off. 5+ cover save and -1 to hit for every detachment bar titans and blocks LOS. I don't see tanks benefitting too much from hiding in corn field...
Difficult wouldn't block LOS through(good) and only 6+ cover save but tanks starting to be destroyed by crossing over CORN field?
tneva82 wrote: BTW terrain question. Do you think fields(as in corn fields) have any sensible terrain purpose or would they be more of decoration?
Looking at GW's terrain article obscuring seems way off. 5+ cover save and -1 to hit for every detachment bar titans and blocks LOS. I don't see tanks benefitting too much from hiding in corn field...
Difficult wouldn't block LOS through(good) and only 6+ cover save but tanks starting to be destroyed by crossing over CORN field?
The terrain rules need a lot of parsing out, area terrain for everything is really silly, worse still this idea of making magical 3d boxes that block los but in no way actualyl block anything is really bad. The biggest wtf is structures are the only destructible terrain. So for reference, my titan can charge a building and remove it from play, physically, but a corner ruin is indestructible... yeah.
Heh, I forgot that GW only wants to sell digital books to Apple device owners and so instead of using pdf like regular humans they use the fething epub3 format, which is nigh-unreadable on anything but an Apple fething device... >_>
I guess I'll just have to hoist the black flag then.
Opening the box a lot less plastic frames than other GW boxes, makes sense with smaller models but does feel a bit like "needed a bit more", I think a single frame of terrain would have been good, partly for "look there is this!" and partly to fill the box a bit more.
The tokens are laughably bad, very thin card and greyscale, I hope GW have a plastic token set in the works as this is bad, other games they do get thick card stock.
Decals look nice.
Flipping through the book As expected, bit of fluff, the book looks nicely presented, nicely illustrated - not gotten to the proof reading stuff but it looks the part. very familiar based on the Age of Darkness book
also looks like it makes an excellent weapon for solving disputes do the mass of it
models - pre-assembly
They look small... as expected.. by eck there are some parts to the tanks too, again not unexpected.
the bit securing the infantry to the base isn't strong enough, several here have come off and are now lurking in the recesses of the box, these ones may need to be stuck to a base before proceeding.
also not a huge fan of the bases, would have actually been happier with a small base on the model (thin) and plain bases. easier to have urban, desert, rubble, whatever then. Expect to be printing some plainer bases for these guys. they are nice quality though
the shadowing on the infantry is annoying but not critical, it can be painted to hide it and the models with it worst put in the centre to obscure it
for out of the box its about as expected, nothing that jumped out as "oh wow!" but also nothing that was "ffs" with the exception of the order counters - which is easily fixable with some MDF discs and some coloured dot stickers
Haven't seen one in person yet, but I did notice on unboxing vids that the box seemed more empty than your typical GW starter. Also is the box smaller than a typical starter? Hard to tell from picture, but it looks like it.
Box seems the usual size, slightly shallower though
and yes a Kratos sprue would be useful, at least then you can use all the marine tanks (as it is the single Demi-Company gets to use the Predator or Sicaran but not both)
have now stuck the plastic Sicaran together, while the number of parts is a tad excessive the resulting models are excellent, my 3d print ones are fractionally larger, the GW ones are a lot more detailed without "silly" details if that makes sense. stuff drybrush & washes will pick out without needing many extra colours.
tneva82 wrote: Would mean increased price though. While more stuff at discount WOULD be nice it would increase the start up cost though.
to be honest dropping the Warhound Titans that by the rules in the box you will really struggle to use and giving either a pair of Kratos or some terrain, favouring the latter, would have made more sense
But sells less the big scale of battles. Titans are large part of "epic" feel.
Also starter sets are hyper rarely legal armies to begin with. 600 pts per side + titan is quite usable. Matched play legal forces in starter sets are very rare. Apart from 40k 10th ed but that's due to no real restrictions anyway
If game has restrictions odds are GW starters break more than a few. They aren't supposed to be matched play forces(matched play games aren't exactly meant for <1000 pts games anyway...That's more of realm of bring what you and your friend feel like)
First fire is useless against chargers with same or bigger scale factor. They engage&pin and remove ability to fire.
Contrary to most battle reports, Ogryns and Veletari can charge with no HQ nearby, as they do no have the Chain of Command rule, and they are Independent.
tneva82 wrote: Matched play legal forces in starter sets are very rare. Apart from 40k 10th ed but that's due to no real restrictions anyway
It probably shows how few GW games I've bought recently, but I think most of the starter sets I've bought I can recall either were or at least weren't too far off a legal army.
Well you can get legal armies from this box, two of them, if you try to get one you end up with a lot not being used.
however you don't need to add too much to make more use of it, box of Kratos and the Marines have two formations and enough points its getting interesting
Automatically Appended Next Post: It is also notable that as SU-152 points out there are a few rules mistakes in various on line play throughs
leopard wrote: Well at least you can overwatch, though yes "First Fire" when you get into enemy charge range does seem a bit weak except maybe for larger units
can't see infantry getting much from it
Better to use Point Defence on Advance and shoot in the movement phase.
leopard wrote: Well at least you can overwatch, though yes "First Fire" when you get into enemy charge range does seem a bit weak except maybe for larger units
can't see infantry getting much from it
Better to use Point Defence on Advance and shoot in the movement phase.
depends, within movement range of the enemy I expect you are right
So got most of what I ordered, local hobby shop was able to get it out for delivery today (We don't usually get post Fri/Sat/Sun) but as usual, GW hasn't despatched anything.
My first impressions:
Box is nice, sturdy and will be nice for storage of sprues. Box is a little sparse- a sprue of terrain, some nicer plastic counters/objective markers (Like the AT one) or a couple more models of some kind would have been nice for the price. Warhounds are ok I guess but feels very much like they had too many in back stock. First set has at least two minis with weapons that have snapped off, that is a bit disappointing but its about what I expected (had plenty of broken orks back in the day)
Instruction manual is nice and clear, but as usual its sloppy GW. They list the model parts to what is in the individual boxes and not the starter. I'm sure there will be some numbering issues too, haven't seen a GW kit without mistakes in years at this point.
Decals are lovely.
Quick glance through the rule book, not very impressed. The lore section is pretty much just a timeline, the sort of thing I'd expect from a wiki page. The book overall feels very 'beige sci-fi' which is all the rage these days. Its not very inspiring to be honest and the other than a few nice stand out art pages, the same beige photoshop battle scenes are dull and lifeless. I had to laugh at the example battlefields set ups- we have grey urban city area and then we have grey industrial city area. The best things in there are the chapter plate pages and the studio armies. They should have expanded those sections greatly. I'll probably read through the rules once next week and bin them, they don't really have anything in there that is backwards compatible with older versions and the lack of lore/art means I'll never flick through it again.
The models are fantastic. Any love GW has for the game/scale has totally been poured in to those tiny tanks. I've built a box of rhinos, they have some really fiddly bits but are fantastic. The game has left me cold, but god those tiny rhinos are works of art. The marines are not as bad as macro photography & doomsayers would have us believe. I've tidied the first few up and cleaning them up and smoothing out the extra plastic and I honest don't think it will be noticeable on the tabletop at all.
The models are chunkier and they certainly can't be mixed on the same base but now I have them in hand, they will mix in perfectly with vanguard and there really isn't enough of a difference to not have them on the same table top as my old 6mm collection.
The bases are surprising thin and still have decent enough details. I won't be using them but they are impressive.
Overall my opinion is that this is not a great release but the models alone are worth the price of entry and make up for a lot of the short comings in the games overall presentation. It helps that I am using these to supplement an existing collection and continuing to buy a ton of vanguard, but I'd hate to think of the cost of entry for this game for someone that is only interested in the 'bundled GW official warhammer experience'.
I'm going to use the models for E40k games, no real interest in the HH as a setting for a full game. But will likely run some Dornian Heresy campaign days as something different to the Orks/marine/chaos line up we usually do.
Minis are Vanguard-New HH-Old Epic. The old epic minis are on the old E40k bases which is about 0.5mm thicker than the vanguard ones I'm using here, and this one has about a 1mm magnetic strip making it a tad larger again.
I'm very happy with my box. Models are fantastic and I'll enjoy painting them. Reserving judgement on the rules until I've fully read them and tried them in a game. Book style doesn't bother me it's pretty keeping with the books for Horus Heresy game. Some will like it, some won't, it's individual taste. I'm just happy to finally get this as I've all day tomorrow to finish building and painting the content s for are a game on Monday.
Albertorius wrote: Heh, I forgot that GW only wants to sell digital books to Apple device owners and so instead of using pdf like regular humans they use the fething epub3 format, which is nigh-unreadable on anything but an Apple fething device... >_>
I guess I'll just have to hoist the black flag then.
dude, epub3 is an open format.. google is your friend
Woke up sick as a dog with a fever but no shipping notice. Not going to be able to make it to get a free Rhino (not really courteous in my condition, even if I did have the energy). It seems the universe has something to say about my wanting to get into Epic.
Albertorius wrote: Heh, I forgot that GW only wants to sell digital books to Apple device owners and so instead of using pdf like regular humans they use the fething epub3 format, which is nigh-unreadable on anything but an Apple fething device... >_>
I guess I'll just have to hoist the black flag then.
dude, epub3 is an open format.. google is your friend
I know. I still have had problems every single time on Windows.
Problems which I don't have with a regular fething pdf (which is now out in the wild). Plus, the format doesn't actually add anything that you can't do with pdf either, so...
leopard wrote: have now stuck the plastic Sicaran together, while the number of parts is a tad excessive the resulting models are excellent, my 3d print ones are fractionally larger, the GW ones are a lot more detailed without "silly" details if that makes sense. stuff drybrush & washes will pick out without needing many extra colours.
What sort of extra details do the GW ones have over 3D prints? It seem just to be rivet details from the pictures I've seen?
I started putting the rivet detail on my 3D prints a while back because I noticed they printed fine at 6-8mm and were picked up nicely by a drybrush.
Really easy to do, load up the model in blender, create a quad sphere, then drag it around copy/pasting them as you go. If the two sides of the tank are symmetrical, just do one side, then copy/paste several at once and either mirror or just manually drag the group over to the other side.
Rivets are not too bad, but some 3D print designs have texturing or super fine work that won't print cleanly. Don't forget a good many won't have parted the 3D print models like GW parted theirs for assembly. So some of the details on a 3D print might be muted by facing the build plate and/or support scarring.
Different resolution printers and resins will also come into play. Some of the new 8 and 12k printers are starting to render some of the insane fine texturing that some models have (esp when they are made for 75mm and then downscaled to 32mm).
Part of this is likely that GW are much more mature in their approach to market and under much less time pressure (potentially) compared to many 3D print groups who operate month to month on volume and quality control is a tricky thing (made harder by the fact many sculptors don't always have their own 3D printer so the sculpt "blind" to the end product - which means feedback takes that big longer to process through the system).
And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.
Man whoever wrote this rulebook would somehow take 3 sentences to communicate to someone they're going to take a pee, like for some reason telling the other person a list of things they'll see on their walk to the washroom. It feels like stream of conciousness writing at times, it seems like every time I look up a special rule expecting something straight forward it's like half a page of paragraphs with nothing breaking them up. I'm happy with the thunderhawk, excited to get into the ruins box, but man, the rulebook so far feels like ben stein's voice
And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.
Man whoever wrote this rulebook would somehow take 3 sentences to communicate to someone they're going to take a pee, like for some reason telling the other person a list of things they'll see on their walk to the washroom. It feels like stream of conciousness writing at times, it seems like every time I look up a special rule expecting something straight forward it's like half a page of paragraphs with nothing breaking them up. I'm happy with the thunderhawk, excited to get into the ruins box, but man, the rulebook so far feels like ben stein's voice
Spoiler:
So basically, typical GW writing style.
I really wish they'd learn to write more concisely, it seems to be an established style for them now so maybe they think people enjoy it? Or maybe people do enjoy it and we're the weirdos for not wanting a rulebook that takes days to read
If I wrote something that bad for something I planned to publish, my colleagues would laugh at me.
And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.
Man whoever wrote this rulebook would somehow take 3 sentences to communicate to someone they're going to take a pee, like for some reason telling the other person a list of things they'll see on their walk to the washroom. It feels like stream of conciousness writing at times, it seems like every time I look up a special rule expecting something straight forward it's like half a page of paragraphs with nothing breaking them up. I'm happy with the thunderhawk, excited to get into the ruins box, but man, the rulebook so far feels like ben stein's voice
Spoiler:
So basically, typical GW writing style.
I really wish they'd learn to write more concisely, it seems to be an established style for them now so maybe they think people enjoy it? Or maybe people do enjoy it and we're the weirdos for not wanting a rulebook that takes days to read
If I wrote something that bad for something I planned to publish, my colleagues would laugh at me.
People used to complain at GW for being fuzzy and nonspecific, so in classic GW fashion they decided they needed to explain everything in three times more sentences than they need because obviously the readers are morons.
And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.
Man whoever wrote this rulebook would somehow take 3 sentences to communicate to someone they're going to take a pee, like for some reason telling the other person a list of things they'll see on their walk to the washroom. It feels like stream of conciousness writing at times, it seems like every time I look up a special rule expecting something straight forward it's like half a page of paragraphs with nothing breaking them up. I'm happy with the thunderhawk, excited to get into the ruins box, but man, the rulebook so far feels like ben stein's voice
Spoiler:
So basically, typical GW writing style.
I really wish they'd learn to write more concisely, it seems to be an established style for them now so maybe they think people enjoy it? Or maybe people do enjoy it and we're the weirdos for not wanting a rulebook that takes days to read
If I wrote something that bad for something I planned to publish, my colleagues would laugh at me.
People used to complain at GW for being fuzzy and nonspecific, so in classic GW fashion they decided they needed to explain everything in three times more sentences than they need because obviously the readers are morons.
Nah it's not that. They aren't repeating or engraining or expanding, they're simply taking a lot of words to say something.
I don't have my hands on the LI book yet, but I gave an example on the previous page from Aeronautica Imperialis.
Directly Overhead It is important to note, whilst discussing Fire Arcs, that it may sometimes happen that an aircraft occupies the same hex as a Ground Defence or a ground target. When this occurs, the aircraft is said to be Directly Overhead.
When an aircraft is Directly Overhead a ground target, it is still considered to be within the Ground Defence’s All Round Fire Arc. Similarly, when an aircraft is Directly Overhead a Ground Defence or ground target, these are considered to be within the aircraft’s Rear Fire Arc.
There are 3 points they're trying to make... - An aircraft is "Directly Overhead" when they occupy the same hex as a ground target. - When directly overhead, the ground target is in the rear fire arc of the aircraft. - When directly overhead, the aircraft is in the ground target's all around fire arc.
The points are only made once, they aren't expanded on, they aren't reinforced, they just use excessively long language to state those 3 points.
I used that example because it was literally a rule I was just reading, but GW books are littered with similar stuff.
Thanks for the comparison shots RexHavoc, those are really useful. It looks like I won't be basing the new Legions marines with my Vanguard, but they are close enough to occupy a tabletop together.
I got a boxset of the Auxiliary infantry for starters, very nice single piece guardsmen, got hand cramp trying to assemble the Sentinels the Ogryns are very cool too, I thought they looked a bit too busy for two on a base so have gone economy-mode and have single-based them.
For anyone trying to get a rulebook I see some have appeared on the auctioneering site already, but they look like those from people splitting sets so are still a little expensive (£25-30 mark) so will hold fire for the time being.
And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.
Man whoever wrote this rulebook would somehow take 3 sentences to communicate to someone they're going to take a pee, like for some reason telling the other person a list of things they'll see on their walk to the washroom. It feels like stream of conciousness writing at times, it seems like every time I look up a special rule expecting something straight forward it's like half a page of paragraphs with nothing breaking them up. I'm happy with the thunderhawk, excited to get into the ruins box, but man, the rulebook so far feels like ben stein's voice
Spoiler:
So basically, typical GW writing style.
I really wish they'd learn to write more concisely, it seems to be an established style for them now so maybe they think people enjoy it? Or maybe people do enjoy it and we're the weirdos for not wanting a rulebook that takes days to read
If I wrote something that bad for something I planned to publish, my colleagues would laugh at me.
People used to complain at GW for being fuzzy and nonspecific, so in classic GW fashion they decided they needed to explain everything in three times more sentences than they need because obviously the readers are morons.
Seeing readers don't even read abilities(or how hard can "start of battleround" be to understand?) And just flat out willingly bend rules(infinite time shooting in 40k)...
I’d rather the Rulebook was like LI (and I don’t really mind it) rather than Kill Team where they make up new terms like “Turning Point.”
Automatically Appended Next Post: Meanwhile I’m enjoying assembling and painting these figures. Loads of detail on the tanks, but I don’t think my fingers used to be this fat!
leopard wrote: have now stuck the plastic Sicaran together, while the number of parts is a tad excessive the resulting models are excellent, my 3d print ones are fractionally larger, the GW ones are a lot more detailed without "silly" details if that makes sense. stuff drybrush & washes will pick out without needing many extra colours.
What sort of extra details do the GW ones have over 3D prints? It seem just to be rivet details from the pictures I've seen?
I started putting the rivet detail on my 3D prints a while back because I noticed they printed fine at 6-8mm and were picked up nicely by a drybrush.
Really easy to do, load up the model in blender, create a quad sphere, then drag it around copy/pasting them as you go. If the two sides of the tank are symmetrical, just do one side, then copy/paste several at once and either mirror or just manually drag the group over to the other side.
its a fair bit more detail actually, nothing huge, and nothing you won't notice unless you look closely, weapon power cables, greebling on the sides of the sponson las-cannons, more detailed exhaust bits
basically drybrushing fodder, when I've got a couple of each painted will stick up some pictures
and its nothing a 3d version couldn't do, just the Sicaran STL I have lacks, while being plenty detailed enough
totally agree on rivets though, never even occured to me they would work until I tried it
So, about those tokens. Since I didnt buy the starter and only got the epub, has anyone seen awesome looking order tokens on sale at some third party vendor?
Dont mind paying a premium if they look great, I'm someone who blew 100€ on a second steel gauge for my KT21 games when Octarius launched
tauist wrote: So, about those tokens. Since I didnt buy the starter and only got the epub, has anyone seen awesome looking order tokens on sale at some third party vendor?
Dont mind paying a premium if they look great, I'm someone who blew 100€ on a second steel gauge for my KT21 games when Octarius launched
I think they're the same as previous Epic editions and Adeptus Titanicus (some versions have 6 instead of 5 counters, but I think the 5 that LI has existed in the previous versions).
So maybe search for AT tokens or Epic <insert version here> tokens and see what comes up on 3rd party sites or 2nd hand sites.
If you have a friend with a 3D printer, there's lots of STLs around (including some fancy dial type ones).
If I enjoy the game I'll be looking to 3D print some myself, as the "card" ones that come in the box are terrible.
So i have a question if I understood the withdrawing rules correctly:
When a detachment loses a combat and fails the save role it has to withdraw D6 plus movement value on the shortest possible route to the controlling players board edge. You can move through enemy units during that move and you have to roll saves if you do unless you are 3 sizes larger than them (Knights vs infantry for example). But that is only if you move through them, if you end your move overlapping an enemy model your model is just destroyed.
So lets say you have an Acastus Knight that has to withdraw. You can't control the move as you have to go the whole distance on the shortest path to the board edge so a straight line unless terrain is in the way. So if there is a single infantry base where you would end up you are just unlucky and your Knight is instantly killed?
tauist wrote: So, about those tokens. Since I didnt buy the starter and only got the epub, has anyone seen awesome looking order tokens on sale at some third party vendor?
Dont mind paying a premium if they look great, I'm someone who blew 100€ on a second steel gauge for my KT21 games when Octarius launched
I would say there is a very high likelihood that there will be some 3rd party tokens available very shortly, as this seems to be the main complaint with the boxed games (over both lack of colour and card quality). There are already some home-made versions appearing in the FB groups, and they game has hardly been out 24 hours so would be very surprised if the usual 3rd party producers are not already at work on them.
I did have a search for the old Epic counters and surprisingly (considering how many of those games sold) there is almost nothing about - I am just intending to use those.
Fugazi wrote: How many of each token? This may be a decent photoshop project while I wait.
Agreed on colors. That’s a sea of gray blahness.
How many tokens of each?
What I’d like to do is prepare a sheet, print, then stick on domed epoxy stickers. I’ve done it for LOTR card game, and it’s great. Because they’re domed, they’re super each to pick up or flip.
I’m fine sharing the sheet, but I need to know how many tokens of each (or how many would be ideal to a couple of players)
Matrindur wrote: So i have a question if I understood the withdrawing rules correctly:
When a detachment loses a combat and fails the save role it has to withdraw D6 plus movement value on the shortest possible route to the controlling players board edge. You can move through enemy units during that move and you have to roll saves if you do unless you are 3 sizes larger than them (Knights vs infantry for example). But that is only if you move through them, if you end your move overlapping an enemy model your model is just destroyed.
So lets say you have an Acastus Knight that has to withdraw. You can't control the move as you have to go the whole distance on the shortest path to the board edge so a straight line unless terrain is in the way. So if there is a single infantry base where you would end up you are just unlucky and your Knight is instantly killed?
So, loser fails a morale check: withdraws 1d6+M.
- Directly to own edge.
- Ignoring basically any model and engagement zone.
- But moving though any other Det. forces a save (unless scale 3 larger).
- Ending on top of friend: no problem, just move aside. Moving on top of ANY enemy: destroyed, so yes, an big knight can be destroyed by infantry.
Matrindur wrote: So i have a question if I understood the withdrawing rules correctly:
When a detachment loses a combat and fails the save role it has to withdraw D6 plus movement value on the shortest possible route to the controlling players board edge. You can move through enemy units during that move and you have to roll saves if you do unless you are 3 sizes larger than them (Knights vs infantry for example). But that is only if you move through them, if you end your move overlapping an enemy model your model is just destroyed.
So lets say you have an Acastus Knight that has to withdraw. You can't control the move as you have to go the whole distance on the shortest path to the board edge so a straight line unless terrain is in the way. So if there is a single infantry base where you would end up you are just unlucky and your Knight is instantly killed?
Yeah it's pretty terrible, it's also another thing to show people obsessed with trying to play on old/weird bases because it will definitely afffect that rule in specific whether fleeing or being the unit destroying said feeling unit. Real friend winner
The game needs work is all I'll say, the models are amazing, but the rulebook has been a real mixed bag so far. The highlight has been that unlike the AT book there's a lot of more photography and it was nice to see staff armies with credit, they all look quite good. One big thing I've noticed is, there's new art and some of it is very very nice, but there's almost no art actually depicting marine vs solar aux fighting. The sample boards are also funny, they show a whole two of them and it's basically "unbroken urban landscape" or "ruined unbroken urban landscape" which is a shame because one of the nice surprises is the there are fairly detailed rules for rivers/bridges and cliffs.
SU-152 wrote: Also, points seem broken all over the place:
Kratos are better than Malcadors, for the same points.
Fighters costing the same points as bombers.
...
Ya its a bit of a mess, then you also have the people that don't want any wysiwyg so objectivity goes out the window with units largely not paying points for their weapons outside of upgrades.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: its nice how you pay upgrades for weapons on a Rhino, but can take %WHATEVER% on tanks and titans at not cost difference.
A GW game with broken points...
Yeah I don't understand the upgrade thing. The bombers are a great example, they basically exist as 4 distinct units/models but 3 are just "upgrades" of the standard bomber, and only some cost points. There definitely are units with just a and b options where one is clearly better than the other, dreadnoughts, lascannons are just better than kheres.
leopard wrote: its nice how you pay upgrades for weapons on a Rhino, but can take %WHATEVER% on tanks and titans at not cost difference.
A GW game with broken points...
The first red flag for me was the Warmaster for only 750 points, when all other Titans are substantially more expensive than they are in Titanicus.
well much more than 750 and you will struggle to field the thing, plus guess they need to shift them somehow
I'm hoping GW have the guts to rework the points after a year or so, I think there will be some stuff thats now way too much or too little but may look a bit better when the rest of the stuff we should have had the rules for now is released
Not like AT points are of relevance. Different rules, different power within game. What is powerful in one game might not be that big in other game.
In AT you field entire squadrons of knights for titan, here couple and you are approaching bigger titans. Warhound is cheaper per marine basic infantry model in LI than in 40k etc etc etc.
(or rather, just as frequently as to the top of the head).
/pic805134.jpg)
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
