Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So in the few games I have played So far. It seams like the aux have the advantage over marines.

I am trying to find videos or other articles to read. But right now it seems like not a lot of online activity.

Well it's a bad time to launch a game, lots of people are preoccupied with the holidays and don't have time to hobby or play. Couple that with product shortages everywhere and there's a lot of people who are missing parts of their armies or even their rulebooks, etc.

 ashlevrier wrote:
So in the few games I have played So far. It seams like the aux have the advantage over marines.

My experience is the opposite. Same model count on the table and marines are better (better armour, better CAF and the most important, better morale).

Solar Aux dominate the heavy armour and flyer game quite heavily at the moment until the marines get their AA and things like the fire raptor get re released, the marine have speed and infantry dominance for the most part, a full detachment of terminators dropping in with double tap and re rolls is really hard to counter and can easily clear a objective to hold.

Think the first thing that needs to be clarified is if you are only using the as yet released models, or if these are augmented with alternative models to use the rules for models not yet officially released.

Auxilia currently lack a good transport option thats easily available (not counting FW resin here), when they get that a few things change.

Auxilia do certainly have better armour for anti-armour with the Vanquisher cannons on both the Russ and the Malcador, and if you managed to grab a Baneblade before they sold out their armoured formations are nasty

ditto air is good, if you got hold of it

I think currently the available options make the game skewed somewhat, longer term I expect the Auxilia will play a good "stand back and shoot" game and prove good at holding ground and being generally difficult to chew through - they have some good assault options, though lack transports currently.

Marines I think will generally be more mobile, flexible and better at assaulting

and I think the winning deployment will be combining the two not trying to use just one, likely workable with either leading and the other supporting


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Solar Aux dominate the heavy armour and flyer game quite heavily at the moment until the marines get their AA and things like the fire raptor get re released, the marine have speed and infantry dominance for the most part, a full detachment of terminators dropping in with double tap and re rolls is really hard to counter and can easily clear a objective to hold.

while this is true, Terminators can certainly drop in and shoot troops clear of an objective, this is diluted somewhat if the objective is held from an adjacent building or area terrain as they cannot drop & assault. They can also only target a single enemy unit, an objective held by two causes a problem (unless you can get some ranged fire to support them of course), and to be honest eight stands with a 4+ save likely won't last long against the enemies fire.

Have used, smaller, terminator units already, while they are a threat, and cause enemy units to be held back, which to be honest I think is the greatest use for them (as in the threat in being while off the board can tie up far more than their value in enemy units) when they actually arrive I've found they tend not to last very long.

of course an enemy who doesn't guard the rear will regret it.

I wonder if dropping two units of four would work better than one unit of eight, can still focus on one enemy if needed, but can now stick 8 shots into each of two, and also harder to remove?

SU-152 wrote:

 ashlevrier wrote:
So in the few games I have played So far. It seams like the aux have the advantage over marines.

My experience is the opposite. Same model count on the table and marines are better (better armour, better CAF and the most important, better morale).

When the axe men come they win almost every time in combat.

The 5+ save is almost pointless. The better caf is also pointless because aux have rend. Rend averages out to be a +3 for them.

Morale is the only thing marines got. But it don't matter if your dead.

Every game we have played has been a one sided aux victory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
Think the first thing that needs to be clarified is if you are only using the as yet released models, or if these are augmented with alternative models to use the rules for models not yet officially released.

Auxilia currently lack a good transport option thats easily available (not counting FW resin here), when they get that a few things change.

Auxilia do certainly have better armour for anti-armour with the Vanquisher cannons on both the Russ and the Malcador, and if you managed to grab a Baneblade before they sold out their armoured formations are nasty

ditto air is good, if you got hold of it

I think currently the available options make the game skewed somewhat, longer term I expect the Auxilia will play a good "stand back and shoot" game and prove good at holding ground and being generally difficult to chew through - they have some good assault options, though lack transports currently.

Marines I think will generally be more mobile, flexible and better at assaulting

and I think the winning deployment will be combining the two not trying to use just one, likely workable with either leading and the other supporting


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Solar Aux dominate the heavy armour and flyer game quite heavily at the moment until the marines get their AA and things like the fire raptor get re released, the marine have speed and infantry dominance for the most part, a full detachment of terminators dropping in with double tap and re rolls is really hard to counter and can easily clear a objective to hold.

while this is true, Terminators can certainly drop in and shoot troops clear of an objective, this is diluted somewhat if the objective is held from an adjacent building or area terrain as they cannot drop & assault. They can also only target a single enemy unit, an objective held by two causes a problem (unless you can get some ranged fire to support them of course), and to be honest eight stands with a 4+ save likely won't last long against the enemies fire.

Have used, smaller, terminator units already, while they are a threat, and cause enemy units to be held back, which to be honest I think is the greatest use for them (as in the threat in being while off the board can tie up far more than their value in enemy units) when they actually arrive I've found they tend not to last very long.

of course an enemy who doesn't guard the rear will regret it.

I wonder if dropping two units of four would work better than one unit of eight, can still focus on one enemy if needed, but can now stick 8 shots into each of two, and also harder to remove?

I have to base my thoughts on what is available at the time. I can't just sit and hold out hope the game gets better.

leopard wrote:


while this is true, Terminators can certainly drop in and shoot troops clear of an objective, this is diluted somewhat if the objective is held from an adjacent building or area terrain as they cannot drop & assault. They can also only target a single enemy unit, an objective held by two causes a problem (unless you can get some ranged fire to support them of course), and to be honest eight stands with a 4+ save likely won't last long against the enemies fire.

Terminator shooting isn't particularly impressive though. And short ranged. They can easily scatter out of range or nearby bullding going poof. Cunning opponent also leaves holes in formation so that 1 stand fits there but rest won't resulting dead stands.

Inside thunderhawk seems best to get to melee which is where termies want to be.

Can scatter out of range, however keep in mind they can still move after landing.. though if too close to a building they become "at one with the structure"

agree they need an assault transport of some sort to get stuck in

tneva82 wrote:

leopard wrote:


while this is true, Terminators can certainly drop in and shoot troops clear of an objective, this is diluted somewhat if the objective is held from an adjacent building or area terrain as they cannot drop & assault. They can also only target a single enemy unit, an objective held by two causes a problem (unless you can get some ranged fire to support them of course), and to be honest eight stands with a 4+ save likely won't last long against the enemies fire.

Terminator shooting isn't particularly impressive though. And short ranged. They can easily scatter out of range or nearby bullding going poof. Cunning opponent also leaves holes in formation so that 1 stand fits there but rest won't resulting dead stands.

Inside thunderhawk seems best to get to melee which is where termies want to be.

yes and no, so I have 2 storm eagles with 2 sets of marines inside 2 storm eagles, ram them up the board, disembark and deep strike the terminators next to this detachment as they do not scatter if they are bought as part of the detachment and are dropping within 6" of it.

sure its a lot of points but I am yet to fail to get an objective with this tactic.

 ashlevrier wrote:


I have to base my thoughts on what is available at the time. I can't just sit and hold out hope the game gets better.

You have to, what we have now is just a teaser.

It took AT 6 months to get the titans needed to properly play the game. LI will take atleast that long if not longer (first expansion book) to get what both factions needs.

So as mentioned above, run both solar and sm, and wait with mono faction play until all units has been released.

 Formosa wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

leopard wrote:


while this is true, Terminators can certainly drop in and shoot troops clear of an objective, this is diluted somewhat if the objective is held from an adjacent building or area terrain as they cannot drop & assault. They can also only target a single enemy unit, an objective held by two causes a problem (unless you can get some ranged fire to support them of course), and to be honest eight stands with a 4+ save likely won't last long against the enemies fire.

Terminator shooting isn't particularly impressive though. And short ranged. They can easily scatter out of range or nearby bullding going poof. Cunning opponent also leaves holes in formation so that 1 stand fits there but rest won't resulting dead stands.

Inside thunderhawk seems best to get to melee which is where termies want to be.

yes and no, so I have 2 storm eagles with 2 sets of marines inside 2 storm eagles, ram them up the board, disembark and deep strike the terminators next to this detachment as they do not scatter if they are bought as part of the detachment and are dropping within 6" of it.

sure its a lot of points but I am yet to fail to get an objective with this tactic.

You still scater from deep strike. I will read the rules again. But from my understanding you will still scater.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am certain that the rule says you have to have deep strike and independent. Terminators only have deep strike


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

leopard wrote:


while this is true, Terminators can certainly drop in and shoot troops clear of an objective, this is diluted somewhat if the objective is held from an adjacent building or area terrain as they cannot drop & assault. They can also only target a single enemy unit, an objective held by two causes a problem (unless you can get some ranged fire to support them of course), and to be honest eight stands with a 4+ save likely won't last long against the enemies fire.

Terminator shooting isn't particularly impressive though. And short ranged. They can easily scatter out of range or nearby bullding going poof. Cunning opponent also leaves holes in formation so that 1 stand fits there but rest won't resulting dead stands.

Inside thunderhawk seems best to get to melee which is where termies want to be.

yes and no, so I have 2 storm eagles with 2 sets of marines inside 2 storm eagles, ram them up the board, disembark and deep strike the terminators next to this detachment as they do not scatter if they are bought as part of the detachment and are dropping within 6" of it.

sure its a lot of points but I am yet to fail to get an objective with this tactic.

There's also the chance to get shot down with over watch. It's pretty easy to do. Aux walkers have a lot of krak missiles and multi Las. Also the rando vanquisher round that downed a marine aircraft. Lol

you are right you need independent, Assault marines have that not terminators, my mistake. back to the drawing board.

 Formosa wrote:
you are right you need independent, Assault marines have that not terminators, my mistake. back to the drawing board.

It's okay. I am going to try large units of marine infantry. As many as I can bring and just swarm the objectives

I have list in mind with about 200 plus 60 rhinos to haul them.

Won't get for ages enough infantry to run it though. Beside such skew not being #1 to collect gw can't keep marine infantry available for long.

There are certainly balance issues unit to unit. Why do malcadors if russes do it better point for point? 10 russes with vanquishers/las is 10pts cheaper than 6 malcadors.

The marine planes definitely need an faq/errata for their heavy bolters to give them light at like their solar aux counterparts.

Balance wise the only thing seemingly contributing to combined arms is just the random level of access players seemingly have to build their armies with. But for those who have had no problem purchasing a sizeable amount of models or printing a sizeable amount of models to draw from to list build.
A good example too of some players getting ahead of things is in the AA department with player printing tarantulas/AA.

A big factor that seems to contribute to most units not being able to take hits too well is the games lack of a core cover save mechanic for units other than knights and titans which get a -1 or -2 to be hit depending on how much cover/how obscured they are to the attacker (25%, 50%+).

Something that may have to be considered as well is the 6 always hitting stuff unlike titanicus which could at times see integers pushed to like 7 ect. I've noticed with flyers it just seems too easy to dump fire into them and hope for 6's.



I understand marine player's frustrations with ogryns and veletari, I think this is more an issue of how clunky combat is and how critical they've made rules like rend.

 Crablezworth wrote:



I understand marine player's frustrations with ogryns and veletari, I think this is more an issue of how clunky combat is and how critical they've made rules like rend.

Yet Marine Missile Launchers and Dreadnoughts are way more broken than Veletari and Ogryns. It seems they forget models cost points.

 Crablezworth wrote:


I understand marine player's frustrations with ogryns and veletari, I think this is more an issue of how clunky combat is and how critical they've made rules like rend.

I find it really interesting they've given the rend/extra D6 rule, as historically that was a really powerful melee advantage. If you think in SM2, AFAIK only one unit had that (Striking Scorpions) and that unit was so powerful in melee that it got nerfed for the community (NetEpic) version of the game! And it was how big units of less powerful infantry could mob and take down close combat specialists.
As most combats are that two dice roll-off, I think you're going to get a lot of people taking World Eater assault troops, again similarly that dice re-roll is an incredibly useful trait and will mean they win most combats.

 Crablezworth wrote:


Something that may have to be considered as well is the 6 always hitting stuff unlike titanicus which could at times see integers pushed to like 7 ect. I've noticed with flyers it just seems too easy to dump fire into them and hope for 6's.

Titanicus has natural sixes always hitting, you just can't do voluntary penalties like aiming if they'd go past 6+.

That's his point. Too easy to just fish on 6's.

But seeing how strong airplanes are already not sure is buffing them right idea. Having them even harder to kill is not what i would want to see

tneva82 wrote:
That's his point. Too easy to just fish on 6's.

But seeing how strong airplanes are already not sure is buffing them right idea. Having them even harder to kill is not what i would want to see

Point being made was that LI would let you fish and AT wouldn't, which is incorrect. Both games have sixes always hitting, AT just has additional bits you cannot opt for if the penalties would take you to that point.

A working example would be something like 40k 8th, where you would indeed be unable to hit things if you reached a 7+ to hit from modifiers.

 Sherrypie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That's his point. Too easy to just fish on 6's.

But seeing how strong airplanes are already not sure is buffing them right idea. Having them even harder to kill is not what i would want to see

Point being made was that LI would let you fish and AT wouldn't, which is incorrect. Both games have sixes always hitting, AT just has additional bits you cannot opt for if the penalties would take you to that point.

A working example would be something like 40k 8th, where you would indeed be unable to hit things if you reached a 7+ to hit from modifiers.

Yes and unlike AT units other than knights and titans in LI don't naturally benefit from -1 or -2 from 25%/50%+ obscured without being entirely within area terrain or in base contact with obstacles.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
That's his point. Too easy to just fish on 6's.

But seeing how strong airplanes are already not sure is buffing them right idea. Having them even harder to kill is not what i would want to see

Well the issue is because they're not forced to move a minimum on to the board they can be used very cynically on account of the 30 inch range on their missiles for example combined with pre measuring.

This also makes them incredibly disgusting if fielded in medium to large units. They also largely circumvent terrain rules so it can be frustrating. Added complication to that is planes with hover mode can enter in hover mode limiting their target options but also granting them plenty of safety via los/cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


I understand marine player's frustrations with ogryns and veletari, I think this is more an issue of how clunky combat is and how critical they've made rules like rend.

I find it really interesting they've given the rend/extra D6 rule, as historically that was a really powerful melee advantage. If you think in SM2, AFAIK only one unit had that (Striking Scorpions) and that unit was so powerful in melee that it got nerfed for the community (NetEpic) version of the game! And it was how big units of less powerful infantry could mob and take down close combat specialists.
As most combats are that two dice roll-off, I think you're going to get a lot of people taking World Eater assault troops, again similarly that dice re-roll is an incredibly useful trait and will mean they win most combats.

Yeah and my only concern with people taking any legion is that they're not doing a super friends list where every formation is a different legion to gain that specific advantage. Got no prob playing against world eaters, but if they've got friends its a bit much.

 Sherrypie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That's his point. Too easy to just fish on 6's.

But seeing how strong airplanes are already not sure is buffing them right idea. Having them even harder to kill is not what i would want to see

Point being made was that LI would let you fish and AT wouldn't, which is incorrect. Both games have sixes always hitting, AT just has additional bits you cannot opt for if the penalties would take you to that point.

A working example would be something like 40k 8th, where you would indeed be unable to hit things if you reached a 7+ to hit from modifiers.

And unhittable is not good. You can't have unhittable things in game and expect game still to work.

So 6's hit is good.


The planes are silly good already so unkillable would be bad and unkillable units are always source of npe.

OR you'd need to invest some resources into AA. Coming from other editions of Epic, I personaly prefer that option... but in my preferred version of Epic, flyers don't stay on the table and die (or need to abort mission) pretty easily to the right counters.

wonder if the way it used to work would help here, its not "a natural six always hits!" but provides a way to have a 7, 8 or 9 through a six then re-roll for a 4+, 5+ or a second 6

Ah, I forgot to say: additionally, other editions flyers' had to spend a turn rearming/refuelling after completing each mission, so at most they'd be doing stuff only half the battle.

 Albertorius wrote:
Ah, I forgot to say: additionally, other editions flyers' had to spend a turn rearming/refuelling after completing each mission, so at most they'd be doing stuff only half the battle.

though IIRC previous editions didn't have a set number of turns, but played until some win condition was met? (IIRC usually breaking the enemy army)

and in that case the idea of "fly your attack run, then spend a turn turning round" sort of made sense, the idea they sod off to refuel and reload makes less sense but its just a reason for it to be every other turn

thinking here the trick with aircraft and how they go down is to simply not bring them on initially, except interceptors that fight at extreme range and try to stay out of enemy range - leave them off until the enemy has been thinned out a bit and its a bit safer?

Well, take into account that the "engagement scale" was different... for example, a single Epic Firefight (when two detachments met at 15cm or less, which was bolter range, and duked it out) was equal to a full 40k 4-turns battle, and the idea was that every turn was a longer amount of time than just a couple minutes, so there was a certain amount of abstraction.

everything is an abstraction, its more find a mechanic that works, then "justify" it, in whatever way works

leopard wrote:
everything is an abstraction, its more find a mechanic that works, then "justify" it, in whatever way works

There is also that, of course.

But it justified having those cwute cardboard airfields out of the board to keep your flyers on ^^

 Albertorius wrote:

leopard wrote:
everything is an abstraction, its more find a mechanic that works, then "justify" it, in whatever way works

There is also that, of course.

But it justified having those cwute cardboard airfields out of the board to keep your flyers on ^^

Oh so very much yes