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.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan.

I'd be surprised if Legions doesn't have Legios and Houses as their own factions. If not in the core book then surely in a later supplement.

I actually think that is my main disappointment with the game. That it has adopted the current "churn books all DLC like" way of doing business that is current GW and has driven me all the feth away from Necromunda.

Yes, Necromunda is yet another GW game where one needs to spend a rather considerable amount of pennies just to get a damn game going, let alone keep up with the Joneses. Went with Stargrave instead.

 Crablezworth wrote:
One of titanicus's problems is that they didn't leave much room to cost weapons properly, not to mention not all weapons were/are perfectly conceived. It gets ever more apparent when you get down to knight weapons, because they're using integers of 5, it becomes ever more difficult to really nail a point cost that seems right at that level. The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan. Even with individual unit costs you can see that with titans like the warhound, the most common loadout is plasma blastgun/vulcan megabolter because its just the best performing overall combination. Why people are convinced that won't happen with the warlord or other titans when one doesn't even have to pay individual weapons costs is beyond me.

Agreed.

Weapon costs for Titans would have made sense.

I do hope many players will play Epic30k in a narrative/rule of cool way though so we will see a plethora of loadouts when playing that type of opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan.

I'd be surprised if Legions doesn't have Legios and Houses as their own factions. If not in the core book then surely in a later supplement.

I actually think that is my main disappointment with the game. That it has adopted the current "churn books all DLC like" way of doing business that is current GW and has driven me all the feth away from Necromunda.

Yeah that business model scares me away from Necro too.

Shame they seem to be going non full army lists DLC approach with LI. However once we have the full Solar/Astartes expansions, all else should be optional. Like ZM for HH.

But, I'll probably buy Isstvan V/Siege of Terra campaigns books for LI too by choice.

 Albertorius wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan.

I'd be surprised if Legions doesn't have Legios and Houses as their own factions. If not in the core book then surely in a later supplement.

I actually think that is my main disappointment with the game. That it has adopted the current "churn books all DLC like" way of doing business that is current GW and has driven me all the feth away from Necromunda.

Necromunda is a real weird one, so many great models, such fantastic terrain, but for some reason its impenetrable because it basically throws any attempt at matched play out the window and the odds of actually starting a campaign let a lone finishing one is pretty much non-existent, at least in my case. But there should at least be a book/supplement with all the gang army lists and wargear and some straight forward scenarios. I think it's a core problem for gw and the player base, when these things like kill team used to spin off from 40k, they weren't meant initially to be revenue streams, they were simple little mods you could learn and play very quickly because they were mostly edits and formats of larger rulesets which was very efficient. When you look at kill team or necromunda now, the amount of books is a bad joke. A massive red flag. At least for AT, the core game is actually mostly contained in the rulebook and a lot of the expansions simply add more factions/historical missions. I hope LI takes that route as its easy to ignore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamusDrake wrote:
Yes, Necromunda is yet another GW game where one needs to spend a rather considerable amount of pennies just to get a damn game going, let alone keep up with the Joneses. Went with Stargrave instead.

Yeah I still don't understand how GW can see the wisdom in a matched play book for AT but not one for necromunda. So many great models for that game too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
One of titanicus's problems is that they didn't leave much room to cost weapons properly, not to mention not all weapons were/are perfectly conceived. It gets ever more apparent when you get down to knight weapons, because they're using integers of 5, it becomes ever more difficult to really nail a point cost that seems right at that level. The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan. Even with individual unit costs you can see that with titans like the warhound, the most common loadout is plasma blastgun/vulcan megabolter because its just the best performing overall combination. Why people are convinced that won't happen with the warlord or other titans when one doesn't even have to pay individual weapons costs is beyond me.

Agreed.

Weapon costs for Titans would have made sense.

I do hope many players will play Epic30k in a narrative/rule of cool way though so we will see a plethora of loadouts when playing that type of opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The thing people try and use to argue its not a big deal in LI is "well with 30% you'll likely only see a titan or two" which will only exacerbate the likely issues of only ever seeing the most effective loadouts precisely because players are only fielding 1 ot 2 titans, instead of like 5-7 in AT where you might see different loadouts from titan to titan.

I'd be surprised if Legions doesn't have Legios and Houses as their own factions. If not in the core book then surely in a later supplement.

I actually think that is my main disappointment with the game. That it has adopted the current "churn books all DLC like" way of doing business that is current GW and has driven me all the feth away from Necromunda.

Yeah that business model scares me away from Necro too.

Shame they seem to be going non full army lists DLC approach with LI. However once we have the full Solar/Astartes expansions, all else should be optional. Like ZM for HH.

But, I'll probably buy Isstvan V/Siege of Terra campaigns books for LI too by choice.

I think rule of cool will subjective as always. I don't mind a or b options like the new basilisk medusa kit they previewed, but the titans I feel will probably tend towards certain builds.

My initial concerns with even just marines and solar aux is legion rules on the marine side, I also sorta don't want to have that one more factor, because again I don't have a lot of trust in there not being just objectively better legion rules for some factions over others. I also sorta don't want to see that expand into titan legion rules, as personally those are some of the most mixed aspects of titanicus. Sorta one layer too much on the cake. Part of that too is not really knowing how tight or loose the army construction will ultimately be even with the 70/30. I really do want the game to sorta force people into combined arms regardless of the ratios of unit type to unit type, what I don't want, and what I fear is possible is really big skew lists that are all tank or all plane ect. Because rules are so easy to ignore with a gentleman's agreement to try, for example all titan/knights, I'm glad the 70/30 thing at least exists or the game would be quite silly from the out set IMO.

I think if Legions didn't offer a solid alternative for Knight House forces then I'm not sure my heart would be in it.

Their implementation in AT is frustrating to say the least. Epic would be an ideal system for them, as they're at least vulnerable to smaller arms fire and can give as good back, and having the Armigers to effectively act as their troops. Otherwise what other game can they possibly feel right at home in? Too fragile for Titanicus and too few and powerful in 40K / 30K. Too big for Kill Team...

If we're not getting Xenos then the least they can do is a good job with what few factions they do have in the Heresy era.

Just how I feel about it, mind.

SamusDrake wrote:
I think if Legions didn't offer a solid alternative for Knight House forces then I'm not sure my heart would be in it.

Their implementation in AT is frustrating to say the least. Epic would be an ideal system for them, as they're at least vulnerable to smaller arms fire and can give as good back, and having the Armigers to effectively act as their troops. Otherwise what other game can they possibly feel right at home in? Too fragile for Titanicus and too few and powerful in 40K / 30K. Too big for Kill Team...

If we're not getting Xenos then the least they can do is a good job with what few factions they do have in the Heresy era.

Just how I feel about it, mind.

Personally an entire knight faction is just boring in AT and LI seems like its for combined arms. Awful ever since their inception in 40k (3 unit army? oof!). I agree they're shoehorned into AT, A problem with 40k was stuff like greynights/custodes/knights/inq really pooped the bed when they went from really cool allied unit to having their own faction. I think it's equally silly to insist on all tank or all plane armies imo. Knight household vs knight household might be ok in LI/AT but sound sorta meh.

Knights began in Epic and belong to Epic. Pure knight armies tend to struggle, but they're cool when you bring companies of their household infantry, AA batteries, planes and the rest of it along.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Knights began in Epic and belong to Epic. Pure knight armies tend to struggle, but they're cool when you bring companies of their household infantry, AA batteries, planes and the rest of it along.

That I'm fine with, knight households with actual support elements and skitarii. I just dislike knight only armies, if they were more varied in unit types they'd be a lot more palatable in 40k.

Speaking of knights https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/600/787202.page#11583171

Without going too much into 40K / 30K, the Armigers are what I like best about the Knights as they're just numerous enough to work in medium games and it would be a rare player who objects to them.

That said, GW hasn't figured smaller games into the equation( 500 points ), for a smaller unit would work wonders. Essentially we're back to the 3-unit problem again. The Paragon warsuit, or Bretonnian-like soliders(with lasguns or something) are what I'd recommend. Also, in the case of Imperial Knights only, the Armigers need far more variety in weapons to at least make games more interesting.

What really annoys me about GW is that they will not consider a once-in-an-edition supplement for solo play, as the Chaos Knights - along with Tyranids - excel in this style of play. I won't go into how we came up with our homemade system for this, as that would be a topic for another day...

 Sherrypie wrote:
Knights began in Epic and belong to Epic. Pure knight armies tend to struggle, but they're cool when you bring companies of their household infantry, AA batteries, planes and the rest of it along.

Agreed.

Lets see if they can be the main 70% in LI on the future with about 30% support. Other way around currently which means pretty few of them, but promotes combined arms with lots of Infantry and support, which probably puts them in a way better place than Knight only.

Meanwhile Knight only or Knight main is possible in the current Epic30k.

 westiebestie wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Knights began in Epic and belong to Epic. Pure knight armies tend to struggle, but they're cool when you bring companies of their household infantry, AA batteries, planes and the rest of it along.

Agreed.

Lets see if they can be the main 70% in LI on the future with about 30% support. Other way around currently which means pretty few of them, but promotes combined arms with lots of Infantry and support, which probably puts them in a way better place than Knight only.

Meanwhile Knight only or Knight main is possible in the current Epic30k.

I believe it's possible in 30k as well, equally as ugh IMO. As part of a mechanicum force sure, but sadly 30k knights don't really have a fleshed out army with support elements so its just knights/armigers again like in 40k.

In the old Titan Legions there were loads of different kinks of Knight and Titan - the Imperial side could certainly have done a whole army of nothing but. Sure it would have had some gaps, but even back then it could be done.

30K and 40K Knights suffer more because each one is so expensive that unless its a huge points game beyond normal, you can't get enough specialist knight/titans into play before you run out of points.


But yeah I can see people running knight/titan only armies in the new Epic. Heck its a great way to get your AT collection all on the table at once! Esp before you've bought and collected loads of troops and tanks and such.

Which is probably why the rules don't support it, at least not up-front. They want to make sure theres no free-riders on launch and the folks with knights and titans have to go out and buy infantry and tanks.

Just looking at the amount of special rules/traits for the different weapons systems and loadouts on the Avenger sheet, - 9 different traits for a single unit. I have said it before and I will say it again now, I am *not* going to be able to sell this game to casuals. This makes the weapon loadout & lookups for something like a battleship in Victory at Sea look like utterly simple by comparison.

I cannot understand - why did they not look at how Armageddon was configured for unit profiles of they wanted some complexity of weapon effects, rather than producing something that is going to have people looking through sheets and referencing rules every time they fething shoot with a unit? I think this combined with the points values that have been indicated for a 'standard' game.. unless there are some major efficiencies that haven't yet been revealed, this is going to beyond that vital and unspoken golden rule of 'playable in one evening'.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Which is probably why the rules don't support it, at least not up-front. They want to make sure theres no free-riders on launch and the folks with knights and titans have to go out and buy infantry and tanks.

I love how GW can think of that as a "free ride".

And those 'free riders' will still need to have spent £30 on a rulebook!

Those are not "invested"

With models that you can use in different games, it is easy to buy a rulebook and switch back if you don't like it

If you need to buy 100€ worth of models to start playing in addition to what you have, it is not that easy stop as you want make your investment worth

Hence GW want their players to invest a lot of money as this makes them stay even if the rule are not that good

 kodos wrote:
Those are not "invested"

With models that you can use in different games, it is easy to buy a rulebook and switch back if you don't like it

If you need to buy 100€ worth of models to start playing in addition to what you have, it is not that easy stop as you want make your investment worth

Hence GW want their players to invest a lot of money as this makes them stay even if the rule are not that good

Shouldn't matter. Actually, you should look to invest them in the new game with little or no extra cost... you want as big of a player pool as possible, particularly on the start, for the game to grow healthy.

 westiebestie wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Knights began in Epic and belong to Epic. Pure knight armies tend to struggle, but they're cool when you bring companies of their household infantry, AA batteries, planes and the rest of it along.

Agreed.

Lets see if they can be the main 70% in LI on the future with about 30% support. Other way around currently which means pretty few of them, but promotes combined arms with lots of Infantry and support, which probably puts them in a way better place than Knight only.

Meanwhile Knight only or Knight main is possible in the current Epic30k.

I would house rule it, and swap the percentages. It should be ok in friendly games ( 70% knight banners, 30% support).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
Just looking at the amount of special rules/traits for the different weapons systems and loadouts on the Avenger sheet, - 9 different traits for a single unit. I have said it before and I will say it again now, I am *not* going to be able to sell this game to casuals. This makes the weapon loadout & lookups for something like a battleship in Victory at Sea look like utterly simple by comparison.

I cannot understand - why did they not look at how Armageddon was configured for unit profiles of they wanted some complexity of weapon effects, rather than producing something that is going to have people looking through sheets and referencing rules every time they fething shoot with a unit? I think this combined with the points values that have been indicated for a 'standard' game.. unless there are some major efficiencies that haven't yet been revealed, this is going to beyond that vital and unspoken golden rule of 'playable in one evening'.

Agreed, it is so ridiculous

I am already thinking about ways to speed up play.

The avenger like the kratos one is confusing in terms of what weapons it will actually have. It's hard to see a and b options, can assume autocannon/lascannon but then the avenger also has two types of missiles and bombs, can't see all the loadouts having all those.

 Albertorius wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Those are not "invested"

With models that you can use in different games, it is easy to buy a rulebook and switch back if you don't like it

If you need to buy 100€ worth of models to start playing in addition to what you have, it is not that easy stop as you want make your investment worth

Hence GW want their players to invest a lot of money as this makes them stay even if the rule are not that good

Shouldn't matter. Actually, you should look to invest them in the new game with little or no extra cost... you want as big of a player pool as possible, particularly on the start, for the game to grow healthy.

if this would be a company that actually cares about people playing the game, yes

GW does not are about a healthy player base or if people play at all, they want to sell as much as possible on release to those that might want to play
And any possibility that would let people play with as little extra cost as possible is something that works against that

So Ian Wood over on the Epic FB pages did some calculations on the number of key word/rule references that have been added so far - up to 56, and that's just the ones we have seen!I'll try and find the post to link it.

My earlier point about this game not being suitable at all for casual play is reinforced. The issue here is that if they are targeting those who played the game back in the day, most of us are in our late 30s, 40s and even 50s now. We have families, jobs and busy lives that do not allow for the dissection of 50+ special rules - and no doubt at all these will be contradictory and work in confusing combinations. I'm very fortunate that I have a fair amount of leisure time (and at least enough to spend time posting crap on forums..!) but my gaming group doesn't, and a pile of reference books balancing on top of buildings and looking through rules in the two free hours you've got after putting a toddler to bed is not what you want. The more I see of this, the more I see it going the way of Necromunda, and us continuing to use the miniatures but changing to One Page Rules (or more likely an older Epic version in this case).

I honestly wonder who this game is for,.and the target market.. although in the same way as Necromunda, I suspect it is for the people creating it, where they have hours every day playing with each other.

The more info we get on the game, the more it cements my opinion that this is a game completely unsuited for what I want out of my Epic scale gaming.

Its worth mentioning that Titanicus came with three levels of complexity, which made it easier for beginners and also those who just wanted a faster game.

 Pacific wrote:
So Ian Wood over on the Epic FB pages did some calculations on the number of key word/rule references that have been added so far - up to 56, and that's just the ones we have seen!I'll try and find the post to link it.

My earlier point about this game not being suitable at all for casual play is reinforced. The issue here is that if they are targeting those who played the game back in the day, most of us are in our late 30s, 40s and even 50s now. We have families, jobs and busy lives that do not allow for the dissection of 50+ special rules - and no doubt at all these will be contradictory and work in confusing combinations. I'm very fortunate that I have a fair amount of leisure time (and at least enough to spend time posting crap on forums..!) but my gaming group doesn't, and a pile of reference books balancing on top of buildings and looking through rules in the two free hours you've got after putting a toddler to bed is not what you want. The more I see of this, the more I see it going the way of Necromunda, and us continuing to use the miniatures but changing to One Page Rules (or more likely an older Epic version in this case).

I honestly wonder who this game is for,.and the target market.. although in the same way as Necromunda, I suspect it is for the people creating it, where they have hours every day playing with each other.

Well that does sound daunting, on the upside, the usr's at least seem to be a big core of what makes units special/unique in some way so as armies get added hopefully they all pull from that same set of usr's and not introduce a whole whack more. At the same time, I've yet to look at a unit and see more than a couple usr/wargear, like the ogyrns, the only special rule is furious charge, whatever that does, I can assume it's like 40k and it's combat related. I can definitely agree the weapon granularity is going to be a problem, as instead of one stat line for a weapon type, stats change like shot ammount or which usr's it has based on mounting, like co-axial or the trait that allows it to shoot on the move. I can see house rule forcing units to be all armed the same for sheer practicality and speed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:
The more info we get on the game, the more it cements my opinion that this is a game completely unsuited for what I want out of my Epic scale gaming.

I'm a bit concerned about how it all comes together, mainly people getting large enough forces to make it worthwhile gaming wise. For example, I could see initial games be basically mirror matches of the starter box content, and that will seem mighty small on a 4x5 board.

 Pacific wrote:
Just looking at the amount of special rules/traits for the different weapons systems and loadouts on the Avenger sheet, - 9 different traits for a single unit. I have said it before and I will say it again now, I am *not* going to be able to sell this game to casuals. This makes the weapon loadout & lookups for something like a battleship in Victory at Sea look like utterly simple by comparison.
.

A while back there was a rumour going around that LI was the last game Jervis Johnson was involved in before retiring. But the fiddly rules we've seen so far seem to contradict that. Very much not his style.

Unless it's all part of his long-awaited revenge. "They laughed at me, the fools! They said I stripped out too much flavour for Epic 40K! They said players like chrome! Bah! Very well. I'll give them chrome all right. I'll give them more chrome than a Necron in a car shop! Mwahahaha!!!"

LI seem unsuited for casual play but also in my oppinion unsuited for tournament play too. Too many rules on the unit cards and standard game at 3000 pts, when a unit of 2 fighter planes cost around 90pts. And with one on one combat resolution, can the game time be any less than 4 hours?

I can't say for sure as the rules in how the game plays out have not been properly marketed, but I'll stick to epic UK for sure. Not bitter, the game might be a source of more minis and epic players, but i worry that they mismanage the game design.

 Gitdakka wrote:
LI seem unsuited for casual play but also in my oppinion unsuited for tournament play too. Too many rules on the unit cards and standard game at 3000 pts, when a unit of 2 fighter planes cost around 90pts. And with one on one combat resolution, can the game time be any less than 4 hours?

I can't say for sure as the rules in how the game plays out have not been properly marketed, but I'll stick to epic UK for sure. Not bitter, the game might be a source of more minis and epic players, but i worry that they mismanage the game design.

Not exactly, it is aprox 90 pts per plane, not per 2 planes.

But indeed, compared to Epic: Armageddon (which also uses 3000 pts as the "default" game size), the costs in points of most troops is 1/2 or 2/3 (so many many more minis + more complicated and bloated rules). Planes stay more or less the same cost as in E:A, but with a brutal increase in firepower.

I hope 1500 or 2000 pts could be an alternate nice standard too, so games don't take 4 hours to complete...

Think I generally agree with the complaints about the amount of rules and associated time this is going to take for a game. Having the AT style of multiple levels of rules (AI had expanded damage and other bits and pieces that turns a small game into a far too long affair) would be a good idea.

Those that collected AT and/or AI are going to see the most benefit early on and I think GW are probably relying on that consumer base to get the game off the ground aside from HH/Marine fans wanting little versions of their bigger minis. It'll be a tough ask for folk to have more unique armies unless the launch has a bunch of options outside the starter box.

For me, I don't think I'll have a problem filling a 4x5 or 3k with the titans and aircraft I have ready to go. The problem arises when you have no one to play against with all the toys!

 Gitdakka wrote:
LI seem unsuited for casual play but also in my oppinion unsuited for tournament play too. Too many rules on the unit cards and standard game at 3000 pts, when a unit of 2 fighter planes cost around 90pts. And with one on one combat resolution, can the game time be any less than 4 hours?

I can't say for sure as the rules in how the game plays out have not been properly marketed, but I'll stick to epic UK for sure. Not bitter, the game might be a source of more minis and epic players, but i worry that they mismanage the game design.

GW wants us to put more kits and books in our baskets than we actually need, so I'd take the 3000 points "standard" recommendation with a pinch of salt.