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.

I bit the bullet and am trying to learn the game... I will say, I LOATHE games with hidden information.

Using the math as the tutorial teaches, my estimated number of hits/wounds never remotely align with the game's estimates when I mouse over a unit I plan to attack... I mean, not even close.

The manual is just horrid, and as someone who writes manuals, and has been designing games all year, and in the past, I could never release so incomplete a test and call it a "manual".

The tutorials seem value rich, but as I said, their logic doesn't seem to align with real-game execution. The game for example will say a unit has 50 attack, and your target 50 defense. The tutorial tells you when the two are a wash, you have exactly 50% chance to wound.

So looking at number of times a weapon will shoot, and number of "models" represented alive in the unit, and taking into account cover and armor-piercing as the game teaches, should give you a broad stroke idea of what you will do.

So when I mouse over the target, why does it then tell me i'll suddenly kill approximately two or three times more?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I say all that, incidentally, meaning no disrespect.

I have worked in the video-games industry for a decade plus... I appreciate how hard the work is, and certainly know it is hard to not take criticism personally. I am in no way suggesting the team is anything but cool, hard-working folks.

But in this day and age, players do have expectations of production values, which include things like completeness of information, usability, etc... and for a $30 (normally $40!!!) game to feel so woefully incomplete at launch, is troubling.

I obviously bought this looking to support the team, and the IP and don't regret that, but I would say this game is a good many content patches away from remotely justifying the asking price.

The combat is a bit unpredictable at the moment but that's my only criticism, I've been having a blast with it. I'm used to getting roundly fethed by the RNG in turn-based games, it doesn't really bother me, but I don't fully understand how the combat resolution works and the manual isn't much help either so I'm pretty much going by wit and I shouldn't have to. Still, the fact that going by wit is working is a good sign for the strength of the sim, but there's more to be done. Even so, "woefully incomplete" is a bit dramatic, imo. Don't even know what to say about Kosake's KKND screenshot, I think it's pretty self-evident that the two don't really compare visually. Sure, if you like cartoon graphics, KKND looked great, particularly for its' time. The technical gulf between the two implementations is so large, though, that it's very hard to take the comparison seriously, if that was in fact the intention.

 Lord Zimoa wrote:
Sorry, `90s graphics?

That is complete and utter bull; 240 by 320 all square pixels compared to our 5000-25.000 polies high res 3D renders...

You have no idea 350 units each taken 7-8 days to create in 3D, textured,rigged and rendered. This not counting research, GW approval and correction time that each individual unit has gone through.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about, have a good look when you have the game and put it next to your `90`s units.

But hell yeah, it is turnbased strategy, with solid and fun gameplay, but it has no GTA V graphics, so it must be terrible....!!!

Try it out for once and you will be converted, instead of being prejudice... ;-)

Some of you might be acquainted with my resume, including the fact that my first degree was for CG from AIP. This looks an awful lot like Panzer General 40k edition. I highly doubt that they took a week each, since many of them have resources that can be reused with other models. As far as getting GW approval, I can agree that takes a lot of time, even when working directly for them. I can't say I expect much by way of graphics, but I would expect you to do better than the Steel Legion mod team for Dawn of War 1. Instead, I'd say they did a much superior job than you, years ago, with no budget.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
This looks an awful lot like Panzer General 40k edition.

Kinda looks exactly like that, since that's basically what it is. I guess I don't really understand why that's a problem. I'm definitely no expert on CG, in fact I don't even know what an AIP is, but I'm enjoying the game and think it looks pretty enough. Not sure when hating on 2D turn-based PC games from small studios for their graphics became a cool thing to do. I clearly can't interface with this discussion at all so I'll bow out and enjoy my game in peace.

 Bull0 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
This looks an awful lot like Panzer General 40k edition.

Kinda looks exactly like that, since that's basically what it is. I guess I don't really understand why that's a problem. I'm definitely no expert on CG, in fact I don't even know what an AIP is, but I'm enjoying the game and think it looks pretty enough. Not sure when hating on 2D turn-based PC games from small studios for their graphics became a cool thing to do. I clearly can't interface with this discussion at all so I'll bow out and enjoy my game in peace.

ah, you misunderstand. I wasn't saying the game was actually bad (I loved Panzer General 2), though it IS overpriced for what it is, but instead that his reply to criticism about the game's graphics was a big pile of BS. If what he said is true, then his art department is run by trained chimps.

For the record, I am not saying the game is bad either. In fact, with some expanded communication of mechanics, I expect it'll be downright awesome.

But defending my "woefully incomplete"... If your .pdf instruction manual conveys none of the meaningful knowledge for combat resolution, yes, you're incomplete.

Complex games need to convey their ideas. They don't need to hold your hand, but it is still important enough that every AAA studio i've worked at has dedicated a whole staff spot to an individual who makes sure the gamer understands the interface and mechanics. Its a core tenet of modern game design, period.

If I can go through the commitment of a two-hour tutorial, and still come out the other side without the information needed to vaguely know how the game is calculating certain outcomes, it is a failure.

In table-top 40k, we know how to do the "math" of to-hit, to-wound, saves, etc... and thus can kinda guess outcomes. Here that is, theoretically in play, but then you mouse-over a target and get wildly different information than what the game just taught you.

I'm enjoying it so far, too.

However, I would have to echo that the combat interactions are a bit baffling.at times, especially between tanks.

For example I'll point a Leman Russ Vanquisher at some Ork tank and be told that I will knock off 5 unit strength from them but lose one myself. Fine, except that's rarely what happens.which makes planning almost impossible. When you're as outnumbered as you usually are in these scenarios not being able to rely on the information you're given makes the scenarios incredibly difficult to win.

Some extra information in the manual about individual weapons and what they are most effective against would be helpful, currently I'm going by what I know from 40k which is an ok rough guide, but no sufficient.

I just picked it up for the early adopter price, as this is a game I've been looking forward to for a while. I can't wait to get back home and play it! Turn based strategy is a great genre for this kind of game, and I'm glad you guys are keeping that old school gameplay style alive.

It was a little more expensive than I was expecting but I picked it up as turn based strategy is my favorite genre and I liked what I saw during the live stream.

 Compel wrote:
Yup.

Rites of war = Panzerish game.

Final Liberation = well, similiar to Epic.

I remember getting really annoyed with RoW because I just did not understand why, considering the huge size of the maps and the speed some units could move, the Max range for an artillery piece was like... 3 hexes and 90% of units had to stand next to each other before they could attack.

Final liberation had whole tank squadrons zooming around while titans with custom weapons fired at each other across the length of the map. It was glorious

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what these games are. RoW, PzG, and similar games (including this one) use a marker to indicate where a formation is on the battlefield. It's why you often have infantry, vehicles, and terrain that are presented in three different scales, moving on a big, coarse grid, and why infantry might have to be one space away to affect each other - they're all only representative of larger units maneuvering on a large map. When they engage, it's an entire firefight, not just "this gun shoots twice like in the animation".

It's at a completely different scale to something like Final Liberation (which was a sort of 1:1 game, at least in terms of unit sizes and "tabletop" weapon ranges).

Games like this may not be your cup of tea, but at least understand what you're criticizing.

 Bull0 wrote:
Not sure when hating on 2D turn-based PC games from small studios for their graphics became a cool thing to do.

The moment said small studio decided to throw something that looks good by 1999 standards out for 40€ (so, 2/3rds of an tripple-A blockbuster game). Take a look. There are so many good and nice-looking games out there (Loadout, POE to name but two) who are completely free to play and yet manage to look pretty good. So don't even try to convince me this is a decent deal.

 Kosake wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Not sure when hating on 2D turn-based PC games from small studios for their graphics became a cool thing to do.

The moment said small studio decided to throw something that looks good by 1999 standards out for 40€ (so, 2/3rds of an tripple-A blockbuster game). Take a look. There are so many good and nice-looking games out there (Loadout, POE to name but two) who are completely free to play and yet manage to look pretty good. So don't even try to convince me this is a decent deal.

Comparing the graphics in a 2D turn-based strategy game to a shooter and a diablo clone. And using this as the basis for judging the game's value. I despair, I really do. There's so much more to a game than the visuals.

Anyway, the thing with the art is both sides seem to be pretty extreme - they're saying 9 days per unit, that's obviously crap, but on the other hand you've got people saying they're low-poly or fuzzy (straight up lie if you've played the game, they're sharp even if you zoom in really close) or that they look like a "gameboy game" or a PSX game, which is also self-evidently bogus. Legitimate criticisms - weapon effects don't always line up with the models, it could use some lighting on the weapon effects, I get all this. If you want animated units too, well, fair enough I guess, but that wasn't ever on the table, so what are you complaining about really

Bull0 wrote: Legitimate criticisms - weapon effects don't always line up with the models, it could use some lighting on the weapon effects, I get all this. If you want animated units too, well, fair enough I guess, but that wasn't ever on the table, so what are you complaining about really

This disappoints me the most because a few days ago when the linked gameply vid was leaked ahead of time:

Scrub wrote:I'm seriously disappointed in the lack of animations between units, and units traversing the landscape. Huge missed opportunity, I was really hoping for something closer to Advanced Wars I suppose. I'll give the demo a try if there is one but it is quite a disappointing result :(

Lord Zimoa wrote:@nettraper


I would urge you to immediately remove the above link.

As it illegal footage of very incomplete early Beta builds.

These testings are under strict NDA and this illegal footage has been reported to Games Workshop, Slitherine and YouTube.

And will be removed asap and legal actions will be implemented to anyone who distributes for copyright infringements.

Moderators we urge you to immediately remove this link....

So again remove the link, it is also very damaging as people might consider this as close to final and this is far from it. Animations are missing or largely placeholders, terrain is unpolished, music and SFX are missing, placeholder art shown... this is not how the game will look on release.

We will in the coming week show video footage of the final product.

Which strikes me as intimating that the units would be animated when clearly they are not and are, in fact, the same as in the leaked video.

I had stated previously that I would not bet getting this game if the unit animations did not meet an interactive and creative bar that I would have liked to see.

Sadly, despite claims from Lord Zimoa that the footage in the weapons "test" video* was not final, I watched several different Let's Plays up on Youtube today. It showed static units that just sit there as an effect flies from there 2D static image, this appears to be the reality.
The units do not move around the map, they slide, again very disappointing and frankly lazy. The joy of seeing infantry actually slog it across the Armageddon wastes is really lost, the rotation of tires and grind of tracks, gone.

The units do not appear to have any voice activation when selected, which makes this aspect feel very lifeless. ["Commissar?"]

As a plus - The narrated mission segments are a nice touch.

This is more suited to a mobile game platform, using limited assets to make the most of a not-quite gameboy style gameplay.
*PS: it strikes me as odd that a 'weapons test' video would be released only days from the actual release of the game.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Kosake wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Not sure when hating on 2D turn-based PC games from small studios for their graphics became a cool thing to do.

The moment said small studio decided to throw something that looks good by 1999 standards out for 40€ (so, 2/3rds of an tripple-A blockbuster game). Take a look. There are so many good and nice-looking games out there (Loadout, POE to name but two) who are completely free to play and yet manage to look pretty good. So don't even try to convince me this is a decent deal.

Comparing the graphics in a 2D turn-based strategy game to a shooter and a diablo clone. And using this as the basis for judging the game's value. I despair, I really do. There's so much more to a game than the visuals.

Anyway, the thing with the art is both sides seem to be pretty extreme - they're saying 9 days per unit, that's obviously crap, but on the other hand you've got people saying they're low-poly or fuzzy (straight up lie if you've played the game, they're sharp even if you zoom in really close) or that they look like a "gameboy game" or a PSX game, which is also self-evidently bogus. Legitimate criticisms - weapon effects don't always line up with the models, it could use some lighting on the weapon effects, I get all this. If you want animated units too, well, fair enough I guess, but that wasn't ever on the table, so what are you complaining about really

Hey, I'm not judging a game by it's graphics alone. Provide a well-enough game mechanic and I'll play it. The thing is, if you want me to shell out hard cash, I expect that some work has been done to actually make that game. Taking something that existed before (and the devs have like a dozen or so similar games in their portfolio allready), doing some reskinning and maybe the odd new model or two just does not constitute enough work to justify a 40€ price tag.

For 40€ I can get borderlands pre sequel, and more work has been put into it's intro video than into this entire game here.

It may be that the game mechanics are really rad. It may be that it's fun to play. I'm a fan of RTS usually but I did love meself some Heroes of Might and Magic too. However, I'm not willing to pay more for this pile of pixels than I would for some mobile game, which is 5$ at the best of times.

Got the game graphics are a bit worse than civ when your battling . the stats for things are bit off for instance the leman Russ cannon that ignores cover (nova one i think) doesn't seem to, the punisher cannon is less effective than a hellhound and the list goes on.

The game is bit of the same over and over bare in mind not played it to long on 3rd real mission The tutorial is as always pointless helped with nothing.

The only plus is the game is tuff enough where that is just the flaws with weapons making it so or not is to be seen but the ai is woeful they will sit there and let you blow them away until a unit reaches a certain point on the map so no real ai but more a trigger event system rather blaten one at that but this being said the limited turns helps to force you forward

All in all would be around a 6/10 and that is only because it is 40k if it wasn't it would be around the 4/10 mark not worth the money but if you can get it free (gift card or what not) then it could be entertaining not tryed multiplayer not even sure it has one never looked but if it does it may be bit better

Total biscuit has done his review of it



So basically, it is Rites of War, 15 years later.

10penceman wrote:
Got the game graphics are a bit worse than civ when your battling . the stats for things are bit off for instance the leman Russ cannon that ignores cover (nova one i think) doesn't seem to, the punisher cannon is less effective than a hellhound and the list goes on.

The game is bit of the same over and over bare in mind not played it to long on 3rd real mission The tutorial is as always pointless helped with nothing.

The only plus is the game is tuff enough where that is just the flaws with weapons making it so or not is to be seen but the ai is woeful they will sit there and let you blow them away until a unit reaches a certain point on the map so no real ai but more a trigger event system rather blaten one at that but this being said the limited turns helps to force you forward

All in all would be around a 6/10 and that is only because it is 40k if it wasn't it would be around the 4/10 mark not worth the money but if you can get it free (gift card or what not) then it could be entertaining not tryed multiplayer not even sure it has one never looked but if it does it may be bit better

There's some good honest feedback. If you want to pay 40€ for ~that~, go ahead, by all means...

I liked Final Liberation.

I did not like Rites of War.

I guess this one's a No Go.

I'm going to wait for it to pop up on a Steam sale, I am honestly interested, but it is a hefty price tag.

This made me smile this morning.

Thank you guys was great to watch this, as you understand the game, love, research and work we all put into it:

they're saying 9 days per unit, that's obviously crap

>>>Within the game, this includes units for AI as Orks, all units in the editor and the units for planned for the expansions, we are now at 425+ units, not all of these are in the game YET, but eventually will be. And if GW allows we do some more....

Process how we worked. With a 10+ team on the units over the whole line, for a good 18 months per individual unit:

Initial intern research, collecting examples, going to GW for approval on examples and feedback, build 3D model, build texture, rig the unit. Internal check and corrections if needed, send unit to GW for approval. Pose the units in three mirrored poses for in game (battle view), render them out, check intern, do corrections, sign off intern, send to GW for final approval. Apply and test in game. Pose and render out the big units and side views ( eg. for purchase menu), check intern and correct, sign off intern, send to GW for approval. Apply and test in game.


Sure we talk crap here.... no problem if people don`t like the game, have comments, don`t like the art, freedom of opinion forever, but sick and tired of the insults and unfounded insinuations... have a nice weekend.

10penceman wrote:
Got the game graphics are a bit worse than civ when your battling . the stats for things are bit off for instance the leman Russ cannon that ignores cover (nova one i think) doesn't seem to, the punisher cannon is less effective than a hellhound and the list goes on.

The game is bit of the same over and over bare in mind not played it to long on 3rd real mission The tutorial is as always pointless helped with nothing.

The only plus is the game is tuff enough where that is just the flaws with weapons making it so or not is to be seen but the ai is woeful they will sit there and let you blow them away until a unit reaches a certain point on the map so no real ai but more a trigger event system rather blaten one at that but this being said the limited turns helps to force you forward

All in all would be around a 6/10 and that is only because it is 40k if it wasn't it would be around the 4/10 mark not worth the money but if you can get it free (gift card or what not) then it could be entertaining not tryed multiplayer not even sure it has one never looked but if it does it may be bit better

I agree whit this.
4/10 seems about right.
But then again i find the whole Imperial guard vs Orcs a bit boring and generic. First war for Armageddon wold have been more interesting.

 Lord Zimoa wrote:

they're saying 9 days per unit, that's obviously crap

>>>Within the game, this includes units for AI as Orks, all units in the editor and the units for planned for the expansions, we are now at 425+ units, not all of these are in the game YET, but eventually will be. And if GW allows we do some more....

Process how we worked. With a 10+ team on the units over the whole line, for a good 18 months per individual unit:

Initial intern research, collecting examples, going to GW for approval on examples and feedback, build 3D model, build texture, rig the unit. Internal check and corrections if needed, send unit to GW for approval. Pose the units in three mirrored poses for in game (battle view), render them out, check intern, do corrections, sign off intern, send to GW for final approval. Apply and test in game. Pose and render out the big units and side views ( eg. for purchase menu), check intern and correct, sign off intern, send to GW for approval. Apply and test in game.

Sure we talk crap here.... no problem if people don`t like the game, have comments, don`t like the art, freedom of opinion forever, but sick and tired of the insults and unfounded insinuations... have a nice weekend.

So, 18 monts * 30 days = 540 days, divided by 425 units that's 1.3 days per unit. Yeah, that sounds about right. As for your process:
Initial research + collecting samples = we call that google picture search
gw approval = email "shall/can we use this one as reference?"
build model, texture, rigging, corrections.... = yeah, that's your work. Looks pretty nice for a mobile game i'd say.
gw approval = email "here, take a look, nice enough for you?"

Since you can work batches, I'm sure you don't have to wait for approval to start working on the devastator team once the basic space marine model has been approved. The way you write it, it sounds like you have to wade through an ocean of blood of slain bureaucrats and fallen programmers for every single unit. I understand that GW is a pain in your backside, but really, the 1.3 day average says it all.

I would work with working days!

Not going to argue anymore, you have no idea,,, really no idea at all. Waste of my time... you don`t like the game, no problem with that. Just don`t pretend you know anything about game development or licencing processes... but I`me sure you will keep on going.

Toodeloo!

I watched TB's videos. The lack of animations is a big turnoff for me. Final Lib came out years ago, you could select what weapons to fire (so you wouldn't be wasting Lascannon shots against infantry, for example), and when things died people within units fell over, and tanks exploded, and so on. They didn't vanish. And they didn't slide around - the walked/drove.

The actual sprites themselves, the terrain and everything looks great, and the unit variety is borderline obsessive with its depth. The weapon effects look really good. But the rest of it just looks so... sterile.

So, Storm of Vengeance did a better job in that department eh?

Though I'm sure there will be a modding community sooner or later to hopefully fix this oversight.

Yeah, there's already someone working on a Tau mod, off to a good start, I'd say.

 Lord Zimoa wrote:

Just don`t pretend you know anything about game development or licencing processes... but I`me sure you will keep on going.

Zimoa, that might work over in Whineseer, but bluntly that really doesn't wash here.

Just FYI: you see HBMC over there posting how he thinks it's sub par. Yeah, that guy? Guess what, his real name is in more GW licensed products then you have employees in your art department. Mine is in one of GW's in house products.

Telling us that we know nothing is actually a bit laughable.

I did NOT address this as a general statement to all posters or let alone this community, you twist my words. Please don`t.

It was in response to a specific poster who claimed I was a liar. I did not address this to anyone else nor is it a general statement.


Have a nice weekend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hi guys,

Apparently some of you may have missed the day one patch 1.0.1 for Warhammer 40,000: Armageddon.

Steam users are all fine as the release version was already 1.0.1.

If you purchased from Slitherine or Matrix and you are playing the non-Steam version, please check on your main menu screen in the right bottom corner what the game version number is. It should say v1.0.1.

If NOT I advise you to hit "check for update" in the launch menu and follow the instructions or download and install the patch 1.0.1 manual and direct from here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/540/downloads/






Automatically Appended Next Post:
1.00 to 1.01 Changelog:

Bugs Fixed:
- [BUG] Restarting scenario during AI turn can lead to some strange effects (like AI playing your units).
- [BUG] Purchase: select All factions, Artillery and Titan classes will be disabled, even though they are active when only Steel Legion is selected.
- [BUG] Under some unknown circumstances Upgrade button behaves odd
- [BUG] When choosing to upgrade a unit with transport, transport is not selected by default.
- [BUG] FoW and Undo check boxes do not work when starting a campaign (work fine in single scenario mode)
- [BUG] In MP first tab, click empty space where "Play" button normally appears. This will trigger scenario selection, and the program may get into bad state and crash.
- [BUG] Entering non-ASCII characters into edit boxes results in unpredictable behaviour, from garbage in edit box to crash. Need to filter non-ASCII characters.
- [BUG] It is possible to enter Tab symbol into login edit box. Login will succeed, but then MP flow will be broken.
- [BUG] Items in accept challenge list overlap list bounds. See "too many mp games up overwrites text.jpg" in root folder. Need to check other MP lists as well.
- [BUG] After surrendering a mission in MP, one can restart it via victory screen. This must not be possible,
- [CTD] During deployment phase, select any unit in the list, press P.
- [CTD] Start first scenario (Opening faults), open unit list, click transport icon of any non-selected unit
- A number of issues on 1280x1024 resolution.
New Functionality:
- Added version to starting screen
- Added caret to all edit boxes
- Added a number of new hotkeys
- Clicking stat and ability icons displays information about them
- Added tooltips to difficulty levels
- Added unit special ability icons to the UI sidepanel
- Improved presentation of AI moves
- Added custom strength plates to special units
- Added killed unit list
Unit Balance Changes:
Ork Kommandos have got their stickbombs back
Tankbustas gained Assault trait for their Tankbusta bombs
Skullhamma BattleFortress movement increased to 5 to better represent it's "supercharged triple-over-pressure turbo engine"
Deathrolla Battlefortress has had its Deathrolla weapon and Assault trait reinstalled
Price of many Ork Super Heavy tanks reduced slightly.
Traits 'notransport', 'titan', 'heavypull', and 'amphibious' have been added.
Notransport has been added to Rough Riders, Terminators, and Centurions
Amphibious has been added to Land Raiders
Land Raiders Hyperious and Helios have had their double quad Lascannons reduced to double doubles
Ork stormboyz have lost their ability to fly, but have gained increased movement speed to compensate
Titans can no longer enter Water hexes
Imperial Titans increased in cost
Stormsword and its 'upgrade' have been reversed for more logical unit progression.

Weapon file changes
All assault weapons now have a minimum Rate of Fire of 2. Some penetration weapons on assault weapons reduced to compensate.
Quake cannon gained indirect, bulky, and siege traits
Apocalypse Missile Launcher increased to rate of fire 6
Modified Bolter renamed to Combi Bolter
Gut buster Mega cannon increased to rate of fire 2
Volcano cannon range down to 4
Heavy Bolter Support and Shoota Support increased to Rate of Fire 4
2 Lascannons increased to Rate of Fire 2. Power, penetration, and weapon accuracy ratings all reduced
6 Lascannons increased to Rate of Fire 3
Demolisher cannon Rate of Fire increased to 4. Power reduced.
2 Flamers power reduced
Heavy Flamer power increased
Captain Tycho's Bloodsong now has proper ranged weapon stats
Grot Guided missile power and penetration increased
Scenario Changes:
CampScen4
Added river graphic
Campscen6B
Second AI Trigger now affects AI units on the entire map instead of just zone 2
Campscen7B
Fixed invisible settlement graphic
CampScen11
Named one Warboss unit
CampScen14
Added bridge graphics
CampScen15
Removed invalid unit
CampScen19
Changed Escort AI from ‘Move To’ to ‘Attacker’
Added one enemy Titan and some escorts
CampScen24
Fixed invisible settlement graphics
Multiscen8
Scenario now displays proper objectives when objectives are called up
MultiScen9
Scenario now displays proper objectives when objectives are called up
Gargantuan Squiggoth has lost his wheels

Other Changes:
Fixed Land Raider Achilles primary attack animation

 Lord Zimoa wrote:

not all of these are in the game YET, but eventually will be. And if GW allows we do some more....

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Slitherine only have the license for Second War for Armageddon? If so that wouldn't leave that much room to expand.