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.

beast_gts wrote:
"played on a 5’ x 4’ battlefield." Why, GW? WHY?!?!?!?

3 x road tile things - board.

beast_gts wrote:
"played on a 5’ x 4’ battlefield." Why, GW? WHY?!?!?!?

Maybe they keep that 1' space on the side for cards and record keeping? Probably nothing stopping you going to 6x4

beast_gts wrote:
"played on a 5’ x 4’ battlefield." Why, GW? WHY?!?!?!?

Gives a foot spare for rulebooks and dead stuff, I’m all for it !


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sounds good. I’m not concerned about the combat 2D6 thing, it’s a single opposed roll, most modifiers will be similar across the board of a combat, so you work that out, start at one end and both players fire out the 2D6s. No to wound rolls, saving throws, wound allocation decisions. Loser picks up their model and keep going unless big stuff is involved.

Reserves and aircraft may also need to enter / leave the board during the game too. Makes sense to leave some room for that.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m happy with that. Definitely a hybrid of 2nd and 4th.

Pretty sure we can now ignore the rumours from earlier about stats.

Why? The Pastebin pretty much fits into what we've been shown so far, it has move-save-CAF-morale-wounds stats, a detachment size, unit type and points. Nothing in there contradicts what we've seen, unless i missed something; it did not show weapon stats at all. The points costs seem to be in the right range for 3000pts games if we assume that some weapons, notably on Titans, cost extra.

Can’t find it in the thread right now, but I don’t recall it listing “Tactical Strength” as a stat, despite that being mentioned here.



Hence, lends credence to it being bollocks.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m happy with that. Definitely a hybrid of 2nd and 4th.

Pretty sure we can now ignore the rumours from earlier about stats.

Why? The Pastebin pretty much fits into what we've been shown so far, it has move-save-CAF-morale-wounds stats, a detachment size, unit type and points. Nothing in there contradicts what we've seen, unless i missed something; it did not show weapon stats at all. The points costs seem to be in the right range for 3000pts games if we assume that some weapons, notably on Titans, cost extra.

Can’t find it in the thread right now, but I don’t recall it listing “Tactical Strength” as a stat, despite that being mentioned here.



Hence, lends credence to it being bollocks.

Yeah okay, i missed that But 'Tactical Strength' might just be something derived from other stats, for example simply being wounds remaining. I guess we'll see shortly either way.

its interesting that the core requirements are command, 2x troops then a support unit

I’m guessing it’s just OC from 40K, where you tot up each side’s total to decide who controls it.

But as I said, I could find the pastebin thing, so open to being proven wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also very interested to see other Formations.

Icons there suggest the Arquitor and Sabre will get kits as well. Solar Auxilla equivalents would be Basilisk and maybe Hellhounds?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I’m guessing it’s just OC from 40K, where you tot up each side’s total to decide who controls it.

But as I said, I could find the pastebin thing, so open to being proven wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also very interested to see other Formations.

Here's the pastebin: https://pastebin.com/GJfHMNzY?fbclid=IwAR1-xnFW9yzJmCdyrXbRO74ySC6Cua3GwXX9Rnc5eQeBrANjFfwrEzfJZxo

MajorWesJanson wrote:Icons there suggest the Arquitor and Sabre will get kits as well. Solar Auxilla equivalents would be Basilisk and maybe Hellhounds?

Also 'Bastion' as a type of unit/detachment probably means that there'll be at least some sort of bunker/tower/firebase/macro-cannon whatever that you can purchase as part of your forces, possibly with new kits.

also, "Tactical Strength" sounds remarkably like "Objective Control" as a stat

it does look a nice way to build forces, very close to the cards of 2nd edition except with what the extras and special stuff more restricted and listed, its actually close to how Battlefront has it for Team Yankee and Flames of War 4th edition - systems with issues but the force building side is spot on

basically "pick a card, that card tells you want you can pick to go under it"

what is perhaps interesting is then looking at the starter box contents, one of the following applies

1. a tactical detachment is 4x stands & 1x command stand - and then the box lacks the HQ

2. a tactical detachment is 4x stands & command is 1x stand - and then the box has a command stand spare

also interesting to note they have gone back to the 1st edition idea that some formations have a "transport pool" option - IIRC marines have always had Rhinos included, it was one of their advantages, but Imperial Guard had companies that could only have two units mechanised

suspect that force building will be quite an interesting little activity all on its own

Positive, but it’s still a little light on everything for me at this point.

My group isn’t particularly keen on setting so far. So the game needs to be great to sell it here at the moment.

leopard wrote:
also, "Tactical Strength" sounds remarkably like "Objective Control" as a stat

it does look a nice way to build forces, very close to the cards of 2nd edition except with what the extras and special stuff more restricted and listed, its actually close to how Battlefront has it for Team Yankee and Flames of War 4th edition - systems with issues but the force building side is spot on

basically "pick a card, that card tells you want you can pick to go under it"

what is perhaps interesting is then looking at the starter box contents, one of the following applies

1. a tactical detachment is 4x stands & 1x command stand - and then the box lacks the HQ

2. a tactical detachment is 4x stands & command is 1x stand - and then the box has a command stand spare

also interesting to note they have gone back to the 1st edition idea that some formations have a "transport pool" option - IIRC marines have always had Rhinos included, it was one of their advantages, but Imperial Guard had companies that could only have two units mechanised

suspect that force building will be quite an interesting little activity all on its own

It seems like the SM infantry is two times (1x Command, 4x tactical stands, 2x2 support stands) so it's probably just a slightly different detachment/formation. 2x HQ Core Support Support.

OK, my first few takes:

- 5 x 4 board - lol?
- game turn structure is basically NetEpic (same as SM 2nd, but with alternating movement added). My experience of playing both of these games is that this will slow down the game a bit, but it means you get a less swingy game (moving first or second is *massive* in 2nd edition).
- Shooting is same as Net/Epic TSM, but they have added Armageddon elements (weapon traits). Weapon ranges are reduced dramatically from these examples: Bolters are down from 50cm in SM to 8" and Predators down from 75cm to 18". Effectively they have halved the weapon range banding, which will make it a much more close range/melee orientated game, especially considering infantry can triple move (although we do need to know what infantry movement ranges are).

So we have already seen some additional concepts and terminology in just this one area. I hope they haven't gone OTT with the rules and concepts, and overbloated things, as one of the strengths of 2nd was just how simple and streamlined the game was. Close assault was just about OK before for example rolling 2D6, if we are now factoring in who has charged (who is in cover? who has high ground? who knows?) I can see that becoming more unweildy. But, perhaps this game is designed to be played at a smaller miniature count, as with Armageddon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the extra complexity with capturing an objective.. "tactical strength".

Why not just keep it simple? That is all extra calculations on the board. This feels like trying to work out the old Weirdboy Tower psychic power when you had to count surrounding infantry and was a bit of a PITA; now if you need to do that for each objective, it's a needless complexity.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Can’t find it in the thread right now, but I don’t recall it listing “Tactical Strength” as a stat, despite that being mentioned here.

Hence, lends credence to it being bollocks.

Tactical strength might be the numbers in brackets after the unit type? So Infantry and Walkers would be 1 while Vehicles are 2, Super-heavies are 3, Knights are 4 and Titans are 5

I like what I see so far - nothing indicates the game would be "gotcha" heavy bloated mess, at least not initially. Many of the paradigma I loved about 2nd edition Space Marine seem to be on board. 5'x4' is close enough for 6'x4' so I can still use my Realm of Battle board with this.

With 40K about to squat firstborn, Epic Imperialis is looking like a big part of my boardgaming future. I couldn't presuade anyone in my group to pick up HH2.0, if the price is right for this, some of them might bite

 Pacific wrote:

- Shooting is same as Net/Epic TSM, but they have added Armageddon elements (weapon traits). Weapon ranges are reduced dramatically from these examples: Bolters are down from 50cm in SM to 8" and Predators down from 75cm to 18". Effectively they have halved the weapon range banding, which will make it a much more close range/melee orientated game, especially considering infantry can triple move (although we do need to know what infantry movement ranges are).

So we have already seen some additional concepts and terminology in just this one area. I hope they haven't gone OTT with the rules and concepts, and overbloated things, as one of the strengths of 2nd was just how simple and streamlined the game was. Close assault was just about OK before for example rolling 2D6, if we are now factoring in who has charged (who is in cover? who has high ground? who knows?) I can see that becoming more unweildy. But, perhaps this game is designed to be played at a smaller miniature count, as with Armageddon.

I think the shorter ranges are sensible since they seem to have eliminated/ not used firefight/support fire in this edition, they're probably aiming for some sort of 'knife fight' situation around objectives to get the right feeling for the game. Also, considering that it looks like it will be mostly marines, a lot of deep-striking by various means is going to happen anyway, so the short-ish ranges might not be that big of a factor overall. Together with triple-move, plenty of transports and generally smaller tables, this will probably be very intense and assault-oriented, with less focus on artillery duels and manoeuvering. It remains to be seen if this becomes overbearing, or if stuff like morale, suppression, cover and so on are enough to make the games interesting, with tactics beyond rushing into the big melee in the middle of the field.

Ranges may be to prevent early wipe outs. And it’ll depend on how deployment is done.

Hopefully artillery will have suitable range at least.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m guessing it’s just OC from 40K, where you tot up each side’s total to decide who controls it.

But as I said, I could find the pastebin thing, so open to being proven wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also very interested to see other Formations.

Tactical strength is mentioned in the other pastebin that details the Legion special rules:

https://pastebin.com/BbJzuE06

It also specifically includes 'Legion Tactical Detachment', references 1500pt / 3000pt limits for commanders in line with formation rules, and the rules mentioned for orders match today's article.

So it does!

beast_gts wrote:
"played on a 5’ x 4’ battlefield." Why, GW? WHY?!?!?!?

Well, you're all being very reasonable about it I was expecting either 4x4 like AT, or 6x4 like 40k (should be!).

I too am a bit worried about weapon ranges and movement. From Pastebin, squads had like 5” movement. If you can charge double, you can ignore bolsters with an 8” range. I really prefer a more shorty game. This could negatively impact my interest in the game.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So it does!

It also gives a value for tactical strength: 5, for a Iron Warriors Tactical Detachment model , without taking their special rule into account. That seems pretty high for something like OC, although of course without anything to compare it to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vadersson wrote:
I too am a bit worried about weapon ranges and movement. From Pastebin, squads had like 5” movement. If you can charge double, you can ignore bolsters with an 8” range. I really prefer a more shorty game. This could negatively impact my interest in the game.

In theory you could, but with hidden orders and random initiative ignoring threats is a risky proposition - there's no guarantee that you win the initiative before the enemy can fire, and if the enemy picks a shrewd order your charge may falter and leave you stranded in the open, and in-range to the enemy army. And if the order is Fire First, the bolters get to shoot you at least once even if you make it to close combat. Overwatch also seems to exist, and will be detailed later on.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m happy with that. Definitely a hybrid of 2nd and 4th.

Pretty sure we can now ignore the rumours from earlier about stats.

 zedmeister wrote:
I'm getting a 2nd/4th hybrid feeling. Looking good

Where exactly do you see any resemblance to 4th (Epic: Armageddon)?

There is absolutely nothing from 3rd or 4th edition in this game so far. It is basically a fusion of 1st and 2nd editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vadersson wrote:
I too am a bit worried about weapon ranges and movement. From Pastebin, squads had like 5” movement. If you can charge double, you can ignore bolsters with an 8” range. I really prefer a more shorty game. This could negatively impact my interest in the game.

If the units with bolters have first fire orders, they can fire before close combat. So there's that, not fully ignored.


Also, all the rumours of pastebin seem accurate.

SU-152 wrote:
Where exactly do you see any resemblance to 4th (Epic: Armageddon)?

There is absolutely nothing from 3rd or 4th edition in this game so far. It is basically a fusion of 1st and 2nd editions.

Detachment building feels somewhat 4th and references to AT and Engine Killer in the weapon rules are 4th esque.

 zedmeister wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
Where exactly do you see any resemblance to 4th (Epic: Armageddon)?

There is absolutely nothing from 3rd or 4th edition in this game so far. It is basically a fusion of 1st and 2nd editions.

Detachment building feels somewhat 4th and references to AT and Engine Killer in the weapon rules are 4th esque.

In practice the traits like 'Light Anti Tank' etc. might also work out to something similar to the E:A system of AT/AP/AA values.

I'm thinking there will be weapons with considerable range, but these will be limited to tanks, artillery and titans, as it should be.

First Fire granting the ability to overwatch, no doubt, so chargers better have good saves and some numerical/CAF superiority if they want to reliably wipe units

I was thinking about the "Bastion" detachment types, they could also mean things like Tarantulas and weapon emplacements, not only bunkers as such?

 tauist wrote:
I'm thinking there will be weapons with considerable range, but these will be limited to tanks, artillery and titans, as it should be.

First Fire granting the ability to overwatch, no doubt, so chargers better have good saves and some numerical/CAF superiority if they want to reliably wipe units

Also, if you're in range to charge you're usually also in range to get charged, which again is risky due to contested initiative and blind orders. Alternatively, your enemy might also Advance&Fire. With Fire First, there's the possibility (depending on when and how exactly casualties are removed) that enough stands get shot away that you fail to make it into close combat at all, if you were just barely in range or your assault gets hampered by e.g. terrain or enemy action. If you want to do head-on charges accross open terrain you'll probably have to rely on dedicated assault transports like Land Raiders, Spartans or even Mastodons if you want to be sure to pull them off.

The most interesting thing to me is that Advance Fire happens after close combat, so baiting units into crossfire traps is a possibility. Especially if there’s an actual crossfire rule they just forgot to mention.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
"played on a 5’ x 4’ battlefield." Why, GW? WHY?!?!?!?

3 x road tile things - board.

Doesn't quite work out, road tiles are packs of 6, so 3 packs leaves you two tiles short, 4 packs give you 4 spare. Obviously could scratchbuild something to fill in for the missing two tiles or use the extra 4 for variety or to convert into some slightly different terrain (craters in the road or something).