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.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
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.

If the Pastebin is accurate, some armies (Emperors Children among them) have dirty tricks related to Initiative up their sleeves - it stands to reason that some high-end units like Primarchs or special formations may have similar stuff, i.e. scout/outrider/vanguard formations might have some sort of Shoot and Scoot ability, may opt to win the Initiative or whatever. In a outwardly simple, yet complex game like Epic that might be enough to allow some very interesting plays.

"Traits are where extra variety happens – guns with the Light trait cannot hurt heavy tanks, for instance..."

If only that were part of other games GW made...

 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.

It is exactly the way of 1st & 2nd. In that case 4th resembles those.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 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.

Traits & special rules that were in 1st/2nd. Engine Killer was there with another name. It is 4th that copied that, not the other way around.

Tsagualsa - I agree with the comment about ranges, and I don't think we have enough info on the rest of the rules and how they fit together yet.

My thoughts on traits - this game (being civil war/humans only) has got a much narrower range of different potential units (no Orks, no Nids, no Tau etc.), using just SM 2nd rules would make things very samey. So having some sort of traits system would probably help with that and introduce variety.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
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.

This is exactly the same as SM 2nd/NetEpic, and was a common event in those games. You could use a 'screen' of troops that you knew would be wiped out in melee, then have another unit following up behind on Advance that would wipe out the victorious melee units.

It’s a pleasing adoption from 4th Ed. Though I note the Predator Autcannon has Light AT



Now with no comma, that looks to be a separate thing from Light, and not two separate rules (Light and AT).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s a pleasing adoption from 4th Ed. Though I note the Predator Autcannon has Light AT



Now with no comma, that looks to be a separate thing from Light, and not two separate rules (Light and AT).

Exactly the profiles from NetEpic, not 4th ed.

Taking that Predator Cannon as an example, in Epic: Legions Imperialis lethality is way higher than in Epic: Armageddon (more or less same number of shots and to hit value, but higher saves and no AP). Volcano cannon more or less the same, with greater range and damage.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Traits are where extra variety happens – guns with the Light trait cannot hurt heavy tanks, for instance..."

If only that were part of other games GW made...

I'm sure such would be possible, I mean for example, have some sort of characteristic related to the strength of a weapon, I'm sure people could come up with a simple name, then maybe another for how tough a thing is to hurt, perhaps some sort of matrix relationship where eventually a weapon just isn't strong enough maybe?

I mean its probably heresy to even think of such a thing

So pretty much 2nd ed orders, turns and caf. List building is like first edition. I remember the company cards came out in a white dwarf with all the little chits you had to place into the boxes to make the formation, you even added to the motorpool to get your transports. Looks fun, i was really hoping they would find a way to incorporate the blast markers and firefight phase. Most of those stats look straight out of second edition besides changing from metric. Interesting that the reaver canon has an assigned arch, I can't remember if assigning weapons to different parts gave them different or wider archs.

Close combat sounds like 2nd edition 40k where each pair of models to fight individually? That sounds horrible for a game like Epic where "streamlined" should be the key metric. Makes it sound like it's not going to scale well to big games.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Close combat sounds like 2nd edition 40k where each pair of models to fight individually? That sounds horrible for a game like Epic where "streamlined" should be the key metric. Makes it sound like it's not going to scale well to big games.

It goes pretty fast. They just roll off individually, roll 2d6 add CAF loser is dead move onto next stands,

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Close combat sounds like 2nd edition 40k where each pair of models to fight individually? That sounds horrible for a game like Epic where "streamlined" should be the key metric. Makes it sound like it's not going to scale well to big games.

if all it is is compare stat and roll, that shouldn’t take long.
It can be very fast if the rules are right, and not bogged down like 40K is would help a lot.

Honestly shouldn’t be an issue from what we see.

Just spotted this. Seems likely to be a better deal than £30 for a box of two assumptions from last week.

Apple fox wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Close combat sounds like 2nd edition 40k where each pair of models to fight individually? That sounds horrible for a game like Epic where "streamlined" should be the key metric. Makes it sound like it's not going to scale well to big games.

if all it is is compare stat and roll, that shouldn’t take long.
It can be very fast if the rules are right, and not bogged down like 40K is would help a lot.

Honestly shouldn’t be an issue from what we see.

Sounds way better to me that roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save... I have so grown to hate the 40K hit, wound, save system.

From what I read from a copy of 2nd Ed Space Marine, it seems like pretty much the exact system, but now allows for units to have multiple wounds. I like that part.

 xttz wrote:
Just spotted this. Seems likely to be a better deal than £30 for a box of two assumptions from last week.

4 for £30 is obviously a better deal than 2 for £30, but the unit size is up to 6, so 4 is an awkward number to put in a box.

Page seems to be 404 now... weird

EDIT: Page is up, the link from the warhammer community main page doesn't link to it XD

 xttz wrote:
Just spotted this. Seems likely to be a better deal than £30 for a box of two assumptions from last week.

I hardly even dare ask but it being GW and all, is there any particular 'hard' reason we're assuming that GBP 30 box?
...Because for all we know, it could still be GBP 60 for a box of four

 Bolognesus wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Just spotted this. Seems likely to be a better deal than £30 for a box of two assumptions from last week.

I hardly even dare ask but it being GW and all, is there any particular 'hard' reason we're assuming that GBP 30 box?
...Because for all we know, it could still be GBP 60 for a box of four

£30 was a standard price point for a lot of specialist game stuff including aeronautica.

I do think it's more likely to be nearer £40 for 4 superheavies, but that's still better than £30 for two!

Also 5’ x 4’ is 20 of their 12 inch plastic tiles - which come in packs of 6…

Quite a bit to unpack from this morning's WarCom update and all the resultant discussions.

Rules: looking pretty solid from what little we can see at this point. I'm hopeful.

Army Construction: also about as expected given the hints at "Space Marine 2E" like. As I'm a sucker for cards and such, I really hope that we get card sets for Formations, Detachments, and the like. I loved that aspect of the old Space Marine.

Play Area: I actually like the 5x4' idea. As others pointed out, it gives you space for all the bits and bobs that will be needed for the game. However, outside of tournaments, I don't see why you can't make your table any size you like.

Objective Control: seems like a sensible means of "adjusting" which units provide the most/least objective control.

 xttz wrote:
Just spotted this. Seems likely to be a better deal than £30 for a box of two assumptions from last week.

We don't know pricing. So not if it's £60 for 4...

 vadersson wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Close combat sounds like 2nd edition 40k where each pair of models to fight individually? That sounds horrible for a game like Epic where "streamlined" should be the key metric. Makes it sound like it's not going to scale well to big games.

if all it is is compare stat and roll, that shouldn’t take long.
It can be very fast if the rules are right, and not bogged down like 40K is would help a lot.

Honestly shouldn’t be an issue from what we see.

Sounds way better to me that roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save... I have so grown to hate the 40K hit, wound, save system.

From what I read from a copy of 2nd Ed Space Marine, it seems like pretty much the exact system, but now allows for units to have multiple wounds. I like that part.

Yes, it also a way better base for modification on top, as you will likely be dealing with less all at once.

It’s why games like war machine and others that use similar resolution can be so very complex but still quick for each action
So at least for me here I think it’s a small win for the design team at this point.
Shame it’s heresy ;(

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
"Orders affect how your Detachments can behave during both phases. Advance is the most flexible, allowing both regular movement and shooting, while March lets a Detachment move double its Movement characteristic – treble if it’s an entirely infantry Detachment – but not shoot. Charge allows either for a single movement, or a double "

So how do you get Bass?

Still, looks solid enough.

That's British for triple.

One thing I noticed when they were talking about "Light" weapons, the Predator cannon is "Light AT". Maybe a minus to attacking heavy tanks? Or just no damage like light weapons vs tanks?

3K for an army and a 5x4 board is just GW trying to convince us to spend more than just a copy of the launch box. Its up there with "We recommend Citadel paints and glue".

Only area of concern is this...

Then, pick your Primary Army List – the force from which you’ll pick a minimum of 70% of your units. At present, this means either the Legiones Astartes or the Solar Auxilia, but other factions may join the fray in future…

...yet previously they said that titans and knights would have rules in the core book...

The inclusion of Warhounds heralds the next bit of good news: all of your Adeptus Titanicus and Heresy-relevant Aeronautica Imperialis miniatures can be used in Legions Imperialis thanks to rules and unit profiles found in the massive Legions Imperialis Rulebook.

...I hope they don't expect us to buy a second book just to run legios and houses.

It’ll be a second book for the Legios and a third for the knight houses, and then they will release another Escher book just for kicks.

It sounds like there will still be rules for titans and knights, but they can only be part of the allied 30%.

Epic Necromunda...now there's a thought!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arbitrator wrote:
It sounds like there will still be rules for titans and knights, but they can only be part of the allied 30%.

Yes, that could be it. In Titanicus the core book only contains rules for Knights as support, and we had to buy Doom of Molech later for House rules.

Presumably they just can't be your primary force in the core book.

SamusDrake wrote:


...yet previously they said that titans and knights would have rules in the core book...

And they will. You'll b able to add and run any existing titan or knight in your LI game using rules in the book.

Now whether Titan Legions and Knight Houses will have rules in the core book is another question...

Though it's worth noting that with the current system, if they decided to add a Titan Maniple core force, all they would need to do is add a card for it (And possibly make allowances if it costs more than 1500 points). Same with a Knight core.

Thats alright, if the core book covers just the marines and solars as primaries. I just don't like Household rules in AT and was hoping to jump ship on day one, if the LI rules turn out to be better.

Saying that, it might just be a case of a WD article...

It sounds like allied troops aren't taken in Formations, they're taken in Contingents which are a separate thing.

Going to be pissed if all knight lists are a DLC rulebook.