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.

Lets hope not.

SamusDrake wrote:


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

They’ll be the Mechanicum book I reckon

Eumerin wrote:

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.

It's probably a practical concern: until they have released some skitarii or other support units that can be used in hypothetical titanicus forces, a titan legion force is essentially unplayable between the danger of just being swamped in assaults and the problems with securing objectives. They need some form of support or games with them will turn out very same-ish: a couple of turns where the titans eradicate whatever they're firing at, and then either lose to objectives or get swamped down if the enemy just brought enough chaff to throw at them.

Sigh, the internet ate my eloquent response.

Basically I think titans and knight will be limited to the 30% Allie’s in the core book and likely will have limited houses and legio options. But I also expect a mechanical expansion to allow a larger portion of Titan and knight forces.

I really want to see Mechanicum forces added to the game,

 vadersson wrote:
I really want to see Mechanicum forces added to the game,

Oh yeah, I really want to run Ordinatus detachments and Subterranean Assault Companies

Opposed rolls in an Epic game sounds like utter insanity

 zedmeister wrote:

 vadersson wrote:
I really want to see Mechanicum forces added to the game,

Oh yeah, I really want to run Ordinatus detachments and Subterranean Assault Companies

Indeed. Automata and plenty of Termites, just like in the good ole days!

The more I look at the studio minis, the more I fancy the way they are painted. Suits this scale perfectly, better than 28mil IMHO. The terrain looks goofy and off scale in comparison.. but I suppose adding fiddly bits to them would make it too fragile for warhamming..

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Opposed rolls in an Epic game sounds like utter insanity

Why? It's only for Assault, detachments are not mega-large, and after a single round half of the involved units are dead, possibly more if you break the enemy. You will not see many rounds of this happen in the average game, probably a few rounds in total will be decisive.

I love all the tiny vehicles

Tsagualsa wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Opposed rolls in an Epic game sounds like utter insanity

Why? It's only for Assault, detachments are not mega-large, and after a single round half of the involved units are dead, possibly more if you break the enemy. You will not see many rounds of this happen in the average game, probably a few rounds in total will be decisive.

Units also look to be fairly small.

So yes, 2D6+X contested can be time consuming, but when a given detachment is say, 6 bases at the start of the game, even without casualties getting there in the first place, combat is pretty swift. Spesh as it’s loser go squish with no further rolls.

 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.

If its based on 2nd ed, then there are no wounds, or it may be better to say everything only has one wound. Even titans only had one wound really once you got past shields, usually they would take some kind of damage to a system, but on a lucky roll they were a mushroom cloud. Did you see something about multiple wounds?

The Pastebin leak which seems pretty accurate shows some thing with multiple wounds. Also the way it was written in the article said they lose a wound. I believe most things will still have a single wound, but there will be some with more.

 Matrindur wrote:
Core concepts article:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/31/legions-imperialis-core-concepts-this-is-how-the-new-game-plays/

Loving what they have shown so far. Epic going back tot he roots with the Orders system. They have shortened the ranges of the weapons in comparison to old but that won´t be an issue. Strange that they don´t use cm and stick to inches although again not much of a deal. They even have Iron Hands units shown in promo material which is an indicator that GW is on the right track this time. SHUT UP & TAKE MY MONEY!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
Core concepts article:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/31/legions-imperialis-core-concepts-this-is-how-the-new-game-plays/

Well that looks quite good I have to say, force building isn't a free for all but has structure, the turn sequence is interesting, especially the interlacing of player actions - has a bit of the Lord of the Rings feel to it, melee being before shooting is interesting and new, but I like the idea of - will see how that works

Weapons.. well hopefully say a predator has the turret and sponson weapons and isn't a single combined profile - which is I think what the article implies so thats a good thing as well

yes this looks quite good

You do First Fire first, then melee and finally shooting from Advance orders.

 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.

It doesn't sound better than that to me, if you have 10 models vs 10 models you and your opponent roll 40 dice, but in 10 different batches, and have to do maths on each of those rolls (add together, add CAF, compare results). The same combat with to hit to wound to save, even if you say each side has 2 attacks each, on the one hand it's a lot more dice to roll, but there's less batches of rolls, there's minimal maths involved which means it only takes a few seconds to sort successes from failures from a large batch of rolls.

Of course, I wouldn't propose a system like Epic should have a to-hit-to-wound-to-save system anyway.... my ideal version of Epic would have a system that is fast and scales up to large games without slowing them down much.

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.

It's been a long time since I played 2nd ed and I never played a lot of games anyway, I honestly didn't even remember this was how it worked, haha, it mostly just reminded me of 2nd edition 40k with its "roll dice, add weapon skill, figure out who wins". I know this is quicker than that because there's no wound rolls and save rolls after that, but the whole problem with 2nd edition was that big games were a chore and this sounds quite similar to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Opposed rolls in an Epic game sounds like utter insanity

Why? It's only for Assault, detachments are not mega-large, and after a single round half of the involved units are dead, possibly more if you break the enemy. You will not see many rounds of this happen in the average game, probably a few rounds in total will be decisive.

Units also look to be fairly small.

So yes, 2D6+X contested can be time consuming, but when a given detachment is say, 6 bases at the start of the game, even without casualties getting there in the first place, combat is pretty swift. Spesh as it’s loser go squish with no further rolls.

That's kind of my problem with it, I don't play Epic because I want small games

But we'll see I guess. I think I'll try to get some demo games before I buy into it. It's been too long since I played 2nd ed for me to judge.

What did everyone else do in the detachment on a charge? 4 of six marine stands get into BtB with another 4 with both sides having two left over.

Do they shoot (only the other two)? Do nothing?

If I recall correctly, in 2nd edition Epic melee happened when the enemy were too entrenched... so both forces had sustained heavy losses.

Of course melee specialised units were the exception to this, but they were not the norm.

So while it may seem like a slow process, just remember that it is highly unlikely to be a significant portion of your force you'll have to roll for.

I do like that melee is this brutal, really helps drive home that it is the way to remove a well defended foe.

Indeed. I rarely chose to pick a fight unless it was dedicated or decent combat units, because it’s so deadly.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It doesn't sound better than that to me, if you have 10 models vs 10 models... *snip*

Except that from what we've seen so far, it appears that units might not be larger than six models.

 zedmeister wrote:

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

I was just thinking this size is handy because I have a 6x4 table, so now I have room for a dice tray and cards/books without them being on the actual playing area or 5ft away on my kitchen island.

Eumerin wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It doesn't sound better than that to me, if you have 10 models vs 10 models... *snip*

Except that from what we've seen so far, it appears that units might not be larger than six models.

Yeah, that sounds Epic alright.

Eumerin wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It doesn't sound better than that to me, if you have 10 models vs 10 models... *snip*

Except that from what we've seen so far, it appears that units might not be larger than six models.

I reckon a big difference is going to be granularity. In old Epic you'd be required to take a single company card with something like 20-30 basic infantry stands. Now instead the minimum is closer to 8 stands. Instead your 'company' is filled out with a higher ratio of specialist units like terminators, russes, sentinels, etc.

The relative point cost doesn't seem to change too much compared to SMv2. A LI army list will just have a lower proportion of chaff and a more varied selection of unit types.

Well, there are different ways of selling it I guess Xttz! For me, Epic is mass (and I mean mass!) combat of tanks, infantry and war machines and a ruleset that facilitates the wargaming without it taking 6 hours if you try and play a larger game.

From what we have seen, there is a lot more granularity here, which means more detail yes (and perhaps more Heresy-era flavour) and a smaller miniature count. Combat in Epic was fast with 2d6 v 2d6 roll-offs. But, if I am calculating plus and minus factors for each (as looks might be the case) then it won't be.

It's funny that at 28mm scale and in 40k GW seems intent on cramming as many miniatures onto a board, at a scale which is completely unsuited; now they actually have an appropriate setting for doing that and are trying to go the opposite way..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should add in some ways I am glad they are trying something new. If I want to play NetEpic or Net Armageddon I can play those games etc.

 Pacific wrote:
Well, there are different ways of selling it I guess Xttz! For me, Epic is mass (and I mean mass!) combat of tanks, infantry and war machines and a ruleset that facilitates the wargaming without it taking 6 hours if you try and play a larger game.

From what we have seen, there is a lot more granularity here, which means more detail yes (and perhaps more Heresy-era flavour) and a smaller miniature count. Combat in Epic was fast with 2d6 v 2d6 roll-offs. But, if I am calculating plus and minus factors for each (as looks might be the case) then it won't be.

It's funny that at 28mm scale and in 40k GW seems intent on cramming as many miniatures onto a board, at a scale which is completely unsuited; now they actually have an appropriate setting for doing that and are trying to go the opposite way..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should add in some ways I am glad they are trying something new. If I want to play NetEpic or Net Armageddon I can play those games etc.

If all modifications are done first, then you just go though each individual unit it shouldn’t take long at all.
We do similar in other games and it takes no time at all, it’s the constant reference and roll, and modify that bogs down game like 40K.
It depends more on if GW ends up adding something like strat cards, or a bunch of abilities that all change the rolls as you go that is the real potential problem.

Right now I actually really positive game wise.

 Pacific wrote:
Well, there are different ways of selling it I guess Xttz! For me, Epic is mass (and I mean mass!) combat of tanks, infantry and war machines and a ruleset that facilitates the wargaming without it taking 6 hours if you try and play a larger game.

From what we have seen, there is a lot more granularity here, which means more detail yes (and perhaps more Heresy-era flavour) and a smaller miniature count. Combat in Epic was fast with 2d6 v 2d6 roll-offs. But, if I am calculating plus and minus factors for each (as looks might be the case) then it won't be.

From the info we have so far I'm not convinced it'll mean significantly less on the board. Here are some basic comparisons using the leaks, assuming a standard 3k pt game of LI versus a typical 4k pts most frequently used in early SMv2 battle reports:

A SMv2 marine tactical company (19 infantry+10 rhinos) was 750pts, and used 19% of your list points.
The minimum Legion command plus two tactical detachments (9 infantry) is 95pts in LI, and uses 3% of your points.
An near-equivalent Legion command, four tactical detachments, and transports (17 infantry & 9 rhinos) is 255pts in LI, and uses under 9% of your points.

Meanwhile:
Four Contemptor dreads are 2.2% of a list in LI, and 2.5% of a list in SMv2
A single Leman Russ is 1.4% of a list in LI, and 1.5% of a list in SMv2
A single Baneblade is 3% of a list in LI, and 4% of a list in SMv2
A single Warlord titan is 16% of a list in LI, and 19% of a list in SMv2

Basically model counts should be very similar if not slightly higher in favour of LI. You're just not forced to build armies around monolithic blocks of 30-60 basic chaff infantry if you don't want to.

 xttz wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Well, there are different ways of selling it I guess Xttz! For me, Epic is mass (and I mean mass!) combat of tanks, infantry and war machines and a ruleset that facilitates the wargaming without it taking 6 hours if you try and play a larger game.

From what we have seen, there is a lot more granularity here, which means more detail yes (and perhaps more Heresy-era flavour) and a smaller miniature count. Combat in Epic was fast with 2d6 v 2d6 roll-offs. But, if I am calculating plus and minus factors for each (as looks might be the case) then it won't be.

From the info we have so far I'm not convinced it'll mean significantly less on the board. Here are some basic comparisons using the leaks, assuming a standard 3k pt game of LI versus a typical 4k pts most frequently used in early SMv2 battle reports:

A SMv2 marine tactical company (19 infantry+10 rhinos) was 750pts, and used 19% of your list points.
The minimum Legion command plus two tactical detachments (9 infantry) is 95pts in LI, and uses 3% of your points.
An near-equivalent Legion command, four tactical detachments, and transports (17 infantry & 9 rhinos) is 255pts in LI, and uses under 9% of your points.

Meanwhile:
Four Contemptor dreads are 2.2% of a list in LI, and 2.5% of a list in SMv2
A single Leman Russ is 0.14% of a list in LI, and 0.15% of a list in SMv2
A single Baneblade is 3% of a list in LI, and 4% of a list in SMv2
A single Warlord titan is 16% of a list in LI, and 19% of a list in SMv2

Basically model counts should be very similar if not slightly higher in favour of LI. You're just not forced to build armies around monolithic blocks of 30-60 basic chaff infantry if you don't want to.

Then it's possible that assaults won't be 6 vs 6, or you will have a million detachments and will have to run a lot of assaults?

 Albertorius wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It doesn't sound better than that to me, if you have 10 models vs 10 models... *snip*

Except that from what we've seen so far, it appears that units might not be larger than six models.

Yeah, that sounds Epic alright.

Haha, yeah, I'm just glancing over at my 2000pts in progress Tyranid army with ~100 models, including 2 Hierodules, organised into detachments of 10-30 models

Dunno, will have to give it a play. My favourite combat system was Epic 40k but I know most people seem to hate that It was the version where you roll off for detachment vs detachment to see who wins/loses the overall combat (which involves both combat proficiency of the units involved, but also morale plays into it in the form of blast markers) and that roll off also determines what you need to roll to kill, then roll a dice for each unit in combat, see how many successes were rolled, that's how many units die.

Even if we are going to roll off 1v1 for everything, why make it 2D6 instead of 1D6?

2d6 gives a bell curve, it also allows for more modifiers using a wider range

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It doesn't sound better than that to me, if you have 10 models vs 10 models... *snip*

Except that from what we've seen so far, it appears that units might not be larger than six models.

Yeah, that sounds Epic alright.

Haha, yeah, I'm just glancing over at my 2000pts in progress Tyranid army with ~100 models, including 2 Hierodules, organised into detachments of 10-30 models

Dunno, will have to give it a play. My favourite combat system was Epic 40k but I know most people seem to hate that It was the version where you roll off for detachment vs detachment to see who wins/loses the overall combat (which involves both combat proficiency of the units involved, but also morale plays into it in the form of blast markers) and that roll off also determines what you need to roll to kill, then roll a dice for each unit in combat, see how many successes were rolled, that's how many units die.

Even if we are going to roll off 1v1 for everything, why make it 2D6 instead of 1D6?

I mean, I just built this over the weekend ^^



I guess technically there's three detachments there of 6 or less minis, but... heh

leopard wrote:
2d6 gives a bell curve, it also allows for more modifiers using a wider range

It also means you can't mass roll handfulls of dice at once, one pair at a time (unless you have a load of dice in different colours, doubled up)

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

leopard wrote:
2d6 gives a bell curve, it also allows for more modifiers using a wider range

It also means you can't mass roll handfulls of dice at once, one pair at a time (unless you have a load of dice in different colours, doubled up)

up, this is also true, however it does provide for a more reliable result where being +/- one point of CAF over your enemy isn't worth half being +/-2 as larger modifiers are worth proportionally more - which with the noted system of gaining a modifier as you out number your opponent will really start to matter - by the look of it the actual order combats are resolved in may also matter as well anyway so you want them individually


Automatically Appended Next Post:
by the above I mean that if you have six bases and I have six bases, all fighting one on one, since they are opposed rolls you can both just roll six dice anyway - at which point them being 2d6 in place of 1d6 stops mattering

it also means of the six fights you know who won which ones, e.g. did I collapse your flank? did my centre evaporate etc which could well be significant

I'll take that over "I roll six dice, you roll six dice and there is some complicated system to pair the results and work out what cancels what"

and will take any day this over "I kill you on a 4+ and I roll six dice"