Legions Imperialis news and rumors

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.

**Sarouan**

Bubbalicious wrote:

Dont se a problem with some units having more than two guns either. Just roll the things in batches or if you whant to speed things upp, roll everything at once with dirrent colored dice for each weapon

It is a problem when you play a massive scale game with 100+ units that aren't the same.

For people dedicated to one game only and don't have a free-time issue, it's fine. But it's hard to sell the game to newcomers who don't fit the same boxes. Less players = less games, less games = less incentment to the producer to keep investing into it, and have it the AT / Necromunda way (that is, having new products with such a huge time gap with nothing to the point people lose interest in it).

Having a complex game system doesn't make it better or more fun to play. It just makes it harder to learn and take more time consuming to play. I for myself have already plenty of those in my library, most of them I never play with now, and I don't have time for another one. I'm pretty sure I'm far from being the only one in this situation.

**Vorian**

Pacific wrote:

We have ended up switching to One Page Rules, which employs USRs, but generally a max of one or two per unit and certainly not 8. You can fire a unit without having to refer to a weapons chart and check a loadout. I'm not saying that by any means Epic is as complex as Necromunda and we won't know for sure until it's released, but it sniffs of that design route rather than something like AoS which was (at least originally) designed as an easily accessible game.

But 8 USRs is an odd way to try and characterise the Terminator profile. It's trying to make something relatively simple sound complicated.

**Billicus**

It's always possible to build armies that are time-consuming to roll out their attacks or more identikit armies with simpler rolls / less to remember in any wargame with dice. That's clearly the case here if you decide to kit out your more versatile vehicles with the same loadouts.

The special rules thing is a bit of an overreaction, when a lot of them are things like bulky on terminators that you only need to hear once to know what it is and likely don't even need to read it.

I don't know why you'd want the official GW rules to be a one-page-rules style effort given how easy it is to just remove stuff you don't want to play with yourself and how quickly someone (probably OPR themselves) will come out with a simple version anyway.

**Sarouan**

Billicus wrote:

I don't know why you'd want the official GW rules to be a one-page-rules style effort given how easy it is to just remove stuff you don't want to play with yourself and how quickly someone (probably OPR themselves) will come out with a simple version anyway.

We don't want that. In term of game systems, there's not just these extremes. It's also possible to have a middle ground.

After all, GW did produce games like Epic 40k in the past. Here for LI, they chose an older version as base that was already known as complex and bloated, instead of posterior versions that were "lighter" in comparison.

We'll have the same Horus heresy issue : the game appeals to veterans (most of them having all what they need to play, anyway), but struggles to have new players because of well the game system being old and bloated, and thus doesn't sell that well in comparison to others - leading to a prophetized end with "it doesn't sell enough" as self-fulfilled justification.

Oh well. If it's fun for those passionnate enough to jump on the wagon, at least they'll have a good time for as long as it lasts.

**leopard**

Sarouan wrote:
Billicus wrote:

I don't know why you'd want the official GW rules to be a one-page-rules style effort given how easy it is to just remove stuff you don't want to play with yourself and how quickly someone (probably OPR themselves) will come out with a simple version anyway.

We don't want that. In term of game systems, there's not just these extremes. It's also possible to have a middle ground.

After all, GW did produce games like Epic 40k in the past. Here for LI, they chose an older version as base that was already known as complex and bloated, instead of posterior versions that were "lighter" in comparison.

We'll have the same Horus heresy issue : the game appeals to veterans (most of them having all what they need to play, anyway), but struggles to have new players because of well the game system being old and bloated, and thus doesn't sell that well in comparison to others - leading to a prophetized end with "it doesn't sell enough" as self-fulfilled justification.

Oh well. If it's fun for those passionnate enough to jump on the wagon, at least they'll have a good time for as long as it lasts.

"as long as it lasts"

well people still play the older editions and there is enough of a market to sustain several organisations providing alternative models so I guess that lasted.

GW appear to have gone back to older versions, largely for the nostalgia factor I suspect but also those versions did well enough to get an edition that followed, the more streamlined version essentially didn't

give it a year or two and will see where it all ends up

**Apple fox**

I am really just not seeing that much complexity yet.

The only scare is the possibility for GW bloat. But at least now, I think it’s fairly reasonable and I don’t think it will take that long to go through a turn.

Off corse it’s also just a positive not to like the game itself, but that I do think is different from the design issues itself as of yet.

I also think they probably pick the heresy as it is a niche setting, so as not to take sales from 40K.
Not splitting the setting players to much, something that other 40K products tend to have is heavy cross compatibility.

**leopard**

Pacific wrote:
Take in mind that anyone commenting on this forum is, by default, really into their wargames and not a cross section of the broader wargaming demographic. So I'm attempting to view it in a wider context.

Putting a few page markers in a rulebook is fine for me, but I've had Necromunda campaigns fail because the guys playing, who only have a few hours free every few weeks, just couldn't get comfortable with the depth and complexity of the rules. We have ended up switching to One Page Rules, which employs USRs, but generally a max of one or two per unit and certainly not 8. You can fire a unit without having to refer to a weapons chart and check a loadout. I'm not saying that by any means Epic is as complex as Necromunda and we won't know for sure until it's released, but it sniffs of that design route rather than something like AoS which was (at least originally) designed as an easily accessible game.

Leopard - it's interesting you say that about 1st edition. I didn't play it myself but speaking to others they seem split on loving the granularity of 1st, hating the simplification that 2nd edition introduced, and visa-versa. I suppose ultimately there are different ways to skin a cat, and you'll come down on one side or another.

I preferred 1st edition as a game, however I can see why they did what they did with second - army building was easier as in 1st that started out as "take what you want, here are the detachments and here are the point costs" - later replaced by stuff you would only ever see if you had that specific WD issue. Though with 2nd lose a unit card and sucks to be you.

but then I also have a Flames of War Strelkovy force, the idea of moving lots of stuff about and fighting with them isn't a problem, especially as with infantry for most of the time they are not close enough to shoot anyway

and it is very much down to preference, 1st was slow if you had to keep looking stuff up, but as with most games when you didn't it was faster. while you had a lot of units you seldom had massive units (IIRC Imperial Guard Tactical detachments were ten stands, and orks could have larger mobs, but most were smaller). quickly became "this tactical unit shoots at that, 4+ to a 3+ for range" (rolls six dice), "ok 2 hits, that sucks" (opponent rolls two saves) "yup passed both".

the idea that the to hit roll varied not only by weapon but by what you shot at was nice and something I liked, e.g. a laser cannon hit tanks on IIRC a 4+, but unarmoured targets on a 6+ (and hit rolls could go to 7+, 8+ or 9+ before 'sorry can't hit now' applied)

2nd was faster to play, e.g. removing infantry saves, but 1st wasn't slow, stuff died reasonably quickly still so what started as a lot of models quickly dropped.

IIRC I had 5k of Imperial Guard, largely infantry as it was cheaper and in plastic, and usually ran with 5k of Titans in larger games, again they were cheap and in plastic

I suspect "they were cheap" is sadly a thing of the past

**lord_blackfang**

Lots of people here acting like games of 40k don't take 2 hours per turn specifically because each unit has 7 different weapon profiles to resolve.

**xttz**

New updates from the leaker with playtest rules:

Accurate means you get to reroll failed hits.
AT means hits against infantry/cav are AP 0
Light AT means hits against Vehicles/SHV/Knights/Titans are AP 0 and can’t be allocated to Void Shields
Engine Killer only affects SHV/Knights/Titans and no you can’t assign excess wounds to other units in the detachment.
The Warlord Vulcan Megabolter Array gets 20 dice. However, it’s 5+ to hit and won’t have AP against Vehicles/SHV/Knights/Titans.

Implacable: A Detachment which contains one or more models with the Implacable special rule does not take Morale checks when they lose a Combat. Instead, the controlling player may choose if the Detachment Withdraws or not. An Engaged Implacable Detachment that does not Withdraw remains Engaged; if no models in the Detachment are in base to base contact with an enemy model, the Detachment does not move and is no longer Engaged.

Jink (X): Models with the Jink special rule gain an additional Save characteristic equal to the number shown in brackets, referred to as a Jink Save. Jink Saves are not modified by a weapon's AP characteristic, and cannot be taken if the target model has been issued a First Fire Order.

Steadfast: A model with the Steadfast special rule counts its Tactical Strength as one higher than normal (e.g., an Infantry model with the Steadfast special rule would have a Tactical Strength of 6). This rule is cumulative with other special rules (i.e., an Iron Warriors Legion Terminator model would have a Tactical Strength of 8 in certain circumstances thanks to the ‘The Bitter End' Legion special rule (see page 156)).

Flyer: Models with the Flyer special rule operate differently to other Detachments on the battlefield and are subject to the unique set of rules described below.
Unless instructed otherwise, Flyers are not deployed on the battlefield at the start of the battle and are instead placed in Reserve. Unless instructed otherwise, a model with the Flyer special rule that is in Reserve can only be issued with an Advance Order or a March Order. Any weapons with the Point Defence trait that the Flyer has count as having the Skyfire trait when firing upon an enemy model with the Flyer special rule.
When activated during the Movement phase, the controlling player places the Flyer so the rear of its base is touching a point on the controlling player's board edge or touching any board edge at a point within 8" of the controlling player's board edge. The Flyer then moves and can only move in a straight line. A Flyer can make a single turn of up to 90° during its movement. Flyers can move over any model or area of terrain during their movement. A Flyer can end its movement overlapping Impassable terrain.

Flyers fire as normal during the Combat phase. Due to their altitude, a Flyer is considered to have line of sight to all models on the battlefield, unless instructed otherwise. Similarly, all Detachments are considered to have line of sight to a Flyer. A Flyer suffers no penalties to Hit rolls for targeting obscured models, though they do suffer penalties for firing upon Detachments within an area of terrain as normal.

In the Remove Flyers stage of the End phase, all Flyers on the battlefield are removed and placed back in Reserve – they do not count as being destroyed and may return to the battlefield in the following round. Any Wounds a Flyer has suffered remain; for example, if it leaves the battlefield having suffered 2 Wounds, when it next returns it still has suffered 2 Wounds.

Due to the altitude a Flyer operates at, Flyers are ignored for the purposes of calculating who controls an Objective. Flyers do not have an Engagement Zone, cannot be Engaged and/or Pinned and do not block line of sight. As Flyers do not have an Engagement Zone, other models, friendly or enemy, can move through a Flyer's base and finish their move in base contact with it – while a model can end its move overlapping a Flyer's base, it is best to avoid this where possible.

Unless otherwise instructed, any model firing at a model with the Flyer special rule can only Hit on a natural roll of a 6, regardless of modifiers. If a weapon uses a template, such as the Flame template or the Blast template, a model with the Flyer special rule is ignored when calculating Hits unless the weapon also has the Skyfire trait.

**lord_blackfang**

Well glad to see something of the E:A AP/AT system remains.

**leopard**

sounds reasonably good, however heavy weapons going to AT0 v squishy stuff is a missed opportunity to also make such weapons struggle to hit in the first place (or to show how a las cannon killing one guy in a squad likely doesn't stop the rest of the squad functioning)

like say "AT" means AP0 v infantry & cav, plus a -1 to hit.

light weapons not being able to allocate to shields makes me wonder if shields are back to what they used to, i.e. you have a set number of them, dropped in turn, or if they are going to be a shield save of some sort but that lighter stuff flat out cannot get through

**Pacific**

So I'm assuming the Tactical Strength bit is going to be used for objective capture? Add up totals within a defined area and the highest score controls the objective?

Interesting contrast with SM 2nd, which just had a 'closest unit controls' rule for objectives. That game got away with having eight objectives as that was the only, simple, calculation you had to make. Be interesting how LI handles it, especially if you have then unit special rules (one of which above requires potentially two other rule references) on top of the general calculation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
sounds reasonably good, however heavy weapons going to AT0 v squishy stuff is a missed opportunity to also make such weapons struggle to hit in the first place (or to show how a las cannon killing one guy in a squad likely doesn't stop the rest of the squad functioning)

like say "AT" means AP0 v infantry & cav, plus a -1 to hit.

light weapons not being able to allocate to shields makes me wonder if shields are back to what they used to, i.e. you have a set number of them, dropped in turn, or if they are going to be a shield save of some sort but that lighter stuff flat out cannot get through

The way Titan Legions handled that was just to introduce a rule where only weapons with -1 TSM could strip titan shields - stopped masses of infantry fire (and Vulcan mega bolters) from cutting them down as happened in the initial SM 2nd edition. I guess that is just a slightly different way of achieving the same effect.

**vadersson**

It seems like they are using some ideas from 40K, specifically 10th. No cost for weapon options, objective control points, etc. I really want to see more rules. I hope the JoyToy announcement was not todays heresy…

**SamusDrake**

Yeah, thinking the same thing.

It would be nice if they announced some of the AT and AI stuff thats moved from resin to plastic.

**Stormonu**

Personally, rather than rolling for every single weapon, I'd rather see single attacks with different damage range bands.

The kratos might therefore have something like (just making up numbers) Range 20" +6 AT / Range 10" +10 AT, 2 attacks / Range 8" +10 AT,3 attacks

A leman russ (w/ battlecannon and heavy bolter sponsons) might look like Range 10" +4 AT / Range 8" +6 AT or +5 CAF (2 attacks)

That way you don't need to define and select each individual weapon (and which one its actually carrying); you simply make the attacks and assume the tank is grouping fire as efficiently as it can.

**skeleton**

Terminators in epic armagedon did have 3 special rules and 3 weapons on ther entry.

special rules: Reinforced armour, Teleport, thick rear armour.

weapons: stormbolters, assault cannons, powerweapons,

and there where some more weapon special rules.

The baneblade had 5 weapon entry's but only one special rule : reinforced armour.

**leopard**

Stormonu wrote:
Personally, rather than rolling for every single weapon, I'd rather see single attacks with different damage range bands.

The kratos might therefore have something like (just making up numbers) Range 20" +6 AT / Range 10" +10 AT, 2 attacks / Range 8" +10 AT,3 attacks

A leman russ (w/ battlecannon and heavy bolter sponsons) might look like Range 10" +4 AT / Range 8" +6 AT or +5 CAF (2 attacks)

That way you don't need to define and select each individual weapon (and which one its actually carrying); you simply make the attacks and assume the tank is grouping fire as efficiently as it can.

at which point you may as well not bother with models and just have generic counters with a firepower rating printed on them, part of what gives the game its flavour is specifically not doing that

horses for things horses run round of course but I quite like the idea that a Russ can blast its cannons at one thing while also firing the anti infantry stuff at something else, I also quite like the idea you could take more dedicated anti tank versions at a cost of weaker anti infantry firepower, something else that a generic 'firepower' system tends to omit. likewise how some weapons will be better against well armoured infantry in small numbers while others will be better against low armoured hordes - especially since we have power armour and non-power armoured infantry here

the trick is not giving one model the sort of number of profiles, and dice that 40k players love (looking at you Repulsor), but for say a predator having a main gun, side guns and maybe bolters works

**catbarf**

leopard wrote:
horses for things horses run round of course but I quite like the idea that a Russ can blast its cannons at one thing while also firing the anti infantry stuff at something else, I also quite like the idea you could take more dedicated anti tank versions at a cost of weaker anti infantry firepower, something else that a generic 'firepower' system tends to omit. likewise how some weapons will be better against well armoured infantry in small numbers while others will be better against low armoured hordes - especially since we have power armour and non-power armoured infantry here

the trick is not giving one model the sort of number of profiles, and dice that 40k players love (looking at you Repulsor), but for say a predator having a main gun, side guns and maybe bolters works

E:A did this pretty well. Each weapon was defined with AP, AT, AA, MW, or Barrage values and only required one roll to resolve. You could look at your statlines and figure out how many dice you need to roll, color-code dice as needed, do them all in one go, other player takes saves, done.

With LI, even just having to roll each weapon individually- since AP values will vary- is going to slow things down. I'm concerned that this system, while having a bit more crunch, takes after 40K in that on paper the mechanics all work fine but in practice may not be particularly quick to resolve.

**xttz**

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/03/heresy-thursday-fire-support-and-remote-control-bombs-for-the-solar-auxilia/

New solar models, but the release of Epic has been delayed

While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.

**Andrew1975**

Again I'd like to see how players would make Terminators without the USRs. Would you just preferer a paragraph that states cant ride in rhinos, or should every vehicle list what it can hold? Terminators teleporting has always been a thing since Terminators were released way back in Rogue Trader. There are games with less USRs sure but units still then have a paragraph of special rules you have to track.

Stormonu wrote:
Personally, rather than rolling for every single weapon, I'd rather see single attacks with different damage range bands.

The kratos might therefore have something like (just making up numbers) Range 20" +6 AT / Range 10" +10 AT, 2 attacks / Range 8" +10 AT,3 attacks

A leman russ (w/ battlecannon and heavy bolter sponsons) might look like Range 10" +4 AT / Range 8" +6 AT or +5 CAF (2 attacks)

That way you don't need to define and select each individual weapon (and which one its actually carrying); you simply make the attacks and assume the tank is grouping fire as efficiently as it can.

This is a terrible idea, leaves no room for different weapons loadouts. They make a version of 40k Risk if that's what people are looking for.

I liked 2nd ed, but I like that now you can customize your vehicles a little bit more to make them either anti tank or anti infantry focused. I'm not sure what a lot of people who are complaining were looking for, or if they ever played EPIC. This isn't a chit based hex map Panzer General game. This isn't a whole front, like the siege of Stalingrad, this is one large battle using multiple companies comprised of separate and distinct units that each have a 40 year history of how they act and perform. If your units epic units don't feel like HH or 40k units.....whats the point? You don't want Terminators to feel like Terminators? Why bother with assault marines, or heavy weapons squads, there should just be Marine?

In first Ed infantry squads had bolters and special weapons....it was not that hard. I think that Terminators right now not having an autocannon shot is generic, but I'm ok with it, certainly not going to skip the game over it. I think Titans are going to be not nearly as fun as 2nd ed (we don't know for sure, but I don't like multiple wounds in epic), still won't get me to skip the game.

I think they have cut out a lot of good rules already to simplify the game almost too much. These rules didn't take tons of time, they didn't take tons of research. LI and 2nd ed lack a real morale system, when half a company gets wiped out in a turn I think it requires more than "3+ yep we are completely fine" Crossfire and Fire fight were great rules. I get GW is shy of those rules because they were in editions that didn't do well....but it wasn't those rules that people had problems with, thank god there isn't that stupid firepower rule.

I don't want the game to shrink like some of the later versions of Epic that were more detachment size really, but I don't want a generic game either.

As someone who had played all the versions of epic.....this is pretty much right in line with what to expect, if its not your cup of tea, then epic just isn't right for you, but that's not epic fault.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

vadersson wrote:
It seems like they are using some ideas from 40K, specifically 10th. No cost for weapon options, objective control points, etc. I really want to see more rules. I hope the JoyToy announcement was not todays heresy…

More like 10th got those options from epic, this is how epic has always been.

**Matrindur**

The cyclops is interesting as it isn't in the leaks, so either those are incomplete or this box wasn't meant to be revealed yet and happened because the release was moved back

**RexHavoc**

lord_blackfang wrote:Lots of people here acting like games of 40k don't take 2 hours per turn specifically because each unit has 7 different weapon profiles to resolve.

Which is why I ditched playing 40k to only play E40k.

xttz wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/08/03/heresy-thursday-fire-support-and-remote-control-bombs-for-the-solar-auxilia/

New solar models, but the release of Epic has been delayed

While we had initially hoped to release Legions Imperialis in August, the release date will now be a little later in the year. Don’t worry – you’ll be commanding a tiny legion of troops to victory very soon.

Ha. Whilst it being delayed doesn't affect most people that want to play the game, its going to take a hit as interest is going to drift to 3rd party models/older rules. Watch how they use this as the excuse not to give release dates again in the future- the old world will suddenly be released out of no where

Oh well, bad luck for GW, good for vanguard. I guess this means I can go and make that order of a couple of thousand bases which I'd been holding off doing until I knew how much GW plastic I would end up getting.

**MajorWesJanson**

Honestly, delay is a good thing for some budgets.

**Matrindur**

Another strange thing is that the article says its 28 models, 12 Rapiers, 12 Tarantulas and 4 cyclops but the box shows 40 models? Also the cyclops isn't even shown on the box?

**SU-152**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Again I'd like to see how players would make Terminators without the USRs. Would you just preferer a paragraph that states cant ride in rhinos, or should every vehicle list what it can hold? Terminators teleporting has always been a thing since Terminators were released way back in Rogue Trader. There are games with less USRs sure but units still then have a paragraph of special rules you have to track.

Extremely easy:

instead of the Ward Save, +1 to the normal save and to CAF.
instead of the other 2 morale rules, +1 to morale.
remove bulky, and do like in 4th edition.
The rules of the weapons could have been avoided with an AP/AT system, like 4th edition.

Just keep teleport.

Oh, and that way there's more difference in power with tacticals, which is extremely low (they are just slightly better tacticals - when they should be way way better than them).

**xttz**

Matrindur wrote:
Another strange thing is that the article says its 28 models, 12 Rapiers, 12 Tarantulas and 4 cyclops but the box shows 40 models? Also the cyclops isn't even shown on the box?

The individual crew count as models. You have 12 rapiers with 12 extra crewmen to go on them.

**SU-152**

Matrindur wrote:
Another strange thing is that the article says its 28 models, 12 Rapiers, 12 Tarantulas and 4 cyclops but the box shows 40 models? Also the cyclops isn't even shown on the box?

28 + 12 extra crew = 40

**zedmeister**

Nice to see a proper Mole Mortars return of old

**Mentlegen324**

zedmeister wrote:
Nice to see a proper Mole Mortars return of old

I was hoping the Leagues of Votann would get them, or at least they'd have their lore connected like originally. Can't see that happening now.

**zedmeister**

Mentlegen324 wrote:
zedmeister wrote:
Nice to see a proper Mole Mortars return of old

I was hoping the Leagues of Votann would get them, or at least they'd have their lore connected like originally. Can't see that happening now.

Thudd Guns and Mole Mortars... The crew do seem taller than I'd like

Who knows, the Leagues may make an appearance in 30k in which case, oh boy, all bets are off on what they come up with