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.

6 Void Shields is quite handy, as even if they’re all stripped, you’ve a greater chance of getting enough back online for your next turn.

Just eyeballing, I reckon a Warlord with Vulcan Mega Bolter array, Macro Gatling Cannon and a Belicosa Volcano Cannon is gonna be fairly nasty.

Against massed infantry, the VMB and MGC can kick out a respectable seeming amount of fire at reasonable ranges.

Against tanks the MGC and BVC are a worry for your opponent.

Against even fully shielded Titans? The VMB go first to hopefully strip the shields. MGC next which can strip any remaining shields and have some chance of plinking off wounds, then the BVC for a hopeful coup de grace.

Of course, we don’t know what all the other weapon traits do, but in terms of “just stick with relative basics” the above loadout feels nicely rounded - provided you get in range and arc!

chaos0xomega wrote:
I am of the belief that there was a cleaner way to manage essentially the same mechanics without needing to layer multiple special rules, etc. but its not the worst thing in the world either.

yeah, it is a possibility to have keywords for infantry, light tanks, heavy tanks and shields and let only the weapons with the right keyword kill those
but than you would go around the whole AP stuff because it is not needed any more

on the other hand, a wounding table with a hard cap and low health on all models would work the same

So if Warlord has 6 W and Direwolf 4, I am guessing that Reaver is 5 and Warhound is 3.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So if Warlord has 6 W and Direwolf 4, I am guessing that Reaver is 5 and Warhound is 3.

From the leaks:

Detachment Name Move Sv CAF Morale W Detachment Size Unit Type Points Warhound Hunting Pack 7" 2+ +10 - 4 1 Titan (5) 330 Dire Wolf Heavy Scout Titan 7" 2+ +10 - 4 1 Titan (5) 385 Reaver Battle Titan 6" 2+ +12 - 5 1 Titan (5) 415 Warbringer Nemesis Titan 5" 2+ +12 - 5 1 Titan (5) 525 Warlord Battle Titan 5" 2+ +14 - 6 1 Titan (5) 600 Warlord-Sinister Battle Titan 5" 2+ +14 - 6 1 Titan (5) 675 Warmaster Heavy Battle Titan 5" 1+ +18 - 7 1 Titan (5) 750 Warmaster Iconoclast Titan 6" 1+ +18 - 7 1 Titan (5) 750

 xttz wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So if Warlord has 6 W and Direwolf 4, I am guessing that Reaver is 5 and Warhound is 3.

From the leaks:

Detachment Name Move Sv CAF Morale W Detachment Size Unit Type Points Warhound Hunting Pack 7" 2+ +10 - 4 1 Titan (5) 330 Dire Wolf Heavy Scout Titan 7" 2+ +10 - 4 1 Titan (5) 385 Reaver Battle Titan 6" 2+ +12 - 5 1 Titan (5) 415 Warbringer Nemesis Titan 5" 2+ +12 - 5 1 Titan (5) 525 Warlord Battle Titan 5" 2+ +14 - 6 1 Titan (5) 600 Warlord-Sinister Battle Titan 5" 2+ +14 - 6 1 Titan (5) 675 Warmaster Heavy Battle Titan 5" 1+ +18 - 7 1 Titan (5) 750 Warmaster Iconoclast Titan 6" 1+ +18 - 7 1 Titan (5) 750

Thanks for the info

Isn't Dire Wolf Supposed to be lighter then Warhound?

Not with a Reaver class weapon on it it’s not. But what it brings in added firepower, it loses in overall flexibility as a unit choice.

The Warmaster is only 750 points, but every other titan is more expensive than they are in Titanicus?

 Sotahullu wrote:
Isn't Dire Wolf Supposed to be lighter then Warhound?

It's heavier, both in armament and the way it's built. The supposed lighter engines, like Jackals and Rapiers, do not exist in model form.

 xttz wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So if Warlord has 6 W and Direwolf 4, I am guessing that Reaver is 5 and Warhound is 3.

From the leaks:

Detachment Name Move Sv CAF Morale W Detachment Size Unit Type Points Warhound Hunting Pack 7" 2+ +10 - 4 1 Titan (5) 330 Dire Wolf Heavy Scout Titan 7" 2+ +10 - 4 1 Titan (5) 385 Reaver Battle Titan 6" 2+ +12 - 5 1 Titan (5) 415 Warbringer Nemesis Titan 5" 2+ +12 - 5 1 Titan (5) 525 Warlord Battle Titan 5" 2+ +14 - 6 1 Titan (5) 600 Warlord-Sinister Battle Titan 5" 2+ +14 - 6 1 Titan (5) 675 Warmaster Heavy Battle Titan 5" 1+ +18 - 7 1 Titan (5) 750 Warmaster Iconoclast Titan 6" 1+ +18 - 7 1 Titan (5) 750

Its interesting how their stats are quite differently balanced than in HH.
Just looking at the wounds in HH Warhounds have 12 while Warlords have 30 so 2.5 times as many. The same ratio is used in 40k with 40 and 100 wounds respectively. But then in LI its the other way around with 4 and 6 so only 1.5 times as many.

 Matrindur wrote:


Its interesting how their stats are quite differently balanced than in HH.
Just looking at the wounds in HH Warhounds have 12 while Warlords have 30 so 2.5 times as many. The same ratio is used in 40k with 40 and 100 wounds respectively. But then in LI its the other way around with 4 and 6 so only 1.5 times as many.

Well void shields do not appear in that list and since we know what it does, I'd say it's a pretty damn big difference to take into account. Warlord has 6 while warhound has 2. No wonder it has the impact on point cost.

That will be quite interesting that the VMB can now strip titan shields. That was one of the changes that Titan Legions brought to 2nd edition Epic previously, where people used to kit out special 'Titan/war machine' killers with VMB and plasma blastgun. Get onto the flank of a Reaver or Squat Cyclops, strip the shields with the VMB and then kiss them goodbye with the Plasma. Titan Legions changed that by making it so only -1 weapons could strip shields, making them a hell of a lot more durable.

I have to wonder why a similarly elegant rule wasn't used for the new game.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I am of the belief that there was a cleaner way to manage essentially the same mechanics without needing to layer multiple special rules, etc. but its not the worst thing in the world either.

My thoughts too. A particular favourite of mine is a tank spec having both 'armour piercing' and 'armourbane'.. I mean, come on, it's like there is not even an attempt at effeciency.

Well, in the new game basic Infantry now gets a save, which is a new thing.

So Light AT is how you keep certain weapons good against infantry and desperate against Tanks.

Not having point costs on weapons seems like a terrible idea.

Wasn’t a problem in 2nd Ed

 Crablezworth wrote:
Not having point costs on weapons seems like a terrible idea.

The wargear might be in a separate points list, as they're only calculated before a game starts.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Not having point costs on weapons seems like a terrible idea.

seems there is something rotten in GW where that idea is taking hold, seems also stuff like weapon upgrades on tanks have no cost that we have seen

SU-152 wrote:
WarLord, 6 wounds + 6 shields, 600 points

DireWolf, 4 wounds + 2 shields, 385 points

Is a dire wolf so much more powerful that a WarHound?

It seems to me the Warlord is quite "weak" and the DireWolf quite "strong", judging by their wounds and points costs ( a Warlord costs less than 2 DireWolfs). At least comparing to other editions internal balance.

Keep in mind that with an alternating activation mechanic that LI has, that having two units does provide an advantage. That obviously effects point costs, as we see in detachments that are cheaper to add units than take another detachment of the same units.

 Pacific wrote:
That will be quite interesting that the VMB can now strip titan shields. That was one of the changes that Titan Legions brought to 2nd edition Epic previously, where people used to kit out special 'Titan/war machine' killers with VMB and plasma blastgun. Get onto the flank of a Reaver or Squat Cyclops, strip the shields with the VMB and then kiss them goodbye with the Plasma. Titan Legions changed that by making it so only -1 weapons could strip shields, making them a hell of a lot more durable.

I have to wonder why a similarly elegant rule wasn't used for the new game.

Likely because stripping shields is the VMB's main role in Adeptus Titanicus (they are ok against Knights too, but no guarantee you'll be facing Knights so Shield stripping is the usual reason to take), so changing that up for LI entirely would be a bit odd, hence they came up with Shieldbane.

Interesting that the Warlord sheet has the "Warlord Graviton Ruinator", which would imply the existence of another one (but not sure if any of the Ordinatus had these, especially the minoris)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, in the new game basic Infantry now gets a save, which is a new thing.

So Light AT is how you keep certain weapons good against infantry and desperate against Tanks.

I think giving all infantry a save and sticking to a D6 system is why GW have to add in these sort of rule interactions.

I honestly wish GW would step outside their comfort zone and do a game where a D10 is the standard die used. It would really help to give more wiggle room to differentiate stats, and thus reduce the over reliance on special rules/abilities.

 Tastyfish wrote:
Interesting that the Warlord sheet has the "Warlord Graviton Ruinator", which would imply the existence of another one (but not sure if any of the Ordinatus had these, especially the minoris)

Warbringer carapace weapons finally?

 stonehorse wrote:
I honestly wish GW would step outside their comfort zone and do a game where a D10 is the standard die used. It would really help to give more wiggle room to differentiate stats, and thus reduce the over reliance on special rules/abilities.

GW tried that with the 8th edition Apocalypse rules, replacing a bunch of special rules with a D12 to wound (and separate anti-tank and anti-infantry values). People hated it because it was too honest about its lack of depth and it was pretty much immediately abandoned. People want all the layers upon layers of special rules so they can feel like a tactical genius for figuring out how to stack up the obvious combination of buffs, consolidating it all into a D10/D12/D20 value ruins that fantasy.

(And we know GW isn't really capable of making a genuinely deep and engaging game without the need to hide its lack of depth behind layers of rules bloat, nor do a lot of GW customers really want that game.)

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I honestly wish GW would step outside their comfort zone and do a game where a D10 is the standard die used. It would really help to give more wiggle room to differentiate stats, and thus reduce the over reliance on special rules/abilities.

GW tried that with the 8th edition Apocalypse rules, replacing a bunch of special rules with a D12 to wound (and separate anti-tank and anti-infantry values). People hated it because it was too honest about its lack of depth and it was pretty much immediately abandoned. People want all the layers upon layers of special rules so they can feel like a tactical genius for figuring out how to stack up the obvious combination of buffs, consolidating it all into a D10/D12/D20 value ruins that fantasy.

(And we know GW isn't really capable of making a genuinely deep and engaging game without the need to hide its lack of depth behind layers of rules bloat, nor do a lot of GW customers really want that game.)

I vaguely recall that game, it was a flash in the pan, blink and you miss it. Shame as it seemed good.

I think this is also why Epic 40,000 failed, but is regarded as the best GW game ever made by both Jervis and Andy... as it is a wargame and not the usual miniature game that GW make.

Might see if I can find the Apocalypse stuff.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wasn’t a problem in 2nd Ed

Yeah but its already seeming like it will be a problem. It's one thing to have a and b options that are pigeon holed into a specific role like AT or anti infantry, but binary choice is way far off from say how the warlord titan takes its loadout. The second there's a less than optimal set of loadouts and optimal ones, the problems start. Dual claw warlords for example, don't seem like the way to go.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wasn’t a problem in 2nd Ed

Yeah but its already seeming like it will be a problem. It's one thing to have a and b options that are pigeon holed into a specific role like AT or anti infantry, but binary choice is way far off from say how the warlord titan takes its loadout. The second there's a less than optimal set of loadouts and optimal ones, the problems start. Dual claw warlords for example, don't seem like the way to go.

Give me a Plasma Destructor like in the 90s and I will be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wasn’t a problem in 2nd Ed

Yeah but its already seeming like it will be a problem. It's one thing to have a and b options that are pigeon holed into a specific role like AT or anti infantry, but binary choice is way far off from say how the warlord titan takes its loadout. The second there's a less than optimal set of loadouts and optimal ones, the problems start. Dual claw warlords for example, don't seem like the way to go.

Give me a Plasma Destructor like in the 90s and I will be fine.

I don't see why diversifying weapon types is a problem, or why making it so that some weapons are bad at taking out giant vehicles is a bad thing.

I wish GW's other games did that more often, so distinct anti-tank and anti-infantry guns were bad against their opposites.

Looking at their stats?

Lots of range variation across them, different accuracy, save mods, To Hit, some with special traits, others without.

Whilst I listed a load out I think would be fairly “take all comers” that’s in isolation of knowing what all the traits do at this juncture. And it features wildly different ranges.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't see why diversifying weapon types is a problem, or why making it so that some weapons are bad at taking out giant vehicles is a bad thing.

I wish GW's other games did that more often, so distinct anti-tank and anti-infantry guns were bad against their opposites.

As long as it doesn't involve a lot of back and forth having to check rules and/or micromanagement. What made some of the older editions of Epic enjoyable was how they were focused at a different level, not worrying so much what each individual gun was shooting at, but rather the net effect of that fire.

I don't know, going to have to play to see how much I like it. I'm not liking how Titians work. Maybe there is more, but I don't see hit locations or damage tables. The rules in general not just Titians look kind of clunky.

The cost of weapons being the same was never an issue in 2nd ed, they balanced them out pretty well, will probably do the same here. Carapace weapons are paired AGAIN! Why do they keep doing that? I guess that is just a thing now and forever. Also missing a lot of great Titan class weapons. Besides the Plasma guns all Titan weapons used to be the same, now the Titans all have different weapons classes? I'm seeing a lot of the issues that turned me off epic after 2nd ed...I was really hoping for a cleaned up standardized version of 2nd Ed with more units....this....I don't know if this is what I was looking for.