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.

Oh thank god, those unit profiles are much better! You can now cearly see what equipment each tank gets.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

The UK Print industry is tiny, and expensive. Like….stupid expensive compared to getting it done overseas. 20, 30 years ago? Not so much. But it’s a dying industry on this benighted island in the modern day.

Why? The UK used to use China and other countries primarily for labour intensive tasks, as labour was significantly cheaper there.
I don't know the printing industry, but I imagine a lot of it is automated and not as labour intensive. Raw materials will be purchased just the same as they would be in China, ie papers, inks etc. So why the massive difference in prices?
I still don't know why GW haven't invested in building and staffing it's own printing press in the UK. They make so many millions in profit, it wouldn't bankrupt them and in the long term, would be a far better solution than waiting on 3 month boat trips and the possibility of non-GW staff leaking info. I guess excess profit and the shareholders outweigh efficiency. A sad indication of the way the world works these days.

Printing is a lot more expensive in countries like the UK and US than China, with some countries in Central and Eastern Europe somewhat in-between. Printing, especially of hardback books, isn't as automated as you might think. Binding in particular still involves quite a bit of manual work, and actually printers in countries like China can keep the cost down further by using even more handwork because the machines that provide the alternative are themselves very expensive. Then there's inputs like energy, which are more expensive in the UK and US, and differences in safety regimes, which mean that plants are more expensive to run in the West. Raw materials themselves are usually more expensive as well, because unless an individual printer is set up to handle all sourcing and import of raw materials themselves (which itself adds major cost), they'll be using brokers and suppliers with at least some staff based in the UK or US; those brokers and suppliers are paying UK or US wages and taking a small margin themselves. It all adds up to a lot more cost. Printing's not unusual in this regard, of course.

SamusDrake wrote:
They probably recalled the books because they had rules for running Legios and Household forces.

The back of the book mentions titan legions and a host of other forces.

 Crablezworth wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
They probably recalled the books because they had rules for running Legios and Household forces.

The back of the book mentions titan legions and a host of other forces.

Spoiler:

It mentions Titans, not Titan Legions.

Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

at a guess dictated by space on the sprue for the alternative hull, may as well make it its own model at this size

it is a shame though.

guess whatever follows depends on how well the initial lot lands, I'm running 3d printed stuff as Death Guard, I will be getting the box though to use as something else, potentially thousand sons as I think the colours will look really good at this size but not yet decided

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
They probably recalled the books because they had rules for running Legios and Household forces.

The back of the book mentions titan legions and a host of other forces.

Spoiler:

It mentions Titans, not Titan Legions.

Collegia Titanica is the Titan Legions.

 skrulnik wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
They probably recalled the books because they had rules for running Legios and Household forces.

The back of the book mentions titan legions and a host of other forces.

Spoiler:

It mentions Titans, not Titan Legions.

Collegia Titanica is the Titan Legions.

I thought Collegia Titans is where the Warhounds went to learn how to be Warlords?

/coat

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

LR & Baneblade yes, but Malcador has at least 3 main variants (Vanquisher turret, Battlecannon turret, Lascannon turret... the only missing is the defender?), and dozens of combinations of hull+sponson weapons...

Does anybody think tank weapons are going to be swappable at this scale????

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

The UK Print industry is tiny, and expensive. Like….stupid expensive compared to getting it done overseas. 20, 30 years ago? Not so much. But it’s a dying industry on this benighted island in the modern day.

Why? The UK used to use China and other countries primarily for labour intensive tasks, as labour was significantly cheaper there.
I don't know the printing industry, but I imagine a lot of it is automated and not as labour intensive. Raw materials will be purchased just the same as they would be in China, ie papers, inks etc. So why the massive difference in prices?
I still don't know why GW haven't invested in building and staffing it's own printing press in the UK. They make so many millions in profit, it wouldn't bankrupt them and in the long term, would be a far better solution than waiting on 3 month boat trips and the possibility of non-GW staff leaking info. I guess excess profit and the shareholders outweigh efficiency. A sad indication of the way the world works these days.

There are a lot of steps.

Page setting (mostly digital these days), plate making (if not fully digitised), the machines are expensive. They require skilled Labour for printing, trimming, folding, binding, QA etc.

And as mentioned elsewhere, different health and safety laws, stricter working hours before overtime, storage (it’s not massively common for the buyer to take everything, rather you warehouse it on their behalf and send them out on demand).

Then you have finding the work in the first place. Whether Poland or China (two countries notable for winning a lot of British print contracts, not some Daily Mail conspiracy), the lower the labour costs, the lower the quoted price. Doesn’t take much to squeak you out at that stage.

Yes, GW probably does have the readies to setup a printshop of their own. But…they’re just adopting more expenses. Print shops have never run on a particularly large profit margin, because in its heyday it was a competitive industry. Even stripping out the profit margin entirely? Overseas is still gonna be cheaper. So sadly, it doesn’t make economic sense.

Plus, things can and will go wrong on a print run. Human error, technological whoopsie, misaligned plate, various and sundry. When you’ve contracted out, the associated cost of such balls ups aren’t for the buyer to worry about.

How Grandad used to do it, as did most if not all of the industry, was to quote on a higher print run. Because once you’re all set up, the production cost difference between say, 1,000 copies and 1,200 copies is pretty negligible, because the expensive bit is the labour. With extra copies already printed, a larger print run is still paid for, but you’ve got the goodies produced already, ready to go. So the payment for those extra copies carries your real profit margin.

I’d ask Grandad for more details, but I’d need a Ouija board for that nowadays.

sure I read somewhere the only reason GW didn't own a print shop and do its own printing was that once set up they would use only a fraction of the capacity making it uneconomic

they brought tooling etc in house as it ended up more cost effective and more profitable from the flexibility it offers

Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

 Breotan wrote:
Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

for most people I doubt it will be an issue at all, for others it will become a near religious level of ranting issue

personally, whatever, just make it clear and don't play a shell game of mix & match and its fine

leopard wrote:
sure I read somewhere the only reason GW didn't own a print shop and do its own printing was that once set up they would use only a fraction of the capacity making it uneconomic

they brought tooling etc in house as it ended up more cost effective and more profitable from the flexibility it offers

Counter to that would be make it a wholly owned subsidiary, or at least take on other print runs. Both have flaws as arguments.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

leopard wrote:
sure I read somewhere the only reason GW didn't own a print shop and do its own printing was that once set up they would use only a fraction of the capacity making it uneconomic

they brought tooling etc in house as it ended up more cost effective and more profitable from the flexibility it offers

Counter to that would be make it a wholly owned subsidiary, or at least take on other print runs. Both have flaws as arguments.

yes its not perfect, their injection moulding production & tooling stuff is built around what they need - probably some spare tooling capability would be possible but its allowed the huge output in new kits to be possible

having worked in a job that was essentially "we have a facility with spare capacity, go sell it to people to reduce our overheads!" its one of those things that sounds a good idea but loses a lot of flexibility with capacity tied up for third parties or loses customers if they get bumped.

I think it comes down to GWs own output for printed needing multiple different production lines - books, boxes and thicker cardstock counters/boards being I gather somewhat different - plus in general terms their volumes are not actually all that high

and then as you have noted the cost of doing it in the UK is generally higher than overseas, and while you do loose the transit time its not that high

will be someone at GW who will have worked out at what point bringing it inhouse makes sense though

leopard wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

for most people I doubt it will be an issue at all, for others it will become a near religious level of ranting issue

personally, whatever, just make it clear and don't play a shell game of mix & match and its fine

Counter point, it's very easy to trust a player if their models are actually armed the way their list says that they are. It would be a good indication that accuracy is important to said individual. Constantly say just trust me bro, its a total coincidence my fighter or bomber has the ideal loadout for this situation strains credibility.

In the case of LI, will there be any rules that mandate that all the vehicles in the same unit/detachment be armed the same way?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

leopard wrote:
sure I read somewhere the only reason GW didn't own a print shop and do its own printing was that once set up they would use only a fraction of the capacity making it uneconomic

they brought tooling etc in house as it ended up more cost effective and more profitable from the flexibility it offers

Counter to that would be make it a wholly owned subsidiary, or at least take on other print runs. Both have flaws as arguments.

I think then you'd run the risk of losing the flexibility of having it in house, as you'd then have the comercial pressure of wanting to have as full a calendar as possible rather than keeping largish slots open for "just in case something that shouldn't really be happening anyway" happens.

 Crablezworth wrote:

leopard wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Aeronautica players didn't have to be wysiwyg, especially regarding the bombs and missiles. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in LI.

for most people I doubt it will be an issue at all, for others it will become a near religious level of ranting issue

personally, whatever, just make it clear and don't play a shell game of mix & match and its fine

Counter point, it's very easy to trust a player if their models are actually armed the way their list says that they are. It would be a good indication that accuracy is important to said individual. Constantly say just trust me bro, its a total coincidence my fighter or bomber has the ideal loadout for this situation strains credibility.

In the case of LI, will there be any rules that mandate that all the vehicles in the same unit/detachment be armed the same way?

In Aeronautica the bombs and missiles are too small to be magnetised or use some sort of temporary attachment system, they're also on the bottom of wings which means they're not easily visible for your opponent to see, and since they're "consumable" anyway, it totally makes sense just to use cards/counters to represent them instead of physically representing them on the model.

For Epic, I think WYSIWYG is slightly more important because there's going to be a lot on the table and you don't want to be having to keep track of what everything is equipped with.

yes hence the point about no shell games "all my Leman russ have hull lascannons not heavy bolters" is fine regardless of what they carry

gets harder when "this unit with heavy bolters has heavy bolters, this unit with las cannon also has heavy bolters and this unit with lascannon has las cannon"

I would equip all tanks in a given formation with the same weapons for starters.

So much detail in this edition... I have to find ways to speed up play already.

New article up about terrain, https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/09/12/legions-imperialis-terrain-how-the-battlefield-shapes-your-games/

At the bottom is a note that "LI is on course for a release soon"

ccnick22 wrote:
New article up about terrain, https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/09/12/legions-imperialis-terrain-how-the-battlefield-shapes-your-games/

At the bottom is a note that "LI is on course for a release soon"

Based on this and the rulebook appearing in the wild I would say probably at the start of October

Would have been nice to get actual examples what these four levels of structures are supposed to be like

I wonder if this will end up like earlier versions, where a building was a death trap but ruins were safe.. so you level the buildings as you approach?

better is a ruin being able to be destroyed over and over

the models look good though

Imperialis Grandus sounds exactly as absurd as Biggus Dickus.

Cyel wrote:
Imperialis Grandus sounds exactly as absurd as Biggus Dickus.

Now I know what to name my Warbringer Titan!

How do you tell the difference between structure types just from looking at them? Is the one with the crane Grandus? Or Civitas? Is the little cube with the big doors Civitas or Militus?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

They gotta hold something back to make you buy the next book in the series. Give it ~3-6 months post release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laemos wrote:
How do you tell the difference between structure types just from looking at them? Is the one with the crane Grandus? Or Civitas? Is the little cube with the big doors Civitas or Militus?

Was wondering the same.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Kind of disappointing to see only the basic LRBT/Malcador/Baneblade variants. You'd think it would be obvious to include the Shadowsword at least in a game perfectly suited to it but nope, apparently that isn't coming in the foreseeable future.

Yes, honestly I am getting to despise their no models no rules thing more and more, as you just know it affects the minimal amount of playtesting they do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matrindur wrote:

ccnick22 wrote:
New article up about terrain, https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/09/12/legions-imperialis-terrain-how-the-battlefield-shapes-your-games/

At the bottom is a note that "LI is on course for a release soon"

Based on this and the rulebook appearing in the wild I would say probably at the start of October

Would have been nice to get actual examples what these four levels of structures are supposed to be like

Spoiler:

Sincerely hope that is area terrain rules. If it is WYSIWYG individual structures that's not a very promising sign.

Probably a second picture with the different sized buildings.

The building thing sounds really bad, for starters as others have mentioned, how does one even know what building is what, but it's worth than that, as cool as it is to have destructible buildings, players will be expected to have an intact and ruined version of each building on top of knowing its stats? No one played this....

The area terrain, the problem again is no use of the description of the model being entirely within said area, worse yet, they're not telling you to delineate an area of terrain, they're basically saying 1mm of my 25mm infantry base is on top of a flattened shipping crate so obviously Id get a cover save from 360 degrees... this isn't good design, the main problem of area terrain even with functional rules is its often unflankable, but this just raises the silliness a bit too much.