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.

Didn't old skool Epic have quake cannons (?) to knock out buildings with?

...And to be fair, I've played a good few editions of 28mm 40K and I've never modelled a ruined vehicle to bring, some cotton wool for smoke usually did just fine (if anything that's overperforming compared to the usual marker next to the vehicle or somesuch!)

Most important Message from that Article:

Legions Imperialis is on course for a release soon – keep checking back on Warhammer Community for all the biggest news from the smallest soldiers.

 Bolognesus wrote:
Didn't old skool Epic have quake cannons (?) to knock out buildings with?

...And to be fair, I've played a good few editions of 28mm 40K and I've never modelled a ruined vehicle to bring, some cotton wool for smoke usually did just fine (if anything that's overperforming compared to the usual marker next to the vehicle or somesuch!)

Some of the weapons previewed or leaked have had a usr that lets them destroy structures, so far I believe the kratos melta turret and one of the bombers can do it. But again, its not like building have 1 set of stats, first you have to play architect apparently and figure out what type of building every structure is, its a bit daunting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RazorEdge wrote:
Most important Message from that Article:

Legions Imperialis is on course for a release soon – keep checking back on Warhammer Community for all the biggest news from the smallest soldiers.

Ya true, really hoping for october now.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 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.

If the game makes it that long instead of following the Aeronautica Imperialis path of releasing a clearly incomplete game, stringing the rest of the game out over a year or more and multiple expansions, and then killing off the whole thing because for some incomprehensible reason nobody really wanted to buy it.

The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

It seems that GW did see through its entire initial roadmap for AI though, we were told up front to expect 5 factions, and we got 5 (technically more if you count Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and Imperial Navy as distinct factions), one of which only came in resin. Arguably Guard/Navy are one faction and Marines a separate one, so in that sense we got 5 in plastic and 1 in resin.

Point being, its not like they canceled the project so much as they didn't continue it when it had run its course.

I think a big part of the reason why the game didn't tickle anyones fancy was that the rules weren't particularly great (compared to the predecessor game, at any rate), and that it was tied to a hex grid (which seems to be anathema to a large segment of GWs customer base). I hope they relaunch it as a 2nd edition at some point in the future with a tighter hex-less ruleset and perhaps a bit more emphasis on ground units - being able to play missions where you have to conduct strafing runs on columns of to-scale Leman Russ battle tanks, for example, will probably excite a lot of people.

leopard wrote:
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

Well -1 save roll or die...Kinda of a death trap to me.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

Hopefully not. I'm just concerned that the game being as stripped down as it is on release means there's a lot of demand for the finished game but a significant percentage of that demand will be waiting for GW to finish the game before buying. And if initial sales of the starter set half-game don't meet expectations it potentially starts the downward spiral of de-prioritizing future content leading to even lower interest. GW really needs to at least get a roadmap and some previews out showing admech forces, the missing tank variants, etc, so we can at least trust that GW will be finishing the game soon.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

It seems that GW did see through its entire initial roadmap for AI though, we were told up front to expect 5 factions, and we got 5 (technically more if you count Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and Imperial Navy as distinct factions), one of which only came in resin. Arguably Guard/Navy are one faction and Marines a separate one, so in that sense we got 5 in plastic and 1 in resin.

Point being, its not like they canceled the project so much as they didn't continue it when it had run its course.

I think a big part of the reason why the game didn't tickle anyones fancy was that the rules weren't particularly great (compared to the predecessor game, at any rate), and that it was tied to a hex grid (which seems to be anathema to a large segment of GWs customer base). I hope they relaunch it as a 2nd edition at some point in the future with a tighter hex-less ruleset and perhaps a bit more emphasis on ground units - being able to play missions where you have to conduct strafing runs on columns of to-scale Leman Russ battle tanks, for example, will probably excite a lot of people.

100% this


Hex map rubs many the wrong way, many were expecting something more like x-wing. Hex map also meant terrain wasn't really a thing and as good as that is financially, it also kills feeling too invested in it. AT by contrast you really need to get terrain, and feel more invested on account of it. The AI models are great but for anyoe who just want to collect and not play, speaking for myself I liked them but never wanted 4-6 of any one plane. I would have got a thunderhawk if i could ever have caught them in stock. At least now with LI, the planes looks really useful gamewise and more likely to make people want them in packs of 4-6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

Hopefully not. I'm just concerned that the game being as stripped down as it is on release means there's a lot of demand for the finished game but a significant percentage of that demand will be waiting for GW to finish the game before buying. And if initial sales of the starter set half-game don't meet expectations it potentially starts the downward spiral of de-prioritizing future content leading to even lower interest. GW really needs to at least get a roadmap and some previews out showing admech forces, the missing tank variants, etc, so we can at least trust that GW will be finishing the game soon.

For my purposes, if LI is good, I don't see myself playing much titanicus anymore. And if looking for a silver lining, if LI proves popular locally, it may bring in more people with titans who could eventually consider dabbling in AT. Right now locall AT isn't very popular, but many are excited for LI. Also, AT is and has always been a real tough game for multiplayer megabatlles, where as LI might work better for that. Aeronautica has great models, but the game itself doesn't interest me too much, but with LI I'm not much more interested in owning the models.

 Crablezworth wrote:
For my purposes, if LI is good, I don't see myself playing much titanicus anymore.

I suppose it depends on how many Titans you can reasonably field in a standard game of LI. Depending on how points are structured, we may rarely, if ever, see an Iconoclast/Warmaster on the table or even multiple Warlords. I hope my pessimism is unfounded.

 Breotan wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
For my purposes, if LI is good, I don't see myself playing much titanicus anymore.

I suppose it depends on how many Titans you can reasonably field in a standard game of LI. Depending on how points are structured, we may rarely, if ever, see an Iconoclast/Warmaster on the table or even multiple Warlords. I hope my pessimism is unfounded.

Well I'd say you're at least more likely to see a warmaster, as they're much cheaper pointwise in LI than AT.

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

I'd bet it's at least part scenario defined. But knowing GW, there's a model example for each from their own products.

 schoon wrote:

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

I'd bet it's at least part scenario defined. But knowing GW, there's a model example for each from their own products.

The building kits are modular, so hopefully they will sort them by size ranges rather than specific builds.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 schoon wrote:

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

I'd bet it's at least part scenario defined. But knowing GW, there's a model example for each from their own products.

The building kits are modular, so hopefully they will sort them by size ranges rather than specific builds.

Yeah, the kits we know from AT are all “Civitas Imperialis” so the others are probably different architectural styles. I do expect “fortifications” to be a range of separate, discrete kits though, maybe with armed variants.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

Hopefully not. I'm just concerned that the game being as stripped down as it is on release means there's a lot of demand for the finished game but a significant percentage of that demand will be waiting for GW to finish the game before buying. And if initial sales of the starter set half-game don't meet expectations it potentially starts the downward spiral of de-prioritizing future content leading to even lower interest. GW really needs to at least get a roadmap and some previews out showing admech forces, the missing tank variants, etc, so we can at least trust that GW will be finishing the game soon.

AI was the only specialist game reboot to crash and burn and I think even GW know why it did. They haven't tried to pull that gak since.

well 1st edition had, in theory, different types of buildings - though they all had the same stats - you got a picture of each. 2nd was more uniform tower blocks

to be honest I think the different buildings will be fine, a fortification will be reasonably obvious, the rest I suspect will a size split given the garrison number is different. Battletech manages with multiple building types just fine - worst case stick a label, or add a splash of colour to tell them apart.

if this time round its more limited to what can flatten buildings, and they happen to be the same weapons you need for other duties its more interesting. otherwise it will be flatten and occupy the ruins (unless ruins are more dangerous)

either way there are plenty of alternative building options out there in all sorts of sizes

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

Hopefully not. I'm just concerned that the game being as stripped down as it is on release means there's a lot of demand for the finished game but a significant percentage of that demand will be waiting for GW to finish the game before buying. And if initial sales of the starter set half-game don't meet expectations it potentially starts the downward spiral of de-prioritizing future content leading to even lower interest. GW really needs to at least get a roadmap and some previews out showing admech forces, the missing tank variants, etc, so we can at least trust that GW will be finishing the game soon.

AI was the only specialist game reboot to crash and burn and I think even GW know why it did. They haven't tried to pull that gak since.

Its ironic that it did crash and burn, as its the only one of the specialist games to feature xenos, which many seem to believe is necessary and essential for HH, AT, and even LI to be successful.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Its ironic that it did crash and burn, as its the only one of the specialist games to feature xenos, which many seem to believe is necessary and essential for HH, AT, and even LI to be successful.

What's more, it's predominately the xenos models for AI that seemed to be unpopular. I've seen many people picking up imperial flyers just for painting (especially the Thunderhawk) even when they don't play AI. Meanwhile the Tau and Eldar planes ended up in clearance sales for several UK 3rd-party retailers, like Dark Sphere.

 xttz wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Its ironic that it did crash and burn, as its the only one of the specialist games to feature xenos, which many seem to believe is necessary and essential for HH, AT, and even LI to be successful.

What's more, it's predominately the xenos models for AI that seemed to be unpopular. I've seen many people picking up imperial flyers just for painting (especially the Thunderhawk) even when they don't play AI. Meanwhile the Tau and Eldar planes ended up in clearance sales for several UK 3rd-party retailers, like Dark Sphere.

I would have actually bought into the game if they hadn't cast my Xenos of choice in resin. But they did, and there went my incentive for spending money.

On the bright side I don't have to be upset about my faction getting taken out of the game or never making it to the latest version of Epic. So yay, I guess.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The demand for LI seems a lot higher than the demand for AI, so I don't think that will happen.

I'm sure it is going to have more demand, it's always hard to say how much though. It's always the same handful of folks discussing it on the forums, and while the LI handful might be bigger than the AI one, I dunno if it's astronomical.

I do recall hearing that AI sold pretty well at launch and died pretty soon after.

I think a big part of the reason why the game didn't tickle anyones fancy was that the rules weren't particularly great (compared to the predecessor game, at any rate), and that it was tied to a hex grid (which seems to be anathema to a large segment of GWs customer base). I hope they relaunch it as a 2nd edition at some point in the future with a tighter hex-less ruleset and perhaps a bit more emphasis on ground units - being able to play missions where you have to conduct strafing runs on columns of to-scale Leman Russ battle tanks, for example, will probably excite a lot of people.

I hope GW are self aware enough to realise the reasons it failed and release another edition, but they probably won't. If they were self aware enough, they probably would have pivoted at some point across the 3 starter sets they released.

Don’t we expect GW to at least have Thunderhawks readily available for the LI launch or at least shortly thereafter? Or am I wishlisting?

 Fugazi wrote:
Don’t we expect GW to at least have Thunderhawks readily available for the LI launch or at least shortly thereafter? Or am I wishlisting?

I'd expect them to go quickly. Already a popular model before the re-boxing, looks to be good in game AND it's one of the more difficult models to find a good proxy/3d print for.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Fugazi wrote:
Don’t we expect GW to at least have Thunderhawks readily available for the LI launch or at least shortly thereafter? Or am I wishlisting?

I'd expect them to go quickly. Already a popular model before the re-boxing, looks to be good in game AND it's one of the more difficult models to find a good proxy/3d print for.

LI will be the first Epic game I buy. I feel like I can’t do it without Thunderhawks lol

 Breotan wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
For my purposes, if LI is good, I don't see myself playing much titanicus anymore.

I suppose it depends on how many Titans you can reasonably field in a standard game of LI. Depending on how points are structured, we may rarely, if ever, see an Iconoclast/Warmaster on the table or even multiple Warlords. I hope my pessimism is unfounded.

As far as I'm concerned, this game should be called Legions Basius Decoratum. I look forward to some of the kits, but from a gameplay standpoint someone can wake me when I can use my Epic Tyranids.

 Fugazi wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Fugazi wrote:
Don’t we expect GW to at least have Thunderhawks readily available for the LI launch or at least shortly thereafter? Or am I wishlisting?

I'd expect them to go quickly. Already a popular model before the re-boxing, looks to be good in game AND it's one of the more difficult models to find a good proxy/3d print for.

LI will be the first Epic game I buy. I feel like I can’t do it without Thunderhawks lol

I feel like I want several, with that said, I'm not sure if they're fun to build or more of chore. I've also seen third party kits that add details like interior detail to the front for modelling with front hatch open.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Its ironic that it did crash and burn, as its the only one of the specialist games to feature xenos, which many seem to believe is necessary and essential for HH, AT, and even LI to be successful.

Not really, its failures had far more to do with the game being a "take a decent game and make it worse in every way" reboot that launched hopelessly incomplete and then promptly got dumped from GW's marketing efforts. The presence or absence of xenos models had very little impact on the success of the game.

This seems to be the case. AI never really felt like it was supported properly. It got stale real fast, too.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sure it is going to have more demand, it's always hard to say how much though. It's always the same handful of folks discussing it on the forums, and while the LI handful might be bigger than the AI one, I dunno if it's astronomical.

I do recall hearing that AI sold pretty well at launch and died pretty soon after.

Yep. And how many of the "that looks cool" talk is going to turn into significant sales? How many people are going to be holding off on buying the game at launch because they want GW to finish it before committing time and money to units that won't make it into their final army? How many people are hyped for new rules but plan to use their old Epic collections with few or no new purchases? How many people are going to complain about the price of the official stuff and use 3d printed alternatives? I don't see anything even remotely approaching certainty that LI is going to be a success.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sure it is going to have more demand, it's always hard to say how much though. It's always the same handful of folks discussing it on the forums, and while the LI handful might be bigger than the AI one, I dunno if it's astronomical.

I do recall hearing that AI sold pretty well at launch and died pretty soon after.

Yep. And how many of the "that looks cool" talk is going to turn into significant sales? How many people are going to be holding off on buying the game at launch because they want GW to finish it before committing time and money to units that won't make it into their final army? How many people are hyped for new rules but plan to use their old Epic collections with few or no new purchases? How many people are going to complain about the price of the official stuff and use 3d printed alternatives? I don't see anything even remotely approaching certainty that LI is going to be a success.

Well having none of the baggage of having played any prior edition of epic, but having focused primary on titanicus for the last 3 years, I can say LI looks good to me, in that it's seemingly much more approachable than titanicus. A primary example, titanicus's space requirement for terminals meant multiplayer or just large games were very difficult, had many physical hurdles to overcome, in addition to time. LI seems much more practical for larger multi player games. 3d printing also lightens the load/burden on terrain.

As for the lack of xenos, one thing I can say is it should not be difficult to do count as with the existing armies, but also, assuming the usr's cover a lot of bases, it shouldn't be difficult to write fan made xenos rules as its basically pick a unit type, movement state, save, CAF and what weapons/usr's it gets. That's actually not too bad.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Not really, its failures had far more to do with the game being a "take a decent game and make it worse in every way" reboot that launched hopelessly incomplete and then promptly got dumped from GW's marketing efforts...

So, by that measure, LI will fail as well?

In all seriousness, Aeronautica didn’t do well because it never had the same level of nostalgia or cool factor as the other specialist games. I think even man-o-war would have stirred up more warm memories than AI could ever hope to. The original version of the game was resin only, and was never really given much attention by the GW marketing, and consequently was not commonly played.

Also, GW games are release driven, which makes a game that had between 2 and 3 box sets per faction, with each release separated by a year, fit in like a football bat.

The hex grid was always the biggest turnoff for AI. The game itself was pretty solid in how it captured the dynamics of aerial combat, but it did feel a little simplistic due to the lack of unit variety.

At this point it seems pretty safe to assume that AT and AI were always meant to be stepping stones along the way to LI. Long-term commitment to either game seems increasingly unlikely.