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.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Why are you singling out my post out of an ongoing discussion involving other people? I'm far from the only person here posting "hot takes" on a game we haven't seen much of yet. The majority of the past couple pages has been general discussion of game design opinions unrelated to any specific news or rumors.

I think you’re a fair target. I’ve noticed that you have a tendency to hijack threads in order to repeat the same comments (either GW rules suck or it doesn’t matter what the models look like), then argue with anyone who disagrees. It’s started to look a lot like trolling.

There are a number of threads on Epic and/or Legions down in the Specialist Games section, a good place for further discussion and project stuff that is not N&R related

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/57.page

On weapon variety?

In 2nd Ed, Marines had….

Tactical Stands, Devastator Stands, Assault Stands, Scout Stands (no models for those though), Command Stands and Veteran Stands.

Comprising those were four unique models. Bolter, Commander, Missile Launcher, Jump Pack.

Everything else was done with a different colour scheme, or a pole on the base. And we got along Just Fine.

LI? The models are a bit larger, with much clearer detailing. If a given person can’t tell a painted stands of Plasma Guns from Bolters? It’s not the fault of the models. Nor a fault of the rules.

A few times playing the NetEpic Armageddon rules (the 30k) version I found I 'lost' units in that manner, missing that a support or dev squad was taken off instead of a tactical if visa-versa. It's an easy thing to do even with 8mm or larger, and especially at arms length on a tabletop (and how many gaming clubs and playing areas seem to be poorly lit? Plus my eyesight! )

Different games get around it in different ways, Leopard already mentioned colour coding bases, Flames of War (used to) have different size bases for different unit types that made them easier to recognise, and that is 15mm. It's also a good reason to have some level of abstraction, which previous versions of Epic have handled pretty well - will be interesting to see what the new version does.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
LI? The models are a bit larger, with much clearer detailing. If a given person can’t tell a painted stands of Plasma Guns from Bolters? It’s not the fault of the models. Nor a fault of the rules.

Yep. Based on what we've seen of the models so far I don't see any problem with WYSIWYG or having weapon choices matter. It's not like we're talking about 9th edition 40k's obsession with creating rules for new bolter variants that even most marine players can't tell apart on the table, heavy and special weapons are pretty clear and I don't see any need to consolidate them all into "big gun" and "basic gun".

Not a news or rumour, but I was disappointed they didn't take the opportunity to have different numbers of models per base (to date I think only the 4th ed fire support base did this?).

Lots of 6mm games do this to aid recognition (WW2 games do this pretty standard in my experience with crew served, engineers, submachine guns and riflemen using different numbers), and while they are hamstrung by stuff like marine combat squads, they still could have made Guard smaller and had a full squad of 10 on a base. Its something I will try with the old models (especially as the missile launcher has 2 men moulded together so you can get away with 9) but it will obviously require some chopping.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Not a news or rumour, but I was disappointed they didn't take the opportunity to have different numbers of models per base (to date I think only the 4th ed fire support base did this?).

It's more a question of visual and personnal taste. In previous Epic editions, players already did that, either to have more units using less models or simply for the fun of it. Nothing prevents you to specifically distinguish your own units by doing exactly that, it has no impact on the rules in the end since everything is using the same base.

As far as I'm concerned, it's more a question to follow the "standard number of marines in a squad equivalent" than a rule matter.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On weapon variety?

In 2nd Ed, Marines had….

Tactical Stands, Devastator Stands, Assault Stands, Scout Stands (no models for those though), Command Stands and Veteran Stands.

Comprising those were four unique models. Bolter, Commander, Missile Launcher, Jump Pack.

Everything else was done with a different colour scheme, or a pole on the base. And we got along Just Fine.

LI? The models are a bit larger, with much clearer detailing. If a given person can’t tell a painted stands of Plasma Guns from Bolters? It’s not the fault of the models. Nor a fault of the rules.

The fault of the rules would be making that actually be a significant difference. Because at that scale of conflict, other than the general type of unit (tactica, dev, assault, etc) it should not matter.

IMHO, of course. Because we're supposed to be playing as the general of a battle, not as a second lieutenant in the mud micro managing their platoon.

Or I guess, it's more the fact that's not the kind of game I want to play when playing Epic. Not a fault of the system (I don't know the system), but a mismatch of expectations.

 Albertorius wrote:


Because at that scale of conflict, other than the general type of unit (tactica, dev, assault, etc) it should not matter.

IMHO, of course. Because we're supposed to be playing as the general of a battle, not as a second lieutenant in the mud micro managing their platoon.

You confuse simplicity of rules and battle scale.

Would it be simpler not to have different kinds of weapons in the same kind of infantry ? Yes. Is it irrelevant to the scale of battles meant to be represented by this game ? No.

Because it's totally possible to have a deep, complex game system representing an Epic scale battle. It just takes longer to play...and some players are actually loving that. Not all, of course, but this game isn't meant to be a simple one as far as rule previews show. Just like Adeptus Titanicus (that could have been way simpler as well)...it is about the depth, precisely because it appeals to nostalgic players.

I disagree.

We’re not talking “flamer unit, melta unit, plasma unit, volkite unit” etc.

It’s Bolters, Special Weapons, Heavy Weapons. Each with a different appeal, and creating a different threat bubble within their formation, giving different options and consideration for both players.

The argument this is too complex is significantly over egging the pudding.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I disagree.

Disagreeing is perfectly OK, tht's why I stated it was a mismatch of expectations ^_^

We’re not talking “flamer unit, melta unit, plasma unit, volkite unit” etc.

It’s Bolters, Special Weapons, Heavy Weapons. Each with a different appeal, and creating a different threat bubble within their formation, giving different options and consideration for both players.

Aren't we, though? I thought that was specifically it: that a special weapons unit or a HW could be equipped with different weapons (which we know for a fact it's the case for vehicles). If it isn't, we're talking unit type rather than unit loadout.

And It's not a "it's too complex" argument either. The argument is "it's too fiddly for the scale of conflict", which is still of course subjective. But it is, for me.

Not so far as I’ve seen.

Tanks have some choice in weapons, with larger tanks having more choice. But infantry? Seems to be “you get what your given and that’s it”.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not so far as I’ve seen.

Tanks have some choice in weapons, with larger tanks having more choice. But infantry? Seems to be “you get what your given and that’s it”.

Then, as I said above, multiple unit types it's a different thing. I mean, as long as they're not too many types, of course (dunno, like, twelve different regular marine types would be annoying xD)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not so far as I’ve seen.

Tanks have some choice in weapons, with larger tanks having more choice. But infantry? Seems to be “you get what your given and that’s it”.

yes the choice is what type of infantry are you taking, not stand by stand loadout configuration

I do expect there may be some options for command stands, ala Warmaster heroes etc being able to take special equipment but nothing beyond that, at least not now.

it will be interesting to see how Tactical Support stands are labelled up, e.g. are they just "Tactical Support" or are they specifically noted as having plasma guns (implying there may be other versions later or at least conceptually)

Maybe there is a GW guideline similar to „no models, no rules“ in place which forces the designers to come up with bespoke rules for all models, like „no rules, no models“.
So, for example, if there was only a single set of rules for „medium battle tank“ the designers would not be able to produce Predators, Sicarans and Vindicators.
The same could be true for loadouts as kits with options usually increase the sales of said product.

I‘m looking forward to a more detailed ruleset, in the hope that the system uses the finer granularity for more meaningful desicion making on and off the table.
Also, „dumbing down“ the ruleset , e.g. by reducing the number of unit types and/or loadouts, is easier than adding granularity later.

In the end, since there are many high-quality ruleset alternatives for this scale, having GW produce Epic with a detailled ruleset and a large variety of miniatures is preferable to a simplyfied ruleset and a limited miniature range, if there is indeed such a guideline.

Btw, if you include the different units from the core set, GW has already shown a dozen plastic sets for Legion Imperialis tanks and infantry alone, with more likely to follow (Land Raiders and their variants).
Which is a massive amount, in particular for a specialist game.
Other systems (like TOW) would celebrate even half that number for launch…

Worth keeping in mind 1st and 2nd Ed Epic came before 40K scale tanks had weapon options. So across all three games? A Predator had turret Autocannon, Sponson Lascannons.

Choosing to load for bear or rabbit is now kind of necessary. Just be thankful we don’t get the full suite of Predator weapon options we do in Heresy!

Seelenhaendler wrote:
Maybe there is a GW guideline similar to „no models, no rules“ in place which forces the designers to come up with bespoke rules for all models, like „no rules, no models“.
So, for example, if there was only a single set of rules for „medium battle tank“ the designers would not be able to produce Predators, Sicarans and Vindicators.
The same could be true for loadouts as kits with options usually increase the sales of said product.

GW usually works the other way around, models are done first and the rules written to fit the models available
so it would be that Predators Sicarans and Vindicaters are made as models, with different weapon options and the designers get the task to make rules for them (and their options)

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On weapon variety?

In 2nd Ed, Marines had….

Tactical Stands, Devastator Stands, Assault Stands, Scout Stands (no models for those though), Command Stands and Veteran Stands.

Comprising those were four unique models. Bolter, Commander, Missile Launcher, Jump Pack.

Everything else was done with a different colour scheme, or a pole on the base. And we got along Just Fine.

LI? The models are a bit larger, with much clearer detailing. If a given person can’t tell a painted stands of Plasma Guns from Bolters? It’s not the fault of the models. Nor a fault of the rules.

The fault of the rules would be making that actually be a significant difference. Because at that scale of conflict, other than the general type of unit (tactica, dev, assault, etc) it should not matter.

IMHO, of course. Because we're supposed to be playing as the general of a battle, not as a second lieutenant in the mud micro managing their platoon.

Or I guess, it's more the fact that's not the kind of game I want to play when playing Epic. Not a fault of the system (I don't know the system), but a mismatch of expectations.

Correct. All Assault Squads should be the same. All Tactical Squads should be the same. All Devastator Squads should be the same. etc.

Having this Tactical squad do x and that tactical squad do y, because one of them has a heavy bolter and the other a missile launcher is a level of granularity that has no place here. Now, I am a just and fair god - I will allow that variant units are okay, if the variant is a unit wide difference in weapon loadout - i.e. if a devastator squad is a unit of 5 models all identically armed, then it makes sense to have one where all 5 models on the base have heavy bolters, and another where you upgraded all 5 models on the base have missile launchers - thats fair and reasonable. What doesn't make sense is for that unit to have 5 or 6 different weapon options to select from - an "anti-infantry loadout" of heavy flamers/bolters and an "anti-tank loadout" of missile launchers/lascannons should reasonably be enough - you shouldn't need to have a separate set of stats for each and every minor variation of weapon.

 kodos wrote:

Seelenhaendler wrote:
Maybe there is a GW guideline similar to „no models, no rules“ in place which forces the designers to come up with bespoke rules for all models, like „no rules, no models“.
So, for example, if there was only a single set of rules for „medium battle tank“ the designers would not be able to produce Predators, Sicarans and Vindicators.
The same could be true for loadouts as kits with options usually increase the sales of said product.

GW usually works the other way around, models are done first and the rules written to fit the models available
so it would be that Predators Sicarans and Vindicaters are made as models, with different weapon options and the designers get the task to make rules for them (and their options)

My point was more like someone (product management, miniatures designers) made the decision that there will be models for Predators, Sicarans and Vindicators (no hint for epic scale Vindicators yet), so the game designers had to come up with different rules for each type of tank and could not just write generic „medium battle tank“ rules that would count for all of them as this would limit the sales potential.
Basically a speculative reason why the Legions Imperialis has the level of detail it has.

this is how GW works, always with every game
that is why we get the rules the way they are

Re-working of the chart thing they previewed via warcom, added some more specificity, re-ordered it. Tried to flesh out the concepts based on the stats. Added some bigger buildings/more varied building pics.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Re-working of the chart thing they previewed via warcom, added some more specificity, re-ordered it. Tried to flesh out the concepts based on the stats. Added some bigger buildings/more varied building pics.

Spoiler:

Much much better. Why are GW designers so bad? they could have come up with these ideas...

 Crablezworth wrote:
Re-working of the chart thing they previewed via warcom, added some more specificity, re-ordered it. Tried to flesh out the concepts based on the stats. Added some bigger buildings/more varied building pics.

Spoiler:

I wonder how the Tech Shanties would work in LI…

They have a 'tech bar' of IT professionals who confer a 4+ FNP save for any vehicle within 6" which has been attacked. -1 CAF though as they are armed in sandals and summer shirts which are not combat effective.

 Malika2 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Re-working of the chart thing they previewed via warcom, added some more specificity, re-ordered it. Tried to flesh out the concepts based on the stats. Added some bigger buildings/more varied building pics.

Spoiler:

I wonder how the Tech Shanties would work in LI…

Maybe the biggest one, or the hab.

SU-152 wrote:


Much much better. Why are GW designers so bad? they could have come up with these ideas...

What makes you think they haven't? "Militas Imperialis" seems like a suitably trademarkable name for a future scenery product...

Civitas Imperialis was the name of the AT terrain product line, so I expect Militas Imperialis to likewise be the name of a set of terrain kits for this.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Civitas Imperialis was the name of the AT terrain product line, so I expect Militas Imperialis to likewise be the name of a set of terrain kits for this.

If it was going by terrain product names I would have also expected to see the Manufactorum terrain in some way

chaos0xomega wrote:
Civitas Imperialis was the name of the AT terrain product line, so I expect Militas Imperialis to likewise be the name of a set of terrain kits for this.

Maybe modified Wall of Martyrs stuff

 Matrindur wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Civitas Imperialis was the name of the AT terrain product line, so I expect Militas Imperialis to likewise be the name of a set of terrain kits for this.

If it was going by terrain product names I would have also expected to see the Manufactorum terrain in some way

Maybe it gets a re-release