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.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
If people don't buy because of the prospect of 3000pts being too much/too expensive, that particular initiative by whoever decided that in sales/marketing (because it does have the whiff of that) will have backfired.

Really need to see a game in action to find out how well it scales, and if 2000pts (and therefore a lower buy-in price) gives enough meat in a game.

Honestly, looking at images from the last White Dwarf Battle Report, 3,000pts pretty much fills the 4x5 board. I should think a 2,000pts game would be more than enough, especially for smaller board sizes.

Edit: I'd say that the LI box, an expansion box or two + any Titans you have would be enough to get you into some decent games

I will forever insist that the 4x5 is a typo and its meant to be played on a 4x6. As I will never play this game competitively or in a formal setting, ever (famous last words) I will be playing on a 4x6 going forward (and I recommend y'all do the same too) so that the table is that much less crowded.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
If people don't buy because of the prospect of 3000pts being too much/too expensive, that particular initiative by whoever decided that in sales/marketing (because it does have the whiff of that) will have backfired.

Really need to see a game in action to find out how well it scales, and if 2000pts (and therefore a lower buy-in price) gives enough meat in a game.

Honestly, looking at images from the last White Dwarf Battle Report, 3,000pts pretty much fills the 4x5 board. I should think a 2,000pts game would be more than enough, especially for smaller board sizes.

Edit: I'd say that the LI box, an expansion box or two + any Titans you have would be enough to get you into some decent games

I will forever insist that the 4x5 is a typo and its meant to be played on a 4x6. As I will never play this game competitively or in a formal setting, ever (famous last words) I will be playing on a 4x6 going forward (and I recommend y'all do the same too) so that the table is that much less crowded.

Ha, go classic for Epic. 8x4 or nothing!

leopard wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well, when the primary armies in the game "shall know no fear" and sometimes have special rules like "stubborn", you end up with extremely high casualties because its a fight to the death and neither side will concede defeat until their objectives are accomplished.

seems to be a thing in current game design, have armies die on the table and not run off due to any sort of realistic morale effect.

still its Warhammer, you know what you are getting as you walk through the door, my primary hope is that there is enough detail to allow smaller games to be interesting and that the special rules scale downwards as well as upwards, while still being streamlined enough larger games work nicely

Yeah, its a conscious game design choice in most cases to try to avoid feelsbad. Its not unique to the warhams, most of the big miniature wargames on the market suffer from unreasonably high casualty rates (though admittedly I think warhams push the envelope), with only those niche games that strive towards some degree of historical verisimilitude having more realistic outcomes. The main reason is that players don't like games ending with 80% of their army still on table, it results in "man this is unrealistic, most of my army is still here ready to go, if this went a few more turns I would have wrecked you!". Its basically the same reason why many of the more popular games reduce or eliminate the impact of morale and psychology on the game, etc. because players don't like losing control of their dudes and having them run away from the table. The general "market feedback" is that players want full control of their dudes, and want their games to end when a significant portion of their dudes are dead, so thats what GW and other likeminded publishers give them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zedmeister wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
If people don't buy because of the prospect of 3000pts being too much/too expensive, that particular initiative by whoever decided that in sales/marketing (because it does have the whiff of that) will have backfired.

Really need to see a game in action to find out how well it scales, and if 2000pts (and therefore a lower buy-in price) gives enough meat in a game.

Honestly, looking at images from the last White Dwarf Battle Report, 3,000pts pretty much fills the 4x5 board. I should think a 2,000pts game would be more than enough, especially for smaller board sizes.

Edit: I'd say that the LI box, an expansion box or two + any Titans you have would be enough to get you into some decent games

I will forever insist that the 4x5 is a typo and its meant to be played on a 4x6. As I will never play this game competitively or in a formal setting, ever (famous last words) I will be playing on a 4x6 going forward (and I recommend y'all do the same too) so that the table is that much less crowded.

Ha, go classic for Epic. 8x4 or nothing!

I wish, but my folding table at home is only 6x4, don't think anyone makes them in 8x4. Likewise most of the local stores have sized and built their tables to 6x4 over the years, theres not much opportunity to play 8x4.

 Albertorius wrote:

Vorian wrote:

30% allies here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/31/legions-imperialis-core-concepts-this-is-how-the-new-game-plays/

3,000 recommend * 0.3 = 900 pts.

Ah, right. So you only will need 2100 points of either marines or auxilia instead ^^

Which isn't that bad. Get starter set, split half for more of other, you are likely quite close to 2k anyway.

Huh, havent seen that page with auxilia lasrifle tercio leak until now - those auxilia infantry detachments can be huge - 4 bases to begin and up to 6 x 2 base upgrades - so a maximum detachment of 16 infantry bases? That`s a lot compared to what was already previeved about tank detachments.

If people buy whole armies of 2000-3000 points at 40k or Horus Heresy, they will be fine with LI.

Even with old editions of Epic, the current format goes between 2500 - 3000 points : and it's a whole lot of models as well. I find it odd some guys here makes it look like LI is "bad" on that side and...oh wait, they're old Epic players. My bad, it makes sense.

Besides, if it was just a question of price, piles of shame and unfinished projects would never exist. It's still quite a task (and easy to lose motivation) to try to build and paint a 3000 points army all at once, instead of building your collection gradually through months. I think most people won't try to play a 3000 points game right from the start, but will rather begin at a humbler level.

tneva82 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Vorian wrote:

30% allies here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/31/legions-imperialis-core-concepts-this-is-how-the-new-game-plays/

3,000 recommend * 0.3 = 900 pts.

Ah, right. So you only will need 2100 points of either marines or auxilia instead ^^

Which isn't that bad. Get starter set, split half for more of other, you are likely quite close to 2k anyway.

Dunno that I'd want that many titans at the same time, but other than that, yeah. You'd need transports.

Sarouan wrote:
If people buy whole armies of 2000-3000 points at 40k or Horus Heresy, they will be fine with LI.

Even with old editions of Epic, the current format goes between 2500 - 3000 points : and it's a whole lot of models as well. I find it odd some guys here makes it look like LI is "bad" on that side and...oh wait, they're old Epic players. My bad, it makes sense.

Besides, if it was just a question of price, piles of shame and unfinished projects would never exist. It's still quite a task (and easy to lose motivation) to try to build and paint a 3000 points army all at once, instead of building your collection gradually through months. I think most people won't try to play a 3000 points game right from the start, but will rather begin at a humbler level.

Just like I was trying to explain to Eumerin, what you are thinking isn't what reality is going to be by the numbers.

People are going to have to buy *a lot* more to fill out that 3k list in LI compared to previous and/or Net editions of the game.

Net EA - Terminator Detachment - 4 Stands (20 bodies) - 300pts

Epic Armageddon (2008 Rulebook) - Terminator Detachment - 4 Stands (20 bodies) - 325pts

2nd Ed. Epic Space Marine - Terminator Detachment - 4 Stands (20 bodies) *and 2 Land Raiders!* - 300pts

Legions Imperialis - - Terminator Detachment - 4 Stands (20 bodies) - 50pts

You can run fully 6 times the amount in LI, for the points, that you can in the other systems. Then factor in the infantry box is figured to only have 10 Terminators, like the launch box, and you see how much money that actually is to build out to 3k. Until GW barfs out an: " OOPS! All Terminators! " box...

It doesn't matter how they are attached, detached, special ruled, etc... points are points and lower points means more bodies. In the case of LI, a hell of a lot more bodies.

So that's what you were going on about.

We've seen two sample armies from the battle report. And people here have already analyzed them and figured out how many boxes you'll need for each of the armies.

zedmeister wrote:Yeah, I don't think this'll do too badly. I'm willing to bet a good chunk of current Titanicus players will get into LI as well. Add in the older players and pile of shame builders who'll just stash the boxes in shrink to gather dust, and it should be enought to keep things going.

I'm likely to buy a good pile on release myself...

yeah this will do fine. I'm looking forward to picking a load of stuff up even with no interest in the game. I suspect there is at least 3 others like me (3rd Edition players unite!). I'm more than happy to know it will sell well, as it means plenty on the 2nd hand market in later years too.

Pacific wrote:If people don't buy because of the prospect of 3000pts being too much/too expensive, that particular initiative by whoever decided that in sales/marketing (because it does have the whiff of that) will have backfired.

Really need to see a game in action to find out how well it scales, and if 2000pts (and therefore a lower buy-in price) gives enough meat in a game.

Why is there so much obsession with it having to be 3000pts for games? If the buy in price is too high, lower the pts of your early games until you've brought up a whole bunch of stuff over time. You have plenty of time to save up again after all, most of this will be out of stock 9/12 months of every year.

Why does it really matter what GW suggest the points value to be, its always going to be in their benefit!

zedmeister wrote:
Ha, go classic for Epic. 8x4 or nothing!

I'm going for 3 sets of 6x4 until I can finally refloor the gaming room, then I intend to have a purpose built 8x4 with the old 6x4s for extending it for big games.

I wanted a 8x6 really, but apparently using snooker cues to reach the middle of the table was too much hassle for some people in my group! I did suggest having a trap door in the Center of the table with a little tunnel running underneath (like on model railways) but apparently 52 miniatures pick up is also apparently not a good suggestion.

 TalonZahn wrote:


It doesn't matter how they are attached, detached, special ruled, etc... points are points and lower points means more bodies. In the case of LI, a hell of a lot more bodies.

Because you just took terminators here as to prove your point. But the way they act and play in these different game systems aren't the same, though - so of course, their cost isn't calculated the same either depending on the impact they have in game.

The thing is, your army isn't made of terminators only : it's just a (small) part of it. You can't just take one detachment out of its context and say "thus in LI, it's not the same !" - of course, the rules are different and the way lists are built aren't the same.

But the end goal, having a "full size army playable at the targeted 3000 points" is the same : and it's never meant to be achieved in just one take. Which means that as in older editions of Epic your collection in LI is more intended to be built gradually. So most people will do as all previous players of older editions Epic did when the game was supported officially and started from scratch ; they'll do it piece after piece, and play with what they have at the moment - not instantly playing with "everything they should have at the end goal".

The price argument has always been a fallacy used by fans of other game systems to "prove" their superiority on the other game they feel like a threat. It was always - and will always be - a matter of perspective and how you build your own collection on the long run.

If the buy in price is too high, lower the pts of your early games until you've brought up a whole bunch of stuff over time.

Just as importantly, imo, many of the backbone units of the armies won't be available - either separately, or at all - when the game launches. So there's good reason not to race to 3000 points. Sure, you can get more boxes of infantry or super-heavy tanks. But if you want almost anything else, you're going to have to wait.

Eumerin wrote:
So that's what you were going on about.

We've seen two sample armies from the battle report. And people here have already analyzed them and figured out how many boxes you'll need for each of the armies.

GW showed some of the detachment cards, there's a pastebin leak for stuff they didn't, we KNOW the points.

It's also not just "people here" as it's the people all over that still play these systems and have kept them alive to the point GW brought it back.

I guess some people just can't understand:

System 1) Unit A costs 300 points for 4 stands
-
System 2) Unit A costs 50 points for 4 stands

Therefore you can take 24 stands for the same price in System 2.

Oh by the way, it's $50 for every 2 stands so Unit A in one system costs $100 but in the other it costs $600.

[Edit for Sarouan]

As I've already pointed out LI runs, on average, 40% cheaper in points per unit/detachment, so it doesn't matter if the example is Thunderhawks or Terminators, Tanks, Super-Heavies, or Tacticals.

Eumerin wrote:
So that's what you were going on about.

We've seen two sample armies from the battle report. And people here have already analyzed them and figured out how many boxes you'll need for each of the armies.

IIRC the Blood Angels army required 6 boxes worth of infantry to fully field out the list, drop pods, vehicles, and other stuff notwithstanding.

Also, point system is just a way to build your army and have a feeling of "balance". The total played is just a question of something both players agree on. Be it 500 or 3000, it doesn't really matter what number it is. Arguing about what "end games armies are worth in €" was never the point : the question is more "do I really want to achieve that goal to the end ?". Because it will still be a whole lot of miniatures to build and paint, that's pretty much the point of all "Epic scale" games. Even printing hundred of them for cheaper still won't make it less time sinking to build and paint everything to look great on the battlefield, mind you. And that's the real difference in a project between it being "finished" or left on the road : motivation, not just "saving money".

Besides, let's just add the thing about multiple models on a single base : players can just choose to put less to "spare them". That's what they did with older editions of Epic for various reasons (including when official support ended and people had a "limited supply" of infantry miniatures to their disposal, but money was also a valid one). Why do you think suddenly it would be different with LI, hm ? Suddenly, "problem" with infantry boxes seem much less of a hassle...

chaos0xomega wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
So that's what you were going on about.

We've seen two sample armies from the battle report. And people here have already analyzed them and figured out how many boxes you'll need for each of the armies.

IIRC the Blood Angels army required 6 boxes worth of infantry to fully field out the list, drop pods, vehicles, and other stuff notwithstanding.

Yup. But iirc the Death Guard army required considerably less.

 TalonZahn wrote:


As I've already pointed out LI runs, on average, 40% cheaper in points per unit/detachment, so it doesn't matter if the example is Thunderhawks or Terminators, Tanks, Super-Heavies, or Tacticals.

It just means a 3000 points of LI is equivalent to a 5000-6000 points of old edition of Epic, that's all. And it really doesn't matter in the end !

Sarouan wrote:

 TalonZahn wrote:


As I've already pointed out LI runs, on average, 40% cheaper in points per unit/detachment, so it doesn't matter if the example is Thunderhawks or Terminators, Tanks, Super-Heavies, or Tacticals.

It just means a 3000 points of LI is equivalent to a 5000-6000 points of old edition of Epic, that's all. And it really doesn't matter in the end !

The point.

Your head.

 TalonZahn wrote:

The point.

Your head.

Sure, believe what you want and play what you love. It still won't change anything, and people will play with LI the exact same way they did with older editions of Epic : at their pace, within their budget. Never from silly theories made up on the internet by people who want to prove a point.

 TalonZahn wrote:

Sarouan wrote:

 TalonZahn wrote:


As I've already pointed out LI runs, on average, 40% cheaper in points per unit/detachment, so it doesn't matter if the example is Thunderhawks or Terminators, Tanks, Super-Heavies, or Tacticals.

It just means a 3000 points of LI is equivalent to a 5000-6000 points of old edition of Epic, that's all. And it really doesn't matter in the end !

The point.

Your head.

Once again, we've seen two sample armies, and people have figured out how many boxes were needed for both armies. I'm not really sure what you believe you're going to add to that.

Meanwhile I'm over here thinking that lower points per unit means more models on the table and thus even more chance to field a wider variety of models in a game format that not only sports a LOT of unit variation once it gets going; but also massive point sinks of titans. So the more units you can field the more titans you can field alongside those units; which means proper epic battles!

Sar - you keep moving the goalpost so there's no point.

Eur - It was about people looking at it and claiming the price isn't bad compared to previous systems.

It is bad, the numbers show it.

 TalonZahn wrote:

It is bad, the numbers show it.

Majority of players don't play for the numbers. They play for other reasons much more enjoyable than that...and they don't care to know if you believe you're right or not.

LI will be fine.

Meanwhile I'm over here thinking that lower points per unit means more models on the table and thus even more chance to field a wider variety of models in a game format that not only sports a LOT of unit variation once it gets going; but also massive point sinks of titans. So the more units you can field the more titans you can field alongside those units; which means proper epic battles!

Yes, that's pretty much the objective here - it reminds me when we moved from 40k 2nd edition to 3rd, where armies were drastically "bigger" for the same amount of points (they did the same with Battle too). And it should still look good with stands of 3 infantry models instead of 5 or 2 / 1 bike instead of 3 / 2...while allowing you to bring more detachments from just one box. That old trick will still be used, no matter the edition and what "weird guys on the internet" will say !

Ugh, not the game.

The prices....

Surprised you waiting this long to start name calling.

chaos0xomega wrote:

I will forever insist that the 4x5 is a typo and its meant to be played on a 4x6. As I will never play this game competitively or in a formal setting, ever (famous last words) I will be playing on a 4x6 going forward (and I recommend y'all do the same too) so that the table is that much less crowded.

That will (if its properly playtested) affect the balance of the units.

To be fair re: WD lists, in older editions you also had mixed unit boxes so skew lists required inefficient purchases of many multiples of the same box if you only needed a small part of it.

Eumerin wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
So that's what you were going on about.

We've seen two sample armies from the battle report. And people here have already analyzed them and figured out how many boxes you'll need for each of the armies.

IIRC the Blood Angels army required 6 boxes worth of infantry to fully field out the list, drop pods, vehicles, and other stuff notwithstanding.

Yup. But iirc the Death Guard army required considerably less.

The Death Guard component was less than a box if I recall, but when you added in the EC component it became 3 boxes (not including the Solar Auxilia stuff).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

I will forever insist that the 4x5 is a typo and its meant to be played on a 4x6. As I will never play this game competitively or in a formal setting, ever (famous last words) I will be playing on a 4x6 going forward (and I recommend y'all do the same too) so that the table is that much less crowded.

(if its properly playtested)

That if is doing some heavy lifting in this sentence

chaos0xomega wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:


(if its properly playtested)

That if is doing some heavy lifting in this sentence

Let me tell you a secret : your loving older edition of Epic was the same.

Any suggestion about where to read a real rules review when available - and not a simple unboxing presented as a review?

Sarouan wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:


(if its properly playtested)

That if is doing some heavy lifting in this sentence

Let me tell you a secret : your loving older edition of Epic was the same.

I've never played any version of Epic, so... no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Johanxp wrote:
Any suggestion about where to read a real rules review when available - and not a simple unboxing presented as a review?

Goonhammer seems to usually do a decent job at it (provided they do review LI, which I assume they will), though I find they often don't go into the level of depth I'm looking for they usually at least give you enough to wrap your head around it.