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.
Seems to have been a successful release. Boxed set, cards, terrain and most of the bases are gone in my location. Local online stores are also starting to run out of stuff.
tauist wrote:I wonder if bitz sellers are going to be selling individual LI models I could see myself buying 8 extra models per detachment if those are the only ones that have been kludged
There is definitely a market for extra assault marines, terminators and individual vehicles. I would be interested in extra terminators.
VAYASEN wrote:Missed out on the Army Cards ;[
Yeah, the cards are gone. Let's hope they reprint them. There will probably be more card-packs for unreleased units like landspeeders, maybe they'll release a complete "mega" card pack in the future?
Watching through tabletop time's video where they paint a few models, and yeah, there's definitely more than 1 ugly duckling when not photographed from the "golden angle". Several of the models have their legs joined, some have big chunky bits between the gun and the leg that are quite noticeable, this dude jumped out at me as the entire area between his backpack and the plume on his head is filled in.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/18 13:10:18
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Watching through tabletop time's video where they paint a few models, and yeah, there's definitely more than 1 ugly duckling when not photographed from the "golden angle". Several of the models have their legs joined, some have big chunky bits between the gun and the leg that are quite noticeable, this dude jumped out at me as the entire area between his backpack and the plume on his head is filled in.
...yeah, I'm good with making my own infantry or buying from Vanguard, thanks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/18 13:52:06
Just finished watching Ash's "How to play" video. Shooting seems super swingy due to things mostly hitting on 5+ or 6+. Close Assault is also bonkers because of the 2D6 base. Kind of feels like lucky dice rolls will be a defining thing for most battles, since even something like a 4+ roll is a rarity.
Movement speeds feel broken. Like, Marines can move up to 15" per turn, yet their bolter range is 8" at most? Laughable
Initial judgement seems to be, I'll take he models, but might prioritize other rulesets tbh
Will be watching more batreps as they appear. Will have formed an informed opinion about the game by the time my cards arrive, so can then decide whether to resell them or to commit to the LI rules
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/11/18 14:04:19
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
Am I the only one who is surprised at the lack of battlereports? I can only find thesetwo and GMGs how to play video.
Would have expected more to show the new game
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/18 14:28:14
Vorian wrote: Why would 5+ or 6+ make things swingy?
Why would 2d6 make things more prone to luck?
Often when the probability of an individual success is small but the number of rolls is high, the distribution of possible results is broader (more "swingy") compared to if an individual success is high but the number of rolls is low.
An example, say you need a 4+ to hit, and you have 10 attacks. We all know the average is 5 hits, but in terms of the distribution, you have a 66% chance of getting a result between 4 and 6 hits. But if you need a 6 to hit, and roll 30 dice, the average is still 5 hits, BUT, now you only have 54% chance of getting between 4 and 6 hits, meaning the distribution is broader and you're more likely to get a result further away from the average, both higher and lower.
So if you want a game that's less luck based but has roughly the same average, favour designing the game to roll less dice but have higher success chance to get the same average number of successes but with a narrower distribution.
Not sure about the 2D6 thing, will need to read the rules or watch a battle report to see what is meant by that.
Matrindur wrote: Am I the only one who is surprised at the lack of battlereports? I can only find thesetwo and GMGs how to play video.
Would have expected more to show the new game
That would require the people GW send the stuff out early too, to actually care about the game or be invested into making battle reports.
When in reality, the people that get the stuff have about 24 hours to throw some paint on some models and shove a 10+ min video up on youtube talking about how great the new game is, before the next hype item arrives and they have to repeat the cycle (usually within days).
This is to GWs advantage though, imagine if more people had time to go over the game thoroughly and put up battle reports and are able to impartially critique the game. There'd be a lot less sales today if we had proper review/gaming content.
That would require the people GW send the stuff out early too, to actually care about the game or be invested into making battle reports.
When in reality, the people that get the stuff have about 24 hours to throw some paint on some models and shove a 10+ min video up on youtube talking about how great the new game is, before the next hype item arrives and they have to repeat the cycle (usually within days).
This is demonstrably false. Review copies of LI stuff were sent out in early July (around a month before the original release date), and we've had several leaks of content from there.
Given the timing, the review copies were very likely how GW discovered whatever quality issues delayed the launch of the game.
"I'll tell you right now: this is an expensive game. I will talk more about it in the review, but this is more expensive than 40k. If you think that you're getting into this as a cheaper alternative to 40k, you're wrong, it's the opposite, and that SHOCKS us. I think that holds the game back by a tremendous amount."
And this is coming from someone that seems pretty positive about it.
Vorian wrote: Why would 5+ or 6+ make things swingy?
Why would 2d6 make things more prone to luck?
If you need 5+ or more to hit, odds are you will miss your to hit rolls most of the time unless you can get bucketfulls of dice. Ask any 40K Ork player And it's swingy because while statistically you will miss most of the time, sometimes you can get super lucky and still succeed spectacularly. This means that vast majority of shooting in the game will be whiffing it = Shooting will be an unreliable way to delete stuff
And doing melee with 2D6 means that regular grunts can still whoop Assault specialists easily, since even a +4 for an assault marine charging means flock all if they roll low on both dice and the opponent rolls 4+ on both of theirs. Basic math hammer should make all this fairly obvious
Infantry being able to move 15" when marching and being able to charge further than their weapon range.. to me this feels like the Meta thing to do will just be to swamp the board with a flockton of basic troopers, marching and charging everything. Unless your opponent has access to at least 4+ hitting weapons, they wont be able to kill enough stands to survive the charges. Add in a board with plenty of buildings between you and the opponent, and your marching + charging basic troopers become even more impossible to whittle down with shooting
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2023/11/18 15:36:14
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
Vorian wrote: Why would 5+ or 6+ make things swingy?
Why would 2d6 make things more prone to luck?
Often when the probability of an individual success is small but the number of rolls is high, the distribution of possible results is broader (more "swingy") compared to if an individual success is high but the number of rolls is low.
An example, say you need a 4+ to hit, and you have 10 attacks. We all know the average is 5 hits, but in terms of the distribution, you have a 66% chance of getting a result between 4 and 6 hits. But if you need a 6 to hit, and roll 30 dice, the average is still 5 hits, BUT, now you only have 54% chance of getting between 4 and 6 hits, meaning the distribution is broader and you're more likely to get a result further away from the average, both higher and lower.
So if you want a game that's less luck based but has roughly the same average, favour designing the game to roll less dice but have higher success chance to get the same average number of successes but with a narrower distribution.
Not sure about the 2D6 thing, will need to read the rules or watch a battle report to see what is meant by that.
Right, but we're not doing loads of dice vs few higher % dice.
We're replacing a double roll with a single roll.
Marine shooting marine in LI is 5+ then fail a 5+ armour = 22.2% chance
40k you're doing 3+ then 4+ then fail 4+ = 16.7% chance to do 1 wound out of 2
Its not really about being swingy, it's the nature of being streamlined.
That pict could be a heck of a lot more in focus though.. hard to make out the details
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
already sold out, so nobody admit that it was not worth the money
dude, you can see from the pict that not even the cutting mat is in focus..
Was this already posted?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/18 15:52:47
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
For once, I'm glad Australia was delayed a week, as I think I'll buy less than if I had to jump on at midday this week and scramble to decide what to get while simultaneously being worried I'll miss out
Interesting to see it took less than an hour to sell out of core boxes on the German webstore. Also a funny experience to sit in the queue for half an hour.
Luckily I just went on there to satisfy my curiosity.
Starting with the caveat that to my unschooled eyes* these models just look badly designed, from the perspective of someone who was happy to build a Marine army out of starter box models with undercut issues, I'm far less offended by seeing these issues on the underside of the models. Doesn't affect looking at them on the tabletop, between the Marines' height and the width of the base you wouldn't necessarily want to pick them up to check out those parts, and even then covering those parts up with dark/black paint should keep attention away from them well enough. The same can definitely not be said about the parts on the top and sides of the models.
This may disagree with some folks due to the extra work assembly entails, but GW should have gone with separate guns and backpacks. At Embiggened scale that produced serviceable results. At Epic scale you'd probably not even see the undercut issues.
*I haven't handled any small scale infantry since Battletech thirty years ago,
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
but GW should have gone with separate guns and backpacks.
Never again will I do separate 6mm backpacks. The thousands sons I had to do were so fiddly. They made me regret my choice of game.
I ended up gluing them to cocktail sticks, glueing them on the back, letting them dry, then cutting the stick/superglue off. Thankfully there were metal so it was easy clean up. Plastic backpacks would be a mess!
I refuse to believe that those flaws in the models exist. Only a tiny percentage of those sent preview copies, whether for review or painting purposes have mentioned them. They have no reasons to hide such issues from the paying customer.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/11/18 16:34:19
Starting with the caveat that to my unschooled eyes* these models just look badly designed, from the perspective of someone who was happy to build a Marine army out of starter box models with undercut issues, I'm far less offended by seeing these issues on the underside of the models. Doesn't affect looking at them on the tabletop, between the Marines' height and the width of the base you wouldn't necessarily want to pick them up to check out those parts, and even then covering those parts up with dark/black paint should keep attention away from them well enough. The same can definitely not be said about the parts on the top and sides of the models.
I think that's basically correct. They simply haven't bothered to design the poses to take into account the realities of single piece models.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: I refuse to believe that those flaws in the models exist. Only a tiny percentage of those sent preview copies, whether for review or painting purposes have mentioned them. They have no reasons to hide such issues from the paying customer.
I could see myself buying 8 extra models per detachment if those are the only ones that have been kludged
Epic 40k + INQ6 Project Log 
INQ28/Necromunda/Inquisimunda Log 
