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.

Kretualdo wrote:
I`m not sure if I understand correctly what you mean here.

Starter set has 3 preds, individual box will have 6, for a total of 9, which happens to be exactly a full detachment of preds, without leftovers. Same with sicarans, 2 in starter, 4 in individual box for a total of 6 in full legal detachment. All that is, if the info I got from facebook is correct regarding detachment sizes.

Which is a nice surprise, since for example with kratos you get 4 in a box, and full detachment is 6.

I mean that is incidental because the starters only have half a box of the armor units ^^, and that that's the way GW usually design boxes (...or did, lately they seemed to have gotten better): legal if you buy one, but with excedent if you buy two.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Rule book, Expansion book with new units and rules.

Here, it seems to be Campaign Books with new units for both. And I suspect the campaign will be conveniently themed to focus on those new units and their overall role in a battle.

Good news is this could also be used to expand into 40K. Just pick a historical scrap (Ullanor, Armageddon, Pariah Nexus, Fall of Iyanden) and boof, reason, excuse and opportunity to bring in Xenos and 40K Imperial stuffs.

Have they confirmed any of that or are we just guessing?

I'm thinking in terms of whether it's likely the main rulebook will be invalidated or replaced in the near future with something more complete, or are we thinking we'll always (within this edition at least) require the same rulebook that comes in the boxed set now, just with expansions added on top.

AI, for example, reproduced the core rules in the campaign books, but they also never released a single core rulebook for the campaign books to conflict with and the unit rules were spread out (e.g. Lightning was in one book, but Thunderbolt was in a completely different book... it was annoying).

They’ve confirmed expansion books, which if memory serves were described as Campaign Books.

Struggling to find the article, but it was confirmed in one of the Heresy Thursdays.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Have they confirmed any of that or are we just guessing?

The only official confirmation we have is the WD article saying the first expansion book includes rules for units like drop pods and jetbikes. We don't know if that's the only place to get those rules, and beyond that everything else is speculation:

They'll probably release more unit datacards, but that's not guaranteed

It's possible additional unit rules are included in the model boxes, like AT and Aeronautica

It's also possible additional unit rules are made available digitally in some form, as has happened for several GW games in the last year

I wonder when we’ll be seeing any actual new units that don’t have a 40k scaled counterpart…

 Malika2 wrote:
I wonder when we’ll be seeing any actual new units that don’t have a 40k scaled counterpart…

We already have. The heavy sentinels for Solar Auxilia. Also the Dire Wolf Titans.

EDIT - Oh and Palisade Drop Pods

Leviathans, Capitol Imperialis and Hellbores?

 tauist wrote:
Oh, but I am going to come up with missions where objectives matter flock all, and a defender must defend some sort of point or a structure from being destroyed, and attacker has 90% - 100% of their force as Titans/Kinights or Flyers. Flock matched play, that's for pickup game people, not filthy garagehammerists like the people in our group.

If required, I can come up with some unit choice restrictions for the defender so that they cannot blow the entirety of their points into units which are hard counters to whatever it is that is attacking them

If you make own missions matched play rules aren't your concern now is it or frankly any rule as you are at the point you can do whatever you want. 30% limit is no concern for you.

Just to add my $0.02 to the multiple starter discussion, I do have to agree that anytime GW bundles anything for any game together you get absolutely massive swings in the usefulness of buying multiples.

Last week I ordered two Votann battleforces, and it is just an insane slam-dunk. One likely wants every bit of two boxes outside of a character or two, and they functionally build the majority of an excellent army right out of two boxes...

With LI... my wife and I like absolute idiots, ordered four starters... BUT we're excited about that due to ultra-specific circumstances, namely...

- Leman Russes and Malcadors are her favorite tanks
- She wants to do Solar Auxillia, and I Marines
- We already have three friends who want the extra rulebooks
- We actively love Titanicus and wanted the new/FW-only Warhound weapons
- We both rank Epic as one of our all-time favorite games

It takes ALL of those very specific circumstances, us being a two-gamer-household, and getting a deep discount on preorders, to justify how hard we went.

I definitely wouldn't say GW calibrated this box to deter multiple sales, but it definitely crapped the bed as it stands.

We have a few local players getting ready for the game, and as a group we have already decided to omit the allies 30% rules altogether, just so we can get 1500-2000pt games going that much sooner.

Likewise, a few of my influencer buddies are swearing to me that the game dramatically feels better on a 6'x4' table, at 2000pts, as GW's intended "average sizes" just feel crowded and clunky.

 tauist wrote:
My feelings are similar.. the box is a bunch of stuff that creates an illusion of value, but will actually just create incentive to buy more

I mean...that IS kind of the box's job though, right?

I have no interest in this game beyond what it might bring to AT, but this box reminds me of the old Calth box for 30K. That was certainly a ton of tactical marines at a great value...until people started realizing how few tactical marines they actually needed in the armies that they wanted to field.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Leviathans, Capitol Imperialis and Hellbores?

We can only hope!

We'll be seeing the Imperial Mole at least (aka the Ordinatus Aktaeus)

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:
I wonder when we’ll be seeing any actual new units that don’t have a 40k scaled counterpart…

We already have. The heavy sentinels for Solar Auxilia. Also the Dire Wolf Titans.

EDIT - Oh and Palisade Drop Pods

The Direwolf was already available in Adeptus Titanicus. Perhaps the melta cannon for the Warhound and the Malcador tank with Vanquisher cannon are new items too. But I feel there is so much more potential out there, think of giant dropships, super heavy artillery, and what not

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:


We have a few local players getting ready for the game, and as a group we have already decided to omit the allies 30% rules altogether, just so we can get 1500-2000pt games going that much sooner.
.

Made 1st go at list myself and just 4 additions(rhino, marine infantry, kratos, thunderhawk) gets myself 2k list. Have even options as I could swap some marines for sa allies.

I think the infantry kits are a bit pants to be honest. But a game exclusively with just these tiny tanks would be wicked.

The biggest problem with the infantry kit is that its the only way to get assault marines or terminators, but you only get a pair of each per set. Unless they start releasing a variety of additional infantry sets, it makes it prohibitively expensive to build certain force structures.

I'd expect ebay sellers starting to offer single stands sooner rather than later. Still early days though, since nobody on ebay is selling anything LI in the EU area (plenty in the UK and US but taxes & shipping dont make using em viable)

I've been researching into AT more today, and think I might actually want to start with Titanicus before collecting LI stuff. Do you reckon one could easily houserule some sort of hybrid system, which used mainly AT rules, but added some way to include LI models in the game?

Why would I prefer AT at this stage? The game is already very mature and has nothing in it I'd need to wait to release.. whereas with LI, I'm looking at 6 months minimum before I'd have all my Marine stuff out I'd like to field (Land Raiders, Drop Pods, Landspeeders, Tarantulas).. The AT stuff I get now could all find a use in LI later, not planning to go crazy on them maniples

Theres certainly a way. According to James Hewitt, IIRC, he wrote up concept rules to expand the AT ruleset into handling infantry, tanks, and the like, so the engine natively supports that (why they opted to design a new game engine from the ground up for LI I dont know).

More simply, you can probably use your LI infantry stands to represent the titan hunter infantry strategem.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Theres certainly a way. According to James Hewitt, IIRC, he wrote up concept rules to expand the AT ruleset into handling infantry, tanks, and the like, so the engine natively supports that (why they opted to design a new game engine from the ground up for LI I dont know).

More simply, you can probably use your LI infantry stands to represent the titan hunter infantry strategem.

Might be cool to include some Kratos & Baneblades to start with hybridization.. everything in AT needs that console thingamajig?

The gist of it being, as much as I like LI rules for the tanks and infantry, I feel like the Titan rules have been neutered a bit too heavily.. no hit locations or anything, just some wounds and ablative shields..

If he did he didn't give any idea how. The rules themselves don't support except with the limited stratagem.

I recall seeing/hearing a comment or post of his, either in a reddit AMA or maybe here on dakka that he had done up some unofficial homebrew rules for it that he had shared with a select few close friends and trusted individuals, which was based on some of his playtesting and design work but more refined and better developed, but he was reluctant to share them widely because he was concerned about it technically violating his NDA. Actually, he might have said that he had briefly posted it online and then pulled it down almost immediately out of concern or something.

I feel like I remember him cryptically mentioning that the rules are out there if you know who to ask or where to look or something like that as some folks got their hands on them one way or another but they aren't being widely shared.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I recall seeing/hearing a comment or post of his, either in a reddit AMA or maybe here on dakka that he had done up some unofficial homebrew rules for it that he had shared with a select few close friends and trusted individuals, which was based on some of his playtesting and design work but more refined and better developed, but he was reluctant to share them widely because he was concerned about it technically violating his NDA. Actually, he might have said that he had briefly posted it online and then pulled it down almost immediately out of concern or something.

I feel like I remember him cryptically mentioning that the rules are out there if you know who to ask or where to look or something like that as some folks got their hands on them one way or another but they aren't being widely shared.

Fascinating.. I bet this topic will be revisited in the near future, now that a new Epic scale game has released

I hope so. I haven't seen much posted by James since I quit twitter, dont think hes done an AMA or whatever in a few years, havent seen him post here in a while either.
ALTHOUGH....

no, no... that would be too cool....

I think I may have just accidentally connected some dots that would explain a few things not quite related to AT whatsoever, and if it is what I think it is I am VERY excited, but its also a wild guess with little to really base it off of aside from some seemingly random data points that suddenly clicked together for me.

If a Tankhead tabletop miniatures game comes out with minis by Tim Popelier and rules by James Hewitt, you heard it here first.

If it never happens, forget I mentioned it

You'd do well to get some STLs before they get taken offline then..

Lastly, regarding Adeptus Titanicus, just noticed its starter being back in stock at GW.. Do you reckon they have added in LI bases to the box? Very tempted to grab one.. Already found the free command terminal PDF from WHC, contemplating on the feasibility of dojng an interactive terminal for my dataslate.. wouldn't take more than a weekend to create.. for personal use only obvs hehehe!

 tauist wrote:
You'd do well to get some STLs before they get taken offline then..

It's cute that you think that.

Very rarely do they get taken down, and if they do, they are back up within minutes.

There are sites that have repositories so vast, with every GW product, it would blow your mind.

also a lot of the STLs are from custom made models, yes some look like GW models, but they *are* different

avoid the trademarkium names and its, in theory, quite hard for GW to play whack a mole with them

comes down to individual sites and how trigger happy they are in response to letters, which comes down in part to where they are based

 tauist wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Theres certainly a way. According to James Hewitt, IIRC, he wrote up concept rules to expand the AT ruleset into handling infantry, tanks, and the like, so the engine natively supports that (why they opted to design a new game engine from the ground up for LI I dont know).

More simply, you can probably use your LI infantry stands to represent the titan hunter infantry strategem.

Might be cool to include some Kratos & Baneblades to start with hybridization.. everything in AT needs that console thingamajig?

The gist of it being, as much as I like LI rules for the tanks and infantry, I feel like the Titan rules have been neutered a bit too heavily.. no hit locations or anything, just some wounds and ablative shields..

A potential problem with adding infantry and tanks en masse to AT is that the game could bog down quickly unless you're grouping those other units into fairly large clumps. The game just works better with a more limited number of activations and with the 'other' units in a sidecar capacity to the Titans. Even Knight armies tend to make the system creak a bit.

AT is however a fantastic game for simulating Titan battles, and the starter set is a terrific deal if you can get your hands on one. I believe they're still out of stock in the US...

There are projects like Daniel's AT+ that try to integrate other units into AT, but as an avid AT and Epic player, personally that just feels like climbing a tree butt-first. The game emphasis is on titans, their resource management and their maneuvers. Everything smaller only dilutes the focus and makes for a lesser game (in a matched environment, I love little touches in narrative games but as an extra rather than built into the lists). In Titanicus, titans are rock-stars of war. In Epic, they are one part of the combined effort, where we shouldn't be lavishing all the same details on them. Both approaches produce better games by understanding their focus and sticking to it.

Not to focus too much on AT in a Legions thread, but House vs House games would definitely benefit from a sprinkling of tanks'n'troops. Where Titans are concerned I'd say that the Baneblade variants would be of some use in the supporting role.

For those worried about matched play - why not open play? GW keeps telling us they have 3-ways to play, but don't release anything for open play - a mode of play for experimentation, for both game designers and players alike. They need to put their money where their mouth is.

I mean what can GW release for Open Play. Open Play is "do what the freaking heck you want".

I get the "3 ways" is marketing, but I kinda don't see the point in the company telling me I can play with toys "my own way". They don't need to tell me that; that's a given


For GW they don't have to release anything. Narrative they can do campaign rules; release campaign packs and even run campaigns and such; Matched is dead simple too; but for Open its a free for all on what you do. Heck just introducing 1 house-rule to Matched Play makes it "open play"






And I agree with the points about AT and LI being different systems that work better being different rather than trying to merge the two. Whilst it can sound fun in theory; in practice it not only ends up splitting the game into two systems trying to run alongside each other; but it can also end up increasing the complexity of how the game mechanically works. This can be a huge thing when players have to do the mechanics themselves. IT can slow things down; make it harder to learn how to play and also can end up just lacking that fun element.

 Overread wrote:
I mean what can GW release for Open Play. Open Play is "do what the freaking heck you want".

I get the "3 ways" is marketing, but I kinda don't see the point in the company telling me I can play with toys "my own way". They don't need to tell me that; that's a given

For GW they don't have to release anything. Narrative they can do campaign rules; release campaign packs and even run campaigns and such; Matched is dead simple too; but for Open its a free for all on what you do. Heck just introducing 1 house-rule to Matched Play makes it "open play"

And I agree with the points about AT and LI being different systems that work better being different rather than trying to merge the two. Whilst it can sound fun in theory; in practice it not only ends up splitting the game into two systems trying to run alongside each other; but it can also end up increasing the complexity of how the game mechanically works. This can be a huge thing when players have to do the mechanics themselves. IT can slow things down; make it harder to learn how to play and also can end up just lacking that fun element.

Open play is a great way to present rules that don't quite offer balance in matched play, but to still provide players with fun alternatives that they might not have thought about in a more relaxed session.

GW was doing pretty well with open play in Age of Sigmar; Skybattles, AoS:Skirmish, The Glymmsforge Catacombs, the Anvil articles. In Kill Team 2018, they presented custom specialists for open play. "Army of One" characters in the recent Quest games are used in a way that goes against the narrative ways in which those games are intended to be played( they just play a one-off expedition ).

You're right in that "do what you want" on it's own isn't a proper mode of play, but GW can be offering players ideas on how to better enjoy their games.