Legions Imperialis news and rumors

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.

**Crablezworth**

leopard wrote:
SU-152 wrote:
leopard wrote:

guessing dracosan is one wound because otherwise it starts to get silly, and even more expensive

Oh but the Spartan doesn't get silly?

And the points cost of the Dracosan seems for a 2 wound model...

Spartan is "Assault Transport", its also more heavily armed and in the fluff allround better armoured, could see the second would being ~50% extra to the cost then its really out of whack for the likely cargo, v the Spartan which is likely bringing terminators

horses for things horses run round, given the cost of the infantry inside it I think the Dracosan is pretty decent where it is

the Spartan is actually quite interesting, given its got 8 lasercannons the thing only having a two dice attack is likely stopping thats points going right up at which points its robustness becomes questionable.

I suspect as well as GW screwing up points balance here, not including for upgrades, except on some aircraft and transports where they are starting to add costs they have gotten the baseline cost wrong, make basic marines cost twice what they do, scale from there and you have more space to vary costs and have it mean something

water under something water goes under though as its unlikely to change

It feels like it was handed off to someone else, none of the new units have any point incentive for taking larger detachment sizes, and every unit in the rulebook for solar aux and marine does in some way.

The dracosan is fine IMO, it's almost have the cost of a malcador, which aren't that great tbh, and I really like the idea of the dracosan ogryn battle bus of doom

**leopard**

oh it certainly feels disconnected to the main book, but then half the units in the main book seem to have been worked out by someone who had heard about the book but never read it

**kodos**

which might have been the case given how careful GW is of letting no one get the full picture to prevent leaks

**Crablezworth**

leopard wrote:
oh it certainly feels disconnected to the main book, but then half the units in the main book seem to have been worked out by someone who had heard about the book but never read it

To that point too about the new book feeling disconnected, cyclops remote bombs have no language about not counting towards a detachments break point, so until those get faq'd, a remote weapon designed for a singular purpose somehow greatly risks sadening the rank and file and risking that they run if old splodey explodes

It also really really does seem like the author(s)? forgot to give the death storm pods orbital assault.

With the book not having any marine artillery, or any light armour for either faction, I'm a bit concerned a third book will just be handed off again to someone else.

**SU-152**

xttz wrote:
SU-152 wrote:

And the points cost of the Dracosan seems for a 2 wound model...

Which 2-wound models are 37pts?

How much is the Spartan?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crablezworth wrote:
leopard wrote:
oh it certainly feels disconnected to the main book, but then half the units in the main book seem to have been worked out by someone who had heard about the book but never read it

To that point too about the new book feeling disconnected, cyclops remote bombs have no language about not counting towards a detachments break point, so until those get faq'd, a remote weapon designed for a singular purpose somehow greatly risks sadening the rank and file and risking that they run if old splodey explodes

It also really really does seem like the author(s)? forgot to give the death storm pods orbital assault.

With the book not having any marine artillery, or any light armour for either faction, I'm a bit concerned a third book will just be handed off again to someone else.

It seems like the whole Rulebook+expansion were made like patches. Everything disconnected, and untested.

Also, Medusa is a siege bunkerbuster weapon. Yet it lacks Siege, or Bunkerbuster in the weapon profile....

**Sherrypie**

SU-152 wrote:
xttz wrote:
SU-152 wrote:

And the points cost of the Dracosan seems for a 2 wound model...

Which 2-wound models are 37pts?

How much is the Spartan?

80 points per model.

**Formosa**

SU-152 wrote:
xttz wrote:
SU-152 wrote:

And the points cost of the Dracosan seems for a 2 wound model...

Which 2-wound models are 37pts?

How much is the Spartan?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crablezworth wrote:
leopard wrote:
oh it certainly feels disconnected to the main book, but then half the units in the main book seem to have been worked out by someone who had heard about the book but never read it

To that point too about the new book feeling disconnected, cyclops remote bombs have no language about not counting towards a detachments break point, so until those get faq'd, a remote weapon designed for a singular purpose somehow greatly risks sadening the rank and file and risking that they run if old splodey explodes

It also really really does seem like the author(s)? forgot to give the death storm pods orbital assault.

With the book not having any marine artillery, or any light armour for either faction, I'm a bit concerned a third book will just be handed off again to someone else.

It seems like the whole Rulebook+expansion were made like patches. Everything disconnected, and untested.

Also, Medusa is a siege bunkerbuster weapon. Yet it lacks Siege, or Bunkerbuster in the weapon profile....

Yep, there are a lot of head scratchers, for what its worth my local group is very open to house rules so I am going to fix the medusa with the exact suggestions you made.

**Crablezworth**

SU-152 wrote:

It seems like the whole Rulebook+expansion were made like patches. Everything disconnected, and untested.

Also, Medusa is a siege bunkerbuster weapon. Yet it lacks Siege, or Bunkerbuster in the weapon profile....

Yeah siege weapon would have been perfect for it, basically if it doesn't move it's gun would be 24 instead of 12.

I don't know why they bothered with all he detail and crunchiness if they're gonig to forget to even use what they already wrote, but also, like more concern shown to how a deredeo interacts with skyfire than the natural 6's always hitting making a mockery of specificity and specialization. Tanks driving full speed while hitting planes is bad enough, but I figured if anything was going to flat out say you can't move and shoot it would be dedicated artillery, and if they can't summon saying no, at least an incentive to not move, like siege weapon special rule. Could have been on the basilisk's gun as well and taken the gun from like 45 to 90 if the tank doesn't move, but not only did that not happen, the author(s)? saw fit to do that formation that negates the only downside left of artillery/barrage, he -1 to hit.

**leopard**

easy way is an errata to indirect fire, noting thats with "First Fire" orders only, covers each and every instance then

**SU-152**

leopard wrote:
easy way is an errata to indirect fire, noting thats with "First Fire" orders only, covers each and every instance then

IMO Siege is better for artillery than "only on first fire".

Otherwise SA artillery can't fire indirectly outside of Command range... odd

**leopard**

SU-152 wrote:
leopard wrote:
easy way is an errata to indirect fire, noting thats with "First Fire" orders only, covers each and every instance then

IMO Siege is better for artillery than "only on first fire".

Otherwise SA artillery can't fire indirectly outside of Command range... odd

oh true, was thinking more as a general errata to the indirect fire rule than specifically for SA artillery

can sort of see blind firing needing command authority from someone who knows whats over the hill

**zedmeister**

Wonder if they're saving Siege artillery for either the Bombard or the Minotaur?

**leopard**

zedmeister wrote:
Wonder if they're saving Siege artillery for either the Bombard or the Minotaur?

its possible but if the basilisk isn't proper artillery not sure what is, think its more likely they have designers not putting too much effort in

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Looks like FLGS are getting the cards. Got a set being put aside for me.

The book is also hitting FLGS shelves.

**Pacific**

It's a shame the cards have been monetised as an extra 'DLC' in this game, as they were included in the box in the previous versions.

And having them almost impossible to obtain, looking at the prices on eBay they have turned into a scalper special. Meaning without the Legion Builder app most people will be pencil and papering their army lists. I guess that bit will make us nostalgic for the 90s.

I'm now waiting for GW to issue a C&D to the app builders just to stop that thing being very useful for players of the game. The only thing that's probably saved it is that development from this game is presumably being carried out by two juniors stuck in the basement, looking at how well playtested it has been, and so no-one has noticed..

**Crablezworth**

Pacific wrote:
It's a shame the cards have been monetised as an extra 'DLC' in this game, as they were included in the box in the previous versions.

And having them almost impossible to obtain, looking at the prices on eBay they have turned into a scalper special. Meaning without the Legion Builder app most people will be pencil and papering their army lists. I guess that bit will make us nostalgic for the 90s.

I'm now waiting for GW to issue a C&D to the app builders just to stop that thing being very useful for players of the game. The only thing that's probably saved it is that development from this game is presumably being carried out by two juniors stuck in the basement, looking at how well playtested it has been, and so no-one has noticed..

That app is so brilliant as well, especially since it's been updated to include specific loadouts if you so choose to. It's been the single greatest resource for helping local players get the hang of list building, really hope that doesn't happen.

**leopard**

if GW have any sense, stop laughing it could happen, they will work with the guy making the app and make it official and licensed

**kodos**

and start paying for something they can get for free?

**chaos0xomega**

leopard wrote:
zedmeister wrote:
Wonder if they're saving Siege artillery for either the Bombard or the Minotaur?

its possible but if the basilisk isn't proper artillery not sure what is, think its more likely they have designers not putting too much effort in

Theres different types of artillery and not all of them are siege weapons

**Formosa**

The Solar Aux Basilisk for example is a leman russ chassis so a mix of MBT and Artillery piece.

**Crablezworth**

chaos0xomega wrote:
leopard wrote:
zedmeister wrote:
Wonder if they're saving Siege artillery for either the Bombard or the Minotaur?

its possible but if the basilisk isn't proper artillery not sure what is, think its more likely they have designers not putting too much effort in

Theres different types of artillery and not all of them are siege weapons

Can we agree that carefully calculated attacks with parabolic arcs of fire aren't really aided by driving full speed, or moving at all, generally? Siege weapon doesn't even represent artillery THAT well, it's a bare minimum carrot in terms of design there to hopefully encourage a detachment not to move with a nice bonus to their range. Really it should be all or nothing, but we don't even get that, we get one gun with 90 inch range, in a game that's 48x60 and a another with 12 inch range. Both apparently artillery, and both apparently to circumvent the only downside of barrage weapons being the -1 incurred for targeting detachments in range but out of los by being taken in an artillery formation. Just seems very odd, like robotic tanks exploding causing formations to break levels of odd

I wonder if the new book will get a quick faq.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Formosa wrote:
The Solar Aux Basilisk for example is a leman russ chassis so a mix of MBT and Artillery piece.

Can't wait will they're firing at flyers while moving full speed to really give that barrage siege weapon sorta feel

**MarkNorfolk**

Crablezworth wrote:

Can't wait will they're firing at flyers while moving full speed to really give that barrage siege weapon sorta feel

Fortunately the 'barrage' trait stops them doing that.

**zedmeister**

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:

Can't wait will they're firing at flyers while moving full speed to really give that barrage siege weapon sorta feel

Fortunately the 'barrage' trait stops them doing that.

Never know, we may see the heavy flak cannon from AI v1 return firing skyshaker shells…

**Crablezworth**

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:

Can't wait will they're firing at flyers while moving full speed to really give that barrage siege weapon sorta feel

Fortunately the 'barrage' trait stops them doing that.

It does not. I just read it again, zero mention of not being allowed to target flyers. The basilisks just need natural 6's. So yea they really can drive full speed and target flyers.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

zedmeister wrote:
MarkNorfolk wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:

Can't wait will they're firing at flyers while moving full speed to really give that barrage siege weapon sorta feel

Fortunately the 'barrage' trait stops them doing that.

Never know, we may see the heavy flak cannon from AI v1 return firing skyshaker shells…

They are the heavy flank cannons

In fact I doubt flakk had a 1 in 6 hit rate.

**AllSeeingSkink**

zedmeister wrote:
MarkNorfolk wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:

Can't wait will they're firing at flyers while moving full speed to really give that barrage siege weapon sorta feel

Fortunately the 'barrage' trait stops them doing that.

Never know, we may see the heavy flak cannon from AI v1 return firing skyshaker shells…

Basilisk Anti Aircraft Guns are a thing in AI, I used 3D printed Basilisk tanks to represent them. So no problem with that, the moving then shooting sounds a bit wrong for them though.

**SU-152**

Wait a second, Basilisks can actually cover the entire table with an AA umbrella... only hitting on 6s true but they have good AP... If there are not many juicy tank targets it seems like another good use of them...

**Pacific**

So.. artillery knocking aircraft down out of the sky... Please tell me that is not a thing here?

**leopard**

Pacific wrote:
So.. artillery knocking aircraft down out of the sky... Please tell me that is not a thing here?

could be worse, could have guided anti tank missiles able to shoot down aircraft as well

at least this time they have made it so flame throwers with a template can't hit fliers

as noted if you more or less need a 6 to hit a flier anyway, and a six is always a hit regardless of penalties, a gun with a 90" range able to fire indirect becomes the mother of all anti aircraft guns

**Eumerin**

leopard wrote:

could be worse, could have guided anti tank missiles able to shoot down aircraft as well

This has happened in real life. During the Iran-Iraq War in the '80s, Iran used some of their US-built helicopters (purchased while the Shah was still in power) to shoot down Iraqi helicopters (probably Hinds, though I don't remember for certain), using the ATGMs that the helicopters carried.

It's not common, but it's happened.

**leopard**

Eumerin wrote:
leopard wrote:

could be worse, could have guided anti tank missiles able to shoot down aircraft as well

This has happened in real life. During the Iran-Iraq War in the '80s, Iran used some of their US-built helicopters (purchased while the Shah was still in power) to shoot down Iraqi helicopters (probably Hinds, though I don't remember for certain), using the ATGMs that the helicopters carried.

It's not common, but it's happened.

yes that was the justification in the Team Yankee game, though still not shooting down actual aircraft thankfully