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.

Before even clicking on WarCom I thought to myself "I bet it will be anything but the announcement of plastic Armigers. Probably the introduction of Xenos, the long lost Chapter of female marines, or even more far fetched - an FAQ & Errata for the rule book."

Naturally we should expect Xenos or Female Marines next.

Mechanicum infantry got a big boost with this.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Piousservant wrote:Edit: I'm in the wrong country to be able to check my books at the moment, but am I right in thinking the Mechanicum errata makes it so that each base of Myrmidon destructors has both weapons (rather than having to choose one)? That's a plus (and sorry for those who based them seperately!).

I am in the same room as the book, but have had to get up off my sofa to get it.

I trust Dakka will honour that sacrifice.

Yup. Looks to be a direct addition for both Myrmidon.

Thallaxi also got a nice boost. Lost 4” of range, but are now a bloody menace to tanks.

Your sacrifice is greatly appreciated indeed, thanks Doc!

That's awesome though, definitely a nice boost for the Mechanicum infantry.

And they've fixed Quake now so it actually works - though probably going to want a token for it or something, as it's likely to impact the following turn (certainly the kind of thing I'd forget otherwise).

March being reduced feels alright. Whilst I’m still yet to play (I keep saying I’m working on that, but turns out I’m a liar), I’d imagine it’s going to slow down infantry, reducing some of its appeal vs armour.

That FAQ&errata is brutal.

Most of what we were asking for is there. March, tarantulas, Quake, Neutron... the stupid AA mole mortar...

It is indeed fantastic, not sure on the change to Alpha Legion though, I agree that they needed nerfing but the change to no charge from infiltrate should do that.

The responses to this FAQ are making me think I should dive into LI after all...

I actually think this sort of "yearly" FAQ/Errata cycle feels pretty good to a filthy casual like me. Its enough time that you have time both to collect enough intel from games, and to properly balance your tweaks and test out their effect before going public with the changes. Too frequent FAQ/Errata releasing can sometimes feel rushed and become a churn.

Sadly, its very much in opposition to GW's expectations of "average customer retention time", so of course they will not adopt it into their 3 year itch systems..

No_Marines_Here wrote:
The responses to this FAQ are making me think I should dive into LI after all...

Hundreds of tiny mens compel thee, hundreds of tiny mens compel thee.

Come on, come and join the cool kids.

Since ROTDM the game has only improved, but a new edition is needed sooner rather than later.

The Titans stand out as a sore thumb, and given a little more depth GW can let go of AT altogether. It would be tragic to lose one of GW's most critically acclaimed games, but it's presence at this time feels like a temporary tyre patch until LI matures into a better game.

But until that happens I'm accepting it for what it is; a rough first edition that's fun but it's meta isn't worth losing sleep over.

New edition, wut? This game is less than 2 years old. I think we need more factions and units, which are definately in near future. If you mean rules update for the game, that can be easily fixed with errata or balance slate. So far, the only issues regarding rules I've found, are related to army construction, for example people min-maxing certain units and exploiting rules. That is easily fixed with something like errata.

SamusDrake wrote:
Since ROTDM the game has only improved, but a new edition is needed sooner rather than later.

The Titans stand out as a sore thumb, and given a little more depth GW can let go of AT altogether. It would be tragic to lose one of GW's most critically acclaimed games, but it's presence at this time feels like a temporary tyre patch until LI matures into a better game.

But until that happens I'm accepting it for what it is; a rough first edition that's fun but it's meta isn't worth losing sleep over.

With AT being the best thing GW have put out in over a decade I hope you’re wrong.

 Spreelock wrote:
New edition, wut? This game is less than 2 years old. I think we need more factions and units, which are definately in near future. If you mean rules update for the game, that can be easily fixed with errata or balance slate. So far, the only issues regarding rules I've found, are related to army construction, for example people min-maxing certain units and exploiting rules. That is easily fixed with something like errata.

Yeah it's far too soon for any kind of new edition. Even 40k with it's crazy schedule doesn't reprint the core rulebook after under 18 months. Meanwhile specialist games like this typically keep their core rules going for over 4 years.

With more of a casual 90's GW vibe and no real competitive scene to provide balance data, I think LI is perfectly suited to house rules for anyone who wants to tweak the balance in specific ways. My local group has been using the balance suggestions from Olden Demon's LI YouTube video, and after this I expect we'll tweak them a little further to encourage using a wider range of units.

 Sirius42 wrote:

With AT being the best thing GW have put out in over a decade I hope you’re wrong.

Between the ongoing support for in-box rules (stalkers) and treatment of games like Necromunda, I suspect the next step for AT will be an updated starter box without any substantial rules changes like a new edition. Most likely they revise the rulebook to include FAQs, but otherwise AT still plays as before. I also guess it would be used as a way to sell more recent models like the Mechanicum Knights or Dire Wolf.

 Spreelock wrote:
New edition, wut? This game is less than 2 years old. I think we need more factions and units, which are definately in near future. If you mean rules update for the game, that can be easily fixed with errata or balance slate. So far, the only issues regarding rules I've found, are related to army construction, for example people min-maxing certain units and exploiting rules. That is easily fixed with something like errata.

Model wise its been great, even if things did get off to a slow start. And absolutely we need more factions before moving on.

Ruleswise...just no. The game was released to luke-warm reviews at best, and even here in this thread we have dakka members asking if it's "safe to come out now?". An update can only polish what is already there...

Speaking for myself, I'm happy with Legions so long as they release plastic Armigers. Just waiting on them, and everything I need is from the core book and a bit of googling for the Titan and Knight formations. I'm certainly in no hurry when I've also got a copy of Horizon Wars on the shelf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sirius42 wrote:


With AT being the best thing GW have put out in over a decade I hope you’re wrong.

Me too, but all they've done so far is slap a card into a Legions Imperialis box, which can easily be removed going forward if Legions Imperialis sees a new edition with improved Titans rules.

Heh. LI should be integrated into AT instead

What a kinky thought...

Has anyone tried play LI but with titans using Adeptus Titanicus?

So like a game of AT overlaying a game of LI on the same board...hmmm. We're definitely tasting the forbidden fruit this morning!

But seriously, GW should be encouraging cross over campaigns between the two games.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Spreelock wrote:
New edition, wut? This game is less than 2 years old. I think we need more factions and units, which are definately in near future. If you mean rules update for the game, that can be easily fixed with errata or balance slate. So far, the only issues regarding rules I've found, are related to army construction, for example people min-maxing certain units and exploiting rules. That is easily fixed with something like errata.

Model wise its been great, even if things did get off to a slow start. And absolutely we need more factions before moving on.

Ruleswise...just no. The game was released to luke-warm reviews at best, and even here in this thread we have dakka members asking if it's "safe to come out now?". An update can only polish what is already there...

This is probably where I am with the game too. Good for play with gaming colleagues & at club nights if you are lucky enough to have late closing times, but not convinced the game is ideal for events and these updates (however positive) will change that.
It's definitely good though that these changes I think are addressing some of the more common complaints from the community, so good that someone is paying attention at least.

There were also rumours on SM about Epic 40k coming back - apparently from Adepticon. However when challenged there was absolutely nothing on the original sources, and looking back through it seemed to come from one person saying it. So a good opportunity to use Dakka's excellent salt shaker emote

 schoon wrote:
Heh. LI should be integrated into AT instead

Yeah, turns out there’s plenty of room at the bottom of the scale for infantry and vehicles in AT. They need different terrain rules though because what’s difficult or impassable to a Titan is not what’s difficult or impassible to infantry.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 schoon wrote:
Heh. LI should be integrated into AT instead

Yeah, turns out there’s plenty of room at the bottom of the scale for infantry and vehicles in AT. They need different terrain rules though because what’s difficult or impassable to a Titan is not what’s difficult or impassible to infantry.

There isn't, really. The AT+ project that BlackLegion has done is certainly playable, but just not what the rule set is about. For a combined arms game it's just less of a headache for everyone involved to start from a ruleset that is built around respecting each arm in somewhat equal measure, like previous versions of Epic do, rather than shoehorning clunky bits into a framework that isn't meant for it. AT is about titans as the absolute rock stars of war: everything below that is just a hindrance to the main meat of that particular game. Being able to play little things in the same framework doesn't make it better, it simply takes away from the best part of the original's gameplay.

This is why design scope and limits of applicability matter in games just as much as they matter for scientific models. For a good game at a larger operational scale, the mechanics need to cater to the needs of the whole rather than serve one arm well and let the others contemptuously exist.

 Pacific wrote:

There were also rumours on SM about Epic 40k coming back - apparently from Adepticon. However when challenged there was absolutely nothing on the original sources, and looking back through it seemed to come from one person saying it. So a good opportunity to use Dakka's excellent salt shaker emote

Ignore these 'rumours' . They were from one person. He was posting them around random bunker6 youtube videos before Adepticon and when they were not getting any sort of traction, he moved to 'I got confirmation via a third party person would got them via GW support team via email' and need to speak to my family lawyer before I can release the info, but then was posting them all over the Epic 3rd Edition fan groups before "getting permission" to do so anyway.

The 'confirmation' email was a load of nonsense, the usual support garbage of 'we are glad you are playing the new game and keep an eye out on for when Epic 40k might be back one day' kind of nothing burger dribble that someone in support has to spew out to reply to someone wasting their time rather than dealing with actual support issues.

Sadly, a lot of people have seen one or two of the random 20 or so posts he made in the last month, and those have spread like wild fire around the internet as 'rumours' of Epic 40k coming back.

Not only is the email a load of old tosh, but his timeline of 'in the next year' would put it in at odds against the new edition of 40k next year. GW is never going to sabotage their own main cash cow with a competing product.

 Sherrypie wrote:

There isn't, really. The AT+ project that BlackLegion has done is certainly playable, but just not what the rule set is about. For a combined arms game it's just less of a headache for everyone involved to start from a ruleset that is built around respecting each arm in somewhat equal measure, like previous versions of Epic do, rather than shoehorning clunky bits into a framework that isn't meant for it. AT is about titans as the absolute rock stars of war: everything below that is just a hindrance to the main meat of that particular game. Being able to play little things in the same framework doesn't make it better, it simply takes away from the best part of the original's gameplay.

This is why design scope and limits of applicability matter in games just as much as they matter for scientific models. For a good game at a larger operational scale, the mechanics need to cater to the needs of the whole rather than serve one arm well and let the others contemptuously exist.

From what I've gathered over the years, the requirements were revisited far too late in the game's development. Someone was initially told to make a game of Titans, but once that had been pretty much set in stone - too late to start over - they changed that requirement to a game of "Titans and their Knight allies". The end result is a titan combat simulator with an optional and very limited combined arms game. In our experience we found good promise in games of Knights vs Knights with Titan support, as an alternative mode of play and its a shame GW didn't leave that for a little later on rather than force the Knights into an arms race with the Titans that led to breaking the game.

In hindsight, Mechanicum would have been the ideal addition as they provide support functions that aren't necessarily about engaging a god-machine head-on; improvements to the repair phase of a close-by Titan or Knight, relaying information on enemy positions, or just coordinating their fire with their larger allies. What could have been...

Knights and Mechanicum pre-order next week.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/zc96jzat/sunday-preview-high-elves-bounty-hunters-heroes-and-knights/

And I think thays everything preview so far, not just for LI, but AoD and Necromunda too?

Still missing Hera for MESBG who is now four months late.

If the Magaera & Styrix are £31.50...I'll get'em.

Heeck yea everything has AT terminals


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes even the High Elves

Great news on the terminals. That's the last of known releases for Legions Imperialis, now time to work on that back-log before Heresy day announces more

One of each of those Knight boxes for me, please

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Heeck yea everything has AT terminals


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes even the High Elves

Dragon Princes finally make a good target for the Warmaster Iconoclast to get into melee with

Them releasing all the Knights now does make it less likely plastic Armigers are coming too since I'd have expected them to be revealed first and everything to release at the same time in that case