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.

Yup. Opposite of 40K and Inquisitor.

Epic Scale? Bolter is a Bolter is a Bolter. Your Support stands all have Plasma and a single ranged profile (bloody handy one too). Heavy Support is just Missile Launchers.

There? I don’t mind stylistic and sculpting differences. But would greatly prefer single weapon profiles.

40K? Now I’m more interested in the correct application of a given special weapon. But a Bolter is still a Bolter in your army.

Inquisitor/RPG? Ah, I see you are packing a Cantrell Pattern Lasgun, I myself favour the Birmingham Pattern Lasgun. Yes it’s a trade off against the Cantrell’s variable shot settings, but I find the Birmingham’s intensity settings applicable to a wider range of threats. I mean dear boy, why would I want three individual shots, when at the flick of the switch I can fire a single shot with four times the power? Truly, the Birmingham Pattern is the choice of all true Gentlemen.

They said, they want to make all Armour Mks recognizable in a possible Epic reboot, back when they announced AT.

High number of Vehicle Spnsoon option varity is OTT. Heavy Bolter and Lascanons are enough if you ask me..

RazorEdge wrote:
High number of Vehicle Spnsoon option varity is OTT. Heavy Bolter and Lascanons are enough if you ask me..

I'd like to see different sponsons for certain vehicles. For example, if they ever do the predator infernus, have them have heavy flamer sponsons, etc

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Inquisitor/RPG? Ah, I see you are packing a Cantrell Pattern Lasgun, I myself favour the Birmingham Pattern Lasgun. Yes it’s a trade off against the Cantrell’s variable shot settings, but I find the Birmingham’s intensity settings applicable to a wider range of threats. I mean dear boy, why would I want three individual shots, when at the flick of the switch I can fire a single shot with four times the power? Truly, the Birmingham Pattern is the choice of all true Gentlemen.

I think I can take a guess as to your preferred character in The Chaos Engine...

Honestly?

I’ve heard an old computer game of that name, but I’ve never played it.

That is a SHAME.

But yeah, they have a few steam-punk victorian-era characters to choose from, and one of them...is...THE GENTLEMAN. If you ever get to play one Amiga game in your life then make it The Chaos Engine.

I have played The Chaos Engine, and while it is in the dim and distant past I remember enjoying greatly.

SamusDrake wrote:
That is a SHAME.

But yeah, they have a few steam-punk victorian-era characters to choose from, and one of them...is...THE GENTLEMAN. If you ever get to play one Amiga game in your life then make it The Chaos Engine.

Ah, the Mad Baron Fortesque!

I miss the 90s video games. That one was a blast! I played the hell out of the Scientist with his laser. Super fast, super squishy.

I think he was called the Preacher elsewhere?

He certainly was! I think he was renamed the Scientist for the Megadrive and Snes ports. I'll have to load up Retropie to double check...

Absolutely, think granular details with weapon profiles slows things down way to much. It isnt needed at this scale.
Legions is already plagued by it, and it is one of the reasons why Epic Armageddon is a much better-designed game

MarkNorfolk wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
The Imperator Titan in Titan Legions slowed that game, which was otherwise really fast to play, to a crawl with all of the plasma tracking and other gubbins.

Because with Chaos Power cards, seeing who was hit by 18+Wave Serpent wave attacks, titan up/down/left/right dice+armour save+critical hit die roll, rolling for 40+ regenerating troops laying down and getting back up, scattering templates, rolling for blast markers that stay on the table, the addition of a few seconds to allocate some plasma made all the difference. :-) I would hazard that the admin time/points spent ratio was quite favourable.

Touche Not saying that was the only time-intensive part of the game (some of the Ork Mech vehicles are other good examples), but that part always seemed quite onerous. We used to play massive multiplayer games and it always seemed to be the guy operating the Imperator that had everyone else waiting.
Organising a massive participation game a few years ago the Imperator was the bit we dropped, as it had so many special rules and other gubbins, almost a game within itself (which it kind of was, as it was the centrepiece of the new Titan Legions Epic release, and I guess they had to justify that).

It did serve an important purpose. Preventing the Imperator from just Being A Win Button.

The power management stuff did add more to be done, turn to turn. But simple errors, like forgetting to put Plasma into your VSG’s could cost you heavily.

I don't know. Run the basics on 'green', First Fire if you can, and save up to fire a hefty salvo with the Annihilator on Maximal. Not too hard.

If you rolled well for your Plasma.

There are benefits of the more diversified LI weapon lists. It keeps the game interesting when playing smaller 1,000 to 1,500 point games which is what a lot of people can manage as most people don't have big armies to start.

In addition lascannon vs heavy bolter sponsons are a major tactical choice for tanks in the combined arms section of the game.

My issue is from a model perspective.

bolters and lasguns on the sponsons and such are utterly tiny details. Visually there's so little to tell them part compared to main weapons.

Furthermore they aren't something you can magnetize so either you have a fixed loadout; or proxy forever or you've got a huge number of tanks that you'll never field all at once.


So I'd rather have different tanks with different roles by weapon design than one core tank with a dozen different sponsons.



In the end sponsons are well into that region of where the more choice you create the more you will have players relying on proxies.

I remember having this argument, probably in this very thread, prior to the games release and im pretty sure sone of the folk complaining about weapon granularity now were the same people who shat on me for arguing against granularity then.

My take - at this scale man-portable and secondary weapons can and should have been reduced to archetypes. Lasguns and bolters are small arms. Heavy bolters, multilasers, and heavy stubbers are heavy anti-personnel weapons. Autocannons and plasma guns are anti-materiel weapons, missile launchers and lascannons are anti-tank weapons, etc. Cleaner, less to keep track of, still provides sufficient degrees of granularity between different options.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I remember having this argument, probably in this very thread, prior to the games release and im pretty sure sone of the folk complaining about weapon granularity now were the same people who shat on me for arguing against granularity then.

My take - at this scale man-portable and secondary weapons can and should have been reduced to archetypes. Lasguns and bolters are small arms. Heavy bolters, multilasers, and heavy stubbers are heavy anti-personnel weapons. Autocannons and plasma guns are anti-materiel weapons, missile launchers and lascannons are anti-tank weapons, etc. Cleaner, less to keep track of, still provides sufficient degrees of granularity between different options.

So, Epic: Armageddon, pretty much. Sounds good to me. Just needed a touch more granularity on the titans so they weren’t just a big ol’ sack of hit points and not much else but otherwise still the best Epic ruleset.

Ive never touched any of the past iterations of epic so i wpuldnt really know

Yep that's Armageddon you're describing there chaos0xomega. I was once fortunate enough to speak to one of the game's developers. He said they couldn't get the shooting mechanics nailed down, and at the 11th hour Jervis Johnson came up with the idea of splitting 'anti-tank' and 'anti-armour' in the unit weapon profiles. At that scale you don't need to know if its armour piercing shells or phased plasma death rays if they have a similar effect. It basically just means that the game is vastly more straightforward to play, and you're not stood there with a rulebook throughout the game.

Yeah Epic scale games should be all about having massive fights with loads of units on the table. At that scale you want some granular elements but not too much that it slows down.

If you simulate too much it ends up a skirmish rule-set and then it just slows everything down way too much.

On the flipside if you don't have enough niches you can end up with everything being the same as everything else; which can let it be simple but can also make it harder to add more units. But you can still find a few niches, esp as you get much more of a combined arms experience in a standard game.

AT/AP, and indeed LI’s third of Light AT opens up just the right amount of design room for Epic scale if you ask me.

You can have super accurate infantry stands, which can’t realistically bother tanks ever.

You’ve honking great anti-tank weapons which barely tickle infantry.

You’ve a few rare weapons which are traitless, and so can tackle anything.

Light AT is the sneaky one. Sure, I can’t inflict weapon stat armour modifiers on your tanks and Titans…..but if you let me round your flank or rear? Those modifiers are fair game.

I thought having Light, Anti-tank and Light AT as disadvantages was actually pretty good game design for siloing off weapons into niche rolls.

LIs big mistake was doing too many weapon keywords that people can't memorise in the base set.

If it was Light, Anti-tank, Light AT, Accurate, Assault, Demolisher, Point Defense, Skyfire, No cover, Engine Killer, Rend, Blast and Firestorm to start it would have come off better as a single page of text.

But then the rulebook isn't comprehensive

Honestly, whilst I appreciate they wanted a more old-school ruleset, I can't fathom why they didn't at least lift the AT/AP approach from EA. Would have removed the need for the Light and AT keywords and actually allowed for some more nuanced options with weapons having different modifiers for AT/AP as well, plus you could still have a Light AT keyword layered on it as well.

I think the challenge is in getting the level of granularity right - given the intended scale of the game, too much is clearly an issue but I suspect they understand their audience in liking having "missile launcher" infantry vs just "AT infantry". Though it does come with risks as a more abstracted "AT infantry" option would mean you could do a future MK3 infantry set and have them with lascannons, without needing new rules, whilst still giving different cosmetic options (which would be nice).

I do like having the AT vs anti-infantry options for sponsons on all the tanks though. And just to counter those who say magnetising at this scale isn't possible...



Ian Malcom might question whether you should, but you definitely could...!

It is a toss up.

EA of course gave all (I think!) weapons both an AT and AP score. A rare few (Imperial Guard Infantry) would have AT-, showing they can’t attack vehicles at all.

Light, Light AT and AT does the same thing, just in a different way.

On balance I do prefer the LI way. By having the three (and the fourth No Trait), we get different options with different applications.

On Tanks? Sure, Heavy Bolter Sponsons can only impact infantry. But thanks to defensive fire rules? They’re still somewhat desirable on otherwise dedicated anti-armour platforms. Helps dissuade Infanty from going Tank Tipping, which can be highly effective due to how outnumbering works. Heck, if you can get enough quality infantry mobbing a Titan, you can tip those too.

Either way I still think flamethrower sponsons should add +1 CAF to tanks. That’s kind of the whole point of them.

I also don’t know how much GW branding requires all the weapons to have unique trademarkable names to with unique unit titles.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It is a toss up.

EA of course gave all (I think!) weapons both an AT and AP score. A rare few (Imperial Guard Infantry) would have AT-, showing they can’t attack vehicles at all.

Light, Light AT and AT does the same thing, just in a different way.

On balance I do prefer the LI way. By having the three (and the fourth No Trait), we get different options with different applications.

On Tanks? Sure, Heavy Bolter Sponsons can only impact infantry. But thanks to defensive fire rules? They’re still somewhat desirable on otherwise dedicated anti-armour platforms. Helps dissuade Infanty from going Tank Tipping, which can be highly effective due to how outnumbering works. Heck, if you can get enough quality infantry mobbing a Titan, you can tip those too.

Yeah, except the EA way gives you the same options and applications as the LI way (in fact actually more - given you have a weapons with variations like AP -1 / AT -3 etc) and does so without using keywords, it is just more elegant and has lower cognitive load to achieve exactly the same (and actually better) set of options/abilities.

E.g. Using AP/AT; A weapon with no traits could be -3 / -3, a weapon with AT would just be 0 / -3, a weapon with Light AT would just be -1 / 0 and a Light weapon would be 0 / -

And variants on the above, such as -1 / -4 for some of the bigger AT guns, getting at least a little bit against infantry (if you wanted) or vice versa some of the heavier anti-infantry weapons that you don't want to be too good against tanks could be -3 / -1 and so on, or even AT weapons that can't target infantry at all (if there was something like that, e.g. - / -2 etc) all things you just can't have in the LI approach...

As expected, the Old Books disappeared from the Warhammer Site.

The Dark Mechanicum Book wasn't that old.

I wonder if we will see a "Tallarn Part 2" Book in the future.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/7qdvbegj/legions-of-the-mechanicum-four-fancy-forge-world-forces/

I like the blue Warhound with the ye'olde armour. I wonder if that's a new FW upgrade kit on the way.

Both the Warhound Conversion Beam Dissolutor and the Graviton Destructor dropped off warhammer.com in May 2025, new plastic kit maybe?

I think existing kits can build every other weapon.