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.

Hey folks - now we have a Legions Imperialis battle report in the new White Dwarf, think it's a great opportunity to try and draw some inferences from how the game is setup and played. Helpfully there are some rule explanation cutouts included in the report, but please add any other thoughts and comments to this. It might only well be a few weeks until the game is launched, but perhaps just some fun spitballing about it in the meantime

Missions
- Looks like a big change from previous versions, in that there is a lot more variation and ideas taken from other modern GW games. So in this battle we have a mix of 'assassination/protect' type missions, and objective control; this bit in particular looks like it is lifted from 2nd edition (you stay in control until someone else takes it from you - adds a bit of agency to the player, as they can risk re-locating troops but at the risk of someone swooping in and stealing it.)
- There must also be a 'list' of secondary missions, as each player makes a secret 2D6 roll. Although the boxout also confirms that these can be chosen, so maybe you have to make a selection based on the group of things that you have rolled for?
- Overall a 'VP' system used to determine the victor.

Force Selection
- Looks to be large blocks of tanks/infantry, which are not necessarily called 'company'. This differs in name from previous versions such as Titan Legions and Armageddon, you have 'phalanx', drop pod assault', 'garrison force' and 'demi-company' for example. It's hard to infer much from this, other than it looks like there is possibly more flexibility and it lines up more with Epic 40k, and as with that game and Armageddon individual units can be added to units (although differing from Armageddon, it looks like they have to be of the same unit type?)
- Points values have gone down significantly in most cases (predators, land speeders, titans. Although Terminators seem to be a lot cheaper, and Rapiers are exactly the same as 2nd edition (50pts for 3 )
- Command units are purchased separately, rather than being either a 'free' unit which comes as part of a company (2nd/TL) or purchased as an upgrade to existing units (Armageddon). They look to be optional, as many of the large 'companies' do not feature them.



Setup/Deployment
- Alternative unit deployment (one player puts down one unit, then their opponent, and that continues). I guess a bit more modern/easy to do than big boxes hiding deployment or writing on a hand-drawn map, than in 2nd
- it's not possible to infer whether there is a very small squad coherency distance, or this is just a result of so many miniatures being crammed together on the tabletop!
- Initiative order play, which is rolled for each turn

The Game
- Orders phase: As with 2nd/Titan Legions, orders are placed next to units and hidden, then revealed at the start of the turn. 'Charge' and 'march' have now been split into two rule types. It's a shame that it looks like there is no colour coding on the order counters as in previous editions, and a few (advance and first fire) are probably going to look almost identical at a glance, so I predict lots of sloppy players (like me) forgetting to use units that are on first fire..
- Legion Special Rules: Looks like these can all be used if you have multiple legion abilities on the same side, as the Death Guard's Dangerous Terrain rule is used. Will be interesting to see if there are any negatives which come from combining different Legions to balance this out?
- Morale: 50% or less of a unit left they must take a morale test, or go onto fallback orders. You run away from enemy units, rather than hiding in terrain.
- Phases (I think?) are alternating, for both movement and firing, as the report describes units moving forward and then others coming to counter them. This is more like Armageddon, and a change from 2nd edition/TL, where movement was IGOUGO, but fire was alternating. Although it's worth noting that the community version of 2nd edition (NetEpic) introduced alternating movement too, and a big complaint of the original system was that the initiative roll was way to powerful and could spell doom for your side, so changing this isn't that surprising to me. It also is a bit more modern in terms of game design, and helps keep both players engaged.
As a counter to this, the Emperor's Children ability makes it sound like they can move and fire with their entire force first (!) If so does this supplant the usual turn structure? Worth noting also that this would be an immensely powerful ability, if fire is anything like as deadly as in previous games.
- Weapons traits: We know about this from other community releases. I know this is pretty divisive in the community as to whether it will add too much complication/rule checking, but the positive I will say here is that it sounds like they are all present on one page in the rulebook, so should be easy to reference.
- Close Assault: Sounds like it is exactly the same as 2nd edition, pair-off units and then roll 2D6, add it to your CAF (close assault factor) and loser is removed. Terminators are less than in the old edition (+4 compared to +6) although the fact that they completely wipe out the standard Legion troops they engage makes me think the overall range of CAF values may have just been lowered a bit. Looks like dreadnoughts have been made much harder in this game though as they wipe out some terminators and take out a Reaver titan!
- Pinning of close combat units: This looks to be the same as Titan Legions (which expanded the rules from 2nd edition) - units that are in a larger category than the unit assaulting them can just move out of combat and are not pinned. In an example in the game, a Kratos tank could just move out of combat with some jetbikes attacking it.
- Fliers: Hard to infer much about them, other than they are fast and seemingly quite deadly! A 'hovering' mode is mentioned, which indicates there may be different flight modes they can go into. Interception is mentioned too, but perhaps could be just a descriptive phrase.

Titans/War Engines:
- Does just look like a health point/damage system with void shields. No descriptions of localised damage, legs being immobilised. So looks like an extremely basic system, although there may be some sort of critical damage table as one of the Titan's reactors blows, so perhaps more like Armageddon? But it doesn't seem anything like 2nd edition/SM with arms being blown off or leg joints fused.

Summary of thoughts
Overall it is certainly a very impressive image of the units on the tabletop, and the miniatures look lovely. As we had suspected from previous news releases it looks like both more miniatures on the tabletop and a smaller playing area, leading to a very dense crush of miniatures and barely space to deploy everything, even with large contingents of units coming onto the board once the game starts - I did think Team Yankee was a crammed tabletop, but this takes it to another level!
But, although I've not kept up with 40k and AoS this seems to be more of a standard thing with modern games, so might be just me that is out of sync with their current releases. My concern is that it removes an element of tactical agency on behalf of the player, if the two units are just blasting each other at close range.
But, the mitigating fact to this is that going back many years the first 2nd edition battle report featured a 6000pt game (well above the 3-4000 that became standard for that edition), so it may just be that this is a good way to show off all of the miniatures, and provide a cool visual spectacle.
Other positives are the objectives and secondary missions - which are something a few versions of Epic have been missing - and look like they will be fun and a good way to keep players engaged. The Legion special rules also look like a good way of keeping some variety in the game.
Will be interested to see what other people thought and if any other info has been gleaned from it!

Having flexible detachments is IMHO a good thing, because many people will probably buy stuff little by little, so it's good that they can hopefully use the stuff they got right away.

Table size and army size, if 3000 points is to be the default is, simply put, bananas. It's 40k all over again, but tiny. I'd rather not.

The amount of minis on the table at that point value, plus the embiggening of most minis, makes it so that the table shrinking is a two punch that... well, does do things to the game, it feels.

It honestly looks to me that 1000-1500 points would look and feel better.

I like the linking of LI and HH missions, that looks pretty cool and it's interesting for things like campaigns.

There seems to be no degradation of unit effectiveness short of dead/not dead. Doing away with blast markers is, IMO, a bad idea.

 Pacific wrote:

- There must also be a 'list' of secondary missions, as each player makes a secret 2D6 roll. Although the boxout also confirms that these can be chosen, so maybe you have to make a selection based on the group of things that you have rolled for?

I could be mistaken but as I understood it they aren't rolling 2D6 but 2x D6 with each die selecting one secondary on a D6 table. Then they secretly choose one of the two missions they rolled and discard the other.

 Pacific wrote:

- Legion Special Rules: Looks like these can all be used if you have multiple legion abilities on the same side, as the Death Guard's Dangerous Terrain rule is used. Will be interesting to see if there are any negatives which come from combining different Legions to balance this out?

In the case of the Death Guard the negative would be that the Emperors Children are also affected by the dangerous terrain as stated in the "SEIZE THE INITIATIVE" panel on page 122. On the other hand the Emperors Children ability seems like a net positiv as it also affects the Death Guard but has a positive effect

Missions
Extremely abstract and gamey. VP mechanic: what do they really represent? all this is a bad influence from "modern GW games".
Secondaries seem cool though.

Forces:
Yes, points are too low. But as long as they (relatively speaking) are in line with each other, and balanced, it would be ok. Terminators seem extremely weak though.

Setup
Not too bad, similar to other Epic games.

Game
Orders are not as dynamic as in EA, but at least it is faster than rolling to check if the formation carries out the action, each time they activate.
Lack of suppresion and degrading morale is ... dissapointing.
Flyers: the only units that didn't went down in points massively... because they are much more powerful (attack-wise).
In general lethality is brutally high.
Titans: simpler rules (no allocation) is always better. But extremely weak (a Belicosa-Volcano cannon one shots an unshielded Reaver, didn't happen in EA).

Black Briar Gaming has a video on this very topic that I found interesting: https://youtu.be/V8ic3eIp0Fk?si=dcQcWizYagFYxlDe

Visually and tactically I think they are making a mistake by trying to sell too many models, 3000pts on a 5/4x4 looks like parking lot with no room for manouver. In the battle rep they even placed all terrain along the the sides and had to use an assymetrical deploying force coming in drop Pods to fit them all in and not crampbthe entire deployment zone. That many models will also cost $$$ so will scare people off. 1500-2000 seems more reasonable on that table size for all reasons.

Bear in mind their recommendations can be thrown out the window. And if playing time is slow as expected due to granularity being extreme vs previous editions, playing time is going to dictate standard game size. Ie how many points can be played in an evening or afternoon.

Albertorius 811924 11602249 wrote:
"It honestly looks to me that 1000-1500 points would look and feel better.

I like the linking of LI and HH missions, that looks pretty cool and it's interesting for things like campaigns.

There seems to be no degradation of unit effectiveness short of dead/not dead. Doing away with blast markers is, IMO, a bad idea."

Fully agreed.

Really missing true alternating activations and suppression/pinning with the Blast marker mechanic from EA/NetEA/EpicAU and suspect I will prefer those based on previews so far.

 westiebestie wrote:
Visually and tactically I think they are making a mistake by trying to sell too many models, 3000pts on a 5/4x4 looks like parking lot with no room for manouver. In the battle rep they even placed all terrain along the the sides and had to use an assymetrical deploying force coming in drop Pods to fit them all in and not crampbthe entire deployment zone. That many models will also cost $$$ so will scare people off.

Having so many drop pods in this battle report is really skewing everyone's initial impressions of the new Epic.

From the article plus LI leaks we can deduce that pods are approximately 5-6pts each, so potentially a £30 box is adding 24pts to your army list at most. For the same cash a Thunderhawk adds 150pts, a box of super-heavy tanks is likely around 300pts, while a few pounds extra gives a 400pt+ Reaver titan. If you're building a new Epic army they're hardly value for money.

Once deployed you'll have a bunch of 6pt models taking up virtually the same footprint as a super-heavy tank, in addition to the units they're brought to deploy. They then don't move until destroyed, blocking out areas of the table like buildings.

I think from a collecting, list building, and game playing point of view, drop pods function much closer to terrain than regular units. It's like having a first impression battle report for Adeptus Titanicus played on one of those £400 resin FW boards, making everyone think that will be a typical game.

In 3rd edition they are a special rule, don't even cost points ^^

I still feel like if this is 3K points then the number of models feels really small. Imagine putting a Warlord and a few other titans on the table and then an army along with that.

I do agree though that GW is currently on a big "use our tiny boards" spree and its making their games feel very movement limited in terms of actually having space to move stuff around and not just having two gunlines face off.

Yes I agree Overread, I think there is a big push to try and sell terrain along with the miniatures and that is possibly skewing how the game is presented; it also sounds like the buildings themselves are really effective in the game if you can garrison them (no 2nd edition collapsing death traps here!), so GW finding a way to sneak a few more quid out of ya

CorwinB wrote:
Black Briar Gaming has a video on this very topic that I found interesting: https://youtu.be/V8ic3eIp0Fk?si=dcQcWizYagFYxlDe

Thanks for posting this Corwin, really interesting. I thought I recognised this chap as the guy who got really mad online for someone fielding both Primarch and Daemon Prince Magnus the Red in the same game, for some reason I found that really funny

I will say his observations are useful but you can tell it is coming from a 30k Age of Darkness player, rather than an Epic player, although I guess that is what most of the viewers of his channel will be so it makes sense.
Troops taking out tanks for example, which sounds like it is very difficult in AoD, but in pretty much any version of Epic if your tanks get caught out and assaulted by a bunch of melee infantry then in many instances they will be toast.

He has called into question the alternative activation because of the Emperor's Children ability ('seize the initiative' type thing) but I am not sure. The way the report is written, and other hints, make me think the game is going to be alternative activation and it's more likely this EC ability is just incredibly powerful. Prepare for tournaments of EC gunlines, all on first fire, which wipe out their opponents before they get a chance to fire back

Also, that he has quite a negative view on the game missing blast markers/pinning (I don't know enough about it, but apparently this is a problem in AoD?) Whereas for us Epic players it would have been a great sign, as the blast marker/pinning mechanic in Epic Armageddon is one of the best things about that game!

It's a very specific point but, with all those structures being able to be occupied, does it not seem like a bit of a headache having to remember how many wounds multi wound structures have left when there's like 40 of them?


I'm a bit concerned about the size of units too, 6 super heavies looks a bit silly.


There's a bit of an illusion of choice with the malcadors, at least on the front weapon, choice of lascannon, heavy bolter, autocannon or demolisher cannon. One of these things is not like the other. There may be some argument for lascannon, because one could theoretically pair that with turret twin lascannons, sponson lascannons, but for the most part it seems like a demolisher cannon is nice to have compared to the other options, it also seemingly ignores cover and I believe can damage structures. Seems nice to have regardless of turret weapon.

A concern is I noticed the dreadnought units all mixed a and b options, all 3 of them, contemptor, deredeo and leviathan had like 2 with a option and 2 with b option. Again the specter of a house rule that would see units have to be armed the same just to cut down a bit on rolling. I also get that as a battle report and introduction to the game gw wants to show off as many options as possible.

I very much hope the game functions well enough even at bare minimum unit sizes. It'd be nice to think that like 1500pts could work on a 2x3 or 4x4. Dare to dream.

My understanding from that batrep is this is going to be more like a GW game and less like a wargame, for better or worse. So less manoeuvre, more special stuff, shorter time to target, more damage effect, etc. Prob best for their market, if their market is playing games because of their 'style'. My experience of GW customers is that they are never that enamoured of the games themselves and normally like the models and backstory. (Compared to wargamers who pick on rules first then match model ranges to it.)

It's funny isn't it, we're potentially going from Armageddon, which is quite possibly the most tactical game GW has ever produced, Sun Tzu's Art of War, to the equivalent of two Chelsea supporters stood face-to-face and head-butting each other (but having to read 85 pages-worth of rules in order to do so)

The_Real_Chris wrote:
My understanding from that batrep is this is going to be more like a GW game and less like a wargame, for better or worse. So less manoeuvre, more special stuff, shorter time to target, more damage effect, etc. Prob best for their market, if their market is playing games because of their 'style'. My experience of GW customers is that they are never that enamoured of the games themselves and normally like the models and backstory. (Compared to wargamers who pick on rules first then match model ranges to it.)

That's a pretty fair assessment ya.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
It's funny isn't it, we're potentially going from Armageddon, which is quite possibly the most tactical game GW has ever produced, Sun Tzu's Art of War, to the equivalent of two Chelsea supporters stood face-to-face and head-butting each other (but having to read 85 pages-worth of rules in order to do so)

I hope that perhaps with a bit of love it could still be pretty fun. A positive thing it seemingly lacks unless I missed it is unlike most current games, it doesn't appear to have stratagems. Benefits seem to be more in the formations. If that is indeed the case, one less thing to be concerned with, I found stratagems in AT to sorta be a bridge too far quite often.

If it is indeed igougo for movement then alternating for shooting, that could work okay or be a giant mess, I think a lot will come down to really interesting board that reward/factor in movement and not just shooting. Same time I don't know how many structures I can stomach having to keep track of wounds for ect.

The scenario they played, I did like the objectives and end game scoring, I didn't really like the forced placement or the weird victory points or the method of assigning the units. I feel like its on the right track though, but maybe just 1 unit per side and have it be like an HQ unit or something, I'd still make it more about the end game objectives. Being able to place or have the objective placement sorta baked in by the board setup, good way to introduce a bit of fluff/narrative if only to be able to name/distinguish like 6 specific areas of the board that would make sense as objectives, like "the power plant" "the administratum building" "the star port" ect. If the battle report lacked anything for me was a sense that they took much time setting up the board, some of the buildings don't even fit without overlapping on the street, at least on he right side of the board.

Something worth considering is the following WD article for a cross over campaign with Horus Heresy; GW's intention might not have been to compete with past efforts, but instead deliver a game that honours the spirit of them and complements other 30K era games that are actually being sold and supported today.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
My experience of GW customers is that they are never that enamoured of the games themselves and normally like the models and backstory. (Compared to wargamers who pick on rules first then match model ranges to it.)

Thats certainly true of myself and many I've encountered on dakka, but my experience with the broader community as a whole is that most of GWs customers are total simps for the company and will never touch another ruleset and have no idea how gakky GWs rules are by comparison to other games. Every once in a while I somehow manage to lure one of these folks into playing another game and often they are blown away by the mechanics and gameplay of other games on the market. I take a sick satisfaction of taking their non-GW virginity in that way lol.

 Overread wrote:
I still feel like if this is 3K points then the number of models feels really small. Imagine putting a Warlord and a few other titans on the table and then an army along with that.

I do agree though that GW is currently on a big "use our tiny boards" spree and its making their games feel very movement limited in terms of actually having space to move stuff around and not just having two gunlines face off.

I think the insistence on showcasing that industrial scatter terrain in every spare inch of board certainly isn't helping the crowding issue. Compare it to any Space Marine-era battle report and even accounting for the wider board, a typical game has a ton more open space in between more compact terrain features like buildings or woods. Now there's barely enough room to get a titan base through gaps in premium plastic terrain kits.



The change in number of models is a fairly inevitable result of how Epic infantry are produced & sold now compared to 30 years ago. Gone are the days where we get a box of a dozen identical sprues that made 100+ Epic bases & tanks from 3 unique sculpts, and company cards that added ~30 of those models to your list in one big chunk.

Now we get a dozen different sprues & several units covered by one infantry sprue, at the expense of multiple full infantry companies filling out the deployment zone. Personally I dislike space marines outnumbering opponents like a horde army, so believe this approach will work better for them. It helps to cover all the new unit types developed since 1988, will give more variety in lists and generally makes marines feel more 'elite'.

However the sales model is gonna be frustrating for anyone wanting to assemble a classic Guard Solar infantry horde, or any possible future incarnation of Epic Orks & Tyranids.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Thats certainly true of myself and many I've encountered on dakka, but my experience with the broader community as a whole is that most of GWs customers are total simps for the company and will never touch another ruleset and have no idea how gakky GWs rules are by comparison to other games. Every once in a while I somehow manage to lure one of these folks into playing another game and often they are blown away by the mechanics and gameplay of other games on the market. I take a sick satisfaction of taking their non-GW virginity in that way lol.

Well this certainly deserves some recognition because it's by far the most I've cringed at a post in recent memory. "sick satisfaction of taking their non-GW virginity" ... just wow

I think if Tyranids come its going to be possibly 3 or 4 editions into this game - so perhaps 10 years away

 xttz wrote:


Well this certainly deserves some recognition because it's by far the most I've cringed at a post in recent memory. "sick satisfaction of taking their non-GW virginity" ... just wow

Haha that really made me laugh.. you dirty, dirty man chaos0xomega !

I think TBH if you want to play an alien faction, do it now with classic/proxy/3d print minis and download NetEpic or NetArmageddon. Those guys who wanted Gargants in AT are still there sat waiting, there is no guarantee whatsoever that GW will ever turn their hand to it officially again. Especially as they already seem overwhelmed with releases, even with what they are doing so far. And even if it did arrive, can you imagine it being as fun to play as 2nd edition Orks? Not a chance, looking at Legions there would be a double page listing of weapon loadouts for just a battlewagon...

PS - xttz, completely agree on your point on terrain density. I guess it's an attempt to sell terrain to everyone alongside a starter set and to pack that in as closely as possible. Although I did laugh that even the building designs have separate stat-lines, even that part has got an OTT level of granularity..

 Pacific wrote:


PS - xttz, completely agree on your point on terrain density. I guess it's an attempt to sell terrain to everyone alongside a starter set and to pack that in as closely as possible. Although I did laugh that even the building designs have separate stat-lines, even that part has got an OTT level of granularity..

I'm envisioning like 5-6 little hamlets of structures separated by open terrain with some light forest, but perhaps water features that still make choke points like bridges possible. Gonna look to arma 3 for a lot of inspiration. A concern from seeing the batrep is big units of tanks or super heavies just sorta plowing through all else, hopefully this way they can bring their guns to bear on targets but won't be guaranteed striaght lines to navigate.

Re: Drop Pods, i want them in plastic for the movable doors, but since I will need so many, I might have go print.

Re: Terrain density, I think a problem there is they're pushing Urban boards which are always densest. Go rural or semi-rural with concentrations of structures , some more open areas and some natural terrain e.g. rock formations, forests etc.

Re: the confusing mix of igougo and alternating activations , the jury is out. This and playing time are my main worries but we wont know until the rules are out and we can try.

Re: Faction/Legion abilities. Its a balancing act. I want them to be thematic. I don't want them to be OP and break core game mechanics, e.g Eldar fate dice in 40k 10th.
-Oh, are we playing a dice game? I just choose my key dice roll results.
Those previewed so far seem to be very different in power level. That EC ability of manipulating combat activation order to go first seems like it might be way too powerful and break core mechanics, but again its hard to grasp yet without playing a few games.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


PS - xttz, completely agree on your point on terrain density. I guess it's an attempt to sell terrain to everyone alongside a starter set and to pack that in as closely as possible. Although I did laugh that even the building designs have separate stat-lines, even that part has got an OTT level of granularity..

I'm envisioning like 5-6 little hamlets of structures separated by open terrain with some light forest, but perhaps water features that still make choke points like bridges possible. Gonna look to arma 3 for a lot of inspiration. A concern from seeing the batrep is big units of tanks or super heavies just sorta plowing through all else, hopefully this way they can bring their guns to bear on targets but won't be guaranteed striaght lines to navigate.

Spoiler:

Yup this is what I am doing too. Mixed industrial/building areas, some forests, a river and areas of grassland in between. I think the visual appeal of this is subjective, but it then opens up tactical opportunities with players. Personally I think it's one of the benefits of the scale, you can have a mix of terrain types that you can't get away with really at 28mm.

What I suspect has happened with this game is that they wanted to sell a bunch of tiles and buildings so the rules have been adapted to make these very effective in game. The rules are tied to the building design as well, stopping those of us with classic buildings or self built from using them in 'RAW'. I suspect we will just use one profile for all buildings to make things easier, as TBH I find the prospect of buildings all having different stats absolutely insane!

The rules are not tied to specific building designs, are they now? The previewed bit at least is basically just "this is a generic building, this is a big building and this is a military fortification" which are trivially applicable to all of our various existing terrain collections?

 Sherrypie wrote:
The rules are not tied to specific building designs, are they now? The previewed bit at least is basically just "this is a generic building, this is a big building and this is a military fortification" which are trivially applicable to all of our various existing terrain collections?

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they have specific "Militas Imperialis" or "Imperialis Grandus" terrain kits in the pipeline for later release. The latter might actually be intended for the buildings with the existing spire add-ons.

However in practice it's going to work like any other GW where you have a list of available terrain types in the rules, and just agree before the game starts what is appropriate for each of your terrain features.

 Sherrypie wrote:
The rules are not tied to specific building designs, are they now? The previewed bit at least is basically just "this is a generic building, this is a big building and this is a military fortification" which are trivially applicable to all of our various existing terrain collections?

I am pretty sure there was a community post (or possibly a leak?) where those specific designs of the GW buildings had their own stats - and it wasn't anything as generic as 'standard building', 'fortified building' etc (I would have no problem at all with that, as it's pretty standard for most wargames). Possible my mind may be playing tricks on me!

It was a WarCom article

 Sherrypie wrote:
The rules are not tied to specific building designs, are they now? The previewed bit at least is basically just "this is a generic building, this is a big building and this is a military fortification" which are trivially applicable to all of our various existing terrain collections?

That would be the reasonable implementation, but yes they really are trying to be that greedy, and its too granular even if the stats were not tied to current GW products imo.

Whats the logic behind that a larger civilian building gets a better Armour save? More wounds with building size would have sufficed. Civilian/military building types are enough and then size.

In Dropzone Commander where destroying garrisoned buildings is key, there were just normal and reinforced structures, each in S,M, L for the "wound" count.

I liked the system there that for each structure point you reduced, there was a chance of falling building parts wounding the garrisoned infantry. Ie it wasnt binary that buildings are intact until they become ruins, each hit actually could do damage. It was a straight up 5+ for each point of building damage so didn't slow the game as much as looking up different building stats will.

Also the order in that table is illogical.
Civilian and civilian large should have been grouped, then military and fortification. For ease of lookup & verifying what values are the same.

 westiebestie wrote:
That EC ability of manipulating combat activation order to go first seems like it might be way too powerful and break core mechanics, but again its hard to grasp yet without playing a few games.

They get the initiative automatically once per battle: they get to activate ONE formation first. No game breaking.

I am pretty much just a ghost on Dakka these days, but hopefully no-one will mind me posting my review of the WD battle report here.

https://youtu.be/PdQENtNnjCM