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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I can’t see them not having some kind of plan to do Mechanicum.

I do hope so. If we are not getting orks, at least we could get some plastic Martians.

(Not that I need them, vanguard already spoiled us with excellent Ad Mech miniatures. Of which I own far too many)

 Tyranid Horde wrote:


I may have to house rule the titans though, taking all the fire at once instead of weapon by weapon like in AT is silly imo.

Thats just going to nerf titans and make them more fragile.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:


I may have to house rule the titans though, taking all the fire at once instead of weapon by weapon like in AT is silly imo.

Thats just going to nerf titans and make them more fragile.

I mean, my change by taking them back to how they function by going weapon by weapon in AT would see a marked increase in power. In LI, it is the opposing player's choice how they take saves on titan weapons. So they could take a Volcano or Plasma to shields before taking a gatling or mega-bolter which would strip shields. So not sure if you misunderstood me, but this would not be a nerf.

That means titans go down faster though. So they are suddenly less durable. How is that not a nerf?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One irritation is legion bonuses are wildly uneven. Unfortunately that happens with gw when subfactions gets involved :/

Wolves got particularly short stick.

Ec is powerful but once per game. Rest playing without turn. Maybe enough.

World eaters hard counter blood angels. When your bonus depends on winning combat and other flat out wins most combats...and big part of bonus if you do win is...get to other combat you are unlikely to win!

Imperial fist feels powerful. Soh maybe. Ultramarines also depending partially on how the rerolls work. Aka within detachment scoring hit with gun a gives rerolls for rest of weapons? But rerolls generally good.

Iron warriors. Bonuses for objective control always good.

Yeah, what tneva said (wow, cant believe I said that).

Currently I, as the controlling player of a titan being targeted, can decide the order in which my damage is taken in such a manner as to enable me to minimize and negate the harm being inflicted on me. Firing at me with light weapons like bolters? I'm going to assign them to my void shields first to completely negate them and prevent you from doing chip damage to my titan as a result.

If you shift it to weapon by weapon, I can no longer do that - instead you're going to hit me with weapons optimized for dropping void shields first, and then lay into me with everything else to strip damage off without recourse.

Thats a big difference to survivability, and only really nerfs titans. The damage system exists in the format it does basically because of titans and to ensure their survivability is mTaximized Your concern seems to be that titans are not powerful enough when fighting other titans, but the real concern is that titans are not survivable against a table full of smaller guys that can concentrate firepower to overwhelm it and remove it from th e board without recourse.

I agree. Letting me choose the order to absorb your shots in gives me some agency in the fate of my Titan, and forces my opponent to make decisions of their own, including in army design.

Consider the humble Leman Russ. You have 5 Vanquisher Cannon, and 4 Battle Cannon in a squadron of 9. I have a Titan with 4 void shield.

You give me some Dakka. I of course take the Vanquisher rounds first, as they’re better off knocking down my shields than my Nads. Then any Battle Cannon hits I’ll risk against my armour save.

However. If you have the same 9 Leman Russ, with the same load out, but split across two units? Well now that option is gone for me. Fire away with your Battle Cannon first to collapse my shields, and then let the Vanquisher rounds do what they’re meant for.

And keep in mind from what we’ve seen, large squadrons benefit from a Points Discount. The above example is quite possibly why!

Generally speaking, I dont think maximizing your units in terms of size is a good idea to begin with. If we can learn aything from KT21, it is that you'll want to be maximizing the amount of activations per turn, ie many smaller units is better than a few big ones. Now obviously you dont want to take this too far and reduce unit survivability too much but yeh

From what little battle reports are out there currently, it does seem like bigger units are probably the way to go (thanks to the survivability and point discount). Stuff dies relatively easy in small units, and because you have to decide on the orders at the start of the turn for all units, IMO it slightly negates the usefulness of having more activations than enemy. One example above with stripping void shields with two units instead of one sounds reasonable, but then again titans consist only a small portion of the overall force (at least in official rules), and one bigger unit will be just cheaper, allowing to field more firepower overall. Of course this all might change once more battle reports are out, but that`s the feeling I got so far.

Edit: another problem with running multiple small units - you have to adhere to formations, so it might not even be possible to run too many units without paying hefty tax on mandatory units, unless of course those mandatory units are what the player wants. Also, isn`t there a rule for formation breaking and running away if too many of it units get destroyed? Possibly futher making it difficult to run many small units in weak formations.

Yes, which is why you dont want to go with too small units either. There's some goldielocks zone for every unit which is probably somewhere between the minimum and maximum amount of models per detachment

 tauist wrote:
Mechanicum appearing in LI would bode well for plastic Mechanicum also in 28mil. As I want those Thallax for my Angels, preferably in both scales, I would like this very much!

Same here, yearning for Thallax and especially in poseable material. The resin Thallax are fragile and easily fall apart due to their leg design, with no possibility to pin either.

Rules exist already for Mechanicum in EpicAU 30k and many models are available to print. But plastic would be a blessing (in both scales)!

Off topic but really hoping Mech is the Mystery Army release scheduled for big 30k this winter, although logically it's much more likely that it's SA given they obviously just did new CAD models of them. And although you can't just scale them up 4x I assume they use some kind of parametrized models and/or could re-use a lot with modifications. The reverse would be true if it indeed was Mech, I assume they could simplify, scale down and modify.

Okay, so I see your points tneva and chaos0xomega about them being more survivable against the smaller dudes running around but as it stands it sort of makes the range of weapons titans come with a bit pointless as in AT you need a mix of shield stripping weapons and anti-armour to be successful while in LI as it stands it feels like you could just Lanchester Square Law it and ping a titan down that way.

My idea is that while it would make things more vulnerable, it makes it actually worthwhile taking a volcano or plasma over a gatling or mega-bolter if you know the hit isn't just gonna be straight into voids. Far better to take a one dice, high AP volcano weapon that immediately gets nullified on voids first then chipping voids from a mega-bolter so you only have lower AP attacks to take (you need to hit voids with AP-1 or greater to have an effect so no normal bolters unless they have Shieldbane). A lot of "Light AT" weapons on vehicles mean that they can't hit shields due to being counted as AP0.

It also makes movement and buildings more important, but maybe I am just clinging to AT rules a bit too much.

warhounds, working in pairs, one configured to strip shields and splat infantry, the other able to put on some hurt once shields are down?

wondering also if when/if Titans do get the ability to be a core force if the formations they have in AT come over, the one where a warhound can drop shields then immediately a Reaver can open fire on the same target for example?

I'm wondering though at the actual utility of Titans, remains to be seen just how tough they are but on first glance the same points in battle tanks across a couple of units seems far more dangerous

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
Okay, so I see your points tneva and chaos0xomega about them being more survivable against the smaller dudes running around but as it stands it sort of makes the range of weapons titans come with a bit pointless as in AT you need a mix of shield stripping weapons and anti-armour to be successful while in LI as it stands it feels like you could just Lanchester Square Law it and ping a titan down that way.

My idea is that while it would make things more vulnerable, it makes it actually worthwhile taking a volcano or plasma over a gatling or mega-bolter if you know the hit isn't just gonna be straight into voids. Far better to take a one dice, high AP volcano weapon that immediately gets nullified on voids first then chipping voids from a mega-bolter so you only have lower AP attacks to take (you need to hit voids with AP-1 or greater to have an effect so no normal bolters unless they have Shieldbane). A lot of "Light AT" weapons on vehicles mean that they can't hit shields due to being counted as AP0.

It also makes movement and buildings more important, but maybe I am just clinging to AT rules a bit too much.

Or maybe it's not good that titan can just point and automatically delete titan? He who shoots first wins?

Maybe use support. Multiple units.

It literally isn't "he who shoots first wins" when the smallest titan is walking around on 2 voids and 4 wounds but okay, nice discussion. GW literally say in their articles "this is great against shields!" or "this is great against unshielded titans!" only for you to be forced to fire everything at once and have your opponent pick what he's nullifying with voids due to the fact you're gimped by the number of titans you can bring.

The Arming Of A Titan, By Necessity, Must Always Be A Compromise.

If you’ve armed your Titan solely for big game? What’s it gonna do if I’ve not fielded big game?

Short answer? Not an awful lot.

Now, arm it with some flexibility (Mega Bolters mash infantry, and strip shields equally well, and something for blatting enemy armour) and not that Titan starts to become your Flexible Threat, as its choice of “properly worth it” targets widens.

Well I've already got my eyes on my first house rule, which is to just use the hit location charts from 2nd/Titan Legions.

I can't understand why they would remove what was one of the most fun elements of the previous game. I know people said it slowed down the game too much (although this was not my experience), but I don't think that area mattered to the design team looking at the granular detail that has been added in other areas.

So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?

At this moment, I'll play if offered, but I'm not interested in what's being released... the rules are basically a 180 of what I look for in a game of this scale, and the minis are... either undercut hell for the infantry or entirely too involved to assemble.

And then there's the DLC approach to lists.

I like to read games and pick on interesting design ideas, so yeah I'll get it and a new guard-adjacent army while at it. There are interested people at our club, with whom to try it out on its own merits and if it falters, who can then be persuaded to try E:A or E40k with their new toys.

 Pacific wrote:
Well I've already got my eyes on my first house rule, which is to just use the hit location charts from 2nd/Titan Legions.

I can't understand why they would remove what was one of the most fun elements of the previous game. I know people said it slowed down the game too much (although this was not my experience), but I don't think that area mattered to the design team looking at the granular detail that has been added in other areas.

do have to say given the idea is you do not have too many titans adding a bit more flavour for them works, in some ways its a pity they couldn't have found a way to integrate the actual Adeptus Titanicus stuff in with the command terminals, but at the very least some damage charts so the things "wounds" represent the generic structure but you can also disable individual weapons etc.

meaning lighter guns maybe cannot bring a titan down, but can "mission kill" it.

easily done with a few tokens really and an A5 card for each titan class

mind you I still think both carapace mounts on a warlord should be individual and you should be able to strip weapons to enhance speed or shield power etc

I'll be jumping in, and playing the new rules. Partly because it's a retread of 2nd edition and partly because for any new players, this is the rules. But hey, if a fellow grognard wants to dust off 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th edition I'm up for a spin. There's a few other locals who are picking up the set so we should see some play of the new LI/5th edition.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?

I have played 3rd ed, and I play 4th ed extensively. And I am getting into LI, mainly to check if it is some fun (the rules are at very best mediocre), and I could use the minis for Epic Armageddon too (the infantry at least, others would be too big).

There is some local interest so why not (I'll build a new guard/solar aux army).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Well I've already got my eyes on my first house rule, which is to just use the hit location charts from 2nd/Titan Legions.

I can't understand why they would remove what was one of the most fun elements of the previous game. I know people said it slowed down the game too much (although this was not my experience), but I don't think that area mattered to the design team looking at the granular detail that has been added in other areas.

do have to say given the idea is you do not have too many titans adding a bit more flavour for them works, in some ways its a pity they couldn't have found a way to integrate the actual Adeptus Titanicus stuff in with the command terminals, but at the very least some damage charts so the things "wounds" represent the generic structure but you can also disable individual weapons etc.

meaning lighter guns maybe cannot bring a titan down, but can "mission kill" it.

easily done with a few tokens really and an A5 card for each titan class

mind you I still think both carapace mounts on a warlord should be individual and you should be able to strip weapons to enhance speed or shield power etc

Leave that to AT please. This is another kind of game, no room for those over complications.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?

Minis- yes. I'll be using a huge amount of new stuff to complement my already huge Vanguard and original Epic collection.

Rules- nope. I'll not touch the new rules, only reason I'll even have the rulebooks is from picking up multiple starter sets. I really don't see the point in adopting a new ruleset that is piecemealed out and offers less content than previous iterations of the game.

3rd Ed does exactly what I need it to and I've yet to see a single good reason to switch rule sets.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?

Yes. Wil give it a spin. I suspect with my original models as no time to paint though.

2nd ed was ok 30 years ago, I prefer 4th Ed, so as club people will slavishly play new GW only, maybe a few will be tempted over to 4th ed once the interest drops off (through a combination of rules and release schedule).

so sorted my pre order, got 1 box that I will swap the marines for more solar aux for, 1 set of marauder bombers, 1 set of lightnings, 1 set of baneblades and I can add my warhounds as allies.

just waiting for the Dracosians.

Gluing tiny dreadnoughts together right now. They're nice little models, even if the power claw is in two pieces!

Oh the orders are already going out?

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Oh the orders are already going out?

Opps. I'm a retailer - putting together one of my delivered copies.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So of the people who were still playing Epic in spite of GW not supporting it, are you buying into Legions Imperialis? And if so, are you doing it for the minis or planning on adopting the rules also?

At the very least I'm getting some of the new Solar Aux and will probably split the main boxset. I love 2nd edition so am fine there, and looking forward to having some more Epic players at the club that this new release will bring.

I think community wise it is pretty split from what I have seen as I asked this very question in the groups. Many are going to give the new game a try I think and at very least get the new minis. Some that are really into Armageddon are really not into this release as they think GW has dropped the ball by basing the new game on an 'inferior' system. I agree in some respects, but you can't blame GW for basing the new game on the system that was by far the most successful commercially and that most customers from that era will be familiar with.

Epic: Armageddon was a great system, and I was there (when 'there' means online) in those heady days of playtesting and discussion, as it developed.

But I played huge games of 2nd ed (and 3rd too) where large numbers of infantry gave their lives in a futile cause and a lot of god-engines crashed to the earth. E;A didn't really scratch that itch.