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.

Just had a look at the tokens that come with the game.

I know it’s a relatively minor thing, but I’m sorely disappointed. Very, very thin cardstock.

Guess I’ll be in the market for third party ones. Or other than March, just use my old 2nd Ed ones.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just had a look at the tokens that come with the game.

I know it’s a relatively minor thing, but I’m sorely disappointed. Very, very thin cardstock.

Guess I’ll be in the market for third party ones. Or other than March, just use my old 2nd Ed ones.

thinking short term here, getting some MDF discs, spray them silver, stick a coloured sticker on one side, then spray varnish

classic colours

Red: first fire
Green: Advance
Blue: Charge
Yellow: Fall Back

and maybe add Black for "March"

How many of each token? This may be a decent photoshop project while I wait.

Agreed on colors. That’s a sea of gray blahness.

Mind you, a super quick one?

Get some 20mm round bases. Paint the undersides.

Red for First Fire

Blue for Advancd

Green for Charge

Yellow for Fall Back

And maybe….Purple for March?

leopard wrote:
have now stuck the plastic Sicaran together, while the number of parts is a tad excessive the resulting models are excellent, my 3d print ones are fractionally larger, the GW ones are a lot more detailed without "silly" details if that makes sense. stuff drybrush & washes will pick out without needing many extra colours.

What sort of extra details do the GW ones have over 3D prints? It seem just to be rivet details from the pictures I've seen?

I started putting the rivet detail on my 3D prints a while back because I noticed they printed fine at 6-8mm and were picked up nicely by a drybrush.

Really easy to do, load up the model in blender, create a quad sphere, then drag it around copy/pasting them as you go. If the two sides of the tank are symmetrical, just do one side, then copy/paste several at once and either mirror or just manually drag the group over to the other side.

Rivets are not too bad, but some 3D print designs have texturing or super fine work that won't print cleanly. Don't forget a good many won't have parted the 3D print models like GW parted theirs for assembly. So some of the details on a 3D print might be muted by facing the build plate and/or support scarring.

Different resolution printers and resins will also come into play. Some of the new 8 and 12k printers are starting to render some of the insane fine texturing that some models have (esp when they are made for 75mm and then downscaled to 32mm).



Part of this is likely that GW are much more mature in their approach to market and under much less time pressure (potentially) compared to many 3D print groups who operate month to month on volume and quality control is a tricky thing (made harder by the fact many sculptors don't always have their own 3D printer so the sculpt "blind" to the end product - which means feedback takes that big longer to process through the system).


GW has the bonus of everything under one roof

Slowly digesting the rules.

And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Slowly digesting the rules.

And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.

Man whoever wrote this rulebook would somehow take 3 sentences to communicate to someone they're going to take a pee, like for some reason telling the other person a list of things they'll see on their walk to the washroom. It feels like stream of conciousness writing at times, it seems like every time I look up a special rule expecting something straight forward it's like half a page of paragraphs with nothing breaking them up. I'm happy with the thunderhawk, excited to get into the ruins box, but man, the rulebook so far feels like ben stein's voice

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Slowly digesting the rules.

And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.

Man whoever wrote this rulebook would somehow take 3 sentences to communicate to someone they're going to take a pee, like for some reason telling the other person a list of things they'll see on their walk to the washroom. It feels like stream of conciousness writing at times, it seems like every time I look up a special rule expecting something straight forward it's like half a page of paragraphs with nothing breaking them up. I'm happy with the thunderhawk, excited to get into the ruins box, but man, the rulebook so far feels like ben stein's voice

Spoiler:

So basically, typical GW writing style.

I really wish they'd learn to write more concisely, it seems to be an established style for them now so maybe they think people enjoy it? Or maybe people do enjoy it and we're the weirdos for not wanting a rulebook that takes days to read

If I wrote something that bad for something I planned to publish, my colleagues would laugh at me.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Slowly digesting the rules.

And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.

Man whoever wrote this rulebook would somehow take 3 sentences to communicate to someone they're going to take a pee, like for some reason telling the other person a list of things they'll see on their walk to the washroom. It feels like stream of conciousness writing at times, it seems like every time I look up a special rule expecting something straight forward it's like half a page of paragraphs with nothing breaking them up. I'm happy with the thunderhawk, excited to get into the ruins box, but man, the rulebook so far feels like ben stein's voice

Spoiler:

So basically, typical GW writing style.

I really wish they'd learn to write more concisely, it seems to be an established style for them now so maybe they think people enjoy it? Or maybe people do enjoy it and we're the weirdos for not wanting a rulebook that takes days to read

If I wrote something that bad for something I planned to publish, my colleagues would laugh at me.

People used to complain at GW for being fuzzy and nonspecific, so in classic GW fashion they decided they needed to explain everything in three times more sentences than they need because obviously the readers are morons.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Slowly digesting the rules.

And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.

Man whoever wrote this rulebook would somehow take 3 sentences to communicate to someone they're going to take a pee, like for some reason telling the other person a list of things they'll see on their walk to the washroom. It feels like stream of conciousness writing at times, it seems like every time I look up a special rule expecting something straight forward it's like half a page of paragraphs with nothing breaking them up. I'm happy with the thunderhawk, excited to get into the ruins box, but man, the rulebook so far feels like ben stein's voice

Spoiler:

So basically, typical GW writing style.

I really wish they'd learn to write more concisely, it seems to be an established style for them now so maybe they think people enjoy it? Or maybe people do enjoy it and we're the weirdos for not wanting a rulebook that takes days to read

If I wrote something that bad for something I planned to publish, my colleagues would laugh at me.

People used to complain at GW for being fuzzy and nonspecific, so in classic GW fashion they decided they needed to explain everything in three times more sentences than they need because obviously the readers are morons.

Nah it's not that. They aren't repeating or engraining or expanding, they're simply taking a lot of words to say something.

I don't have my hands on the LI book yet, but I gave an example on the previous page from Aeronautica Imperialis.

Directly Overhead
It is important to note, whilst discussing Fire Arcs, that
it may sometimes happen that an aircraft occupies
the same hex as a Ground Defence or a ground
target. When this occurs, the aircraft is said to be
Directly Overhead.

When an aircraft is Directly Overhead a ground target,
it is still considered to be within the Ground Defence’s
All Round Fire Arc. Similarly, when an aircraft is
Directly Overhead a Ground Defence or ground target,
these are considered to be within the aircraft’s Rear
Fire Arc.

There are 3 points they're trying to make...
- An aircraft is "Directly Overhead" when they occupy the same hex as a ground target.
- When directly overhead, the ground target is in the rear fire arc of the aircraft.
- When directly overhead, the aircraft is in the ground target's all around fire arc.

The points are only made once, they aren't expanded on, they aren't reinforced, they just use excessively long language to state those 3 points.

I used that example because it was literally a rule I was just reading, but GW books are littered with similar stuff.

Thanks for the comparison shots RexHavoc, those are really useful. It looks like I won't be basing the new Legions marines with my Vanguard, but they are close enough to occupy a tabletop together.

I got a boxset of the Auxiliary infantry for starters, very nice single piece guardsmen, got hand cramp trying to assemble the Sentinels the Ogryns are very cool too, I thought they looked a bit too busy for two on a base so have gone economy-mode and have single-based them.

For anyone trying to get a rulebook I see some have appeared on the auctioneering site already, but they look like those from people splitting sets so are still a little expensive (£25-30 mark) so will hold fire for the time being.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Slowly digesting the rules.

And I notice that the Warmaster Titan has some hidden flexibility. Because its arm pit Dakka is no longer set as a pair.

Man whoever wrote this rulebook would somehow take 3 sentences to communicate to someone they're going to take a pee, like for some reason telling the other person a list of things they'll see on their walk to the washroom. It feels like stream of conciousness writing at times, it seems like every time I look up a special rule expecting something straight forward it's like half a page of paragraphs with nothing breaking them up. I'm happy with the thunderhawk, excited to get into the ruins box, but man, the rulebook so far feels like ben stein's voice

Spoiler:

So basically, typical GW writing style.

I really wish they'd learn to write more concisely, it seems to be an established style for them now so maybe they think people enjoy it? Or maybe people do enjoy it and we're the weirdos for not wanting a rulebook that takes days to read

If I wrote something that bad for something I planned to publish, my colleagues would laugh at me.

People used to complain at GW for being fuzzy and nonspecific, so in classic GW fashion they decided they needed to explain everything in three times more sentences than they need because obviously the readers are morons.

Seeing readers don't even read abilities(or how hard can "start of battleround" be to understand?) And just flat out willingly bend rules(infinite time shooting in 40k)...

Yeah readers are generally morons.

I’d rather the Rulebook was like LI (and I don’t really mind it) rather than Kill Team where they make up new terms like “Turning Point.”


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile I’m enjoying assembling and painting these figures. Loads of detail on the tanks, but I don’t think my fingers used to be this fat!

Gonna get my little tanks built today I think.

Sadly, it’s much too cold to be spraying anything here. Will get the heating on and see how it feels in an hour or two, then get the booth out.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

leopard wrote:
have now stuck the plastic Sicaran together, while the number of parts is a tad excessive the resulting models are excellent, my 3d print ones are fractionally larger, the GW ones are a lot more detailed without "silly" details if that makes sense. stuff drybrush & washes will pick out without needing many extra colours.

What sort of extra details do the GW ones have over 3D prints? It seem just to be rivet details from the pictures I've seen?

I started putting the rivet detail on my 3D prints a while back because I noticed they printed fine at 6-8mm and were picked up nicely by a drybrush.

Really easy to do, load up the model in blender, create a quad sphere, then drag it around copy/pasting them as you go. If the two sides of the tank are symmetrical, just do one side, then copy/paste several at once and either mirror or just manually drag the group over to the other side.

its a fair bit more detail actually, nothing huge, and nothing you won't notice unless you look closely, weapon power cables, greebling on the sides of the sponson las-cannons, more detailed exhaust bits

basically drybrushing fodder, when I've got a couple of each painted will stick up some pictures

and its nothing a 3d version couldn't do, just the Sicaran STL I have lacks, while being plenty detailed enough

totally agree on rivets though, never even occured to me they would work until I tried it

So, about those tokens. Since I didnt buy the starter and only got the epub, has anyone seen awesome looking order tokens on sale at some third party vendor?

Dont mind paying a premium if they look great, I'm someone who blew 100€ on a second steel gauge for my KT21 games when Octarius launched

 tauist wrote:
So, about those tokens. Since I didnt buy the starter and only got the epub, has anyone seen awesome looking order tokens on sale at some third party vendor?

Dont mind paying a premium if they look great, I'm someone who blew 100€ on a second steel gauge for my KT21 games when Octarius launched

I think they're the same as previous Epic editions and Adeptus Titanicus (some versions have 6 instead of 5 counters, but I think the 5 that LI has existed in the previous versions).

So maybe search for AT tokens or Epic <insert version here> tokens and see what comes up on 3rd party sites or 2nd hand sites.

If you have a friend with a 3D printer, there's lots of STLs around (including some fancy dial type ones).

If I enjoy the game I'll be looking to 3D print some myself, as the "card" ones that come in the box are terrible.

Super Basic Tokens.

Get some 20mm round bases.

Paint the undersides.

Red for First Fire

Blue for Advance

Green for Charge

Yellow for Fall Back

And, I dunno, purple for March?

So i have a question if I understood the withdrawing rules correctly:

When a detachment loses a combat and fails the save role it has to withdraw D6 plus movement value on the shortest possible route to the controlling players board edge. You can move through enemy units during that move and you have to roll saves if you do unless you are 3 sizes larger than them (Knights vs infantry for example). But that is only if you move through them, if you end your move overlapping an enemy model your model is just destroyed.

So lets say you have an Acastus Knight that has to withdraw. You can't control the move as you have to go the whole distance on the shortest path to the board edge so a straight line unless terrain is in the way. So if there is a single infantry base where you would end up you are just unlucky and your Knight is instantly killed?

 tauist wrote:
So, about those tokens. Since I didnt buy the starter and only got the epub, has anyone seen awesome looking order tokens on sale at some third party vendor?

Dont mind paying a premium if they look great, I'm someone who blew 100€ on a second steel gauge for my KT21 games when Octarius launched

I would say there is a very high likelihood that there will be some 3rd party tokens available very shortly, as this seems to be the main complaint with the boxed games (over both lack of colour and card quality). There are already some home-made versions appearing in the FB groups, and they game has hardly been out 24 hours so would be very surprised if the usual 3rd party producers are not already at work on them.

I did have a search for the old Epic counters and surprisingly (considering how many of those games sold) there is almost nothing about - I am just intending to use those.

 Fugazi wrote:
How many of each token? This may be a decent photoshop project while I wait.

Agreed on colors. That’s a sea of gray blahness.

How many tokens of each?

What I’d like to do is prepare a sheet, print, then stick on domed epoxy stickers. I’ve done it for LOTR card game, and it’s great. Because they’re domed, they’re super each to pick up or flip.

I’m fine sharing the sheet, but I need to know how many tokens of each (or how many would be ideal to a couple of players)

 Matrindur wrote:
So i have a question if I understood the withdrawing rules correctly:

When a detachment loses a combat and fails the save role it has to withdraw D6 plus movement value on the shortest possible route to the controlling players board edge. You can move through enemy units during that move and you have to roll saves if you do unless you are 3 sizes larger than them (Knights vs infantry for example). But that is only if you move through them, if you end your move overlapping an enemy model your model is just destroyed.

So lets say you have an Acastus Knight that has to withdraw. You can't control the move as you have to go the whole distance on the shortest path to the board edge so a straight line unless terrain is in the way. So if there is a single infantry base where you would end up you are just unlucky and your Knight is instantly killed?

So, loser fails a morale check: withdraws 1d6+M.

- Directly to own edge.
- Ignoring basically any model and engagement zone.
- But moving though any other Det. forces a save (unless scale 3 larger).
- Ending on top of friend: no problem, just move aside. Moving on top of ANY enemy: destroyed, so yes, an big knight can be destroyed by infantry.

 Matrindur wrote:
So i have a question if I understood the withdrawing rules correctly:

When a detachment loses a combat and fails the save role it has to withdraw D6 plus movement value on the shortest possible route to the controlling players board edge. You can move through enemy units during that move and you have to roll saves if you do unless you are 3 sizes larger than them (Knights vs infantry for example). But that is only if you move through them, if you end your move overlapping an enemy model your model is just destroyed.

So lets say you have an Acastus Knight that has to withdraw. You can't control the move as you have to go the whole distance on the shortest path to the board edge so a straight line unless terrain is in the way. So if there is a single infantry base where you would end up you are just unlucky and your Knight is instantly killed?

Yeah it's pretty terrible, it's also another thing to show people obsessed with trying to play on old/weird bases because it will definitely afffect that rule in specific whether fleeing or being the unit destroying said feeling unit. Real friend winner

The game needs work is all I'll say, the models are amazing, but the rulebook has been a real mixed bag so far. The highlight has been that unlike the AT book there's a lot of more photography and it was nice to see staff armies with credit, they all look quite good. One big thing I've noticed is, there's new art and some of it is very very nice, but there's almost no art actually depicting marine vs solar aux fighting. The sample boards are also funny, they show a whole two of them and it's basically "unbroken urban landscape" or "ruined unbroken urban landscape" which is a shame because one of the nice surprises is the there are fairly detailed rules for rivers/bridges and cliffs.

Also, points seem broken all over the place:

Kratos are better than Malcadors, for the same points.

Fighters costing the same points as bombers.

...

its nice how you pay upgrades for weapons on a Rhino, but can take %WHATEVER% on tanks and titans at not cost difference.

A GW game with broken points...

SU-152 wrote:
Also, points seem broken all over the place:

Kratos are better than Malcadors, for the same points.

Fighters costing the same points as bombers.

...

Ya its a bit of a mess, then you also have the people that don't want any wysiwyg so objectivity goes out the window with units largely not paying points for their weapons outside of upgrades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
its nice how you pay upgrades for weapons on a Rhino, but can take %WHATEVER% on tanks and titans at not cost difference.

A GW game with broken points...

Yeah I don't understand the upgrade thing. The bombers are a great example, they basically exist as 4 distinct units/models but 3 are just "upgrades" of the standard bomber, and only some cost points. There definitely are units with just a and b options where one is clearly better than the other, dreadnoughts, lascannons are just better than kheres.

leopard wrote:
its nice how you pay upgrades for weapons on a Rhino, but can take %WHATEVER% on tanks and titans at not cost difference.

A GW game with broken points...

The first red flag for me was the Warmaster for only 750 points, when all other Titans are substantially more expensive than they are in Titanicus.

SamusDrake wrote:

leopard wrote:
its nice how you pay upgrades for weapons on a Rhino, but can take %WHATEVER% on tanks and titans at not cost difference.

A GW game with broken points...

The first red flag for me was the Warmaster for only 750 points, when all other Titans are substantially more expensive than they are in Titanicus.

well much more than 750 and you will struggle to field the thing, plus guess they need to shift them somehow

I'm hoping GW have the guts to rework the points after a year or so, I think there will be some stuff thats now way too much or too little but may look a bit better when the rest of the stuff we should have had the rules for now is released

Not like AT points are of relevance. Different rules, different power within game. What is powerful in one game might not be that big in other game.

In AT you field entire squadrons of knights for titan, here couple and you are approaching bigger titans. Warhound is cheaper per marine basic infantry model in LI than in 40k etc etc etc.