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.

Surely Mech has to be coming at some point in the near future just because the Solar Auxilia line is almost complete.

 Arbitrator wrote:
Surely Mech has to be coming at some point in the near future just because the Solar Auxilia line is almost complete.

Still a chunk of missing options for SA:

- Aurox
- Carnodon
- Storm Section + Volkites
- Support Section + Rotor Cannons
- Light Sentinel
- Minotaur
- Bombard
- Destroyer Tank Hunter
- Thunderer

 zedmeister wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
Surely Mech has to be coming at some point in the near future just because the Solar Auxilia line is almost complete.

Still a chunk of missing options for SA:

- Aurox
- Carnodon
- Storm Section + Volkites
- Support Section + Rotor Cannons
- Light Sentinel
- Minotaur
- Bombard
- Destroyer Tank Hunter
- Thunderer

The infantry can probably be one box that would include the Light Sentinels as well. Everything else except the Aurox and Carnodon I'm sceptical about seeing a release, mainly because they've been shunted to Legends in 30k (so was the Carnodon but that seems like a "whoops we forgot to put it in the book"). Then again, so were all the Baneblade variants so what do I know.

All the infantry + sentinels in one box.
Aurox
Carnodon
Stormlord/Doomhammer/Banehammer
Destroyer/Thunderers
Minotaur?

The Bombard used to be an option for the Medusa/Basilisk in first ed Heresy, but with that being snipped I don't think it'll be it's own thing.

If they really want to push it they could get two more books out of it, but we're still quickly running up on the limit before inventing new stuff.

1. Eldar
2. A cheaper/easier way to get different infantry types (especially terminators)
3. A cheaper way of getting drop pods
4. Fellglaives
5. Mastadons
..
..
6. Thanatar-class Siege Automata

Since pretty much any model and terrain type is available via 3rd party modelers to print, I will answer from a rules, universe & gaming perspective:

-FAQ/errata
-points rebalancing Inc Formation point cost (Artillery Formation & Pioneer Comp are example candidates)
-cleaner and more intuitive terrain & structure rules
-official digital army builder
-Isstvan & siege of Terra Campaigns
-Dark/Mechanicum rules
-Formation broken simplification and/or tracking system/sheets
-pinning/blast marker mechanism..
-Subfaction detachment rules(Legions)

I would add that I really want the Legion rules to be bought into line with each other. I play TS and their rules are frankly crap compared to pretty much every other Legion.

 ingtaer wrote:
I would add that I really want the Legion rules to be bought into line with each other. I play TS and their rules are frankly crap compared to pretty much every other Legion.

A review is needed. The Dark Angels 'Ravenwing' rule is pretty much the same as the Legion Sky-Hunter Phalanx rule and so doesn't really give you much (just extending Outflank to the Outrider bikes).

 ingtaer wrote:
I would add that I really want the Legion rules to be bought into line with each other. I play TS and their rules are frankly crap compared to pretty much every other Legion.

Yeah, a rebalance is wanted, they are vastly different in power level, ranging from fluffy but mostly meaningless in game, to powerful (E.g
DG, RW, AL, WE).

Similarly to other GW games with subfactions, I believe they could be point costed to adress balance issues.

I believe they could be point costed to address balance issues.

its true, they6 "could" be, sadly this is GW who have over many years shown zero interest is such when they can just shovel another book out and it will sell

also this is a game where upgrading a Leman Russ to a Vanquisher costs nothing, Titan weapon options are free but screw you Rhino, you will pay for that upgrade

even if they added points to the legion rules the way they do it the Thousand Sons would be paying the most...

Right. Got me Devastation of Tallarn book.

And I’m redoubling my request for a Legion Support Infantry sprue. Because I want to be able to field a Legion Heavy Support Spearhead.

It is akin to the Old First Company Company Card, from Armies of the Imperium, where you had to spend or trade to get enough Terminator stands.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
It is akin to the Old First Company Company Card, from Armies of the Imperium, where you had to spend or trade to get enough Terminator stands.

or know someone able to take a plastic model that size and produce metal replicas

* cough *

though obviously no way they were passing for originals, but you could at least beat "TFG" with them until they were really sorry

 ingtaer wrote:
I would add that I really want the Legion rules to be bought into line with each other. I play TS and their rules are frankly crap compared to pretty much every other Legion.

As a Night Lords player I feel ya Although I did actually get to use their ability in one game almost accidentally, and it killed one extra stand of Solar infantry

After some more games it's re-iterated to me that the biggest change needed is the scoring system. A good game design should keep both players engaged through the course of the game and allow comebacks with clever play. I've had too many games of Legions (I reckon 75-80%) where the game result has been evident after turn 1, and definitely by turn 2. Think it really misses the scoring system that Epic Space Marine used of the objective points resetting each turn, whereby you could go for an early knock-out blow but a canny opponent could be patient and let you play your hand early. It would also allow less mobile/aggressive armies to function. I'm not sure how a Solar armoured company-type force could have much chance against an aggressive marine army drop-podding and thunder-hawking onto objectives on turn 1, for instance.

having recently been dabbling with Battlegroups "Clash of Steel", based on the Flames of War rules but with a different scoring system that could be interesting.

in outline you have two or three objectives (it varies by scenario) all of which are in no mans land to start with. and if you hold one (unit within 4" and no enemy within 4") you gain 3vp per player turn - scored at the end of a turn, you get 1 VP each if both are within 4".

note there is no "objective control" or "tactical strength" is a pure "have you something, anything, within 4 that is currently active?"

the game is typically 7 or so turns, so 14 player turns, objective scoring racks up fast so there is a very firm "get on with it" incentive and a static gunline is pretty much an automatic loss.

you also gain 3VP for killing an enemy unit, regardless of its cost (so MSU is risky)

all pretty simple, there are then a series of card that modify the objectives, revealed on turns 1, 2 and potentially 3, these can change the number of VP the objective is worth, change the turns upon which it can be scored etc

its actually quite an interesting system, this is a pure tank v tank game but no reason why it would not work with different forces.

it encourages aggression over static firepower as a force can get largely wiped out and still win on accumulated points which are all based on capturing and holding ground

it can be turned around mid game as well due to the ability of rapidly gaining VP if you hold one or two objectives, and you can recover from enemy VP through killing stuff if its close

there are also other ways to generally muck about with how many objectives are scored but one this is constant, if you plan to shoot your way to victory you will lose to a more mobile force and once you drop behind you really have to work to claw it back - but you can claw it back

e.g. I have had games where in effect I flat out cannot harm my opponent, not in any significant way (*shakes fist at Maus*) but have still won by holding the centre as stuff explodes all around me for long enough to win

I also agree on LI, I have not yet played a game where it was not obvious at the end of the first turn who was going to win - either through casualties or through one player grabbing objectives while the other tried to sit back and shoot. and not had many games reach turn 3 in anything other than "see if you can kill everyone" mode

sadly Legions (and CoS in many ways) leads to too many decision points where to be honest neither option really matters as too much is either pre-determined or comes down to just rolling enough dice with actual positioning not being that important

skew force lists are best countered by having variation in how you win such that while they can be good they can also be risky v a more balanced force - they should still work, but take more effort, perhaps with greater reward

I suspect what we see is the result of a lot of "on paper" playtesting and theory hammer instead of actual gaming, and what actual gaming was done was done with quite basic armies and likely not fully developed rules