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.
well with how most of the game is structured I think drop heavy is a liability, you need to be on objectives right from the off. delay and you may be too far back on points - nice balancing act
drop/air assault stuff is useful but at the off will die too easily, needs the enemy thinning out a bit.
I'm planning to go with some, and some airborne stuff, but keeping it smaller as a bit of a threat/firefighting unit.
will take a while to work it all out though I think thats all part of it
leopard wrote: well with how most of the game is structured I think drop heavy is a liability, you need to be on objectives right from the off. delay and you may be too far back on points - nice balancing act
drop/air assault stuff is useful but at the off will die too easily, needs the enemy thinning out a bit.
I'm planning to go with some, and some airborne stuff, but keeping it smaller as a bit of a threat/firefighting unit.
will take a while to work it all out though I think thats all part of it
Most of it can come in turn 1, pods other than the scatter itself don't have much risk like say a thunderhawk getting shot down with non assault marine cargo. The only thing mitigating them for many is access and cost, but as always on the brrrr side its very possible to see many pods.
It's also another knock against knights that are starting to seem more and more expensive after the latest book, 152pts for the 6 leviathans in pods isn't even 1 questoris. Other than bad scatter or getting overwatched, also in the context of infiltrate still being handed out like candy, I feel like I'm able to have my my cake and eat it too because whether raven guard or solar aux with pioneer, infantry can start pretty much wherever depending on how much the opponent has for infiltrators, but to then to be able supplement that with leviathans in pods is a bit easy, also there isn't much savings in the larger units, so 2 units of 4 leviathans each with pods is only 5pts more than one detachment of 8.
I was running SA, with one Sub-Cohort + one Pioneer Co. Plenty of infantry, 2 reinforced tank platoons (mixed LRs), LC tarantulas, and 2 flights of 3 Lightings.
Agains Sons of Horus: 1 armoured formation with xyphons, plus 1 demi-Co with SA allies and more xyphons.
I was able to cripple the opposing airforce. My tarantulas were able to divert the Kratos. Then my horde of infantry was unstoppable scoring.
But thanks to total air supremacy I tabled the opposing side at the end of turn 3.
I've played abunch of games and:
To overcome an initial difference in score is extremelly dificult.
Yes I think I've been tabled or tabled the other person in each game I have played, or at least the outcome was not in doubt probably after end of turn 2. I quite like Crablezworth's idea of end of game scoring (or else using a VP 'benchmark' to win, as per Epic 2nd edition, which allows you to come back later in the game) so might try that after a few more games.
Disappointed to see no mention at all of Legions in WD 498. I can understand not every 'other box game' getting mention each month, but you've got a new expansion, whole range of new minis for a new game - it should have got something.
I was running SA, with one Sub-Cohort + one Pioneer Co. Plenty of infantry, 2 reinforced tank platoons (mixed LRs), LC tarantulas, and 2 flights of 3 Lightings.
Agains Sons of Horus: 1 armoured formation with xyphons, plus 1 demi-Co with SA allies and more xyphons.
I was able to cripple the opposing airforce. My tarantulas were able to divert the Kratos. Then my horde of infantry was unstoppable scoring.
But thanks to total air supremacy I tabled the opposing side at the end of turn 3.
I've played abunch of games and:
To overcome an initial difference in score is extremelly dificult.
Tabling is quite common.
My very broad "meta" thoughts are:
Flyers can be a big liability to balance, locally it's very much have and have nots in terms of airforce. I like flyers but the costing seems off, and the amount that can be taken in a detachment can get really oppressive.
The initial games that were more infantry and tank focused seemed more "fun" in terms of balance and game length. If someone was getting tabled it was late game generally.
Titans like flyers can really break/swing game balance. I think what I'm finding is, the games "economy" only seems to function well at lower point levels. But the only balance to be found as points creep past 1k is like talking to one's opponent about what sort of battle/game either is looking to have.
Here's a great example of that too, We've been testing the waters of 1k list and then an agreed upon amount/points level of knights and titans. Next game for example we're doing 1k, but me and my opponent agreed to both take a questoris with armigers. Further plans are trying out like mirror match titan lists (by titans, not weapon loadout) so for example 2 hounds, 2 reavers and a warlord are 2090pts, that plus a 1k list that starts in reserve. A classic example of what tends tso happen otherwise is, at 2k, if one side fields a full 2k and ther other takes a 600pt warlord it get be too swingy, I try to avoid even saying balance because while that's part of it, the real culprit is also huge activation disparities when one side has a model worth 600pts and the other does not.
Flyers aren't as bad as titans, but they can add up. Things are changing now that tarantulas are out, but that's sadly my other concern, spamming tarantulas isn't just effective, it's insanely cheap and on the solar aux side the get infiltrate if taken in pioneer company. But ya the games balancing of unit types could use more guard rails than infinite formations, I sort of wish we could pick battles or scenarios that have differing limits on what armies can and can't have, or would put some stuff in reserve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: Yes I think I've been tabled or tabled the other person in each game I have played, or at least the outcome was not in doubt probably after end of turn 2. I quite like Crablezworth's idea of end of game scoring (or else using a VP 'benchmark' to win, as per Epic 2nd edition, which allows you to come back later in the game) so might try that after a few more games.
Disappointed to see no mention at all of Legions in WD 498. I can understand not every 'other box game' getting mention each month, but you've got a new expansion, whole range of new minis for a new game - it should have got something.
Ya end game scoring big. The infantry moshpit early lead turn 2 tap out while it can look cool and very much like box art, I feel like the game skews enough to infantry given how brutal combat is, triple speed march order and nothing slowing them down, I don't want to add to that by who can stack the most preferential special rules next to an arbitrary circle.
I think there's less mention of legions because logistically it's the biggest adjustment for them on a documentation side. The big initial 3k battle report from last year that was done before the delays, it actually highlighted how difficult it is to try and document something far smaller than normal in any meaningful way, the other problem too is if the board is always going to be an unbroken urban sprawl, if there aren't enough focal points its actually kinda taxing to try and follow, I know just from photographing games while playing, alternating activation makes documenting stuff much more difficult both photo wise and video wise. AT didn't get a tonne of coverage I think for the same reason, they're just so much more tooled up to do batreps at higher scales.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/03/20 14:20:16
I picked up mine from a local GW today - a halo of light of surrounded it as I entered and it floated up and into my hands the guy behind the till said he had got hold of 4 just to stock up!
Crablezworth - about the WD features I get what you are saying, but have you seen the old Epic battles book full of battle reps and articles? If they managed to take photos with (I am guessing) old macro lens film cameras, on far smaller and less detailed minis, and make it look awesome, there is no excuse for not managing to do it nowadays with the camera kit available. I agree I don't think the identikit tiles (all done to shift more terrain) stock - some of the stuff yourself and Sherrypie do show what the potential is far better I think, if they let some of the Eavy Metal guys loose with some 3d printers and paintbrushes.
Crablezworth - about the WD features I get what you are saying, but have you seen the old Epic battles book full of battle reps and articles? If they managed to take photos with (I am guessing) old macro lens film cameras, on far smaller and less detailed minis, and make it look awesome, there is no excuse for not managing to do it nowadays with the camera kit available. I agree I don't think the identikit tiles (all done to shift more terrain) stock - some of the stuff yourself and Sherrypie do show what the potential is far better I think, if they let some of the Eavy Metal guys loose with some 3d printers and paintbrushes.
The difference now is they can't do a battle report on a nice piece of negative space like a bright green field. It's easier to track points of interest like little hamlets or collections of structures when the board itself isn't an unbroken urban landscape. The current legions boards they show are like 25-40 structures.
Would love them to do a report like this with the old school green.
The problem now for gw goes beyond just legions, because they went from largely hobby boards and terrain to strictly only showing their offerings. Even the LI books suffers in this regard because the all of two example battlefield are city and slightly ruined city
But added to that, it is difficult to document alternating activation because so much gets sandwiched in the middle. Example, if it was turn based, I could take a picture at the stat and end of each player turn and that'd only be like 10-20 pictures, even older epic editions I believe some the movement phase was i go you go but the combat phase was alternating, even that cleans up documenting movement because its just a before and after, like marines were here, now they're here ect. Alternating is nuts, it means documenting while playing is like next to impossible without it being a real drag for one's opponent.
That's also why I like the end game scoring for LI, because even though the documentation issues are still present, you can still sort of follow the battle somewhat, but most importantly, the last few photos showing who controls what really should/does/can tell the tale, like one can infer the score mostly by sight alone. This isn't true sadly for progressive scoring in LI where it's often hard to translate what one is seeing in terms of mosh pits of units all over objectives.
Yes that is very true - I think the nature of the game changing probably makes it harder to report on. Remember from those old battle reps the Cult of Speed flanking Squat artillery, Eldar titans crossing fjords and being shot at. You did have mosh pits (that is a great description), but not the squeezed table looking like a horde of 12yr olds playing football at lunchtime and chasing after the ball. As much as that has its own cool imagery from the descriptions in the 28mm 30k books and Heresy series (which may be what the designers were going for).
One positive I shall take from this is that it has made me want to dust off my copy of Epic Battles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/03/22 10:46:13
I have to disagree heavily on the reporting issue. Any battle, fictional or real, will have key moments that are important to communicate and background that's just kinda there. Exhaustive, comprehensive documentation on every unit's every action is very rarely desirable in reports unless you're already committing to it from a training exercise angle. Alternating activation doesn't make it harder to pick what those moments are, it just changes the flow a bit. Just look at any Kill Team reports or any arbitrarily chosen skirmish game in general, or Bolt Action, or any Lardies game and so on. If you want a solid AA example for very clear Epic reporting, check henafoo's older E:A games on Youtube.
On the one hand, it's wonderful that the Epic community has now grown so much. Some of the FB groups have doubled, tripled or more, and there is lots of great new hobby content.
But (you knew there was a but coming I am sure ) with the increase in volume comes some 'bad eggs'. People that have got some sort of insecurity or other problem at home (or maybe they are just a bad egg?) that means they have to drop to personal insults and threats (I actually saw the words "you say that to my face" earlier, which is so sad that it reached that point) - over rules for an effing game of toy soldiers. And then as follow on threads deleted as admins (and I don't blame them) just nuke the whole lot.
It is one thing that has changed from before - I felt like I knew a good number of people in the community. Conversation was always civil, and mostly friendly, I could post someone some minis to finish their collection and had people help me likewise. It's perhaps unavoidable now with volume a lot of this has gone and also new rules, models, releases seem to act like a catalyst for argument; I don't know if this is what 40k/AoS groups are like all the time, but what an awful state if they are.
Sherrypie wrote: I have to disagree heavily on the reporting issue. Any battle, fictional or real, will have key moments that are important to communicate and background that's just kinda there.
Yes but with progressive scoring those key moments tend to fall back on big things dying, because it's very hard to say "oh wow, this unit was next this objective the end of this turn,,, and this....and this ....and this" It's difficult to narrow down key moments in a game of basketball vs say low scoring games like hockey or soccer. So the key moments can fall back on just interesting moments of two units fighting in cc ect but the key moments in say a hockey game and a basketball game, you'd have to really pare down the shots of the basketball game. That's why documenting end game scoring is easier than progressive scoring imo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sherrypie wrote: Exhaustive, comprehensive documentation on every unit's every action is very rarely desirable in reports unless you're already committing to it from a training exercise angle.
Agreed. but a before and after movement phase shot of say a turn base game, re "all units were here, now they're here" is at least a conceivable endeavor, the li movement phase contains so much back and forth, in addition to some shooting and bombing that a whole whack load of things can occur more so than turn based, a small exception might be 30k 2.0 and its silly reaction stuff. But alternating activation really is more difficult to document imo, at least consistently, it seems much more about just getting nice shots but actual documentation that can be followed without a write up is tough to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sherrypie wrote: . Alternating activation doesn't make it harder to pick what those moments are, it just changes the flow a bit.
Yeah but in my case, doing it while also playing is super taxing mentally vs documenting a game between friends where I can place my focus solely on the task of taking pics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sherrypie wrote: Just look at any Kill Team reports or any arbitrarily chosen skirmish game in general, or Bolt Action, or any Lardies game and so on. If you want a solid AA example for very clear Epic reporting, check henafoo's older E:A games on Youtube.
Well kill team's model count is pretty low, but again I'd put the distinction between documenting while also playing vs being a third party fly on the wall. But so far with LI playing and documenting has been difficult, it's mostly like you say exhaustive comprehensive reporting of every units actions just isn't possible so gotta just sorta pick moments here and there and snap what might be a cool shot, context sorta taking a back seat a bit. I try and get army shots pre game as that's a big help in terms of untangling what's on the board as well as end game shots if possible to who ended up in control of what end game.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2024/03/28 15:05:14
Pacific wrote: I don't know if this is what 40k/AoS groups are like all the time, but what an awful state if they are.
don't know about those groups but the warhammer fantasy groups have similar problems
general there is the clash between "I want to know how this game is played" people asking rules questions and the "by asking questions you are saying my game is bad and I don't like that" people
I just stay away from the larger groups for now and wait for updated rules to drop as I have the feeling that this is related to certain style of rules writing that is similar to both games and the problem that certain questions cannot be answered (and some people have a problem with that)
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Pacific wrote: On the one hand, it's wonderful that the Epic community has now grown so much. Some of the FB groups have doubled, tripled or more, and there is lots of great new hobby content.
But (you knew there was a but coming I am sure ) with the increase in volume comes some 'bad eggs'. People that have got some sort of insecurity or other problem at home (or maybe they are just a bad egg?) that means they have to drop to personal insults and threats (I actually saw the words "you say that to my face" earlier, which is so sad that it reached that point) - over rules for an effing game of toy soldiers. And then as follow on threads deleted as admins (and I don't blame them) just nuke the whole lot.
It is one thing that has changed from before - I felt like I knew a good number of people in the community. Conversation was always civil, and mostly friendly, I could post someone some minis to finish their collection and had people help me likewise. It's perhaps unavoidable now with volume a lot of this has gone and also new rules, models, releases seem to act like a catalyst for argument; I don't know if this is what 40k/AoS groups are like all the time, but what an awful state if they are.
A lot of the facebook groups are run by like absentee admins and mods, I got booted out of the ontaro legions imperialis group on facebook for posting screenshots of a book review that I linked to on youtube for the great slaughter, the same admin who apparently greatly felt like white knighting gw had no problem ignoring my requests to remove my own intellectual property from his group, very consitent . But that's typical sadly, there aren't any checks and balances on bad admins and mods on facebook other than shaming them to the wider public, which works really well actually but isn't really worth it most of the time.
My experience has been the communities are sorta all over the place, my complaint isn't so much new blood but a lack of focus. The old world has syphoned off a lot of peoples attention to LI at least locally and it really sucks. I'm honestly a bit disgusted with how easy it is to ring a "new thing" bell and have people just flock to that, I've never been more convinced that GW is its own worst enemy. I'm happy for them but the timing sucks for legions. Entire movie studios slave over release schedules precisely because they don't want to overlap with other big movies because consumer have finite time and resources, It's on gamers as well for having the focus of a small animal but it's super depressing. Completely deflates any urge I had to run an event because it feels like even if it's planned a month out people will be on to the next new thing or playing old world instead of li. Le sigh. GW's terrible communication on releases isn't helping either. It's hard to shine that turd for new players because I either have to lie to them or be honest and say "this game is a bit of an early access game, but there's also dlc's" and the look of disgust/malaise on potential players faces is unavoidable, its that or lie to them and say everything is great like some youtuber who gets free gw stuff, but I can't do that sadly.
Pacific wrote: I don't know if this is what 40k/AoS groups are like all the time, but what an awful state if they are.
don't know about those groups but the warhammer fantasy groups have similar problems
general there is the clash between "I want to know how this game is played" people asking rules questions and the "by asking questions you are saying my game is bad and I don't like that" people
I just stay away from the larger groups for now and wait for updated rules to drop as I have the feeling that this is related to certain style of rules writing that is similar to both games and the problem that certain questions cannot be answered (and some people have a problem with that)
HH players don't seem to like being told HH 2.0 rules are bad, even though they'd be the first to say an FAQ is overdue, you're absolutely right that people are weirdly territorial and defensive of games in fb groups, I've seen it as well where people just asking blunt questions are enough to upset someone.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2024/03/28 15:02:24
people get weirdly territorial over the most trivial of things, people are people.
in other news yoof has started a legions army, well actually two. Ultramarines and then either Iron Warriors or Sons of Horus (not decided which yet). and he can actually paint them as fast as I can print the things.
started out by pinching the two marine sprues from my starter set that I'd done nothing with, and painted them blue.
will grab pics when I see them next as hes a sod for painting well and fast, sprayed blue, drybrushed Calgar blue, added weapons and backpack in gun metal, bits of helmet colours, cloaks and trim, then a thinned black wash and very minimal highlighting
has one of the two frames done and the other half done, plus eight Rhinos of the initial nine he wants (one failed to print), a bunch of dreadnaughts, eight sicaran and a pair of Kratos..
hes building two forces so a few of his friends who will play it can have a loner army and he has a spare one until they get their own
Sherrypie wrote: I have to disagree heavily on the reporting issue. Any battle, fictional or real, will have key moments that are important to communicate and background that's just kinda there.
Yes but with progressive scoring those key moments tend to fall back on big things dying, because it's very hard to say "oh wow, this unit was next this objective the end of this turn,,, and this....and this ....and this" It's difficult to narrow down key moments in a game of basketball vs say low scoring games like hockey or soccer. So the key moments can fall back on just interesting moments of two units fighting in cc ect but the key moments in say a hockey game and a basketball game, you'd have to really pare down the shots of the basketball game. That's why documenting end game scoring is easier than progressive scoring imo.
While there certainly is less material to comb through in an end game score, I'm not necessarily convinced that it's all that much different. I like to talk through the games we play with my opponents and it's not usually that hard to discern what the major turning points have been. It's often things like "when you did those Marches there" or "when you failed to crush this flank here" moreso than "woah that unit dying just changed everything" (which obviously also happens a lot). Especially in the context of LI, where objectives are sticky and you don't need to sit next to them unless there is a major enemy push onto them.
Sherrypie wrote: Exhaustive, comprehensive documentation on every unit's every action is very rarely desirable in reports unless you're already committing to it from a training exercise angle.
Agreed. but a before and after movement phase shot of say a turn base game, re "all units were here, now they're here" is at least a conceivable endeavor, the li movement phase contains so much back and forth, in addition to some shooting and bombing that a whole whack load of things can occur more so than turn based, a small exception might be 30k 2.0 and its silly reaction stuff. But alternating activation really is more difficult to document imo, at least consistently, it seems much more about just getting nice shots but actual documentation that can be followed without a write up is tough to do.
Mh. That depends again on what level of documentation one is looking for. You can't really tell the story of that battle without a write-up anyway, unless you just want to show off some pretty pictures, at which point it doesn't particularly matter what kind of pretty pictures they are as they will inevitably only be snippets of the whole. I get that documenting 1000 individual actions is obviously harder than 10 and so on, but that's just an editorial choice. Regardless of the game type, how many overview pictures, zoomed details, key fights and so on does one want to show off? How many pictures go into a good, concise and clear report? 10? 20? That decides way more about the reporting than the game itself, I've found.
Tangentially, I'd plug Play on Tabletop as an example of a channel that has made the clear choice to keep their reports focused on the overview of what's happening in the battle rather than bogging down in specifics. A recent LI report:
Sherrypie wrote: . Alternating activation doesn't make it harder to pick what those moments are, it just changes the flow a bit.
Yeah but in my case, doing it while also playing is super taxing mentally vs documenting a game between friends where I can place my focus solely on the task of taking pics.
It is more taxing for one person doing both simultaneously, certainly. I share the sentiment, being usually the guy in my circle who comes up with scenarios, table setups, photographing and reporting In my case though I have an excellent working memory for gaming related things like this, so running complex sandbox RPGs or keeping a mental record of game round overviews for a while until I get them written down is pretty painless, which probably contributes to my thoughts on the issue. I appreciate this might not be universal. Still, while documenting AA games while playing certainly is more taxing, separated from that issue I don't see documenting them as such any harder from other formats.
Sherrypie wrote: Just look at any Kill Team reports or any arbitrarily chosen skirmish game in general, or Bolt Action, or any Lardies game and so on. If you want a solid AA example for very clear Epic reporting, check henafoo's older E:A games on Youtube.
Well kill team's model count is pretty low, but again I'd put the distinction between documenting while also playing vs being a third party fly on the wall. But so far with LI playing and documenting has been difficult, it's mostly like you say exhaustive comprehensive reporting of every units actions just isn't possible so gotta just sorta pick moments here and there and snap what might be a cool shot, context sorta taking a back seat a bit. I try and get army shots pre game as that's a big help in terms of untangling what's on the board as well as end game shots if possible to who ended up in control of what end game.
That's the thing though, I don't think context needs to take a back seat there. After map layout is shown in an overview shot, I feel it's pretty intuitive to follow the flow of battle with comments like "On the second turn, the loyalists start rolling up the left flank! After fierce fighting, the defenders' first line crumbles. *picture of loyalist Russes overrunning traitor defenders near a building* But all is not yet lost, as the reserves start pouring in. *picture of the traitor line moving towards the location*"
So close to finishing, but so, so sick of the Legion Support Sprue.
The models, once built, are really cool. But do the Leviathan legs really need to be three parts? Do the Deredeo launchers need to be four parts?
If they’d put the Launchers as two parts, they probably could’ve squeaked in alternative weapons for the Rapier Carriages.
It is nice to have an entirely empty sprue when you’re done, but man, some of this stuff is just plain old fiddly.
But, just one more Deredeo and two more Leviathans to go. Then I’m done, and probably not buying anymore of this particular kit. Mostly because I don’t need more of it. I’ve an elegant sufficiency to start filling out a Garrison detachment. But I also don’t want to go back through this.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
this is the other benefit of printed, Leviathans I have are:
- legs (10 poses and can mirror for another 10)
- body (I think two of these)
- two arms (many options and can mirror them)
don't have a dorito as yet from them, have enough flack stuff with two or three part tarantula.
the GW models are very nice once built but I think they went too far into "very nice" and a bit too far away from "Its a gaming model"
e.g. take a Tamiya sherman tank v a rubicon sherman tank..
It’s an impressive level of engineering, no mistake. But in the wise words of Jeff Goldblum? They spent so long finding out if they could, they didn’t think if they should.
But also, now I think of it? That’s all my LI army models built. All of them. Every last one.
Hopefully I can get this all painted by the end of next week.
Future? Going forward I’ll be in for more Predators and Sicarans of course. And a bunch of speedy stuff as right now, outside of transports I don’t have anything especially nippy.
Xiphons are also feeling quite “must take”. They’re points intensive, but pack a pretty decent punch on paper.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Xiphons are interesting. one is overwatch bait, however a pair, or indeed two flights of two while expensive can be seriously infuriating. care is needed to position them after other stuff moves so they have the target in range but not much else so only really the target gets to overwatch them
What appeals to me is they’re fairly ubiquitous. Enough firepower to swat bombers, nippy enough to do whatever passes for dogfighting enemy fighters, and still a decent enough punch that they don’t feel locked out of targets if a given opponent has taken no air support.
Granted in that last role they need to go some to pull their points weight. But I’ll take “achievable, but you’ll need be clever” over “well guess a bunch of army isn’t doing much”. Plus just being a fast threat is a useful tool in itself, as it’s one more thing for my opponent to fret over.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
It's fire raptors you want, one of the few flyers with rockets that can outrange other flyers AA missiles. That and on account of having hover can switch modes hide and do pop up attacks. Some nice sponson options as well. Xiphons are great but, like with lightnings, after painting about 3 of them they get a bit boring to paint.
e.g. take a Tamiya sherman tank v a rubicon sherman tank..
This is the point I was going to make exactly, and I know of people that have struggled trying to use plastic model kits for wargaming purposes - model kits are just not designed to be pushed around a tabletop and small components get snapped easily.
I have acquaintances who manage to squish 28mm minis with their heavy hands and poor motor control, they are going nowhere near these guys
Once built the LI models seem solid enough. But I still question having quite so many parts.
That being said, I am of course about as far from expert in kit design and injection mould engineering as it’s possibly to be, so I accept it’s entirely possible there is a necessity.
Anyways. This week is the week I blitz more Epic scale painting.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Looking forward to seeing it Doc! I too have to get through a fair bit, I've got an event next month and still a good 3-400pts (including infantry) to paint up.
Think minis wise GW have a fine history of making stuff that looks lovely but is often impractical as a wargaming mini: in the past it was metal dragons which needed a blacksmith to smelt together or fell apart if a large truck drove by outside, Epic space marines that snapped at the ankle and everyone getting unplanned acupuncture by ranked-up goblin spearmen. These days it's wonderfully elaborate Age of Sigmar centrepiece minis that have tons of weight through a single structure point, which absolutely will not survive a few battles, and it seems multi-part tiny Epic minus that look lovely but give you eye/hand strain to put together. I'm sure the extra legs on dreadnought are to replace those that have fallen into deep pile carpet, never to be seen again!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/08 10:04:55
still have that slaneesh lawnmower thing in a box, lovely looking model, never assembled it as I couldn't work out a way to transport the thing, or store it
and yes on goblins extracting blood, so very much yes on that
