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.

SamusDrake wrote:Suggesting 3K points for a standard game also didn't help, when 2K was plenty.

Certainly at my local I haven't seen anyone wanting to play 3k. 1.5/2k is just possible to squeeze in before closing time, and the Legions guys are usually the last ones there playing (after the Necromunda guys, which is saying something!)

ccs wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
How are people finding Titans behave/perform in the game?

Is it better to have one big scary one, or multiple Warhounds or something?

I'll use them on occasion as I just like the models. But so far none of them have impressed me. The Reaver especially so. For the pts cost I'll just usually take more tanks.
I haven't used the Dire wolves yet though as they're sitting on my desk waiting to be built.

For me, the only purposes for Titans at the moment are 1) Helping to bulk up points if you don't have enough other units 2) look on the tabletop, as they look great.
I think I've had one instance where a Warhound has survived more than one round of stuff shooting at it, and there was more to do with the horrendous luck on my opponents part and some flukey armour saves on mine.
It's almost like they looked at Armageddon as a template for how Titans would work, as just a multi-wound weapons platform, but then didn't account for how much more deadly firepower is (and how much more of it there is) in this game. And I do miss the hit charts of Epic Space Marine, where you could end up with a Reaver with no arms trying to run around and stomp on stuff, or could equally go down to one lucky shot at the start of the game.

For those with a fair few games under their belts? I’d like to talk Sponsons.

See, all my tanks that have sponsons I’ve given Lascannon Sponsons. Yes infantry get their full save, but the increased range and accuracy appealed to me more, as is the reliability to strip Void Shields and knacker Tanks.

But….Heavy Bolters of course have point defence. And not having played yet, I’ve no idea how desirable that trait is?

Point Defence is amongst the most desirable traits in the whole game, in particular when you're playing against infantry heavy lists.

LI is built with the paradigm that stuff will die and you will be shoveling models off the table. With Point Defence, particularly on stuff like Rhino Havocs, Sicaran HB's and so on, you get to throw out a lot of dice before the shooting phase proper begins or if you're being swamped by charging infantry. It's very economical in the activation war.

Think I’ll have to equip my second Sicaran squadron with Heavy Bolters then. Plus a bit of variety never goes amiss.

From the last video I posted in the LI news thread, I got the impression than you will almost always want to max out on point defence, infantry and walkers/dreads. Warmaster is the only titan worth fielding, apparently.

Not a fan of the fact that a game which features such adorable lil tanks and vehicles.. has rules which make tanks not worth their points

Talking of sponsons, the predator sheet gives the sponson 1 shot. Is that 1 shot or sponson, or 1 shot per model?

 General Kroll wrote:
Talking of sponsons, the predator sheet gives the sponson 1 shot. Is that 1 shot or sponson, or 1 shot per model?

One per model, cannon is the plural of cannon. You get precisely the number of weapons listed on the unit entry, no more.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Talking of sponsons, the predator sheet gives the sponson 1 shot. Is that 1 shot or sponson, or 1 shot per model?

One per model, cannon is the plural of cannon. You get precisely the number of weapons listed on the unit entry, no more.

It’s very inconsistent in the rules though. Some sponson weapons are listed as “sponsons” others as singular. And if we look at things like heavy bolters, they generally get two shots a piece, the hull heavy bolter on a sicaran gets 2, if we take your view of the sponsons then the sponsons get one shot less.

Standard GW inconsistency, right?

the "so thats per sponson right?" question came up early on, the consensus is basically "don't think about it just roll the dice on the sheet"

which given how deadly the game is also works as the best outcome as it reduces firepower.

on "point defence" the fire during movement bit is very useful, e.g. pushing Rhinos forwards to at least try to take down some infantry before it gets to move/assault

I've gone with tank units having a mix of point defence and anti tank secondary weapons so all units have some point defence, its not worth going 100% point defence but the ability to split fire is very useful

 General Kroll wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Talking of sponsons, the predator sheet gives the sponson 1 shot. Is that 1 shot or sponson, or 1 shot per model?

One per model, cannon is the plural of cannon. You get precisely the number of weapons listed on the unit entry, no more.

It’s very inconsistent in the rules though. Some sponson weapons are listed as “sponsons” others as singular. And if we look at things like heavy bolters, they generally get two shots a piece, the hull heavy bolter on a sicaran gets 2, if we take your view of the sponsons then the sponsons get one shot less.

Standard GW inconsistency, right?

Actually, for once, it isn't. The rules corpus uses the same language for this particular thing very consistently throughout the whole book. As leopard says, this was discussed a lot after the initial release. For example, those Predators list "Sponson Mounted Heavy Bolters" (one weapon ruleswise, 2 Dice) and "Sponson Mounted Lascannon" (one weapon ruleswise, 1 Dice), from which you get to choose one. Where "sponsons" is used in plural, like the Baneblade, weapons like "Lascannon sponson turrets" or "Baneblade heavy bolter sponsons" are again single entries combining all the relevant sponsons of that type on the model. That classic English plural cannon is used in pretty much every entry in the army lists. Most clearly you can see the difference in the Imperial Fists special rule on page 159, where they list weapons as such:
- Legion bolters
• Legion combi-bolters
• Legion bolt pistols
• Missile launchers
• Plasma cannon
• Lascannon
• Autocannon
• Heavy bolters

And yeah, generally the combined sponsons fire as much as one hull-mounted weapon system of the same kind. That is the design choice they have gone with, possibly to represent the sponsons being limited to side arcs in-fiction while the game system only concerns itself with the front and rear arcs. It is similarly largely consistent throughout the lists and not at all unusual for games of this scale.

There is plenty of questionable design cunk in the game, but "do I get more weapons than is listed in the unit entry?" is not one of them. The answer is simply no, English is a silly language but you only get what is listed.

the confusion came from some things that you have more than one of being described in the plural, and others that you have more than one of, in the singular

personally it stems from making individual weapons too powerful such that giving a predator both sponsons for the laser cannons starts to get silly, well sillier

would have helped for there to be a very quick example in the rulebook of say three predators shooting at something noting that they have three dice for the turrets, with the re-rolls then three for the sponson mounts, without re-rolls.

in effect each line being a weapon system, not an individual weapon, it could have been clearer - as evidenced by it even being a point of discussion.

it is however I think largely accepted water under the bridge at this point in how to run it

personally I'd have gone with "per weapon" and either a lower chance to hit on non-primary weapons or more restricted arcs (which the game used to have without any issues - and which can create some interesting tactics around forcing rear armour to be exposed to fire all guns or accepting fewer shots for better armour)

however it is very firmly what it is