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.

As this has come up a few times I thought I would start a thread for it. So what needs FAQing?
One that came up in conversation before was that Dread pods can carry infantry or emplacements RAW (the only way to use assault marines in the drop pod formation). Should this be allowed?

Marine flyer Heavy Bolters having sky fire but no “light AT” while Auxillia planes heavy bolters DO have “light AT.”

The whole damn thing! But seriously I think GW will relaunch the game with a revised core rules only book and compendiums, instead of releasing FAQs & Errata. Here are glaring issues from day one...

- Questoris is lacking its Icarus Autocannons to provide skyfire. No model component yet, but its now in a game where aircraft are present and the Questoris is the Knight-of-all-trades.

- The Helverin( Armiger with Autocannons ) needs skyfire to be a worthwhile contrast to the Warglaive, which is blessed with both Demolisher and Engine Killer while the Helverin has only Light AT in comparison.

- In both 40K and 30K the Porphyrion and Asterius do not share the same profile. In Legions the Asterius should be a separate upgrade profile as is the case with the Styrix, Magaera, Atropos and Moirax.

- The Warmaster / Iconoclast are far too cheap in points compared to the Warlord or any other titan for that matter. 1000 points would be a good start, although I'd press for higher.

- Free weapon options for Titans are objectionable when there is a +2 points difference between a Questoris' chainsword and gauntlet.

Well, SamusDrake's POV in the discussion on all things Epic is going to be 'KNIGHTS!!!!!' but the inconsistency with free upgrades v costed upgrades could have a second glance.

I'm a grumpy old classicist, so the idea of pay is an an anathema to me, but I can see that some guns are better than others. And the Warmaster is undercosted.

The Dark Angel 'Ravenwing' bonus needs to be tweaked, since the Sky-Hunter Phalanx Formation more or less gives you the same ability.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Well, SamusDrake's POV in the discussion on all things Epic is going to be 'KNIGHTS!!!!!' but the inconsistency with free upgrades v costed upgrades could have a second glance.

I'm a grumpy old classicist, so the idea of pay is an an anathema to me, but I can see that some guns are better than others. And the Warmaster is undercosted.

The Dark Angel 'Ravenwing' bonus needs to be tweaked, since the Sky-Hunter Phalanx Formation more or less gives you the same ability.

And Marine players will be all things "MARINES!!!!". All the best to them and to each their own...

Mark, my feedback here is based on what models we had in our collection at the time and just the core rules. If it weren't for that we wouldn't have bothered with the game at all, and especially not at a time when the range was out of stock and you couldn't even get the minimum Marine or Solar infantry kits. Not my problem if GW couldn't deliver the goods. We used whatever models from AT and AI that were as close a match as possible to the intended experience of matched play.

So, I'm not saying that Knights are all that matters - especially in a post where I also talk about Titans - but simply putting forward my thoughts on what experience of the game I do have. It might have been limited but it told me enough that it needs revising.

SamusDrake wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Well, SamusDrake's POV in the discussion on all things Epic is going to be 'KNIGHTS!!!!!' but the inconsistency with free upgrades v costed upgrades could have a second glance.

I'm a grumpy old classicist, so the idea of pay is an an anathema to me, but I can see that some guns are better than others. And the Warmaster is undercosted.

The Dark Angel 'Ravenwing' bonus needs to be tweaked, since the Sky-Hunter Phalanx Formation more or less gives you the same ability.

And Marine players will be all things "MARINES!!!!". All the best to them and to each their own...

Mark, my feedback here is based on what models we had in our collection at the time and just the core rules. If it weren't for that we wouldn't have bothered with the game at all, and especially not at a time when the range was out of stock and you couldn't even get the minimum Marine or Solar infantry kits. Not my problem if GW couldn't deliver the goods. We used whatever models from AT and AI that were as close a match as possible to the intended experience of matched play.

So, I'm not saying that Knights are all that matters - especially in a post where I also talk about Titans - but simply putting forward my thoughts on what experience of the game I do have. It might have been limited but it told me enough that it needs revising.

I wasn’t complaining, it was just an observation that you were a real Knight aficionado in the AT threads x it was just a bit of humour. Sorry if that didn’t come across.

Your right of course, there should have been more stock at launch.

I don’t think it’ll be long until we see all Knight lists, or certainly more Knight Heavy.

It may come with the Mechanicum, it may be before.

But. On that comment about the initial range? The two may be tied together.

Knights started off with a fair selection of units and possible equipment. Marines and Solar Auxilia? Well, Marines just got their first and thus far only, Light Armour, our Bastion units were in the second wave, Fast Attack in third, and we currently await Artillery.

And across those waves we’ve expanded our other horizons somewhat, especially with four Sicaran variants.

I now have in my collection stuff which could give Knights a decent run for their money, without being forced to rely on unit repetition.

No worries, Mark. Hopefully the sun will come out tomorrow with upcoming releases.

Here is a question, not sure how anyone else plays it. Rhino transports move forward, tactical units disembark as part of that activation, they have an advance order. Nearby commander then uses their ability to change the order of that unit to First Fire.

Even though this move seems a bit gamey I can't find anything in the rules which expressly forbids it. Had it used on me in a game and it felt a bit like a 'gotcha' as I'd lined up units to take out the disembarking unit, and who then got decimated instead

I think leveraging your commanders is a part of the game, so I don't really see a problem with it. It does mean your commander is further forward and more at risk. And it's not much of a 'gotcha' as it's a key part of the rules rather than hidden in the back of a supplement.

The reason I described it as a Gotcha is it's not something I can get my head around conceptually.
You can't put an embarked unit on first fire for obvious reasons (what are they doing, sat ready to fire and aiming at the doorway of the vehicle?)
So the unit is on advance to be able to disembark.
Then the commander says "by the way guys, change of plan! First fire!" despite the fact that they have already 'moved' as part of the vehicle & disembark move.
So I don't know if they have done some sort of teleport action outside of the vehicle, which can allow them to fire before the guys who are literally stood there waiting with guns drawn?

It is a very 'GW' poor piece of rules writing if that is how it is intended to be played, and like I say does feel gamey. There would be a venn diagram thing here of people with tons of support missile launchers & alpha legion

Hmm. Master Tactician states that the target of the Commander's special ability can't have activated yet... so if they disembarked this round, they've activated and so can't benefit.

Update: upon rereading the rule book, the disembarkation is actually the transport’s activation, leaving the passengers free to have their order changed.

That is my reading of it too. Which is why I think it needs to be in an FAQ. "Can not have activated, including as part of a transport's disembarkment.." etc.

Another one I will be interesting to see is if units with the Transport special rule are forbidden from charging. I know of gaming groups that have already house-ruled this. I used a couple of Arvus to suicide charge-pin another unit and it felt as dirty as hell, then had someone do it to me with a massed rhino suicide charge

 Pacific wrote:
That is my reading of it too. Which is why I think it needs to be in an FAQ. "Can not have activated, including as part of a transport's disembarkment.." etc.

Another one I will be interesting to see is if units with the Transport special rule are forbidden from charging. I know of gaming groups that have already house-ruled this. I used a couple of Arvus to suicide charge-pin another unit and it felt as dirty as hell, then had someone do it to me with a massed rhino suicide charge

You should feel dirty. :-) The default rule is that troops in a Transport can only be given Advance or March (pg96 para.5).

Assault Transport passengers can be given Charge orders (para.9).

 Pacific wrote:
Here is a question, not sure how anyone else plays it. Rhino transports move forward, tactical units disembark as part of that activation, they have an advance order. Nearby commander then uses their ability to change the order of that unit to First Fire.

Even though this move seems a bit gamey I can't find anything in the rules which expressly forbids it. Had it used on me in a game and it felt a bit like a 'gotcha' as I'd lined up units to take out the disembarking unit, and who then got decimated instead

It's not gamey, it's a core tactic and a way to conceptualize a commander's ability to issue and change orders if they have communications (hence a range bubble).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I personally see more of a need for an Errata to fix internal and external balance, than a FAQ.

Some units severely undercosted e.g. Astartes Missile bases while others overcosted e.g. Knights.

A core issue however is that A & B weapon options of vastly different cost are the same points. This issue is of course the most pressing for Titans. But doing the maths there are others, e.g Contempt TLLC vs Kheres, LR Battle Cannon vs Vanquisher etc.

A new one and maybe with incomplete info but Thanantars going in transports, unless something has been missed somewhere there is no way 1 could fit in let alone 2. Its more of an oddity than a rules break but still.

 ingtaer wrote:
A new one and maybe with incomplete info but Thanantars going in transports, unless something has been missed somewhere there is no way 1 could fit in let alone 2. Its more of an oddity than a rules break but still.

I guess we'll find out on Saturday when the book comes out (pre-ordered it).

Did you get any indication that the Triaros could transport Bulky models somewhere or why the worry?

It would surely be unthematic if allowed by some loop in the rules, which it should not be. But I doubt it would be useful given both the Thanatar Cavas and Calix should have pretty long range on their weapons, and the Hellex mortar should be Barrage so doesn't even need LoS. Anyway we'd immediately houserule it away from happening if allowed as they can't physically fit.

 westiebestie wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:
A new one and maybe with incomplete info but Thanantars going in transports, unless something has been missed somewhere there is no way 1 could fit in let alone 2. Its more of an oddity than a rules break but still.

I guess we'll find out on Saturday when the book comes out (pre-ordered it).

Did you get any indication that the Triaros could transport Bulky models somewhere or why the worry?

It would surely be unthematic if allowed by some loop in the rules, which it should not be. But I doubt it would be useful given both the Thanatar Cavas and Calix should have pretty long range on their weapons, and the Hellex mortar should be Barrage so doesn't even need LoS. Anyway we'd immediately houserule it away from happening if allowed as they can't physically fit.

The Trio has the 'Large Transport' rule, and as such can carry 'Walkers' (counts as two) and 'Bulky' models (counts as one).

And the Thanatar mortar is only 18" and does not have barrage...

Here is one.
I can't remember seeing anywhere in the rules that traits can't be used while embarked in a transport or building. Maybe I just miss that paragraph?

Not so much an FAQ but unless I've missed something Questoris knights have fixed loadouts (annoying as the ones I built for AT don't match any of them )

It seems odd that Rhinos you pay for weapon options, Titans are all the same price but you can have any weapon you like (even when some are objectively better than others) and Knights you're forced into a fixed loadout except for rocket pods which you pay for?

I know its redundant to say but did GW not use any joined-up thinking when developing the units entries?

It does indeed boggle the mind, Calvin.

As frustrating as the Questoris were in AT, I'm glad I built them as they came in the box as it means I come to LI with no hassles. I have two Questoris armed with the wrong armpit weapons, but they're so tiny that they're barely noticable so long as I stick to the correct weapon rules. If anyone has a problem with that then they're a very sad person indeed...

As for the Titans; while I'm happy that they're in the game as a primary force, they stick out like a sore thumb for the reason you mention and among others. Saying that, at least Titans have the option of a separate game that is far better for them, and as a community we can encourage each other to use that game instead. Hopefully GW will revitalize AT when they release the Dark Mechanicum kits in early December( might as well go for the safe bet! ) and players will naturally gravitate towards it again for their Titan fix.

In the mean time, I've self-imposed the nerf that I will take as close to 30% of allies as possible, excluding Titans & Knights, when using a Titan primary force. I feel that there has to be something that differentiates a Titan army in Legions, from an army in Titancius.

SamusDrake wrote:

In the mean time, I've self-imposed the nerf that I will take as close to 30% of allies as possible, excluding Titans & Knights, when using a Titan primary force. I feel that there has to be something that differentiates a Titan army in Legions, from an army in Titancius.

It's not a nerf to take allies with Titan primary though, it's a buff. As Titans with any scoring allies is much more likely to win a game than without. Pure Titans will loose to infantry 99 times out of 100.

With the exception of the Warmaster and possibly some Reaver loadouts, Titans aren't good/durable for their points. They are thematic and cool, but lost die easily and don't take their points back.

However their underperformance is nowhere near Knights, which are probably the weakest unit type in the game per point ie the most overcosted. Cc ability of about 35pts of Leviathans, Shooting ability equivalent of about 80pts of Predators and durability if about 120ish pts of Tanks for 180pts, without the scoring ability anyone?

They are so cool and I play rule of cool, but it's like playing with a handicap, that's how bad they are. Unfortunately.

So limiting Knight loadout to fixed combinations really is doubly strange. I'd allow any combo in a heartbeat. Unless Erratad to about 100 points.

Anyway tomorrow we'll get the Mech book and see if Thanatars have some kind of Extremely bulky/cannot be transported rule or if RAW allow them to be transported.

They've by then released 3 expansions after the BRB with no Errata while everyone and their mother comments on an enjoyable game with horribly bad balance and need for major point adjustment. I think it might be time for a community effort.