Loyalist Legions Book

[1ncarnadine]

I highly doubt the +1 would be intentional, typos just happen to creep through. That's life in the hobby where lives aren't on line with the numbers.

Yeah I still wonder about it, but if it's on the physical card (??) and the index it's hard to argue with for now :(

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Maybe it's just more accurate on a more stable platform?

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea I really dont like the plasma guns range things.

 

Rules wise, the long range drop off was a balancing feature of a hugely strong weapon. Making it an extraordinarily reliable mid range option on a chassis that will never really care about the reactor damage is baffling. They're straight up the best weapon in the game in their incarnation as the shoulder mounts.

 

From a fluff perspective, they only reference the shoulders as being warhound class. Yes, I know there's no warhound class melta or missiles, but they're notably weaker than the reaver versions. Why are the plasmas way, way stronger than the warhound equivalent?

 

Edit: seems like they cut out titan hunter infantry. Probably due to not selling the models that resulted in 3d prints and 3rd party stuff.

 

Editx2: the weapon points, damaged, detonated and repair results are all whacky.

 

They're all universally repaired on 4s and, except for the suzerains, detonated on 10-13/14+ and damaged on 10s.

 

-PBG are damaged on 9+ (now 10+), detonated on 9+/13+ (now 10+/14+) and repaired on 5+ (now 4+).

-Turbo lasers are the same as above for damage and detonation.

-VMC are also the same, but are now being repaired on 4+ instead of 3+

-inferno are similar in that their repair value shoots from a 2+ to 4+ (making them somehow even worse).

 

The points are mostly 10+ over the warhounds (inferno only 5+), while the apoc launcher is the same as the reaver's at 10 and the melta cannon is -5 of the reavers for 30. More importantly, the balance is all over the place with PMB at 40 while the turbo lasers and meltas are 30...the inferno gun is mind bogglingly 25.

Edited April 17, 2021 by SkimaskMohawk

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I thought that about titan hunter infantry. But THI are technically classed as battlefield assets, which don't appear to have been added to the loyalist Legios stratagem list.

[SkimaskMohawk]

I thought that about titan hunter infantry. But THI are technically classed as battlefield assets, which don't appear to have been added to the loyalist Legios stratagem list.

I guess the problem is the paragraph talking about stratagems only talk about using this list, stuff in future publications and replacing/taking precedent over past publications;

 

"As such, the rules published here take precedence over any presented in earlier Adeptus Titanicus supplements, and should be used in place of those."

 

This means RAW that you can use the rule book battlefield assets, but still not titan hunters.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

You've missed out the line before that one,

 

"All Stratagems shown here have previously been published in an Adeptus Titanicus supplement, however some may have been adjusted to reflect player feedback or rules changes. As such, the rules published here take precedence over any presented in earlier Adeptus Titanicus supplements, and should be used in place of those."

 

To my reading that only applies when the same named stratagem has appeared before. As it is only talking about these new strata replacing the previous ones. Strats not published in the LL book, which haven't been supercedes still exist as far as I would treat them. Otherwise we lose TIH, forward observers and another I forget.

 

Interpreting it too restrictively, as you suggest arguably means we lose ALL of the battlefield assets, as well as the White Dwarf strats.

 

I'd rather interpret it to include more options, than less.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Brother Adelard

[SkimaskMohawk]

I didn't miss it, but as I mentioned the first paragraph has this line in it;

 

"A loyalist battleground can select their stratagems from any of those listed in this section as well as any legio specific stratagems only; further generic or loyalist specific stratagems may be published in future supplements."

 

This means loyalists are locked to this and future supplements. Thats what "RAW" means. And ya, it axes battlefield assets and venerable machine spirit. Something that honestly isn't that bad from a balance perspective; assets are unbalanced (either a trap or too effective and hard to kill) and the white dwarf one is also insanely unbalanced.

 

Speaking of rules interpretation, do strats that say "play this during any strategy phase" mean every turn? Because quake shell was changed from "each" to "any". But they also have ones that say "once per battle" and "each strategy phase" . Titanicus-isms.

[Sherrypie]

"Any" allows you to wait for a chosen turn, instead of specifying "strategy phase of the first turn" or so. It does not mean the same as "each".

[Sword Brother Adelard]

There is no way, on earth, that GW has axed battlefield assets. They come as models in every version of the starter kit. They are baked into most of the custom scenarios as the only strats available, they are a whole page of content in every edition of the core rule book.

 

I'm sorry, but if that's how you're gonna play it. We aren't playing.

Edited April 18, 2021 by Brother Adelard

[SkimaskMohawk]

@sherrypie I guess the problem is of course titanicus' loose writing. As I mentioned you have "each" , "any" , "once per game" and "during the strategy phase" all in the same section, muddying the waters on what what clause is used for which restriction. The only thing that really helps show some intent for me, is that they changed quake from each to any combined with the caveat that there are deliberate changes.

 

 

@adelard theres very much a way they did it; unintentionally. Titanicus has great gameplay, but some horrible writing on a technical level. My most famous example is barrage not giving permission to ignore obscurement penalty and the LoS requirement for damaging armour resulting in only being able strip shields at a -4 to hit. Or the fureans argument. Or the volkite+voidbreaker thing. Or if smash attacks can be used for first/split/wild fire. Or if you need to agree to use the optional rules to use the terrain damaging parts of infernus missiles. Or whatever else.... My point is the rules aren't tightly written and identifying a broken rules interaction and acknowledging its loosey-gooseyness is step 1 to trying to fix it, but if you can't agree on a problem how can you agree on a solution? I never said I was going to play it like that; we love our battlefield assets because it mainly reinforces the scale of things and gives another opportunity to have your titan be a big robot and step on stuff to break it. But if I'm looking to write a mission set that's able to used for an event, then I have to take the new book into account and address it in some way. I'm not the only one that reads the rules and picks up on things.

[General Zodd]

Also, on page 6, it states that the book contains all stratagems available to a Loyalist battlegroup, before then acknowledging in the section quoted above that new supplements might add more. In light of those two sections, I think it’s clear they mean you to disregard any previously available stratagems in favour of this list. I also think it’s crazy to remove all Battlefield Assets, so I wonder if, having spent a load of effort rebalancing the stratagems and Legios they have, they decided to wait and include an updated set of Battlefield Assets in a future book. That said, I’ll be using them in my games until such time as we have an updated set, but I think I agree with SkimaskMohawk that it’s difficult to interpret the “official” rules as anything different.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I may have overreacted there to you a bit, but I don't think the wording in the book excludes their use sufficiently clearly to be able to definitively say that was the intent, it's really important to note that you misquoted the book when you referred to it above.

You said:

"A loyalist battleground can select their stratagems from any of those listed in this section as well as any legio specific stratagems only; further generic or loyalist specific stratagems may be published in future supplements."

The word ONLY does not appear in the book, (at least, not the eBook version.)

Without the word 'only', the battlefield assets and the White Dwarf strats are still good to go, because Loyalist players are not restricted to just the contents of the book, they just have to use the Loyalist Legio version of a strat where it appears in multiple publications. All GW are doing here is explicitly repealing the earlier versions of the Stratagems listed in this new book. If the stratagem appears in another place, and hasn't been explicitly removed, it's still in play, as far as I can ascertain, that's only the two White Dwarf Stratagems,

Furthermore the 'fix' (if there even is an issue) is simple: Battlefield asset stratagems are not affected by that restriction.

The problem with the uber strict approach to RAW which some gamers take is that it breaks the Golden Rule of interpretation. When courts interpret laws (which I do for a living) they don't automatically apply the laws exactly as they are written. Sometimes new laws contradict other laws, sometimes new laws contradict themselves internally, so we apply rules to get around this, (governments rarely issue FAQs.)

"The [Golden] rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is obnoxious to principles of public policy."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule_(law)

Games apply this reasoning all the time. It was particularly prevalent when Andy Chambers wrote the 40K FAQs, but was also behind the change in 8th edition where GW removed the infinite hit loop on exploding 6s counting as rolled 6s, such a result would be manifestly absurd, so was clearly not the intent, which they confirmed later.

On the basis that invalidating the Battlefield Assets in both the core rulebook and Doom of Molech would be absurd because:

1. It would invalidate the models for the assets on both the game asset sprue, and the civitas sprues
2. It would invalidate all of the scenario rules where battlefield assets are required, or where plates are given extra strat points just for their purchase.
3. It gives a temporary advantage to traitor players who can continue to take them.
4. It invalidates a page of the core rulebook, which was released separetely for the first time alongside the new book.

We can safely apply the Golden rule and work on the basis that there is nothing stopping loyalist players from using battlefield assets. Anyone trying to argue the opposite is just being a bit silly.

The same rule in essence applies to the Fureans infinite machine spirit firing loop: That would be absurd. So it clearly wasn't intended like that, so we shouldn't interpret it like that. The barrage obscurement thing only being at -4 thing is also absurd, so don't play it like that.

Once you start working on this basis, a lot of these things fall away.

So, in summary, the rules don't include the restriction you contend, even as written. If they do, it's stupid to interpret the rules that way, so we shouldn't.

[SkimaskMohawk]

So first of all, "only" isn't necessary in a technical reading. That's just the nature of permission in a rules set; you're told what you're given access to so that's what you have access to.

 

Second, I'm going to just say that I understand there's nuance and rules to statutory interpretation to avoid problems. And I'll repeat that this is more about understanding a problem in the rules then saying "this is how I now want to play the game" . As you mention, you have to understand how rules/laws interact and work before applying any fixes or implementation.

Edited April 18, 2021 by SkimaskMohawk

[malika666]

One thing I kinda find interesting in the book is that the Jackal type of mentioned separately from the Warhound Titan. I always assumed the Jackal was just a Warhound but with a specific weapon load out. But the books seems to be hinting at that it's a totally different type of Scout Titan.

[RipOffProductions]

One thing I kinda find interesting in the book is that the Jackal type of mentioned separately from the Warhound Titan. I always assumed the Jackal was just a Warhound but with a specific weapon load out. But the books seems to be hinting at that it's a totally different type of Scout Titan.

well the Carnivore and Nightgaunt used to just be specific Warlord load-outs in classic AT, but now-a-days is implied to be at least a specialized modification of the Warlord if not a whole new class of Titan.

[RedFurioso]

This book is the greatest source of AT lore ever. It's almost as if the FW team kept all this lore for future Heresy Black Books, but eventually gave up and released Loyalist Legios.

 

Can't wait for the Traitors Legios!