Legions Imperialis Legions Imperialis

[Bung]

6 minutes ago, Metzombie said:

Could this be part of the Death Guard rules?

 

I rather suspect other things like those players not knowing / ignoring the Rules or the GW Team changing army lists between games but not updating the article.

 

People always should remember those WD Battle Reports are as serious as wrestling matches.

They are there to show the new stuff not a real Battle.

[Redcomet]

9 minutes ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

Do tank loadouts matter in the game? I've noticed several people assembling Malcadors with both Battle and Demolisher cannons, even though it's an impossible combination in 40k. Was there a change in LI rulebook about that? Also, is there a "fluff" loadout for the Vanquisher variant specified? Does anyone know?

A lot of people just build what looks cool. And s long as you play with friends it reqlly doesn’t matter

[Petitioner's City]

3 hours ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

Do tank loadouts matter in the game? I've noticed several people assembling Malcadors with both Battle and Demolisher cannons, even though it's an impossible combination in 40k. 

 

This wan't impossible in 30k, going back to 2012 :) 

 

 

The edit: vanquisher cannon was new for the new edition, which hopefully has something to do with a large-scale plastic example :)

 

ps - my post got weirdly repeated three times and not able to delete the quote boxes, so hidden in the following

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Petitioner's City
Removed duplicates

[Mandragola]

33 minutes ago, Metzombie said:

Could this be part of the Death Guard rules?

It isn't the DG rules. They get to ignore the effects of dangerous terrain and make a couple of areas of the battlefield dangerous. You actually get this benefit for having 1+ Formations of DG in your army, so arguably there's no reason to have more than one Formation of them. A few Legions are like this, encouraging you to bring a multi-Legion force.

26 minutes ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

Do tank loadouts matter in the game? I've noticed several people assembling Malcadors with both Battle and Demolisher cannons, even though it's an impossible combination in 40k. Was there a change in LI rulebook about that? Also, is there a "fluff" loadout for the Vanquisher variant specified? Does anyone know?

Loadouts do matter and are pretty flexible. The malcador can have any of three turret, four hull and three sponson weapon options - which is probably why you only get two to a sprue. You get four Russes but far fewer options and no sponsons.

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

15 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

A lot of people just build what looks cool. And s long as you play with friends it reqlly doesn’t matter

 

I have no problem with lack of WYSIWYG, I was simply curious, whether it mirrors the rules.

 

6 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

 

This wan't impossible in 30k, going back to 2012 :) 

 

 

 

The demolisher cannon was new for the new edition, which hopefully has something to do with a large-scale plastic example :)

 

ps - my post got weirdly repeated three times and not able to delete the quote boxes, so hidden in the following

 

 

Oh right, I didn't remeber that. Yeah, Liber Imperialis has all the options, thanks. It'll be cool to see the normal seized plastic Malcador, even if my favourite Defender variant is not a thing in HH (sad, very sad face).

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

Do tank loadouts matter in the game?

 

Generally ya for tanks. There's broadly three ways to build a tank; an anti infantry build with a ton of heavy bolters, a midrange build with autocannons, and an anti tank build with lascannons.

 

Heavy bolters can split fire into infantry, and i think after moving due to point defence, but light straight up can't hurt tanks as far as i understand. Autocannons can hurt vehicles, but their AP stat is ignored. Lascannons are the opposite where their ap stat is ignored when shooting at infantry (while also tending to have the lowest amount of shots so you can't just brute force saves with their good to-hit value).

 

The Demolisher is simply a good weapon. It's one shot and short range, but it has great ap, ignores cover (can be huge against cover stacking) and doesn't fall off against any unit type.

 

 

[Marshal Rohr]

1 minute ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

Generally ya for tanks. There's broadly three ways to build a tank; an anti infantry build with a ton of heavy bolters, a midrange build with autocannons, and an anti tank build with lascannons.

 

Heavy bolters can split fire into infantry, and i think after moving due to point defence, but light straight up can't hurt tanks as far as i understand. Autocannons can hurt vehicles, but their AP stat is ignored. Lascannons are the opposite where their ap stat is ignored when shooting at infantry (while also tending to have the lowest amount of shots so you can't just brute force saves with their good to-hit value).

 

The Demolisher is simply a good weapon. It's one shot and short range, but it has great ap, ignores cover (can be huge against cover stacking) and doesn't fall off against any unit type.

 

 

This is exciting. 

[Valkyrion]

Are Dreadnoughts vehicles for the purposes of Heavy and Light?

Same with Javelins and Land Speeders?

[Mandragola]

40 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

Generally ya for tanks. There's broadly three ways to build a tank; an anti infantry build with a ton of heavy bolters, a midrange build with autocannons, and an anti tank build with lascannons.

 

Heavy bolters can split fire into infantry, and i think after moving due to point defence, but light straight up can't hurt tanks as far as i understand. Autocannons can hurt vehicles, but their AP stat is ignored. Lascannons are the opposite where their ap stat is ignored when shooting at infantry (while also tending to have the lowest amount of shots so you can't just brute force saves with their good to-hit value).

 

The Demolisher is simply a good weapon. It's one shot and short range, but it has great ap, ignores cover (can be huge against cover stacking) and doesn't fall off against any unit type.

 

 

I agree the demolisher is a great weapon. It has a short range though and Malcadors aren't especially tough. It can be used to blow up buildings, which is very useful but not ideal on an expensive vehicle with other guns. The other shots that can't damage a building are wasted.

 

I think there might often be a best weapon option, and that quite often that will be the anti-tank one. It's true their AP doesn't work against infantry and cavalry, but actually AP isn't worth very much against those targets. They tend to have fairly bad armour saves anyway, so you don't especially need AP against them. They will also try and be in cover a lot, making AP irrelevant. But AP is very relevant against tanks, which tend to have 2 or 3+ saves, so Light or Light AT weapons are pretty useless.

 

AT guns also tend to have better range and accuracy, meaning they'd probably get similar numbers of hits against infantry over the course of a game as a Light weapon, often from safely outside the infantry's range to fire back or assault your vehicle.

 

So you're choosing between a lascannon that you can fire at any target vs a heavy bolter that's only marginally better against infantry, and only if you get in range - which takes time and puts you in danger. The Lascannon is pretty much always going to be the right choice I think.

[MoriyaSchism]

4 hours ago, LameBeard said:

Maybe it will go beyond marketing? There is precedent for supplements to cover more than one game system - maybe we’ll get that in the future. White Dwarf teased the cross-over campaign.

 

1. Do frater think this is likely?

2. Do frater think this is desirable?

 

I remember the original Slaves to Darkness very fondly, and that included WHFB, WHFR and 40k. A couple of Heresy Games together could share fluff much more easily.

The most recent example of a book that was a supplement for multiple systems would be some of the Imerial Armour books. If I recall correctly I believe the two Badab War books had rules for Warhammer 40K, Apocalypse and Battlefleet Gothic. I wouldn't mind it if it was done right. Not sure how likely it is with how GW does things these days or if people would want to buy books featuring systems they don't play. I personally wouldn't mind seeing this in 40K or Horus Heresy. Maybe these mixed books would work well as narrative expansions.

Edited November 21, 2023 by MoriyaSchism

[Marshal Rohr]

29 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

I agree the demolisher is a great weapon. It has a short range though and Malcadors aren't especially tough. It can be used to blow up buildings, which is very useful but not ideal on an expensive vehicle with other guns. The other shots that can't damage a building are wasted.

 

I think there might often be a best weapon option, and that quite often that will be the anti-tank one. It's true their AP doesn't work against infantry and cavalry, but actually AP isn't worth very much against those targets. They tend to have fairly bad armour saves anyway, so you don't especially need AP against them. They will also try and be in cover a lot, making AP irrelevant. But AP is very relevant against tanks, which tend to have 2 or 3+ saves, so Light or Light AT weapons are pretty useless.

 

AT guns also tend to have better range and accuracy, meaning they'd probably get similar numbers of hits against infantry over the course of a game as a Light weapon, often from safely outside the infantry's range to fire back or assault your vehicle.

 

So you're choosing between a lascannon that you can fire at any target vs a heavy bolter that's only marginally better against infantry, and only if you get in range - which takes time and puts you in danger. The Lascannon is pretty much always going to be the right choice I think.

The range and factions aren’t complete. Defaulting to anti-armor is the trap AoD is falling in right now because there aren’t enough units in plastic that is causing cookie cutter efficiency builds. When more and varied infantry is released and the factions expand beyond marines and Auxilia just tanking nothing but anti-armor on tanks might be a huge handicap against Mechanicum robots or anti-tank wielding infantry units in cover. 

[Noserenda]

I think people are wishlisting a much more organised and efficiency focused Specialist games team more than anything else here :D 

[Captain Idaho]

It definitely depends on your army and lots of weapons will suit better if you have a theme that goes one way or the other.

 

Probably a detailed conversation we can have in the Legions Imperialis forum here

Edited November 21, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Gillyfish]

It remains to be seen how things settle in terms of loadout. I can imagine that quite a few players will aim to specialise a tank squadron's armament to fulfil a particular role and then make sure it fulfils it, otherwise shots might be wasted if a squadron can't split fire. An exception might be for 'defensive' weapons which allow for overwatch and are more effective against infantry in an otherwise anti-tank squadron.

 

Having said that, I quite like the thematic quality of a mixed-loadout squadron as it feels more 'real' (acknowledging that that is a very malleable concept for this setting :D).

[Marshal Rohr]

Tanks most important weapons are its machine guns, so there’s never a reason not to include anti-infantry weapons as secondary slots. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Mandragola said:

I agree the demolisher is a great weapon. It has a short range though and Malcadors aren't especially tough. It can be used to blow up buildings, which is very useful but not ideal on an expensive vehicle with other guns. The other shots that can't damage a building are wasted.

 

I think there might often be a best weapon option, and that quite often that will be the anti-tank one. It's true their AP doesn't work against infantry and cavalry, but actually AP isn't worth very much against those targets. They tend to have fairly bad armour saves anyway, so you don't especially need AP against them. They will also try and be in cover a lot, making AP irrelevant. But AP is very relevant against tanks, which tend to have 2 or 3+ saves, so Light or Light AT weapons are pretty useless.

 

AT guns also tend to have better range and accuracy, meaning they'd probably get similar numbers of hits against infantry over the course of a game as a Light weapon, often from safely outside the infantry's range to fire back or assault your vehicle.

 

So you're choosing between a lascannon that you can fire at any target vs a heavy bolter that's only marginally better against infantry, and only if you get in range - which takes time and puts you in danger. The Lascannon is pretty much always going to be the right choice I think.

 

I tend to agree that lascannons are hard to go wrong with.

 

But I can also easily see mass infantry being a nuisance when solar aux can get a mountain of capable melee bodies for 100-120 and you're stuck with 1 shot. Or mass terminators to tank those anti tank shots in integrated tactical squads/dedicated deepstriking units. 

 

That being said, you've seen far more of the rules than I have, but I think the heavy bolter will have a role to play if there's a lot of infantry that are trying to get into melee. 

[Mandragola]

Typically the choice you're making is between a heavy bolter: with 12" range, 2 shots hitting on 5+, AP0, Light and Point Defence vs a Lascannon with 22" range, 1 shot hitting on a 4+, AP-1 and Anti-tank.

 

I'm not arguing that you don't need weapons to kill infantry - you absolutely do. But I'm saying the heavy bolters aren't much better at doing it than lascannons. The worse range and accuracy on the heavy bolters means they won't tend to get many more hits on infantry. Neither has any AP. There are hit modifiers and cover saves in LI so it'll be common to be firing at units with -1 to hit and a 5+ cover save. In that situation a lascannon is a better gun than the heavy bolter because they kill equal amounts of stuff, but from nearly twice as far away in the lascannon's case.

 

Meanwhile of course vehicles are immune to heavy bolters. Dreadnoughts aren't, but get to reroll their saves. Lascannons are vastly better against them.

 

In some cases the decision is even more clear. A Contemptor's Kheres assault cannon gets 1 shot at 10" range, hitting on a 5+ with -1AP, Light AT (no AP vs vehicles) and Rapid Fire (2 hits on a natural 6 to hit). Its Lascannon gets 1 shot at 22" range hitting on a 4+ at -1AP with Accurate (full rerolls to hit) and Anti-tank. The Lascannon is simply better against every target and it really isn't close.

 

The problem is that GW are incabable of basic probability maths. They've always done this - giving us choices where it's obvious which is the best answer. 

 

For killing infantry I think you want weapons that ignore cover, which are rare. The missile launchers that marines and sentinels have can fire frag, which gets 2 shots and ignores cover. Those are exceptionally good and it's just a shame you don't get more of them, especially as their krak profile is a 20" range lascannon. I'd run formations of those Sentinels if I could.

[Pacific81]

4 hours ago, Bung said:

 

I rather suspect other things like those players not knowing / ignoring the Rules or the GW Team changing army lists between games but not updating the article.

 

People always should remember those WD Battle Reports are as serious as wrestling matches.

They are there to show the new stuff not a real Battle.

 

I am pretty sure the guys that did the battle rep are the designers of the game! :)

 

[Noserenda]

Counterintuitively the designers often have the least grip on the rules of anyone because they play so many different versions of the game, often in quick succession. So they not only have a dozen sometimes subtly different playtest iterations, but also finished the "live" version of the game a year ago and are currently thinking about and playtesting two supplements down the line in their day job, plus all the other games SG do, plus a few previous versions of Epic, plus everything else, plus the mild worry that the washing machine has been making odd noises... ;) 

They are also playing with rules we havent seen yet in at least one supplement, and thats assuming they didnt scrap a rule last minute that all marines can take rhinos wherever. Mayhem! 

[Metzombie]

9 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

I'm not arguing that you don't need weapons to kill infantry - you absolutely do. But I'm saying the heavy bolters aren't much better at doing it than lascannons. The worse range and accuracy on the heavy bolters means they won't tend to get many more hits on infantry. Neither has any AP. There are hit modifiers and cover saves in LI so it'll be common to be firing at units with -1 to hit and a 5+ cover save. In that situation a lascannon is a better gun than the heavy bolter because they kill equal amounts of stuff, but from nearly twice as far away in the lascannon's case.

But Point Defence rule lets, if I am not mistaken, the H.Bolter shoot a different target while lascanon always fieres at same targetg as the main gun of the tank.

[SkimaskMohawk]

@Mandragola you know I had the heavy bolter as 3 shots on the brain; 2 shots definitely lowers their potential and I'm in firm agreement with you.

 

41 minutes ago, Metzombie said:

But Point Defence rule lets, if I am not mistaken, the H.Bolter shoot a different target while lascanon always fieres at same targetg as the main gun of the tank.

 

His point is that after you've killed the infantry, the heavy bolter starts bouncing off of vehicles and is very limited in its application; the lascannon can be applied to all targets, though with some reduced effectiveness. 

[LameBeard]

59 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

The problem is that GW are incapable of basic probability maths. They've always done this - giving us choices where it's obvious which is the best answer. 

 

I agree - but that would be ok if reflected in points. Sorry I haven’t dug in to the leaks - are we saying the dreadnought can upgrade from kheres to lascannon for free? (And similar)

[vadersson]

1 hour ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Tanks most important weapons are its machine guns, so there’s never a reason not to include anti-infantry weapons as secondary slots. 

Sounds like you have played Bolt Action.  

 

I do like that there are options and I think they will each find their uses.

[Pacific81]

@Noserenda - that is very true! There is also the possibility that they were using a formation from a future expansion in the battle report.

[SkimaskMohawk]

46 minutes ago, LameBeard said:

I agree - but that would be ok if reflected in points. Sorry I haven’t dug in to the leaks - are we saying the dreadnought can upgrade from kheres to lascannon for free? (And similar)

 

Ya, almost everything is a flat point cost like modern 40k for wargear, so it's just a matter of figuring out the math on the available options.