Legions Imperialis Legions Imperialis

[Black Cohort]

soon means nothing.  It could be pre-order by the end of the month, it could be released by New Years.  If they know the new timeline they should give it, with a disclaimer that things may shift still.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Man, I'm hoping that loose article statement and rule on the terrain sheet about ruins blocking LoS better not mean for an infinite height like the crappie 40k rules.

 

Last thing we need is Towering then anti Towering then another fix ad nauseum.

As read, with that incredibly limited article, a building doesn't block LoS, then when it becomes a ruin it does.

now I doubt it's gonna land like that, but be Better GeeDub, be Better.

I for one will treat all Terrain as blocking only as high as it physically is.

[Petitioner's City]

4 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Man, I'm hoping that loose article statement and rule on the terrain sheet about ruins blocking LoS better not mean for an infinite height like the crappie 40k rules.

 

Last thing we need is Towering then anti Towering then another fix ad nauseum.

As read, with that incredibly limited article, a building doesn't block LoS, then when it becomes a ruin it does.

now I doubt it's gonna land like that, but be Better GeeDub, be Better.

I for one will treat all Terrain as blocking only as high as it physically is.

 

It's a specialist game, I can't imagine many if any fixes ;)

[Interrogator Stobz]

That is my concern too, if it ain't good first up it's gonna stay broken.

 

They have great terrain rules for AT and KT, I have hope, cynical hope, but still hope.

[SkimaskMohawk]

After reading the leaked SA rules, I feel like the warcom articles are doing the game a disservice. 

 

They cut and paste rules into bite sized chunks and leave out important details. You compare the warlord preview with the avengers preview and it looks like the plane gets every weapon.  But it doesn't, and the real datasheet has options and restrictions.

 

I fully bet the ruins will say have an exclusion to titans.

[Burni]

There’s no suggested fortifications types yet are there? The bases make trench lines tricky so I’m guessing some kind of bunker? What does community Epic use?

[OttoVonAwesome]

10 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

After reading the leaked SA rules, I feel like the warcom articles are doing the game a disservice. 

 

They cut and paste rules into bite sized chunks and leave out important details. You compare the warlord preview with the avengers preview and it looks like the plane gets every weapon.  But it doesn't, and the real datasheet has options and restrictions.

 

I fully bet the ruins will say have an exclusion to titans.

Also tell you a bare minimum so you are more confused and angry than hyped. I think there is actually an exclusion to titans in there though in the fine print at the end.

[DuskRaider]

4 hours ago, Burni said:

There’s no suggested fortifications types yet are there? The bases make trench lines tricky so I’m guessing some kind of bunker? What does community Epic use?

I believe there’s bunkers on the Strategies sprue for AT… I think. I’m trying to remember if FW made some in their terrain pack as well. 

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

Also tell you a bare minimum so you are more confused and angry than hyped. I think there is actually an exclusion to titans in there though in the fine print at the end.

There is. No penalty to hit titans in difficult terrain.

[phandaal]

14 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

That is my concern too, if it ain't good first up it's gonna stay broken.

 

They have great terrain rules for AT and KT, I have hope, cynical hope, but still hope.

 

On the plus side, if people want to play Epic, the rules are still out there. So maybe the GW team lifted some of those rules for this new version.

[Captain Idaho]

With the delays now happening surrounding 40K, I have a feeling this release will be delayed further. Especially with 1 article every other week...

 

Anyway, the terrain rules is interesting. Buildings that can be destroyed seems like first turn of the game - people level the city so their infantry can move through ruins.

 

Somewhat appropriate in some aspects but perhaps not every game. I'll have to make sure I get plenty of ruins to match the buildings eh.

[Redcomet]

6 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

With the delays now happening surrounding 40K, I have a feeling this release will be delayed further. Especially with 1 article every other week...

 

Anyway, the terrain rules is interesting. Buildings that can be destroyed seems like first turn of the game - people level the city so their infantry can move through ruins.

 

Somewhat appropriate in some aspects but perhaps not every game. I'll have to make sure I get plenty of ruins to match the buildings eh.

Smart way to sell double terrain sets

[SkimaskMohawk]

Ya the nebulous rules for terrain is frustrating my buddy that has all the terrain for our games. Do structures turn into dangerous/difficult/obstructing terrain when they're destroyed? Is it only bunker buster weapons that can target structures, or do they just have an advantage when attacking them?

 

The fear is it being too easy to kill buildings, needing a whole secondary set of ruined structures, as well as removing all the restrictions on movement that impassable pieces tend to create. Maybe we can just houserule killed structures keep their impassable but otherwise get the obstructing rules as just blown-out, smoking shells or something.

[DuskRaider]

Yeah, this is where I am. I love the ruins and I think it’ll be fun to build ruined version of the buildings I have, but I have invested so much time and money into AT terrain, including massive buildings, that I can’t imagine or even afford to make ruined versions of them. 

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

needing a whole secondary set of ruined structures, as well as removing all the restrictions on movement that impassable pieces tend to create. Maybe we can just houserule killed structures keep their impassable but otherwise get the obstructing rules as just blown-out, smoking shells or something.

 

1 hour ago, DuskRaider said:

Yeah, this is where I am. I love the ruins and I think it’ll be fun to build ruined version of the buildings I have, but I have invested so much time and money into AT terrain, including massive buildings, that I can’t imagine or even afford to make ruined versions of them. 

 

I'm thinking it's a time to return to felt. Get some grey or brown felt, trace the bases of terrain pieces, and cut them out. Terrain piece gets destroyed? Replace it with felt to represent the difficult terrain. Mind you, I do like the idea of Imperial Grandus structures leaving obscuring terrain when blown up while the Militas and Civitas leave difficult terrain. Or Grandus becomes unpassable and Militas and Civitas becomes obscuring.

[Mendi Warrior]

22 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

Yeah, this is where I am. I love the ruins and I think it’ll be fun to build ruined version of the buildings I have, but I have invested so much time and money into AT terrain, including massive buildings, that I can’t imagine or even afford to make ruined versions of them. 

I saw your post and immediately thought adding markers to these buildings could solve the problem. E.g. cotton markers to indicate the building is on fire (or something similar), hence considered destroyed.

 

Ruined versions would be top of course and don't need to be overly expensive. Some base with the same footprint and a burnt shell of a building made of styrofoam and some plasticard? Eager to see the actual rules so as to better figure out what could work.

 

I'm probably in the same boat as you with the many buildings I made for AT 

[DuskRaider]

14 minutes ago, Mendi Warrior said:

I saw your post and immediately thought adding markers to these buildings could solve the problem. E.g. cotton markers to indicate the building is on fire (or something similar), hence considered destroyed.

 

Ruined versions would be top of course and don't need to be overly expensive. Some base with the same footprint and a burnt shell of a building made of styrofoam and some plasticard? Eager to see the actual rules so as to better figure out what could work.

 

I'm probably in the same boat as you with the many buildings I made for AT 

No, I think you actually have me beat in both quality and quantity, haha. If it wasn’t for the advice you gave me using sprue as supports I wouldn’t even have the large buildings I have now. 
 

I do like the idea of using some kind of tea light and cotton to designate ruined buildings. I’ll probably try to replicate them over time into ruins,  it for something on the fly that would work really well. 

[Noserenda]

I knocked some up out of foamboard to rep walls and some scaled rubble heaps, the emphasis being on staying as flat and level as possible without looking it so Titans can walk over them :D They werent high art but matched the dropzone card building footprints and were super quick! 

[SkimaskMohawk]

I actually saw some more leaked rules, and it's two pages of difficult terrain and the structures stuff.

 

Bases need to be wholly within an area of difficult to get the 6+ cover and -1 to hit, so there's less toe-in nonsense. You can also choose to avoid the -1 and 6+ cover when shooting at units with some bases wholly in and some not, but you're only able to allocate hits onto bases that aren't wholly within the area terrain.

 

There's a blurb on los, saying that if there's no specific los rules attached to a piece of terrain, it only blocks what can be hidden behind it; it's noted to appear abstract, but to allow for easy los resolution. It finishes by saying all terrain occupies an area, regardless of the physical appearance. Theres some pictures to try and illustrate the point; two corner Ls on rectangular base would count the entire area. How this plays into the vertical nature of terrain I'm not sure, especially as a lot of structures have tapering towers, and the crane is all sorts of dimensions, with the issue compounding further by structures explicitly blocking los. Do they block anything that crosses their outer edge footprint? Is it infinite los? Idk, but I'm hopeful that more is explained; the two pages really showed how warcom articles aren't really that helpful.

[BolterZorro]

6 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

the two pages really showed how warcom articles aren't really that helpful.

That's been the case for all rules articles on warcom, whatever the game it is about. Warcom is a marketing tool. It gives the taste of the rules but never unveils all of them. It raises the buzz with all the blind parts of the rules that are not released. This is the ultimate goal of warcom 

 

[Urauloth]

14 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Bases need to be wholly within an area of difficult to get the 6+ cover and -1 to hit, so there's less toe-in nonsense. You can also choose to avoid the -1 and 6+ cover when shooting at units with some bases wholly in and some not, but you're only able to allocate hits onto bases that aren't wholly within the area terrain.

Really like this. It's the most sensible iteration of terrain cover rules so far. It provides a meaningful tactical decision, and immediately eliminates both ridiculous edge cases (you know the ones: a fusillade rattles harmlessly off cover because one guy stuck his foot in a doorway, vs an entire company is vapourised inside their bunker because trooper Wiggins stepped outside for a smoke at the wrong time)

[SkimaskMohawk]

So originally looking through the solar auxilia list I was a bit unimpressed by some of the weapons that had ignore cover. Some were good, but most looked a little...eh.

 

Quote

 

The Demolisher cannon:

12" 1 dice 4+ to hit -3 ap Front Arc, Demolisher, Ignores Cover

 

 

Short range, but if you hit you're most likely punching through most armour and ignoring cover. Real solid imo.

 

Quote

Phosphex bomb clusters:

- 2 dice 4+ to hit -1 ap Rear Arc, Bombing Run, Light AT, Ignores cover

 

It's pretty okay, especially since you can double up on them for effective 4 dice pushing damage onto infantry and walkers, though you do need to plan your move.

 

 

But then some of the other ones:

 

Quote

Bane blade heavy flamers:

6" 2 dice 4+ to hit 0 ap Light, Point Defence, Ignores Cover 

Quote

Auxilia flamer:

6" 1 dice 4+ to hit 0 ap Light, Ignores Cover

Quote

Sentinel missile launcher (frag):

20" 2 dice 4+ to hit 0 ap Light Ignores Cover 

 

These are all super limited to walkers and infantry since Light bounces off vehicles, plus the lack of ap requires the following infantry to be in structures to actually benefit.

 

And then I double checked the structure rules and saw they impose a -2 to hit their occupants. Not having seen the rules for Ignore Cover, I have to assume it not only cuts through the cover save, but also any modifier to hit as well; you can't have these mostly short range weapons with low amounts of dice getting modified to hitting on 6s. 

 

So assuming I'm right, these weapons can definitely show some big utility; going from needing 5s/6s to hit a garrisoned unit who gets to bounce it on a 3+ cover save to a 4 to hit and 5+ armour (or worse if it's phosphex or demo cannon). Or maybe just kill the building around them lol.

[vadersson]

Hi gang,

 

Just got back from 3 weeks in the UK for a vacation.  GW stuff is much cheaper in pounds that the equivalent dollars.  Still I held off buying much 40K stuff in hopes of saving for LI.  I did find a couple copies of the Adeptus Titanicus starters and brought one home to the USA.  (The other is in the city center Warhammer store in Cardiff incase anyone is looking for one.)  So I now have at least some titans and knights to play with (and paint) while I wait for LI to release.  

 

BTW, did anyone see the Solar Auxillia article branded as LU on WarCom or have we all given up until a release date is announced?  :(

 

Thanks,

Duncan

[Interrogator Stobz]

Hey,

Pretty sure we're all just waiting impatiently 

Good find on the AT stuff 

[Valkyrion]

I have a question regarding CAF, as I never played old epic that used CAF, so this is a fun new mechanic for me.

You roll an extra D6 for each model after the first involved in the combat, so lets say there are 10 tactical squads wrapped around a Warhound Titan.

The first tactical squad and the warhound each roll 2D6 and add their CAF. The tactical squad loses and so is destroyed. The second tactical squad rolls 3D6, the third 4D6 and so on, each time losing a tactical squad (or wounding the warhound).

 

Is that right?