Jump to content

Thoughts about the core rules


Recommended Posts

I have read now twice the core rules of LI and thought in what way they are similar with Space Marine (2nd Epic). One thing I couldn´t get over was the fact that they made foot slogging a real alternative like in modern 30K/40K. Back in the day, if you were on the battlefield and missed your space bus/taxi you were screwed and moved only 20 cm on Charge orders (there were no March orders). This meant most Chaos units such as trolls, beastmen and minotaurs (no option to use transports) would need to use good terrain that would block LOS to arrive where they are headed in one piece. Using a Rhino would grant infantry a move of 50 cm on Charge orders. That´s just a proper improvement.

 

Now we look how this was addressed in LI. If infantry uses a March order they triple their movement. This means 15 inches for tacticals or even 21 inches for jump pack units. How fast are my tiny dudes when taking a Rhino on March orders? You only double the movement value thus the result is 18 inches. Your benefit is only three inches more than a foot slogger and you are even slower than jump pack units. This rubs me just the wrong way. Many months ago I viewed a couple of Dropzone Commander (DC) battle reports on Youtube. One thing I learned pretty quickly from DC is that you DON´T want your infantry units move on their own. It´s like moving in a quagmire. They won´t reach any important sites on an Epic battlefield.

 

In conclusion I am flabbergasted at the decision to make infantry without transports so fast. The better alternative would have been to triple the movement value of transports and only double that of infantry but what do I know as a grognard these days. What are your thoughts on that issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The value of transports is really high for Infantry. Both the transports and Infantry within are separate detachments and thus given separate orders at the start of the turn.

 

The order you act with the activations is up to you and if the embarked detachment hasn't used it's activation before it debarks, it can then use it's orders.

 

For normal transports like Rhinos, you can only give Advance or March orders, but for Assault transports you can also issue charge orders.

 

So just with Rhinos a Tactical detachment can March within the Rhino 18", disembark 1" then be activated and either March 15" more or Advance and move 5" and shoot.

 

Spartans with Terminators will be interesting with these rules... :devil:

Edited by Captain Idaho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Captain is right. 33" effective range to tag turn one objectives is pretty nifty, especially when there will be a whole raft of more tempting targets than rhinos for your opponent to shoot at on the first turn. 

 

And you can give them multi meltas to turn them into annoying melta wasps once they've dropped their troops off. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing you got to consider is how the game is going to look after people get access to artillery. 

 

Already thanks to my printer i have played games where i fielded 6-8 model strong rappier batteries with thud guns. Even with barrage 6 rappier's are taking 4 infantry bases off the board. My game i had excellent terrain in my deployment and got to place them in cover where they could get line of sight over a huge area and turn 1 killed 6 ogryn bases (unit rip). Even if you dont wipe them you are  most likely forcing a morale test, with max 30 inch range you are shooting INTO the enemies deployment. If the enemy  is planning to push up he is likely deployed 1-2 inches from his deployment edge if not right on it. Meaning with 24 inch no mans land you will have 2-4 inches of grace to find optimum deployment and still be able to fire into his deployment. Or go futher back and just cover all of no mans land.  Roll some dice with a 6-8 unit and then tell me if those infantry would have like a transport or not.

 

Once basilisks, whirwinds and the like hit the table (in numbers) simply marching up the board wont be as simple as 15mvs18m. And not EVERY unit will be able or will want to get into a building.  Being in  METAL BOXES will matter, and your enemies will hide in them, and you will wish to take their METAL BOXES away.  Or they wont have any, and your first fire artillery companies will start taking units of the board real real fast. 

 

Never forget while we got the whole rulebook, we have gotten at BEST 40%-50% of the 2 available armies so far.  I say enjoy the freedom of mass infantry marching while you can. 

 

 

Edited by Nagashsnee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raven Guard also get forward deployment on their transports, so if you don't want to go infiltration infantry, you can instead mech up and get your Rhinos 42" up the field. I would hazard a guess that Land Raiders and Spartans will be 8" movement, but even if they are only 7" that still gives Raven Guard a 33" effective CHARGE range out of them, let alone 38" march range.*

1000 points of infiltrating infantry screening a few healthy transport blobs that start the game 9" further up the board than your opponents models gives you tremendous board control from the off. 

 

Forward deploy 7, march 14, disembark 2, charge 10 - am I right there?

Edited by Valkyrion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dynamics of previous games have definitely been changed somewhat; both the movement that you mention and my first impressions are that firepower has been increased too, even though ranges are generally down - lots of special rules giving re-rolls and expanded weapon lists/profiles, these units are carrying a lot more firepower than in previous versions, even though ostensibly there are a lot more saving throws (especially for infantry) - so overall a lot more dice rolling.

 

Melee also, if you think 'rend' effectively gives a unit the power of Striking Socrpions in close combat - that unit was so powerful in SM2 it got nerfed in the community (NetEpic) edition!

And I think we are going to see lots of World Eater assault squads, their ability to re-roll a dice in something that (most of the time) is just a two dice roll-off - goodness me that is brutal.

 

Finally - I'm not sure if this is a modern feature, but no authors names in the rulebook? Playtesters or staff names (or even artists - although don't get me started on the lack of art! :D) Imagine this being your absolute labour of love, because this will have taken many months of your life, and then not having your name in print on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

The dynamics of previous games have definitely been changed somewhat; both the movement that you mention and my first impressions are that firepower has been increased too, even though ranges are generally down - lots of special rules giving re-rolls and expanded weapon lists/profiles, these units are carrying a lot more firepower than in previous versions, even though ostensibly there are a lot more saving throws (especially for infantry) - so overall a lot more dice rolling.

 

Melee also, if you think 'rend' effectively gives a unit the power of Striking Socrpions in close combat - that unit was so powerful in SM2 it got nerfed in the community (NetEpic) edition!

And I think we are going to see lots of World Eater assault squads, their ability to re-roll a dice in something that (most of the time) is just a two dice roll-off - goodness me that is brutal.

 

Finally - I'm not sure if this is a modern feature, but no authors names in the rulebook? Playtesters or staff names (or even artists - although don't get me started on the lack of art! :D) Imagine this being your absolute labour of love, because this will have taken many months of your life, and then not having your name in print on it.

If I am not mistaken the author´s absence had been introduced since Matt Ward received death threats due to his questionable lore and codex books. Artists are not allowed to roam free with their imagination but have to copy the existing model 1:1 or not work on a project at all. I am huge fan of vintage art (my Rogue Trader book will arrive next week) so this clean, almost sterilized, corporate approach to show us the universe doesn´t suit me at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm I'm not sure about that. I can't imagine a writer for GW is more at risk than creators of Marvel, of Star Wars, or music artists? And their names are all over their work. The crack-pots come out for all of them. I wonder if it's to stop the developers getting a name for themselves then moving on to another company (as practically everyone from GW has done at some point)

 

Totally agree on the style of book, I thought about it for a while and the definition I settled on for it is 'soul-less'. It's a remarkably descriptive set of rules, to the point of tedium, but the complete lack of artwork, of any colour, of flavourful background writing. I'm not sure I have read a GW publication that I have connected with less, and I absolutely love Epic. Even the background description of the battles is dull, and I've had to go back and read it in batches.

It's funny because that pseudo-historical style was brought in by Warwick Kinrade and the Imperial Armour books, and yet managed to contain much more verve than this - I'm not quite sure what it is about it, other than I can feel my heart rate slowing as I read it. Which absolutely shouldn't be the effect that GW is going for here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2023 at 10:19 AM, Valkyrion said:

Raven Guard also get forward deployment on their transports, so if you don't want to go infiltration infantry, you can instead mech up and get your Rhinos 42" up the field. I would hazard a guess that Land Raiders and Spartans will be 8" movement, but even if they are only 7" that still gives Raven Guard a 33" effective CHARGE range out of them, let alone 38" march range.*

1000 points of infiltrating infantry screening a few healthy transport blobs that start the game 9" further up the board than your opponents models gives you tremendous board control from the off. 

 

Forward deploy 7, march 14, disembark 2, charge 10 - am I right there?


I’m planning to try something similar out, but with Raven Guard terminators and dreadnoughts in Thunderhawks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Just thought I would add some comments here on a similar theme rather than start a new thread.

 

Got to play in an event over the weekend, my takeaways:

- Not sure if anecdotal, but Legions is one of 'those games' (perhaps like 28mm Heresy) where people seem to take a lot of time painting and presenting their armies. I don't think there was any grey on display and you can see a lot of effort went into it, there is such a great visual aspect.

- I enjoy playing! The two armies, on nice terrain, has a wonderful aesthetic. If nothing else, you can take that away.

- It is not possible to play three games in a day and have them played through to anything like a satisfying conclusion. Despite 3hrs per game most people only played two turns, if that, with a couple that finished after 1 turn because of concession. And this was a 2k soft 'narrative' game where lots of rule disputes and queries got waved through or decided with a dice-off. I would say at full points and a more competitive tournament scenario? The game is absolutely not suitable and you would struggle to finish 2 games in a day.

- There is just way, way too much crunch and granular detail in not only the rules and weapons loadouts. So much of the playing time is spent looking up ("hang on..this vehicle has an auto cannon") and completely unintuitive (needlessly complex) special rules. I cannot understand how Jervis Johnson came up with such a wonderfully abstract mechanism for Armageddon (one weapon type is anti armour, one is anti infantry) and then for this to be completely ignored for a subsequent edition. It's like someone creating headlights for cars to stop them crashing at night time, and then a subsequent vehicle to be designed without them.

- the VP system needs to be reworked. This event had cut back on VPs per turn to allow people to catch up if they didn't have infiltrating armies, but a lot of the time you can see the result of the game by midway of turn 2. Did they not play any previous versions of Epic and see how it worked in SM 2nd for example?

- Titans are useful as a points sink if you are otherwise short and unable to play, but otherwise a waste of time. Mine didn't get anywhere close to making it's points back, everyone I spoke to said likewise. Think they need a major rework, beyond a rebalancing of their points and weaponry. Perhaps worst of all, other than their visual look on the tabletop, they are just not interesting to use. Pretty ornaments that sit at the back shooting stuff and popping undramatically if anyone does give them attention.

 

Anyway just some more thoughts on the game. I still enjoy playing it, and it's great fun at the moment as you can get games and events easily, and we have the lovely new models range. But as a rules system, it has deep flaws that I would say probably put it below Epic Space Marine (certainly in terms of 'fun' and accessibility) and it isn't worthy to even crawl in the shadow of Armageddon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

It is not possible to play three games in a day and have them played through to anything like a satisfying conclusion. Despite 3hrs per game most people only played two turns, if that, with a couple that finished after 1 turn because of concession. And this was a 2k soft 'narrative' game where lots of rule disputes and queries got waved through or decided with a dice-off. I would say at full points and a more competitive tournament scenario? The game is absolutely not suitable and you would struggle to finish 2 games in a day.

 

I think this can actually be addressed, though I totally agree aiming for more than a couple rounds in a day, you'd have to be playing way smaller games. But just starting with say 2k, if everyone was forced to put 1/3 or half their detachment in reserve, and scoring was perhaps changed to end game, there may be less of a bogged down first few turns. I also think a big problem is GW really over-reached by not limiting overwatch to mostly be only on first fire. What burns people out isn't JUST the high amount of detachments and alternating early game, it's also the very involved interrupt mechanics of overwatch and point defense etc. It can all get a bit taxing, it the same reason im not a fan of reactions in 30k, they scale poorly and just muck up larger games. But I do think a lot can be done to sorta taylor a meta for an event that can work. As a thought experiment we can all imagine for fun an all tank event being fairly breezy in comparison to an infantry heavy event, simply on account of resolving shooting being generally faster than combat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

 

- There is just way, way too much crunch and granular detail in not only the rules and weapons loadouts. So much of the playing time is spent looking up ("hang on..this vehicle has an auto cannon") and completely unintuitive (needlessly complex) special rules. I cannot understand how Jervis Johnson came up with such a wonderfully abstract mechanism for Armageddon (one weapon type is anti armour, one is anti infantry) and then for this to be completely ignored for a subsequent edition. It's like someone creating headlights for cars to stop them crashing at night time, and then a subsequent vehicle to be designed without them.

 

 

Yeah it's also even more puzzling when you look at the weapon special rules section and see that they have a bunch of rules that have not appeared on any weapon yet, it's annoying in a specific context, for one there are a number of weapon special rules that give some incentive to declaring first fire or simply not moving, and other than the deredeo's none other have shown up. One of them would be great on the medusa, it's called siege weapon, and simply it doubles a weapons range if the model doesn't move. There's another one that if a model is on first fire it can re-roll 1's to hit. It's a shame they're not even fully using the crunch, nor are they really able to cost a lot of it seemingly with the weapon options that are often not created equal and rarer still have any sort of upgrade cost. 

5 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

- the VP system needs to be reworked. This event had cut back on VPs per turn to allow people to catch up if they didn't have infiltrating armies, but a lot of the time you can see the result of the game by midway of turn 2. Did they not play any previous versions of Epic and see how it worked in SM 2nd for example?-

 

I've been sorta blowing that horn for months on the end game scoring front. The game just doesn't work for modern scoring schemes, and progressive doesn't just lead to big leads that can't be come back from but the scores are so high it looks like a basketball game in the end if it even gets that far. End game scoring just works so much better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

 

- Titans are useful as a points sink if you are otherwise short and unable to play, but otherwise a waste of time. Mine didn't get anywhere close to making it's points back, everyone I spoke to said likewise. Think they need a major rework, beyond a rebalancing of their points and weaponry. Perhaps worst of all, other than their visual look on the tabletop, they are just not interesting to use. Pretty ornaments that sit at the back shooting stuff and popping undramatically if anyone does give them attention.

 

Anyway just some more thoughts on the game. I still enjoy playing it, and it's great fun at the moment as you can get games and events easily, and we have the lovely new models range. But as a rules system, it has deep flaws that I would say probably put it below Epic Space Marine (certainly in terms of 'fun' and accessibility) and it isn't worthy to even crawl in the shadow of Armageddon.

 

I think it's not just titans feeling that way, super heavies and knights feel a bit lackluster at times. Vehicles too really. And planes are too expensive given how natural 6's can still down them. 

 

I think the game gives way too much to infantry, I'm fine with elite or expensive infantry being all stars that can assault anything but its so silly that my baseline lasgun solar aux are lik rocking tanks in combat, it just seems dumb. On that point as well, rhinos and arvus's doing silly charges to much up stuff feels wrong as well. 

 

I get it though, they probably fear no one will buy or paint infantry in any great number unless they're quite good for their points but I think infantry can still be made to work in the meta if the terrain can fall in line and help out where needed like structures, 

 

 

As for making titans feel cooler, why aren't they just splatting infantry again? I feel the same way with tanks too tbh, the psychology of play is to charge vehicles that can't get away as they've already moved, which makes NO SENSE, no in a causal way, just in a "this tank is going 65khm" and somehow that's helpful to infantry running out to attack it? I again don't know why most not in power armour wouldn't go splat. Reminds me of 8th edition 40k when all of a sudden a grot could stop a baneblade dead in its tracks for no reason. 

 

One possible fix for titans would be porting over one of the changes from titandeath. Basically each voidshield is itself a 5+ inv save, so instead of just being ablative wounds they can regenerate at the end of the turn, if one rolls well they may not even need to regenerate all of them. The problem with this however is, it quickly gets silly with stuff like the warmaster. 

 

What I'd do to fix infantry, make it so they need an upgrade to have permission to charge vehicles/titans/knights. Like without purchasing krak grenades or meltabombs, they just can't initiate a charge against those unit types at all. That would help introduce a bit of a tax, but also perhaps give titans knights and other vehicles a bit of breathing room. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be a better way to balance infantry and vehicles (tanks, transports, fliers and Titans). 
 

This is the same issue I have with modern 40K. Don’t tell me that a Lasgun can take down a Land Raider. IDGAF how many guns are shooting at it, weak points, etc. The death of armor values and templates was the death of 40K (and 30K). 
 

I think the best way to handle it is by making tanks impervious to small arms fire, but make Infantry the only scoring option. Technically yes, this would strike Armored Companies with a major handicap, but for 2K games I doubt you’re only bringing tanks. 
 

Keep rules like Rend to a select few units (Charonite are fine, include Terminators and get rid of Axemen). Infiltrate needs to be reeled in big time. 
 

Make the rules for Titans more granular. Hell, import the AT rules and limit them to one per force or make them extremely expensive to limit their ability to wipe the board. Better yet, take them out of the game altogether except for certain scenarios. For what you can field for 2,000 - 3,000 points, a Warlord *should* be able to wipe it all out. 
 

They have attempted to emulate the 28mm game with Infantry and Transports, but everything else was made extremely weak and that’s one of the biggest issues IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DuskRaider said:

There has to be a better way to balance infantry and vehicles (tanks, transports, fliers and Titans). 
 

This is the same issue I have with modern 40K. Don’t tell me that a Lasgun can take down a Land Raider. IDGAF how many guns are shooting at it, weak points, etc. The death of armor values and templates was the death of 40K (and 30K). 
 

I think the best way to handle it is by making tanks impervious to small arms fire, but make Infantry the only scoring option. Technically yes, this would strike Armored Companies with a major handicap, but for 2K games I doubt you’re only bringing tanks. 
 

 

 

Yeah when 8th ed did the stupid everything can hurt everything it just killed immersion for me completely. I think they need to do two things, limit infantry's ability to charge non walkers/cavalry without some kind of tax, like krak grenades. And also have meltabombs. Krak simply is what would give infantry permission to charge non walkers/cavalry, but still allow vehicles their save in combat, then have meltabombs be basically where we are now, no save. And tax accordingly. Could even tie rend into it, ie you have to invest in full on meltabombs to even be able to apply rend to non-walker/cav/inf models. 

 

That and cut charge range down to 5 inches if its from a structure. I don't think scoring needs to change, just it does need to be suicidal or impossible for some infantry to meaningfully charge large tank units. 

Edited by Crablezworth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DuskRaider said:

Keep rules like Rend to a select few units (Charonite are fine, include Terminators and get rid of Axemen). Infiltrate needs to be reeled in big time. 
 

Make the rules for Titans more granular. Hell, import the AT rules and limit them to one per force or make them extremely expensive to limit their ability to wipe the board. Better yet, take them out of the game altogether except for certain scenarios. For what you can field for 2,000 - 3,000 points, a Warlord *should* be able to wipe it all out. 
 

They have attempted to emulate the 28mm game with Infantry and Transports, but everything else was made extremely weak and that’s one of the biggest issues IMO

 

Axemen are fine, as long as we can temper what their axes are effective against, as mentioned earlier. I agree that infiltrate definitely needs to be reeled in quit e a bit, my thoughts are scenario hard caps indexed to point level like maximum x amount of detachments per side may infiltrate per 1k sorta thing. 

 

I think titans and knights work better as a side agreement than being in the core game. Also armigers need  to be able to be their own detachments, even if their purchase is indexed to having to still buy knights, the having them connected at the hip with independent is just too much of a limitation for the cost. But ya, we've had better success making lists with the usual LI stuff and then just agreeing to take like mirror match for knights and titans, one example is we both just took like 1k list but also both took an acastus and 3 armigers, and just agreed to run the armigers as their own detachment, as its not like either side had a million activations. But ya titans need more work. 

 

I think the problem without being cynical is, the designer or designers are given some rather hard limits from the company/marketing that they have to sorta play ball with. GW wants sorta maximum freedom of list building, but the incentives are all wonky on account of that. Like pricing resilience but not really weaponry. So much so that the rare uprade cost can stand out as very odd. Like paying 2pts a rhino but 0pts for titan weapons. Again I think they had to do it so they titan and knights could still largely fit into the 30% thing, And even then it took them really obviously costing the titans on a curve and not a linear scale, made obvious by the warmaster being only 150pts more than the warlord. 

 

 

 

 

@Pacific81 @DuskRaider I put together a scenario with 6 special rules designed to sorta shape/alter the meta a bit, not sure if you've had a chance to take a look but could be worth it after your experience with the event. 

 

Edited by Crablezworth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d be happier if they just came up with Armored Company rules for Titanicus instead of trying to shoehorn Titans into Imperialis and failing, which is what they’ve currently done. They just don’t feel right and from what I’ve heard, this was a big issue with the prior version of Epic as well. Seems they’ve learned nothing from the past and are currently repeating it. 
 

Regarding Infiltration… a hard cap needs to be set on the number of units that can utilize the rule and a limitation on the type that can. Currently, you need to somewhat tailor your list to topple buildings to flush them out / kill them, because often times they’re right up on your deployment zone and you start losing stuff from the get-go.
 

Last I remember, it was ambiguous if Infiltrating units can start in structures, this needs a hard answer. If they aren’t allowed to, that means they need to use their first turn to do so and thus rendering First Fire orders inaccessible. We’ve already house ruled it that they cannot start in structures. 
 

I do appreciate that GW made a new version of Epic. I’m thrilled that it’s set in 30K and they had the foresight to base their previous games in the same scale, but these rules seem more like a beta version than a finished, refined product. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion a lot of the flaws with LI come down to the game can't decide if it wants to be a detailed representation of large armies or abstracted so you can run huge armies in a reasonable amount of time.  So parts of the rules are weirdly detailed (how many slightly different versions of lascannons and autocannons are there in the rules?) then the next page over the point cost for every version of a Titan is the same despite different weapons being wildly more/less useful.  Also movement speed and weapon ranges don't make sense, Infantry shouldn't be able to move multiple times their weapon range in a single move, it makes ranged weapons pointless.  The whole project rules wise feels rushed/done by people who don't care.

 

I love the models and despite the fact that I plan to use other rules for gaming with them the overall quality of the project has massively lowered my motivation to paint either of the armies I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Team,

Honestly a bit bummed about the playability of LI, we play almost every 2-3 weeks and it just never feels quite right.

So, instead of writing up a bunch of house rules from the recommendations here, I just downloaded a pdf of EA compendium. It seems at first glance to be a complete ruleset.

Is that the best version of rules for this scale game? 

And do I need to Google-fu further?

Thanks for any help...

 

Edited by Interrogator Stobz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Caveat of not having played a full and proper game of LI, Epic Armageddon is the best version of Epic, our group has come back to it many times since release, hell i even helped playtest some of it its that old lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I’d be happier if they just came up with Armored Company rules for Titanicus instead of trying to shoehorn Titans into Imperialis and failing, which is what they’ve currently done. They just don’t feel right and from what I’ve heard, this was a big issue with the prior version of Epic as well. Seems they’ve learned nothing from the past and are currently repeating it. 
 

Regarding Infiltration… a hard cap needs to be set on the number of units that can utilize the rule and a limitation on the type that can. Currently, you need to somewhat tailor your list to topple buildings to flush them out / kill them, because often times they’re right up on your deployment zone and you start losing stuff from the get-go.
 

Last I remember, it was ambiguous if Infiltrating units can start in structures, this needs a hard answer. If they aren’t allowed to, that means they need to use their first turn to do so and thus rendering First Fire orders inaccessible. We’ve already house ruled it that they cannot start in structures. 
 

I do appreciate that GW made a new version of Epic. I’m thrilled that it’s set in 30K and they had the foresight to base their previous games in the same scale, but these rules seem more like a beta version than a finished, refined product. 

 

Well I can totally agree titans feel shoe horned and not quite there, I actually think it's a minor miracle that the 30% limit even exists so at least we can be happy gw didn't right off the bat try and push titans/knights as their own faction. But I must agree it'd be nice if we got an updated weapons lists with actual costs attached. The problem of course is the point costs already feel a bit all over the place. 

 

Infiltrate definitely needs a hard cap, no question. Agreed they should give a clear answer on whether or not infiltrators can deploy in structures. 

 

I think LI is salvageable but people also are their own worst enemies. After realizing the crunchiness my instinct was to play lower points, not just keep slogging away at 3k games that never get past two turns. It's a game with very loose army construction and a vast ability to skew, not to mention player access to certain units that have  yet to see re-release has also made for very weird meta's. But bottom line it is a game that does indeed not quite know what it wants to be, my hope is either expansions from gw or player lead efferots can helps at least clean it up a bit and refine it a bit. If that means players having to both be on the same page as to what specific flavor of epic battle they wish to engage in then that might be for the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll be real with you, as much as I hate Infiltrate, I’ve had a fairly easy time dealing with it. Maybe it’s because I’ve only come across Pioneer Formations and they have limited access to units unlike Alpha Legion or Raven Guard, but it just makes the game feel… blah. It doesn’t feel right, especially narratively. I can see it to a point with AL and RG, but not Auxilia and even with the Astartes it has to be nerfed so that they can’t infiltrate their entire force. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I’ll be real with you, as much as I hate Infiltrate, I’ve had a fairly easy time dealing with it. Maybe it’s because I’ve only come across Pioneer Formations and they have limited access to units unlike Alpha Legion or Raven Guard, but it just makes the game feel… blah. It doesn’t feel right, especially narratively. I can see it to a point with AL and RG, but not Auxilia and even with the Astartes it has to be nerfed so that they can’t infiltrate their entire force. 

 

It's also that with auxillia allies its so open so easy to do pioneer and there's a lot in there that gets to infiltrate, like ogryns. Can also get quite ae few infiltrating detachments with 30% points of points. 

Edited by Crablezworth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2023 at 8:37 PM, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

I have read now twice the core rules of LI and thought in what way they are similar with Space Marine (2nd Epic). One thing I couldn´t get over was the fact that they made foot slogging a real alternative like in modern 30K/40K. Back in the day, if you were on the battlefield and missed your space bus/taxi you were screwed and moved only 20 cm on Charge orders (there were no March orders). This meant most Chaos units such as trolls, beastmen and minotaurs (no option to use transports) would need to use good terrain that would block LOS to arrive where they are headed in one piece. Using a Rhino would grant infantry a move of 50 cm on Charge orders. That´s just a proper improvement.

 

Now we look how this was addressed in LI. If infantry uses a March order they triple their movement. This means 15 inches for tacticals or even 21 inches for jump pack units. How fast are my tiny dudes when taking a Rhino on March orders? You only double the movement value thus the result is 18 inches. Your benefit is only three inches more than a foot slogger and you are even slower than jump pack units. This rubs me just the wrong way. Many months ago I viewed a couple of Dropzone Commander (DC) battle reports on Youtube. One thing I learned pretty quickly from DC is that you DON´T want your infantry units move on their own. It´s like moving in a quagmire. They won´t reach any important sites on an Epic battlefield.

 

In conclusion I am flabbergasted at the decision to make infantry without transports so fast. The better alternative would have been to triple the movement value of transports and only double that of infantry but what do I know as a grognard these days. What are your thoughts on that issue?

 

 

Yes, I think there could have been a better solution to the super-speed of infantry. One of the things I miss from Epic: Armageddon is the lack of the Double action (i.e. double move with limited shooting), as a halfway house between Advance (single move, full shooting) and March (triple move, no shooting).

 

Within the context of Epic: Legions Imperialis (LI), I think triple movement ought to be restricted to units (of all types) that travel along roads, rather than the sticking-plaster fix for the slow speed of infantry. It would make the terrain central to the experience, slightly mute the versatility of infantry, and make transports more valuable.

 

+++

 

More broadly, the game suffers in comparison with previous editions of Epic – it's needlessly more complicated than any previous edition, and far too granular. I agree with @Pacific81's assessment in a lot of places.

 

Epic Armageddon (EA) is the high water mark for me of 6mm rules (@Interrogator Stobz, this would be my recommendation for a better experience), but even in the context of this being a fond revision of Space Marine 2nd edition (SM2), I think LI falls a little short. My own conclusion is that it's a lot of fun, but could have been brilliant, had it had a steadier editorial direction.

 

Key changes I'd make to a prospective future revised edition (LI2), without a full rewrite:

  • Make War Engines a bit more interesting to use – the Titandeath rules on order of fire etc. should have been part of the core rules from the start. Voids likewise could do with looking at; and while a full return of SM2-style targetting is probably a bit too complex, some sort of ongoing damage tracking/effects like damaged weapons would be fine.
  • Strip back the special rules, particularly in edge cases, and adjust the stats instead. A simple improvement in CAF would be a good replacement for Rend, as a simple example. Independent is an awkward cludge; as are the weird distinctions between Transports and Dedicated Transports.
  • Consolidate weapons and upgrades. It's very strange that some upgrades cost points, others are free, and some are merely aesthetic (e.g. pintle heavy bolters). 
  • Make a choice on whether Detachments are going to be mixed or not and apply the decision universally. At the moment, core infantry Detachments like Solar Auxilia and Tactical Marines are in a weird halfway house; neither mono-type like E:A nor mixed like E:40k.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.