Thoughts about the core rules

[Noserenda]

10 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

They used Blast Markers In Epic 40k - were they used like in 8th Edition Apocalypse 40k - i.e, the unit wasn't destroyed until after all units had taken an action, making a save per Blast Marker? Or was it used for morale?

 

It was a morale marker essentially, they persisted from turn to turn (Hopefully dropping!) and affected suppression and break points. Once a mini gets dead thats it, if it hasnt shot yet  its too late.

(On a side note its one of my fave mechanics)

[Sherrypie]

4 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

They used Blast Markers In Epic 40k - were they used like in 8th Edition Apocalypse 40k - i.e, the unit wasn't destroyed until after all units had taken an action, making a save per Blast Marker? Or was it used for morale?

 

 

E40k came up with blast markers, using them for slight morale and C&C friction purposes. They were iterated on in Epic: Armageddon (as well as Battlefleet Gothic), where the mechanic became absolutely essential to the feel of the game. In E:A, formations (detachments in LI terms) gain blasts from being shot or from sustaining casualties, which starts to pin units down, makes it harder to get orders through and weakens the formation against assault engagements. Accruing too many blasts would also break your formations. This simple, but very powerful mechanic creates the real combined-arms warfare feel to the game where you want to soften and pin targets with preparatory fires, sneak supporting formations near them and finally crush them utterly with assault companies taking ground. Also neat for suppressing anti-air elements to let your birds fly free.

 

The way Apocalypse uses blasts is novel, even if the rules are otherwise very much a potpourri of older Epic ideas. It's a very nice mechanic for allowing everyone to play with their toys before stuff gets removed with the great bonus feature of also adding uncertainty to the amount of damage that each target is actually going to receive, forcing attackers to overcommit if they want to make sure targets die. I love it as well. But where Apoc wants everyone to get a chance, E40k and E:A very much don't, as piling blasts on enemy formations makes it harder and harder for them to get anything done, which is very important in the tight push and pull of alternating activations. You want to break their morale, disrupt their commands or at least reduce their offensive power quicker than they can to that to you.

[apologist]

5 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

They used Blast Markers In Epic 40k - were they used like in 8th Edition Apocalypse 40k - i.e, the unit wasn't destroyed until after all units had taken an action, making a save per Blast Marker? Or was it used for morale?

 

Blast markers reflected disruption – the natural inclination of people under fire to duck or look for cover, and so be less inclined to follow their commanders’ orders; and also for morale.

[Pacific81]

I also love the way it helps differentiate marines, as they need more blast markers to help pin than other units. Really backs up the background material of them still being able to operate where other troops would be forced to hunker down, beyond their relatively modest stat line.

[Valkyrion]

It would have been an interesting mechanic to reintroduce, by the sounds of it. 

There's no sort of 'Pinning' feature, for instance, which could have been represented by it - e.g rotor cannon armed TSS that are rubbish, but automatically put a blast marker on infantry or something, especially given the level of granularity they've gone for with weapons.

 

[Pacific81]

The bit I think that was really clever about the game was how it handled anti-armour and anti-infantry weapons. I actually got to speak to Carl Woodrow the other day (played a game of Legions against him! And lost :) ) who was one of the developers of Armageddon. He said they had really struggled with finding an abstract mechanism to represent the various weapon loadouts that wasn't overly crunchy. Apparently Jervis Johnson came up with it at the 11th hour of development and the whole ruleset clicked into place like a completed rubix cube when he did.

 

It seems a real shame that something similar wasn't employed for Legions, especially as the model count is higher so would have really benefitted from some streamlining! Perhaps, as @apologist says, it might be something they look at for V2?

[Crablezworth]

1 hour ago, Pacific81 said:

The bit I think that was really clever about the game was how it handled anti-armour and anti-infantry weapons. I actually got to speak to Carl Woodrow the other day (played a game of Legions against him! And lost :) ) who was one of the developers of Armageddon. He said they had really struggled with finding an abstract mechanism to represent the various weapon loadouts that wasn't overly crunchy. Apparently Jervis Johnson came up with it at the 11th hour of development and the whole ruleset clicked into place like a completed rubix cube when he did.

 

It seems a real shame that something similar wasn't employed for Legions, especially as the model count is higher so would have really benefitted from some streamlining! Perhaps, as @apologist says, it might be something they look at for V2?

 

Well at this point I'm bot sure how much streamlining can be done, but another route I've seen is just listing a bit more info than just keywords, like an extra column to underline how the weapon is interacting with armour or infantry. I'm not sure if there's much coming back from the crunchiness, the weirdest thing is they haven't even really used a lot of it, many weapon special rules that currently have no home, and weirdly the others they haven't faq'd to function completely like quake. I don't hate it being crunchy, but what I can't abide is the lack of detail reflected in costing options/upgrades. That and the very liberal army construction with no limits or guard rails on activations. That's really the nail in the coffin on why it feels like its tugging in two directions, a mass battle game and a detailed skirmish game. 

 

Without getting into the weeds on point costing loadouts/upgrades, core rules wise infantry in general seem a bit too good. A lot of that too is their cost and the aforementioned lack of limits on activations, so there's an incentive to bleed the enemy in endless cheap detachments that aren't slowed by much. In general I feel there's a rough consensus that stuff like arvus's charging 50 inches or in general is a bit silly and the vehicles charging also doesn't feel right, much in the same way it feels way too punitive for armour to mean nothing in combat when tanks fight infantry. I feel like those are the things helping to muck up combined arms. 

[apologist]

Some specifics revisions I'd suggest:

 

Orders

Replace:

Quote

March Orders
Each model within a Detachment issued with the March Order may move up to a number of inches equal to twice its Movement characteristic. If the Detachment is made up entirely of Infantry models that are not Embarked upon a Transport when the Detachment is activated, it may move up to three times its Movement Characteristic during the Movement phase. Models in a Detachment issued a March Order may not fire during the First Fire or Advancing Fire stages of the Combat phase.

 

with:

Quote

March Orders
Each model within a Detachment issued with the March Order may move up to a number of inches equal to twice its Movement characteristic. Models in a Detachment issued a March Order may not fire during the First Fire or Advancing Fire stages of the Combat phase.

 

 

Terrain

• Add:

Quote

Road
Roads are any stretches of ground with a cleared and improved surface to speed the movement of people or vehicles. On a typical Imperial world roads might be anything from a well-worn footpath to multi-lane rockcrete highways; though elsewhere in the galaxy roads might include more exotic structures such as grav-lanes or disused monorails. 

Roads should start at a point on a battlefield edge and end at a different point on a battlefield edge or another feature (such as a public square or vehicle park). The width of a Road can vary, however it should be no wider than 6" at any point. A Round counts as Open terrain to Infantry, Cavalry, Walkers, Vehicles, Superheavy Vehicles, Knights and Titans.

Models that spend their entire movement travelling along a Road (or multiple connected Roads) may move an additional 5in.

 

 

Structures

• Reduce the structure bonus on Civitas Imperialis from -2 to Hit rolls and +2 CAF to -1 to Hit rolls and +1 CAF.

 

Titans

• Increase all Titan's starting wounds by 2 and amend the following paragraph to Titans in the Combat Phase

Quote

Titans function much the same as other Detachments during the Combat phase, with three notable exceptions: damage, split fire and obstructions (see page 56 for Obstructions).

 

add the following paragraph immediately following:

 

Damage
When a Titan is reduced to half its starting Wounds, roll on the Crticial Damage table and apply the result:

• 1–2: Motive systems are damaged: the Titan moves at half speed until repaired.
• 3–4: A random weapon is disabled. This weapon may not be used until repaired.
• 5: Void shield collapse: The Titan's void shields may no longer be reignited until this damage is repaired.
• 6: The link between Machine Spirit and crew is damaged, making the Titan sluggish and unresponsive. The Titan's CAF is reduced by 4 until repaired.

During the End phase, in the Resolve End Phase Effects stage, a Titan model may attempt to repair any Critical Damage after attempting to reignite any collapsed Void Shields. The controlling player rolls a number of D6 equal to the model’s remaining wounds. For each 6+ rolled, one Critical Damage result may be repaired.

 

Add:

Coordinated Fire
When a Titan detachment is firing, after the Choose Targets step, the controlling player selects one weapon that Titan is firing, and resolves the to Hit rolls step and the Resolve Hits step for that weapon. Once resolved, the controlling player then selects another weapon that Titan is firing and repeats this sequence until all weapons have been fired.

 

Weapon traits and special rules consolidation

• The following weapon traits: Armourbane, Anti-tank, Light, Light AT, Rend, Shred and the following special rule: Armoured to be replaced with:

Anti Tank (x): Hits scored by a weapon with the Anti Tank trait against an Infantry or Cavalry model treat their AP as x, regardless of the weapon’s base AP value. If the value is (–), Hits are automatically discarded. Where the value is followed by (R), successful Save rolls must be re-rolled.

 

Small Arms (x): Hits scored by a weapon with the Small Arms trait against a Vehicle, Super-heavy Vehicle, Knight or Titan model treat their AP as (x), regardless of the weapon’s base AP value. If the value is (–), Hits are automatically discarded. Where the value is followed by (R), successful Save rolls must be re-rolled.

 

• All weapons with Light replace it with Small Arms (–).
• All weapons currently with Light AT replace it with Small Arms (0). All such weapons with Shred also add Small Arms (0) (R). 
• All weapons with Anti-tank replace it with Anti-tank (0).
• All weapons with Armourbane swap it for Anti-tank (0) (R)
• All models with Armoured (i.e. Dreadnoughts and Aethon Heavy Sentinels) swap it for the revised Feel No Pain:
  • Feel No Pain: If a model with this special rule suffers a Wound from a weapon with the Small Arms trait, roll a D6 after any save rolls are made. On a 5+, the Wound is ignored and has no effect; this triggers before rules such as Deflagrate, meaning extra Hits would not be generated. Feel No Pain cannot be used against Wounds caused in Fights.

Amend Void Shields as follows:

Void Shields (X): Void Shields are energy shields that absorb incoming fire and prevent damage to those equipped with them. A model with the Void Shields (X) special rule has a starting Void Shield level equal to the number shown in brackets. Models with a Void Shield level of 1 or more are said to have active Void Shields.


When one or more Hits are scored against a model with active Void Shields, Hits are first allocated to the Void Shields. Each time a Hit is allocated to a model’s Void Shields, the controlling player rolls a D6. On a 5+, that model's Void Shield level is not reduced. Otherwise, reduce its Void Shield level by 1 then discard the Hit. Once the Void Shield level reaches 0, the Void Shields collapse and are no longer active. Any remaining Hits are allocated to the model and resolved as normal.

 

Hits can only be allocated to Void Shields if they were scored by a weapon with a modified AP of -1 or better; Hits scored by weapons with an AP of 0 or worse (after modifiers) against a model with active Void Shields are automatically discarded and do not reduce the model’s Void Shield level.

 

During the End phase, in the Resolve End Phase Effects stage, a model with the Void Shields (X) special rule may attempt to reignite any collapsed Void Shields. The controlling player rolls a number of D6 equal to the difference between a model’s current Void Shield level and its starting Void Shield level. For each 4+ rolled, increase that model’s Void Shield level by 1.

Edited July 29 by apologist

[Crablezworth]

I like the chance you've suggested to structures with -1/+1 instead of -2/+2  I think that's a lot more reasonable. I also think detachments should only be able to charge their movement stat out of a structure, and possibly saying no AA in structures and maybe no rapiers (or perhaps a contextual limit to them like u can only fire as many as fit on a roof).

 

 

 

I've posted a scenario/event format for 1-2K points attempting to address some of the core issues as well as introduce stuff like reserves, and force a third of each side's detachments into reserve. 

 

 

Would welcome any feedback 

[vadersson]

Hi gang,

 

I really like these rule discussions.  I would love to see a generally agreed on fan rule pack.  (NOT that we should need one GW!). Overall I like a lot of what I am hearing.  I will say I would prefer staying more towards SM2 than E:A.  I like the granularity of the weapons (not just AP or AT) and I am not sure blast markers would work in this game.  (I do like that mechanic in Bolt Action however, so maybe.)

 

That all said I agree with so much here.  Infantry movement is too much, I think structures are probable too strong, infiltrate is broken, titans need help, points need balanced, etc.  What are everyone’s top 3 to 5 biggest issues?
 

For me:

1.  Overwatch only during first fire.

2.  Infantry movement not tripled 

3.  Clean up the weapons and special rules (I like the crunch and options, but they did overdue it…)

 

I would be curious what others think and their suggestions.

Thanks,

Duncan

 

[Crablezworth]

I'd say the top 5/6 I sorta tried to make rules for in this scenario. I agree that I'd rather try and fix LI than revert to E:A. 

 

I'd say FAQ wise we need marine flyer's bolter's fixed to have light AT, some basic fixes to quake and similar rules that were meant to limit movement in some way but don't completely function currently. 

 

I have some speculation that the new book will have terrain/environmental rules that may limit infantry in some way, perhaps they'll only be able to survive outside so long before having to enter a transport or structure. But ya infantry do need a bit of a toning down. 

 

5 hours ago, vadersson said:

3.  Clean up the weapons and special rules (I like the crunch and options, but they did overdue it…)

 

I think this may best be handled with updated weapons charts that list the effects by unit type, so not quite changing rules but just making a nice cheat sheet for everyone. For example I've seen some people add an extra column that at the top lists like "I/A" for infantry and armour or v for vehicles and the appropriate ap. 

 

 

 

[Pacific81]

I guess the question is at this point, how much effort is it worth spending? And when you have spent that time, will it be a better game than Armageddon? It's subjective, and the games do give a different experience, but I think I already know the answer to that one!

 

Perhaps if you are playing in a closed group and all get onboard with it, maybe in a campaign setting, that might be worthwhile and just to blunt the more egregious edges of the base mechanics. The ones highlighted by @vaderssonabove, about FF overwatch and lowered infantry moves, seem like a good place to start.

 

As it stands after a good few games now my feelings are that, although I enjoy it, the only reason I'll continue to play Legions is that it's more ubiquitous and I'll have no trouble finding a game at my local club. Otherwise I don't find it as fun as SM2, or as rewarding an experience (or anything like as well designed) as Armageddon. There is fun to be had, but if I was making a crude culinary analogy, the game feels like a shellfish meal that is delicious but really difficult to eat. You have to spend a bunch of time trying to get to it (the 'shell' here is the pages and pages of special rules and unit profiles, painfully written*) and it's nice - but sometimes you just want to open a bag of snacks and throw them into your gob :D

 

* There might be a joke here about a not quite dead lobster, it's pincers, and trying to talk through anti-tank, light AT, accurate, armour bane rules with one unit shooting and trying to work out what dice is what :D

[vadersson]

Sigh, you are right @Pacific81, how much effort is it worth.  We are hear to play, not to write the game.  ;). I guess I just get so frustrated because I really want to play Epic and the minis are good and the rules have so much potential, but GW is so silent and has so many errors with them.  Would a nice FAQ be so hard from them?  
 

And like you say, one reason to play LI is that since it is new and current it is easier to find a game (in theory). That is why I don’t play old epic or E:A.  Heck that was my logic for starting 40K back in 6th(?) edition.  I could pretty much go anywhere and find people that play.  The more special rules and customization you do to a game, the harder it is to find players.  I just wish GW was not messing LI up so bad with the mini shortages, the rules issues, the botched launch, and the reality lay high price of the game.  This could be so great and let me see what I missed out on before.  Sigh.

 

well here’s to hoping GW actually gets their act together and releases a rule update and FAQ that actually helps.

 

Thanks,

Duncan

[Pacific81]

Although I feel bad about being down on the game.. it is still Epic, still fun, I should stop being such a grumpy grognard

[Crablezworth]

1 hour ago, Pacific81 said:

I guess the question is at this point, how much effort is it worth spending? And when you have spent that time, will it be a better game than Armageddon? It's subjective, and the games do give a different experience, but I think I already know the answer to that one!

 

Perhaps if you are playing in a closed group and all get onboard with it, maybe in a campaign setting, that might be worthwhile and just to blunt the more egregious edges of the base mechanics. The ones highlighted by @vaderssonabove, about FF overwatch and lowered infantry moves, seem like a good place to start.

 

As it stands after a good few games now my feelings are that, although I enjoy it, the only reason I'll continue to play Legions is that it's more ubiquitous and I'll have no trouble finding a game at my local club. Otherwise I don't find it as fun as SM2, or as rewarding an experience (or anything like as well designed) as Armageddon. There is fun to be had, but if I was making a crude culinary analogy, the game feels like a shellfish meal that is delicious but really difficult to eat. You have to spend a bunch of time trying to get to it (the 'shell' here is the pages and pages of special rules and unit profiles, painfully written*) and it's nice - but sometimes you just want to open a bag of snacks and throw them into your gob :D

 

* There might be a joke here about a not quite dead lobster, it's pincers, and trying to talk through anti-tank, light AT, accurate, armour bane rules with one unit shooting and trying to work out what dice is what :D

 

In my case having not played the other editions, its worth the attempt. And if in the meantime we eventually get an faq, all the better. To mirror your shellfish example, the game has all this detail but then the missions and some of the orders turn it into a sort of demolition derby where a lot of that detail works against it as opposed to with it. Like break point is a great example of that. But the slightest change in how things works could fix a lot, if the faq for example brought the 2nd book in line in terms of once again saving points by adding to existing detachments before starting new ones, it'd do a lot to re-harmonize incentives a bit. Further to that, an incentive to max out detachment entirely as a core rule might help as well to combat MSU (lots of small activations), an example I heard on reddit that seemed ok was any detachment that maxes out gets basically split fire. That or simply mandating at a certain point level that detachments where possible are maxed out, perhaps barring like 1, just in terms of rounding points off. 

[Crablezworth]

1 hour ago, vadersson said:

Sigh, you are right @Pacific81, how much effort is it worth.  We are hear to play, not to write the game.  ;). I guess I just get so frustrated because I really want to play Epic and the minis are good and the rules have so much potential, but GW is so silent and has so many errors with them.  Would a nice FAQ be so hard from them?  
 

And like you say, one reason to play LI is that since it is new and current it is easier to find a game (in theory). That is why I don’t play old epic or E:A.  Heck that was my logic for starting 40K back in 6th(?) edition.  I could pretty much go anywhere and find people that play.  The more special rules and customization you do to a game, the harder it is to find players.  I just wish GW was not messing LI up so bad with the mini shortages, the rules issues, the botched launch, and the reality lay high price of the game.  This could be so great and let me see what I missed out on before.  Sigh.

 

well here’s to hoping GW actually gets their act together and releases a rule update and FAQ that actually helps.

 

Thanks,

Duncan

 

I have a secret hope that somehow they got the message on infantry being a bit too good, be it through the grapevine/emails or just the weekender, because in the video they did discussing all the new releases, when it came time to talk about the tallarn book they mentioned environmental/terrain rules and knowing what we know about virus bombings, they're rather rough even on power armour, so I could see or at least hope for a scenario or set of rules that would see infantry perhaps die if "outside" too long, like they may have to hop from structure to transport or risk melting. At least I'm hoping we see something along those lines. 

 

[DuskRaider]

The problem with that is you shouldn’t be relying on environmental factors and rules to balance the game. They’re flavorful add-ons that make the game more immersive, but at best they’re a band-aid for the real affliction and at worst they bog the game down even further. 
 

The core mechanics need to be balanced and I’m not sure even a FAQ will fix all of the glaring issues with LIv1. I may continue to play or I may revert back to AT18 and hope for an eventual new edition and cease giving GW money toward a very flawed system. 

[Crablezworth]

2 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

The problem with that is you shouldn’t be relying on environmental factors and rules to balance the game. They’re flavorful add-ons that make the game more immersive, but at best they’re a band-aid for the real affliction and at worst they bog the game down even further. 
 

The core mechanics need to be balanced and I’m not sure even a FAQ will fix all of the glaring issues with LIv1. I may continue to play or I may revert back to AT18 and hope for an eventual new edition and cease giving GW money toward a very flawed system. 

 

You're right it shouldn't be relying on environmental factors to balance the game, my only hope if indeed the speculation is correct is it may be indicative that GW is listening or at least understand the rougher edges that need to be dealt with. But there is a core problem in gw being a bit too hands off with terrain because they'd love nothing more than to sell endless civitas boxes seemingly. 

 

A FAQ assuming it's a decent one in terms of scope would still do a lot for morale and to tempter the reaction to a third book when the last two need a FAQ. 

[Pacific81]

21 hours ago, Crablezworth said:

 

I have a secret hope that somehow they got the message on infantry being a bit too good, be it through the grapevine/emails or just the weekender, because in the video they did discussing all the new releases, when it came time to talk about the tallarn book they mentioned environmental/terrain rules and knowing what we know about virus bombings, they're rather rough even on power armour, so I could see or at least hope for a scenario or set of rules that would see infantry perhaps die if "outside" too long, like they may have to hop from structure to transport or risk melting. At least I'm hoping we see something along those lines. 

 

I am genuinely interested at what new mechanics get brought in to represent how deadly the environment on Tallarn was meant to be during this period.

 

Although I think generally there are more weapons coming in which can flatten buildings, what we really need or GW to release a set of N-guage trees, wack a Legions Imperialis logo on the box, and charge £50 for the privilege just to see some some variety (do rivers and hills while they are at it!) As I think a lot of new Epic hobbyists especially seem to be unwilling or unable to move beyond the Civitas boxes and a lot of the terrain you see therefore heavily benefitting infantry.

Edited May 30 by Pacific81

[Black Cohort]

When rumours of new epic first really began to gain steam I figured they were going to take the AT rules and scale down from there.  I still wonder sometimes if that would have been better.

[Crablezworth]

5 hours ago, Black Cohort said:

When rumours of new epic first really began to gain steam I figured they were going to take the AT rules and scale down from there.  I still wonder sometimes if that would have been better.

 

Judging by how long the game takes as is I would think likely not, AT falls apart very quickly at higher point levels as there's just way too much time sink in alternating. The big weekend long games tend to only get a few turns in. 

7 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

I am genuinely interested at what new mechanics get brought in to represent how deadly the environment on Tallarn was meant to be during this period.

 

Although I think generally there are more weapons coming in which can flatten buildings, what we really need or GW to release a set of N-guage trees, wack a Legions Imperialis logo on the box, and charge £50 for the privilege just to see some some variety (do rivers and hills while they are at it!) As I think a lot of new Epic hobbyists especially seem to be unwilling or unable to move beyond the Civitas boxes and a lot of the terrain you see therefore heavily benefitting infantry.

 

Yeah I also have my hopes for rivers and bridges and cliffs (hills), only in that they bothered to include rules for them so here's hoping maybe we'll see some more variety in terrain from them. 

[LameBeard]

On 5/29/2024 at 2:49 PM, Pacific81 said:

I guess the question is at this point, how much effort is it worth spending? And when you have spent that time, will it be a better game than Armageddon? It's subjective, and the games do give a different experience, but I think I already know the answer to that one!

 

Perhaps if you are playing in a closed group and all get onboard with it, maybe in a campaign setting, that might be worthwhile and just to blunt the more egregious edges of the base mechanics. The ones highlighted by @vaderssonabove, about FF overwatch and lowered infantry moves, seem like a good place to start.

 

As it stands after a good few games now my feelings are that, although I enjoy it, the only reason I'll continue to play Legions is that it's more ubiquitous and I'll have no trouble finding a game at my local club. Otherwise I don't find it as fun as SM2, or as rewarding an experience (or anything like as well designed) as Armageddon. There is fun to be had, but if I was making a crude culinary analogy, the game feels like a shellfish meal that is delicious but really difficult to eat. You have to spend a bunch of time trying to get to it (the 'shell' here is the pages and pages of special rules and unit profiles, painfully written*) and it's nice - but sometimes you just want to open a bag of snacks and throw them into your gob :D

 

* There might be a joke here about a not quite dead lobster, it's pincers, and trying to talk through anti-tank, light AT, accurate, armour bane rules with one unit shooting and trying to work out what dice is what :D

I am at that tipping point and I haven’t even played a game yet.  
 

If I scratch together a couple more terminators here’s what’s on my painting table for my Emperors Children:

 

Command, 8 tactical and 2 missile launcher stands, all in rhinos.

4 terminator stands in land raiders

4 deredos

2 sicarans

 

In Legions Imperialis that’s 600 points and 5 activations. And I haven’t got the book with the land raiders. 

 

In Epic Armageddon, using the heresy lists I’ve found, that’s 1600 points and just 2 activations (for some reason, Deredos can’t be on their own, we might house rule that. Actually, now I think about it, is Epic Armageddon alternating activations or igougo?). Throw in a Warhound and another formation like planes and I’d be pretty much ready for a game!?

 

The big issue for me is game length. It is not a criticism of the designers. I just need to keep rule reference and activations down. Even Kill Team 2021 takes too long for me (we play Guard vs. Orks, so 10 is definitely an upper limit for activations).

Edited June 1 by LameBeard

[Crablezworth]

7 hours ago, LameBeard said:

The big issue for me is game length. It is not a criticism of the designers. I just need to keep rule reference and activations down. Even Kill Team 2021 takes too long for me (we play Guard vs. Orks, so 10 is definitely an upper limit for activations).

 

Yeah activations can get out of hand but what also conspires not to help is too much overwatch, you can quickly forget you're in the movement phase. 

Edited June 1 by Crablezworth

[vadersson]

Why overwatch is not just for first fire I will never understand.  That alone would help so many things.  And if they keep the larger unit discounts in, it helps with activations.  Oh well.  Maybe someday we will get an FAQ and updates.

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

We always play that rule.

Definitely thinking about removing the 3x movement for infantry and getting some rivers etc.

Despite getting a copy of E:A we're going to stick with LI, we don't have a pick up game environment so house rules are easy to keep consistent.