Upcoming releases discussion

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

You could probably throw in Despoiler Squads as well for Astartes, but I have a feeling we won’t be seeing a lot of those specific units. 

 

Thank you! I knew I was forgetting something!

 

I think it's safe to say we'll see at least another infantry box, probably 2 more if they're going to give us all the options (regardless of wether it's needed or not). Wouldn't be surprised if Breachers are the Core choice in one and Despoilers the Core in the other.

[Crablezworth]

 

 

 

I won’t lie, I don’t see the point of an entire faction devoted to Custodes or Sisters of Silence either, but to be fair I’m very biased towards them, and not in a positive way (particularly Custodes). 

 

I agree 100%, only mechanicum has enough models to pull from to be able to be a faction in its own right. The game doesn't really have any psychic side to it so custodes and sisters seem out of place without daemons or xenos to fight. Custodes as their own faction isn't great in HH, the models are cool but I'd rather them as a cool allie than a faction in their own right. Sisters, even fewer models, again would be cool as an optional allie but not as a main force. 

 

Not to bring up combat at every opportunity, but half the reason I'm not even excited for more infantry is how poorly they've handled what we've got so far. 1 stat for the entirety of close combat and no save leaves very little room to make things like despoilers or boarding marines interesting. And as I said earlier, if the majority of new infantry weaposn fall under 10 inches in range then they really are pointless sadly. 

 

I think I'm also worried about this blanket statement of we're gonna make all 28mm stuff small. Not we're going to make it good, have it make sense in the setting, carefully consider their rules and impact on the game. No, just we're gonna tick some damn boxes. I was and am excited to see models and rules for the sicaran venator but at the same time the more I think about it, the more concerned I am that A) it introduces very little and B) I just got sabres basically with a similar weapon. As much as I want to see the arquitor and all the marine super heavies, I can't ignore that we just got a pretty great solar aux super heavy box from a modelling stand point in that one can swap all 3 main weapons seemingly by press fit alone, only to have the rules for all 3 not only have ae mistake in the state line, but also basically suck. I don't understand the point cost for any of them or the intended use for 2 out of 3. So as cool as it will be to see ever more units come to small scale, if the effort on the rules side is going to be so bad, its hard not to lose interest over time.  

 

 

 

Thank you! I knew I was forgetting something!

 

I think it's safe to say we'll see at least another infantry box, probably 2 more if they're going to give us all the options (regardless of wether it's needed or not). Wouldn't be surprised if Breachers are the Core choice in one and Despoilers the Core in the other.

 

I was gonna do up some breachers just for the fun of it, but got caught on how to actually do rules for them in li. Combat ignoring all saves seems like a weird place to give just them a carve out, so I'm not really sure what they can really do to make them interesting, unless they give them like caf bonus that only applies when attacking or defending structures or something. 

[DuskRaider]

It really doesn’t seem like the rules in their current state allow for too much variation when it comes to different infantry types. I don’t know. I’d love for more options, but you’re absolutely correct, I don’t know how you would even implement a lot of them to make them feel like the unit type you’re representing on the table. They’ve written themselves into a corner and invalidated a lot of options simply by making some ranged weaponry too short and infantry too powerful. 
 

Super Heavies in general are odd, and this is something I brought up over on Reddit. They’re supposedly Super Heavies, but other than some more weaponry, they aren’t more durable than a Heavy like the Kratos or Malcador. They need more HPs, they need something.

 

 

[Noserenda]

Talons would work fine, i mean its not like we have too much variety in the released armies so far and they work arguably toooo well right now eh? :D

Thats all assuming they dont get a bunch of new units like the Solar Auxilla did out of the process to boot.

 

[Crablezworth]

 

Talons would work fine, i mean its not like we have too much variety in the released armies so far and they work arguably toooo well right now eh? :D

Thats all assuming they dont get a bunch of new units like the Solar Auxilla did out of the process to boot.

 

 

My problem is I have no faith in them making a cohesive force that makes sense, then entire idea of an "elite" force in a game at this scale doesn't make a lot of sense, even less in the context that this "epic" game is alternating activation, so the very idea of having fewer as a baseline design is one that holds up poorly. If they were  convceived as simply a supplementary allied force for the 2 existing factions to pull from I think it'd be a lot better from a design stand point. I'd point to how bungled terminators feel and how in general there's very little latitude to design new infantry units because there are so few stats to make relevant. I guess it'd just be better for talons and daemons to be like the loyalist and traitor special forces allied options than factions in their own right. 

[Crablezworth]

 

It really doesn’t seem like the rules in their current state allow for too much variation when it comes to different infantry types. I don’t know. I’d love for more options, but you’re absolutely correct, I don’t know how you would even implement a lot of them to make them feel like the unit type you’re representing on the table. They’ve written themselves into a corner and invalidated a lot of options simply by making some ranged weaponry too short and infantry too powerful. 
 

Super Heavies in general are odd, and this is something I brought up over on Reddit. They’re supposedly Super Heavies, but other than some more weaponry, they aren’t more durable than a Heavy like the Kratos or Malcador. They need more HPs, they need something.

 

 

 

Yeah it's also the fear that their big think will just be rend on more stuff, instead of fixing rend. One very good reason to change/faq combat to allow saves is you'd at least all of sudden shake up combat with another stat that's relevant, and expensive units that pay a lot for resilience don't feel like it rarely matters as they're dying to combat far more often than shooting. 

 

The only thing currently making super havies "special" is that small stuff can't hold them in combat, that's sadly pretty much it. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Yep; nobody in my gaming group that aren't already collecting LI are interested due to the lack of factions.

 

2.0 needs to be set  in 40k, so very badly.

 

Edit: Lolz, I'm talking to another page by mistake. 

Edited August 29 by Interrogator Stobz

[DuskRaider]

I like the setting and I think it should remain in 30K, but I don’t see an issue releasing Xenos factions at some point, namely Eldar and Orks. That being said, they can’t even get the game balanced and correct for two factions, how the hell are they going to add more, make them feel unique and also balance it all out? 
 

Mechanicum makes sense. If they do choose to do Talons of the Emperor (Custodes and SoS), keep them as an Auxiliary choice and do the same with Daemons. None of those need to be a full fledged faction, nor do their number lore wise support it. 
 

Truth be told, I’m apprehensive about anything Custodes related. They were responsible for the unbalancing and IMO ruination of the first edition of 30K, they were extremely OP in 40K, and I’m not keen on the idea of them leaving Terra in large numbers. Even in those settings they should have been relegated to an allied contingent, and a small one at that. 

[apologist]

Apropos of nothing, dug up the first edition Space Marine (SM1) combat chart. An elegant solution to tanks being a bit pap in combat – let their armour save influence their CAF:

 

 

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

I'm going to keep banging on about my solution. 

Maximum 3 dice for outnumbering works both mathematically and on the table.

It makes zero sense that infantry can swarm moving vehicles with so many bodies; just because TT games require them to stop between turns doesn't mean they actually stop.

Vehicles having rend on the Charge is a good way of giving them back some hitting power, without making them always better.

[Crablezworth]

 

I'm going to keep banging on about my solution. 

Maximum 3 dice for outnumbering works both mathematically and on the table.

It makes zero sense that infantry can swarm moving vehicles with so many bodies; just because TT games require them to stop between turns doesn't mean they actually stop.

Vehicles having rend on the Charge is a good way of giving them back some hitting power, without making them always better.

 

It's the entire mechanic I just don't like for vehicles, in the exact same way I think it sorta sucks that the only thing making super heavies special is that they can't be tied down by arvuses and rhinos, the whole thing is silly. Just being able to block movement is good enough, terribly conceived combat just doesn't do it. I still don't even know what an un-armed arvus is actually doing in combat to cause damage short of nasty gusts of wind.

 

 

I think the solution is to just give vehicles/knight and titans basically tank shock/stomp 

 

 

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

I was gonna do up some breachers just for the fun of it, but got caught on how to actually do rules for them in li. Combat ignoring all saves seems like a weird place to give just them a carve out, so I'm not really sure what they can really do to make them interesting, unless they give them like caf bonus that only applies when attacking or defending structures or something. 

 

Breachers could get a native 6+ FnP to represent their shields. Despoilers are just Assault Marines without the jump packs so just copy their stats.

[Crablezworth]

 

 

Breachers could get a native 6+ FnP to represent their shields. Despoilers are just Assault Marines without the jump packs so just copy their stats.

 

That's just it, the way they've made combat like 1 stat doesn't do much to represent either, but especially breachers lose out on making much sense. I feel like they'd need a special rule that gives them a bonus for engagement with detachments in structures and or buff for defending structures. 

[Cleon]

I'd assume Breachers would get a 'negate the enemies bonus for garrisoning.' style rule.

[Sherrypie]

 

 

My problem is I have no faith in them making a cohesive force that makes sense, then entire idea of an "elite" force in a game at this scale doesn't make a lot of sense, even less in the context that this "epic" game is alternating activation, so the very idea of having fewer as a baseline design is one that holds up poorly. If they were  convceived as simply a supplementary allied force for the 2 existing factions to pull from I think it'd be a lot better from a design stand point. I'd point to how bungled terminators feel and how in general there's very little latitude to design new infantry units because there are so few stats to make relevant. I guess it'd just be better for talons and daemons to be like the loyalist and traitor special forces allied options than factions in their own right. 

 

A bit of a tangent here, but elite armies work just fine at Epic scale. Battalion level is great for precisely the kind of actions where a more cohesive, better trained force gets to wrestle with a larger but less well led bunch of greenhorns. Similarly, it's not a problem per se of the activation system itself, if armies are sufficiently well defined in their different approaches. You're misattributing the cause, as it's just that LI doesn't make a particular difference there, whereas something like E:A manages that brilliantly with a handful of important numbers that do so much with so little crunch overhead.

[Burni]

Just reading the Tallarn book and it mentions a Thunderstrike bombard (page 38). I’ve not heard of that before, is it something new?

[Cleon]

I think those are the heavy guns they stole from some confused Dark Angels in a couple of the novels, I don't think they've ever been referenced in game materials before.

 

(I want to say Angel Exterminatus, can't remember the other one).

[Crablezworth]

 

 

A bit of a tangent here, but elite armies work just fine at Epic scale. Battalion level is great for precisely the kind of actions where a more cohesive, better trained force gets to wrestle with a larger but less well led bunch of greenhorns. Similarly, it's not a problem per se of the activation system itself, if armies are sufficiently well defined in their different approaches. You're misattributing the cause, as it's just that LI doesn't make a particular difference there, whereas something like E:A manages that brilliantly with a handful of important numbers that do so much with so little crunch overhead.

 

I'm talking specifically about li, where the don't. In fact li is so poorly balanced it rarely even get to turn 5, as nothing controls for activation disparity, so a common problem is one side taking more vehicles/expensive units while the other takes more infantry, which arguably under-costed, resulting in not just a lop-sided game but one made worse by the fact that the winning side also has a distinct advantage in activations. So I greatly fear something like custodes, which unbalanced the end of hh1 doing similar damage to li, which already needs help and not more things to tip it over entirely. 

[DuskRaider]

I feel that. I took what I feel was a pretty elite list the other week, focusing on Terminators in Spartans, and I got absolutely trounced by my buddy’s list which was filled with cheaper, more numerous and varied units comparatively. Part of that was my fault for leaning too heavily into the theme, but the fact is that I took the formation as it’s supposed to be fielded and found myself on the back foot pretty quickly. 
 

I can’t imagine how they would do a more elite force like Custodes without making them extremely under powered and disappointing the players or causing them to break the system in order to work and ending up with the same problem they have caused in every other game they’ve appeared in. 
 

Edit: I just want to restate how much I hate Custodes. Because I do. A lot. 
 

God I hate them. 

Edited September 1 by DuskRaider

[Crablezworth]

 

I feel that. I took what I feel was a pretty elite list the other week, focusing on Terminators in Spartans, and I got absolutely trounced by my buddy’s list which was filled with cheaper, more numerous and varied units comparatively. Part of that was my fault for leaning too heavily into the theme, but the fact is that I took the formation as it’s supposed to be fielded and found myself on the back foot pretty quickly. 
 

I can’t imagine how they would do a more elite force like Custodes without making them extremely under powered and disappointing the players or causing them to break the system in order to work and ending up with the same problem they have caused in every other game they’ve appeared in. 
 

Edit: I just want to restate how much I hate Custodes. Because I do. A lot. 
 

God I hate them. 

 

A recent list I was working on initially had 5 dracosans, I realized as much as I like them its just too many points sunk into 5 accurate lascannon shots. It's the same cost as 4 leman russes. It's 25pts cheaper to get 10 twin linked lascannons via contemptor dreads for legions. The problem really is that the dracosans, other than carry dudes around can't contribute all that much, their resiliency goes out the window completely if they get charged. The spartans have more firepower, but I feel like they're somewhat in the same boat, kratos are just so much better for the points. 

[Pacific81]

On the subject of scoring, I've got a game of 2nd edition/NetEpic coming up in a few weeks and was refreshing my memory of the scoring system for that game.

It has such a great mechanic - you get VPs for 'breaking' units (killing stuff) and also for claiming objectives, but the key difference is objective VPs don't score cumulatively and you 'lose' them if you don't remain in control of the objective. There is a benchmark score for victory and the objectives alone (unless you capture all 8 of them) are not enough to win the game.

 

It means that you have to make a tactical decision on whether to rush forward and grab objectives. But unlike in Legions, in which this tactic almost always guarantees victory, a canny opponent can wait for an opponent to do this, protect their own forces and counter attack, giving them VPs through both breaking enemy units and scoring objectives. It also allows players to get back into the game from a defecit, which Legions does not, and so keeps both players engaged.

 

I don't understand why Legions took so much from the earlier games system, but then chose to go in a different direction with the component that arguably matters most.

[apologist]

 

[...]I don't understand why Legions took so much from the earlier games system, but then chose to go in a different direction with the component [scoring] that arguably matters most.

 

While I don't disagree, part of the issue might be that the missions aren't fine-tuned (rather than an inherently problematic system). Adeptus Titanicus likewise had a pretty shonky set of missions early on, but happily the design team iterated and improved on them, so they're much better now.

 

While the rules for Capturing Objective Markers are baked in, there's nothing that stops Mission types (or individual missions) from changing what and how objectives work. The weighting and selection of Secondary Objectives would be a good way to balance things; or having Missions where you score at the end of (for example) the third and subsequent rounds (rather than each round).

 

Likewise you could fairly easily play a version of the tournament scenario from Epic: Armageddon in Legions Imperialis – if you score any three of five objectives, and have at least one more than your opponent, you win in the End Phase.

[Crablezworth]

 

I don't understand why Legions took so much from the earlier games system, but then chose to go in a different direction with the component that arguably matters most.

 

It's made much better by end game scoring imo, nothing makes sense about scoring a battle like its a basketball game. I'm not that big on the sudden death mechanic, but can agreee it's still better than what li has now. 

Edited September 3 by Crablezworth