Thoughts about turn order of events

[Valkyrion]

How would the game play differently if this happened;

 

1) units with First Fire Orders shoot

2) units with Charge orders charge and fight

3) units with March orders move

4) units with Advance orders move and/or shoot

6) Remaining engaged units Fight

7) End Phase

 

This would finish the action for a detachment in one go, rather than staggering charges across movement and combat, and advancing across moving and combat.

I'm no games designer, so why have GW done it the way they have, rather than completing a full activation per detachment?

[Pacific81]

Memories are a bit hazy but the turn order goes all the way back to old Epic and was in the same order with that game previously.

I think it was intended to show a progression of the combat and to be more abstract than at 28mm, so it does feel different to 40k in that respect.

So in a broad context you have units moving/charging, then first fire (which shows units which are prepared and waiting to shoot) - Legions has felt the need to add complication to this area by adding point defense/overwatch rules, but really the old game managed it in a more graceful fashion by just allowing units on FF to shoot units that had charged them. This didn't necessarily represent them shooting units in close combat, but hitting them as they came in to attack (remember the need for abstraction at this scale).

You then have melee combat and the results of that, and then finally the units that are on Advance can shoot the victors of the melee. But, there is a risk they would be taken out by units which have shot them in first fire or charged them in melee (catching them unprepared).

 

Epic for me has always been (and the new game is the same in this regard) a balance between wanting to manoeuvre, to reach objectives or get into an advantageous position, while your opponent tries to do the same. With the hidden order system, anyone who plays the game knows of that sinking feeling when you don't anticipate your opponent correctly, and units are sat back uselessly on first fire with no targets, or are too hesitant and advancing slowly means you are out of range.

I guess if you combined phases into one action with a unit you would lose that tactical element and also the level of abstraction that Epic gives (of being a commander looking down and issuing orders). Just my thoughts anyway, would need to read some interviews with Andy Chambers or Rick Priestley on why they did things in that way, but I do love the way it works even if it is quite different to 40k and other larger scale games.

[LameBeard]

I hope you’re right, @Pacific81

 

I’m just reading the rulebook now for the first time. I have never played any epic game before but I have played 2018 Adeptus Titanicus (and that’s one of my favourite rulesets).

 

What is surprising me (and if I’m honest, disappointing me too) is how recognisably “Warhammer” it all feels. Charge, March, shoot, To hit, to save, quite fiddly morale with fleeing.  I was hoping to find a bit more abstraction, or a few more “modern” mechanics, or maybe some system in Epic that had just been different all along.

 

Alternating activation I like, but as @Valkyrion suggests, maybe there could still be some streamlining in the turn order - maybe a bit like Kill Team 2018? That worked quite nicely and was fun because it was different from Warhammer. First Fire could be put back in with a tweak.

 

I think the pairing combat rules are fine (this is what Lord of the Rings does with no problem). But I am a bit worried about tracking models across both detachments and formations. I’ll need to differentiate different stands of tactical marines to do this?

Perhaps I am just underestimating the different feel I will get once playing. I love the models but I must admit I am not looking forward to paying a lot of extra money to flick between 3 heavy rulebooks just to get in some massed battles with Land Raiders and a few more varied infantry. I am thinking about defecting to one of your suggested online versions.

 

rant over: sorry for derailing your thread @Valkyrion, maybe I should have posted elsewhere!?

[Valkyrion]

@LameBeard I'm not sure it's possible to derail a 3 post topic, so rather than derailment I'd prefer to think of it as course correcting!

 

Part of the reason for the topic was that over the two games I got in over xmas, both me and my opponent forgot an aspect of Advance and both for different reasons - because he wasn't moving his detachment he inadvertently took the order counter away so as to tell me 'this unit isn't moving', and me because I picked the order counter up along side a nearby First Fire order detachment thinking they were both First Fire orders. Both things are entirely our fault, but it was a very small game on a very small table, so once we get to 3000 points worth of models we are very much likely to do similar again. 

So to us, having never played epic, it felt like the game should be more like - everyone can move and fire unless you tell them differently, and if you tell them differently then they do that thing to completion because it's out of the ordinary. 

 

But as I said,  I'm no designer, and there may well be a glaring problem with First Fire going before movers that I haven't considered. 

 

With regards your other point about formations and detachments - I don't know how competitive you are, but me and mine are using formations as a type of FOC only, and ignoring any and all special rules associated with a formation type.  The game is clearly geared towards have a blue formation of ultramarines, a red formation of blood angels and a black formation of iron hands all working together, but we don't want that. We like that we could do it, but it's not what we want. 

I don't have the books immediately to hand so I forget the names, but for every Standard formation (the one with the tactical squads) you can take 2 other Formations, and formations cannot be broken - just refer to the army break point instead.

Maybe we're wrong and formations are THE thing that defines the game, but for now, as mono-legionists, we prefer to semi-ignore them. 

 

Also, the word 'formation' is analogous to 'money grab' for 7th edition 40k players (free rhinos for everyone!) so to us it's fairly apparent that GW's ideas of formations are not going to be the same as the players ideas of formations.

 

[LameBeard]

On formations, I will probably be fine on differentiation, because I *will* do 2 separate legions.  Not for advantage,  but because I can’t decide on a legion so narrowing it down to 2 will be easier! I won’t be playing competitively so we might drop the Legion-specific rules (AT works fine without Legio-specific rules) or maybe the House rule will be only ONE legion gets its buff. That way you are rewarded for huge mono-legion horde (as you should be).

 

From reading I still think there is a problem with morale being overly fiddly and I notice that in the QuickStart guide there is this Optional Rule:

 

 

I’m not a games designer either, but I remember GW (Alessio Calvatore?) writing about how they improved the morale rules in Lord of the Rings over the early editions. He observed that if players are routinely forgetting a rule, ignoring it, or getting it wrong, then it’s a candidate for streamlining. And the solution ended up being quite elegant.

 

I also like the Scythe rules designer notes. Each faction has a special rule which is deliberately an exception to one of the main rules - so by learning the faction rule it helps you remember the main rule. GW could do a bit more of this. I happen to have the LI book open on page 168 and the Word Bearers special rule (first half) is a great example, but there should be more. Another great reason to go Word Bearers!

Edited January 4 by LameBeard

[vadersson]

2 hours ago, LameBeard said:

Alternating activation I like, but as @Valkyrion suggests, maybe there could still be some streamlining in the turn order - maybe a bit like Kill Team 2018? That worked quite nicely and was fun because it was different from Warhammer. First Fire could be put back in with a tweak.

So nice to finally find someone else that liked KT2018.  I really enjoyed that rule set as it was very like 40K but different enough to feel more interesting.  I am sure current KT is fun too, but I will always have a spot for KT2018.

 

That all said, I think the current rules are pretty good.  I don’t have enough material yet to actually play, but the battle reports make me pretty happy.  I think it is cool that they based the game on an older popular rule set with some tweaks.  I expect there could still be more tweaks, but it has some good nuances right now.  I do think that while tracking Formation break points maybe cumbersome, it has an important point for the game.  I think that might become more apparent as armies increase in size and number of unit.  But it does have some nuance to it.

 

i do like the alternating activations too.  However, I do also wonder if doing something like SW Legions or Bolt Action where you complete a units actions during there activation would be better.  But neither of those use set actions all at once and are choice your action at the time.  For large scale combat like this, I think the pre-set actions is a good idea showing command and control issues.  Almost more like SW Armada that way.

[Valkyrion]

20 minutes ago, LameBeard said:

 Another great reason to go Word Bearers!

And I thought we could be friends....!

 

But you do have a point regarding morale, and I don't know the LotR rules, but we found the half detachment dead = morale check = 1/3 chance of failing actually pretty neat in LI and kinda represented what 30k can't - your 10 tactical bases (50 men), lose 6 bases (30 men) and the remaining 20 men flee is a better representation of morale to me than a squad of 10 missile launchers losing 3 then running away from the back of the board. 

We liked it, and the double movement fleeing was key in one game, as you flee double movement towards your own board edge off the board - it's not M+D6 or anything, it's a straight 10" for infantry, so as an attacker you know that you if you can break them in their deployment zone, they will likely be destroyed. 

Edited January 4 by Valkyrion

[LameBeard]

2 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

And I thought we could be friends....!

You can always try to persuade me back to the light side!  The downside of Word Bearers is they would clash with my Mars red titan bases. Actually what am I thinking, my Legio Defensor wouldn’t be seen dead fighting alongside Word Bearers!

 

My son and I sold our KT18 stuff to subsidise the massive KT21 Octarius box, and we miss it. Octarius is OK but I feel is too complex, has too many layers, so doesn’t play quite quick enough for me. Would probably be fine for a more dedicated hobbyist. We play Star Wars Legion too and that has some features I like, so I see what you are getting at. Never played x-wing or Armada though.

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, LameBeard said:

You can always try to persuade me back to the light side!  The downside of Word Bearers is they would clash with my Mars red titan bases. Actually what am I thinking, my Legio Defensor wouldn’t be seen dead fighting alongside Word Bearers!

 

Loyalist grey armoured word bearers to pair with the religious titans ;) 

[Pacific81]

I've come to realise that all of GWs current specialist games have been designed for people who have long hair (always loose), wear a comfortable nit-wear jumper and the same pair of jeans since 2008, regularly stay up until 4am playing games, listen to the Smiths and are happy reading the full T&C's of their car insurance as well as discussing the finer points of longbow usage at Agincourt. If you fall into 2 or 3 or those categories you will be fine with Legions, but none of them at all and you will struggle.

[LameBeard]

I know this thread makes me look like a right moaning Minnie - since some of the things I seemed to want in Legions Imperialis were actually present in Kill Team Octarius!

 

So for balance, and just in case any designers are reading this thread: one great thing about Adeptus Titanicus, *both* versions of Kill Team, and Star Wars Legion is that they are full of tough and interesting choices. Sounds like Legions Imperialis will have this too - with the order system and alternating activations - so I look forward to giving it a try.

[vadersson]

I can already tell just with army building the LI is forcing interesting choices.  In very few cases is there a single optimal load out for a unit.  Most guns have a reason to be used depending on what you want, but then are less effective in other areas.  And I agree that the alternative activations pretty much always leads to interesting game play decisions.

 

@Pacific81 I don’t think I fit any of those items for an SG player.  I do feel a pull towards some of them however.  I haven’t worn jeans in years but the Smiths are pretty good.  ;)

[LameBeard]

It does sound a bit like a teenage me (except 2008 hadn’t been invented then).

[SkimaskMohawk]

3 minutes ago, vadersson said:

I can already tell just with army building the LI is forcing interesting choices. In very few cases is there a single optimal load out for a unit.

 

Er, not really. Other than model availability, the only thing that causes choices is points limit; formations don't limit anything in their structure, simply because you can have unlimited formations and the main infantry ones have a minimum tax of 95 and 70 for each faction.  After that, you can splurge on whatever other detachments you want. 

 

A lot of units have an optimal weapon. Others have done the math, and there's usually a clearly winning main weapon, that then dictates the sponsons. Predator lascannons, sicaran accelerators, Kratos battle cannon, fire raptor lascannons, contemptor lascannons, vanquishers, deredeo autocannons, hellhammer cannon, hellstrike missiles, etc... There's some alternate builds for some units that does change their role and how you use them, but most dont.

[Crablezworth]

As skimask pointed out, you can basically build a 3000+ army from a single armoured formation, not that there's any incentive to keep it to one, but my point is, there are that many detachment slots and in each detachment, the ability to field a very large/expensive tank unit. The limits really are for the most part what any one player owns and how that detachment is armed. Very quickly though you can see the points costs are very suspect, rarely does a weapon loadout require points cost to "upgrade" to. Some comparison might seem like apples to oranges, but a lot of players can look at leman russes or contemptor dreadnoughts and see obviously un-equal loadout options being considered at parity. A vanquisher cannon is just better than a battlecannon most of the time, especially if paired with a lascannon on the russ. Why>? Because the russ isn't just one of the best units, its 2+ armour makes it the premier front line tank for solar aux to battle other tanks, battlecannon/bolter is fine all rounder but just not as good, it doesn't have range or amourbane. 

 

The contemptors, oh man, kheres seems like a mistake, accurate lascannon just seems so much better. Accurate is huge, you'd be surprised how often you may find yourself over watching for example, being able to re-roll when hunting for 6's is very useful. Another example using the contemptors, for 5 points more you can get 4 leviathan dreadnoughts, granted they're not as long range, but their invul save goes from 6 to 5, and they get rend/wrecker with a very good ap, for 5pts more, and again this works out to like less than 1pt per model. Rend is pretty important, arguably so is wrecker. 

 

Anyway, examples aside, you can pretty much spam most units that aren't hq's, and even then, if there are no limits on formations you can take tiny formations to get extra commander/tank commanders. If you have 50 russes and 12 baneblades you can make a legal formation and its still less than 3000pts. I really hope skew lists don't work and combined arms is the name of the game, but I'm concerned that may not be entirely true, an entire army of vanq's and baneblades seems difficult to contend with.