The Great Slaughter

[Crablezworth]

Figured I'd start a thread on it. What are peoples thoughts on the new formations and detachments? 

 

 

The only 10 pages of interest to me are pretty legible in gmg's review. Combined with the book just not being in stock on the site, basically all the stats are out in the ether/noosphere so to speak so starting from about the mid way point one can go formation by formation and detachment by detachment if one were so inclined. Some initial oddities, none of the new detachments have any point incentive for taking larger detachments. I'm not even sure this is/was intentional or an mistake. None of the pods god orbital assault, seems odd for the deathstorm. Maybe they're saving it for the other pods like dreadclaw. 

 

 

 

 

[DuskRaider]

I really don’t have an interest in the Drop Pod or Fast Attack formations, but I’m really digging the Spartan and Land Raider. Interesting that they combined the Explorator and Assault Proteus into one, I was kinda hoping we would see a difference between the two choices and a Mk. IIb variant.
 

The Titandeath alternate gameplay seems pretty cool as well and I’m glad to see they fixed some of the glaring issues with Titans. Im eager to throw down 6,000 points of Titans or Knights on the table without needing two more tables for all of the dataslates in Titanicus, though I am a bit sad to see the Titan interaction dumbed down even if it’s a requirement for a game this size. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

As I have an Armoured Company and gazzillons of tank support in 28mm, as soon as LI was announced I decided to go Air Mobile and Drop Pod Assault for a change, regardless of effectiveness.

 

This release will tease that nicely.... and then I'll miss out on getting the stuff to play and nothing will change 

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Crablezworth said:

Some initial oddities, none of the new detachments have any point incentive for taking larger detachments. I'm not even sure this is/was intentional or an mistake.

 

This is pretty weird to me honestly.

 

The only units from the main armies that don't scale down points for increasing the unit size are transport slots. Some of the flyers don't discount the 2nd flyer in a unit, but a max size unit is always cheaper than buying individuals. Transports have to interact with being shunted to dedicated, so lack of discounting can make sense in that regard.

 

Out of the strategic assets, only the acastus is missing out on a discount for max unit size, but other than that, they all have it. Even the war hound.

 

But now, we have this really odd situation where the main malcador and baneblade hulls have discounts as you scale up, but the variant ones....don't. Both "super heavy tanks squadrons" and stormhammers start at 100, but 3 of the former is 280 and 3 of the latter is 300; 6 "superheavies" is 490 while 6 hammer is...600.

 

It's really inconsistent, and it completely throws off ideas of balance when you scale up all the way. 

 

[Crablezworth]

4 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

This is pretty weird to me honestly.

 

The only units from the main armies that don't scale down points for increasing the unit size are transport slots. Some of the flyers don't discount the 2nd flyer in a unit, but a max size unit is always cheaper than buying individuals. Transports have to interact with being shunted to dedicated, so lack of discounting can make sense in that regard.

 

Out of the strategic assets, only the acastus is missing out on a discount for max unit size, but other than that, they all have it. Even the war hound.

 

But now, we have this really odd situation where the main malcador and baneblade hulls have discounts as you scale up, but the variant ones....don't. Both "super heavy tanks squadrons" and stormhammers start at 100, but 3 of the former is 280 and 3 of the latter is 300; 6 "superheavies" is 490 while 6 hammer is...600.

 

It's really inconsistent, and it completely throws off ideas of balance when you scale up all the way. 

 

 

It's not always necessarily a disincentive, at least on a detachment by detachment basis as some of the new options are so good for the points, most of the aux ones. But I totally agree its really weird and incongruent and leads to greater discrepancies as point level of games go up. Some stuff is just a head scratcher though, example, the super heavy tank formation, could literally just be 3-5 separate stormhammers or baneblades. That's so bizarre to me.

 

No wonder you see games where one side has a large disparity in activations, as even the points incentives aren't always going to tempt people to max out units if they're expensive units like heavy tanks. But to my initial point, the malcador infernus and valdor seem so good that detachments of 2 are fine, it's not like armoured company is hurting for slots either way, so activation economy is just really really weird. And getting weirder.   

[Black Cohort]

8 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

This is pretty weird to me honestly.

 

The only units from the main armies that don't scale down points for increasing the unit size are transport slots. Some of the flyers don't discount the 2nd flyer in a unit, but a max size unit is always cheaper than buying individuals. Transports have to interact with being shunted to dedicated, so lack of discounting can make sense in that regard.

 

Out of the strategic assets, only the acastus is missing out on a discount for max unit size, but other than that, they all have it. Even the war hound.

 

But now, we have this really odd situation where the main malcador and baneblade hulls have discounts as you scale up, but the variant ones....don't. Both "super heavy tanks squadrons" and stormhammers start at 100, but 3 of the former is 280 and 3 of the latter is 300; 6 "superheavies" is 490 while 6 hammer is...600.

 

It's really inconsistent, and it completely throws off ideas of balance when you scale up all the way. 

 

 

from the stuff I have seen it feels like this book was written by a completely different person with different ideas of game balance (or lack thereof) and no one higher on the management chain cared enough to standardize.  It also sounds like the overall quality of work is lower even than the core rulebook.  I think one of the best examples of the quality of the work on LI generally is that the SA support box has units that have rules in the core box, and a unit with rules in this book.  That makes no sense and further reinforces my plan to use LI models with other 6//8mm rulesets.

 

The new kits will be good for the game, if anyone ever bothers playing more than 2 months from now.  With several Valdor's you have a viable solution to knights and titans without needing your own.  The support kits add a bunch of useful options to both armies, including decent AA options, one of the leviathan builds and Spartans.

 

If the two rulebooks and rollout of LI are the standard quality of work a team is providing, then at a minimum I think the supervisor/manager of that team needs to reassigned or fired, clearly they don't have the skillset to deliver this kind of project at a professional level.  Nothing about the rollout of LI to date comes across as the work you expect from an industry leader.  I would more likely believe you if you had told me that LI was the first, kickstarted, project from a brand new company rather than a well established publicly traded company.  I don't really understand what GW's plan is with LI (or most of their other newer projects).  Making all the molds is not cheap, and producing the kits is taking manufacturing time away from 40k, killteam or other product lines.  Was LI the baby of someone at GW 3 years ago and they were fired/moved on, and someone is killing LI for spite?  Or they thought it was a good idea when the process started years ago, decided it wouldn't work but had already made it so far down the production process they figured it would lose less money if they dumped the product they had on the market?  The main outcome seems to be pissing off a portion of their long established customer base, but for reasons that make 0 sense to me GW seems to think they will make more money long term churning people who buy a big box or two and some smaller boxes than drift away rather than established customers who buy kits year in and out for a decade or longer.  Getting customers in the door is usually way more expensive than keeping existing customers.

[Nagashsnee]

I had a game yesterday where i fielded jetbikes and javelin speeders (missile launchers) and found them to be very strong rules wise.

 

Jetbikes especially are cheap, excellent movement/charge highly maneuverable and can threaten anything, infantry? 2 shots each at 5+, tanks? 20 Inch assault and can fly over terrain screens.  Javelins are good too, tho not as good, being able to have reliable ignores cover shots on a high movement-high manouver fire base was again great. 

 

But the bikes, you can ignore them, they dont cost much (35 per 3) and since their heavy bolters can fire in the moment phase or overwatch on BS are really good for board control. I parked 6 behind LOS blocking terrain and suddenly the enemy knew i had a 20 charge bubble. 

 

I can see 3x6 jetbikes and 1x 4 javelins ( my currently ready and based models) becoming a staple in my lists. There are not many points (total less then 300) and project so much threat, if you really want to take it as far as you go you paint them up as world eaters and those CAF 2 (3 on charge) jetbikes are suddenly punching far far above their weight. 

 

 

Edited February 19 by Nagashsnee

[Interrogator Stobz]

Great to hear positive stories Brother.

It's easy for us to get bogged down by James W sometimes, let's get some damned dice rolling and have fun....

Edited February 19 by Interrogator Stobz
Sp.

[Nagashsnee]

55 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Great to hear positive stories Brother.

It's easy for us to get bogged down by James W sometimes, let's get some damned dice rolling and have fun....

 

My local scene would have died without 3d printing, too many people could not get any minis, no way to start armies, and those who did had not enought/ identical stuff. 

 

Support the game as much as they let you (seriously i have never struggled as much as LI has made me to give GW money) but 100% do what you need to play and have fun. Without playing and having fun there wont be a game left to support. 

 

While the auxilia got the better units on paper, marines now DOMINATE movement and force projection, jetbikes are also really good for overwatch which helps with the infuriate assault dudes allot.  Between Jetbikes, javelins and leviathans in pods marines who were already ahead in the force projection/board control part of the game now dominate it.  

 

That said my local scene is heavily against legion/army mixing. So the options for truly crazy combos (and they exist and will kill balance stone dead) are self contained luckily. 

[apologist]

Thanks for sharing, @Crablezworth.

 

At 7.17 in the video, we get the Titandeath rules. To paraphrase:

• Coordinated Fire means that the controlling player chooses and resolves attacks in order;
• Calibrated Void Shields gives a 5+ save for voids, and
• Focused Ire means Titans can't use Split Fire unless they're only targetting Knights.

These all strike me as being perfectly sensible rules that go a decent way to making Titans a bit more fun to play. I'd prefer these to be in the standard rules, to be honest, with Focused Ire being re-phrased to apply more generally; rather than specifically to Knights.

 

 

14.30 reveals the new Formations and Detachments:

 

Space Marines Formations:

• Legion Sky-hunter Phalanx
• Legion Drop Pod Assault

Space Marines Detachments:

• Outrider Squadron (i.e. bikes)
• Scimitar Jetbike Squadron
• Land Speeder Squadron
• Javelin Squadron
• Spartan Detachment
• Legion Land Raider Detachment
• Dreadnought Drop Pod Detachment
• Deathstorm Drop Pod Detachment

 

Solar Auxilia Formations:

• Solar Auxilia Artillery Company
• Solar Auxilia Mechanised Infantry Sub-cohort
• Solar Auxilia Super-heavy Company

Solar Auxilia Detachments:

• Dracoson Detachment
• Cyclops Battery
• Malcador Infernus Squadron
• Valdor Squadron
• Stormhammer Squadron
• Medusa Battery
• Basilisk Battery

I'll highlight the two Detachments that I'm interested in; the Outriders (15.20ish) and Land Raiders. In isolation, the Bikes look fun; twice the cost of the equivalent number of Tactical stands, but considerably more mobile and with a sting in the tail. They strike me as a nice backline unit to respond to enemy breakthroughs or to stiffen wavering lines. In the context of the broader list, their mobility is probably outweighed by easy access to Drop Pods, flyers etc., and they strike me as directly outcompeted by the Jetbikes for most roles. The Bikes are a bit more flexible, as their plasma guns give a fair (though not great) way to tackle enemy light vehicles.

 

Land Raiders look like solid, if not stellar, anti-tank units, and suprisingly quick at 9in move. Would have liked the heavy bolters to be present to reflect the Marines' flexibility.

 

Comparing them with the Leman Russ sees them come off second-best, I think: identical armour, Wounds and CAF; better only in Morale and slightly more movement. 

 

Were the comparison with the battle cannon, the Land Raiders would look a little better, but unless the Guard player has a good reason to do so, I think you're more likely to see their opposite numbers armed with Vanquisher cannons, which are much better.

 

As it means more hits overall, I think Accurate is better than Armourbane for the targets of choice (and giving the Raiders a hint more flexibility) but these'll mostly lose if they try to duel with the Vanquishers – particularly if the Leman Russ also go for hull-mounted lascannons. That last point is another oddity of the system. Except for the Accurate trait, the Single hull-mounted lascannon on the Leman Russ is identical to the four(!) lascannons of the Land Raider. 

 

Of course, these do have a very different battlefield role, being Transports – but even so they're rather underwhelming. In context, it's even worse. At half the points of the Spartan, they're less survivable, less destructive, carry fewer models and have a bigger footprint to hide. Overall, I don't think these rules do justice to the iconic Space Marine tank – overshadowed by the Spartan.

 

 

18 hours ago, Crablezworth said:

Some initial oddities, none of the new detachments have any point incentive for taking larger detachments. I'm not even sure this is/was intentional or an mistake.

 

There's new type of limit on the multimelta upgrade on the Land Raiders – only one in three, which I don't think happens in the army lists in the main rulebook. The Land Speeders also have a 'one in every two' option. Certainly looks like there's a change in direction for this 'expansion'. If this does herald flat points and upgrade limits for the game in general, that might be no bad thing.

 

+++

 

I really don't want to come across as grumpy and overly-negative here, but while there are lots of bits that I like the look of, I've got a bit of a bad taste in my mouth left by this – while I would have been quite happy to have a new game mode in an optional expansion, that game mode amounts to little more than half a page that should probably have been in the main rules.

 

Likewise, while I can understand the main rulebook having a limited army list (as it effectively just needs to serve to give you the basics to try things out), but I would have thought an expansion would have included a full army list for the Space Marines and Solar Auxilia – or at least one that collected together all the stuff that we've already got to save having to leaf through two large hardbacks to find the dozen or so pages you need. 

 

At its heart it feels torn in two directions: if you use the rules to play Titan battles, you can't use the models you got in the core game – so why are those rules bundled with an army list expansion that, if used, preclude you using the Titanic battle rules?

 

This expansion feels like thin gruel: unsatisfying, and entirely too little value.

 

+++

 

I don't think that GW are covering themselves in glory with this game, and a substantially revised set of rules – one that learns from the mistakes they're making – is needed to allow Epic to dust itself off. Whether that's a substantial FAQ or a new edition... I don't know. At this point, I feel a lot of customer goodwill has been lost and many have had their fingers burned.

 

To try to end on a constructive and positive note, I hope that this simply represents the game's growing pains, and that – like Necromunda and Titanicus – we'll end up with a refined and improved version of the game sooner, rather than later. The hints at upgrade limits, consolidation and simplification of points are steps in the right direction. 

Edited February 19 by apologist

[Crablezworth]

What I find odd is there is zero guidance or even suggestions on detachment sizes and point levels. The distinctions now between what even is a formation or detachment are more blurred with the ability to run literally single model type armies. I never understood baneblade detachments being 1-6, was happy to see stormhammer was 1-3 but the super heavy formation can literally be just 3-5 single baneblades or stormhamemrs. 

 

But now with the change in points incentive I'm sorta lost in what the game design is trying to tell me. Outside of any considerations to point cost/paying or not for certain upgrades/unit by unit meta is the activation economy and that's where I'm a bit lost and frustrated as the game scales up. Like at 1k, there's enough cool stuff, enough economy as to where decisions seem well considered and weighed against one another. I'm not immediately makin 10 strong leman russ  or 6 strong baneblade detachments, for example. But as the game scales up to 3k, it's evident the formations don't really limit very much when the formations themselves have no limits on how many can be fielded. Like at the absurd end just for emphasis, I believe I was able to get 77 activations in 3k, this is in no way typical or a good army or anything, but, one can imagine how much of a slog that would be in terms of alternating activations, hell over 2 phases that's over 150 activations on just one side alone. The concern isn't that extreme, but even a 1/3 disparity in activations starts a "tail end" effect where once an opponent runs out of activations, its not really alternating anymore if the other side just has like 10 detachments in a row move/shoot ect. 

 

There's truly aberrant amounts of shooing for point costs so some units start to seem suspect, like heavy sentinels, when u look at the firepower and cost for 8 of them and look at a baneblade its a bit of a  head scratcher, why super heavies aren't 3 wounds is also confusing to me. The stormammer also sorta shows up the baneblade entirely, 4 shots from main guns alone, co ax multi las for 2 more, and then ability to have 5 las shots, 4 of which are 360 arc, like god damn, for 104pts? Sure. Glad I didn't invest heavily in baneblades. 

 

Concerns aside, its leading to the current conclusin/feeling that the game just runs well at like 1-1.5k (even then there can be issues) but the most pressing is just that, its too top weighted at high point levels or "mass battle" levels. Too many activations, too many things starting on the board, too many planes turn 1. The game wants to start turned up to 11, it's in a big hurry, and honestly that's why the battles are a bit feel bad, it ends up being 2-3 very intense but slow turns before someone taps out. It's not a full meaningful 5 turns where it feels like it could be anyone's game. That's not always possible even in the best of systems but, it's also just overwhelming to command a parking lot IMO, I only have so much bandwidth, my ideal 3k game is starting to feel like 2 1500pt games back to back lol, that or two 1500pts lists with one forced into reserve. 

 

Complete side note but deathstorm pod really does seem like its lacking the orbital assault rule.  

[Marshal Rohr]

Tempus Fugitives used to do that didn’t they? You’d come to an event with three/four different army lists and during the big games the lists would be brought on at different times. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Me and crabz' were going through the data sheets and realized cyclops count towards breakpoint. So the remote bomb, made to drive into enemies and self destruct, is also going to count towards morale...

[Interrogator Stobz]

They really phoned in their rules checking on this one.

Feels like 10th 

Still cannot wait until they are able to supply minis for the game though 

[Crablezworth]

Specific thoughts on the marine vanguard units

 

The bikes I really wish were a test bed for a new usr that's like half rend, +D3 CAF instead of D6. Hell I'd be happy even if it only worked the round you charged. Nothing particularly wrong with the bikes but it would have been nice for something to set them apart more from the other 3, on account of outriders being the only ones not hovering. Hell even the ability to include the odd attack bike would have been cool since they start that weird precedent in this book about some units weaponry being limited to one in every two or three models. 

 

The jetbikes are fine, only one weapon options is sorta meh but at least like the outriders they have a point defense weapon. I expected jetbikes to have at minimum a better save than the outriders. That did not materialize and they both have a 5+.

 

The land speeders, I like that both guns have the same range band for once, I don't really like that only one in two can swap their bolter and plasma for melta flamer. Why not just make it a costed upgrade? This is also where things seems a bit schizophrenic, you have entire detachments of leman russes that can taken in 10's, get cheaper the more u take in a detachment and neither pay more nor are limited in anyway, but somehow the place to start limiting things is the marine land speeder. You see this again with the land raider for some reason only being able to take a melta for every 3 raiders, this is a game where i can have a melta on every single rhino already. And it's not even like this new direction translate into the spartan, which can just pay 5pts to take a melta, if it wants, no other restriction. Rant aside, it makes me want to run the speeders as all plasma bolter because I just resent the half and half at most if I want melta/flamer. All I know is, as permissive as the rulebook can seem, if the limits felt as random in that as they do here I would have been a lot more concerned earlier. As worried as I was and still am about a lot of units weaponry just not being costed at all, this seems like the most random way to pretend to address it. 

 

The javelins are weird, the change from the 30k model to the li one with the nose mounted flamer, I guess to sate the printing process, is a bit hard to take. The lack of multi melta as an option also is really felt, its not that they're difficult to come by but it's such a staple weapon of the javelin as a platform. Also to my disappointment, I had assumed javelins would have a more robust armour save than normal speeders but they have the same stat line. This is a theme I'm noticing a bit as well, not only are some of the special rules going unused or ignored, they're not even really using the stat line to flesh things out as well as they could. The javelins make me want to go missile all the time, mostly because I can't swap out the flamer, so at least both weapons can focus on denying cover. That said they seem a bit pricey compared to the firepower you can get with rapiers or contemptor dreads with lascannons. 

 

 

[Valkyrion]

This weekend, me and a friend are trying this;

Only astartes (only because that's all we have)

No points limit but points are still calculated

No formations

Exactly 15 detachments per side.

Whoever has the least points gains a knight or titan detachment equal to the difference. 

A change to the phases - First Fire Phase > Movement Phase (Charge > March > Advance) > Combat Phase (Fight > Advance Fire) > End - with units on Advance orders able to Overwatch at the expense of moving and firing later in the turn.

 

I'm sure there'll be some rules interactions we've not considered that lead to unintended results, but we found that alternating activations only really work when there is a limit beyond the normal points limit, as @Crablezworth mentions above with the 77 activations.

 

I know it goes without saying that you can all play the game however you want, but I've a feeling that this game isn't going to survive much beyond 2025, and I'll want a way to continue playing after my time and money has been invested in it. 

 

[Crablezworth]

5 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

This weekend, me and a friend are trying this;

Only astartes (only because that's all we have)

No points limit but points are still calculated

No formations

Exactly 15 detachments per side.

Whoever has the least points gains a knight or titan detachment equal to the difference. 

A change to the phases - First Fire Phase > Movement Phase (Charge > March > Advance) > Combat Phase (Fight > Advance Fire) > End - with units on Advance orders able to Overwatch at the expense of moving and firing later in the turn.

 

I'm sure there'll be some rules interactions we've not considered that lead to unintended results, but we found that alternating activations only really work when there is a limit beyond the normal points limit, as @Crablezworth mentions above with the 77 activations.

 

I know it goes without saying that you can all play the game however you want, but I've a feeling that this game isn't going to survive much beyond 2025, and I'll want a way to continue playing after my time and money has been invested in it. 

 

 

I do think that's probably how they should have gone, one overarching phase. I also tend to agree about tossing formations and just having a total point limit and maybe activation cap, especially after the great slaughter decided to mess with how points scale up. I fear your change may be a bit drastic but as you mentioned you're sorta ready to have to iron out any rules wonkiness. 

 

The simplest change I'd make to the core game right now is just taking away overwatch from advance order and only allowing it on first fire. 

 

 

[SkimaskMohawk]

5 hours ago, Crablezworth said:

The jetbikes are fine, only one weapon options is sorta meh but at least like the outriders they have a point defense weapon. I expected jetbikes to have at minimum a better save than the outriders. That did not materialize and they both have a 5+.

 

The big issue with the jetbikes is our perception. In 30k proper they're semi-durable weapon platforms in one way or another; both 1st and 2nd allows jetbikes units to get full special weapons instead of bolters and they're either t5/2+ in 1st or 2 wounds in second. But that didn't translate at all. They're as durable as infantry and outriders, and are stuck with the heavy bolter option.

 

Having said all that, they do seem good in their new niche. They're another very fast assault unit, that can jump over stuff and use point defence on the march.  Thing is, they do that thing of just crowding out another unit from the same role; the outriders. Those guys also have very short range shooting, same move, same CAF and save and everything, but no skimmer to hop over terrain, no point defence to help get close, and only 2 stands for 30 instead of 3 for 35...kinda sad since outriders are more accurate to their 30k counter parts. 

[Crablezworth]

1 hour ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

The big issue with the jetbikes is our perception. In 30k proper they're semi-durable weapon platforms in one way or another; both 1st and 2nd allows jetbikes units to get full special weapons instead of bolters and they're either t5/2+ in 1st or 2 wounds in second. But that didn't translate at all. They're as durable as infantry and outriders, and are stuck with the heavy bolter option.

 

Having said all that, they do seem good in their new niche. They're another very fast assault unit, that can jump over stuff and use point defence on the march.  Thing is, they do that thing of just crowding out another unit from the same role; the outriders. Those guys also have very short range shooting, same move, same CAF and save and everything, but no skimmer to hop over terrain, no point defence to help get close, and only 2 stands for 30 instead of 3 for 35...kinda sad since outriders are more accurate to their 30k counter parts. 

 

I'm just concerned that we're already seeing units that don't really need to exist if they're not going to do anything to set themselves apart. You're right in that the jetbikes just sorta upstage them and the disparity in amount of bases of points is also weird considering they're the only two units on 32mm bases for now. Like the couldn't even be bothered to give the bikes furious charge. 

 

We tend to get pretty detailed when it comes to terrain and, to your point about the bikes not being able to move over terrain like skimmers, it's pretty huge, there's all downside there, no upside. Even stuff like forests, skimmers are going to sail effortlessly over it while bikes if not slowed by it, it sorta strains credibility. The problem there as well is one can argue either way if bikes would sail effortlessly through a forest and good arguments can be made either way because of how abstract forest terrain tends to be. 

 

Also skimmer to the point about forests, doesn't really have any downsides like they do in 30k/40k back in the day, where ending say on the roof of a ruin risked immobilization. So I guess, knowing how we tend to do boards with more area terrain now that doesn't really help bikes much and skimmers are sorta indifferent as they want to be able to move from los to los and do pop up attacks when possible. 

 

 

 

[Marshal Rohr]

10 minutes ago, Crablezworth said:

 

I'm just concerned that we're already seeing units that don't really need to exist if they're not going to do anything to set themselves apart. You're right in that the jetbikes just sorta upstage them and the disparity in amount of bases of points is also weird considering they're the only two units on 32mm bases for now. Like the couldn't even be bothered to give the bikes furious charge. 

 

We tend to get pretty detailed when it comes to terrain and, to your point about the bikes not being able to move over terrain like skimmers, it's pretty huge, there's all downside there, no upside. Even stuff like forests, skimmers are going to sail effortlessly over it while bikes if not slowed by it, it sorta strains credibility. The problem there as well is one can argue either way if bikes would sail effortlessly through a forest and good arguments can be made either way because of how abstract forest terrain tends to be. 

 

Also skimmer to the point about forests, doesn't really have any downsides like they do in 30k/40k back in the day, where ending say on the roof of a ruin risked immobilization. So I guess, knowing how we tend to do boards with more area terrain now that doesn't really help bikes much and skimmers are sorta indifferent as they want to be able to move from los to los and do pop up attacks when possible. 

 

 

 

Bikes are meant to exclusively screen armor, Jetbikes are multi-role one man aircraft and the rules reflect this. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

9 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Bikes are meant to exclusively screen armor,

 

?

Bikes are objectively not a screening unit, especially not when compared to jetbikes; you get fewer models, cost more points, and have a lower max unit size. They share the very limited vanguard slot, but can't be taken in the compulsory part of skyhunter, meaning you can take a total of six per demi company, aerial assault, and skyhunter formation.  Pretty much every other non vehicle is a better screen.

 

Quote

Jetbikes are multi-role one man aircraft and the rules reflect this. 

 

But the rule don't reflect that. Their role is the same as assault marines and outriders; fast moving assault unit. Outriders have more flexible guns but can't hop, while assaults lack point defence guns and gain a point of CAF, but their role is still the same. If the speeders CAF wasn't 1 they'd be in that role too, though they still fit into the "multi-roll" category better than the rest.

[LameBeard]

5 hours ago, Crablezworth said:

 

I do think that's probably how they should have gone, one overarching phase. I also tend to agree about tossing formations and just having a total point limit and maybe activation cap, especially after the great slaughter decided to mess with how points scale up. I fear your change may be a bit drastic but as you mentioned you're sorta ready to have to iron out any rules wonkiness. 

 

The simplest change I'd make to the core game right now is just taking away overwatch from advance order and only allowing it on first fire. 

 

 

I admire the thinking here.
 

I know I haven’t played an actual game yet, so can I first state that I really respect that the game designers are balancing their love of the kind of games they like, with the prevailing fashions of the day and the corporate constraints including models per sprue per box etc. I’m sure they are doing a great job.

 

however, the direction I’m thinking about is the opposite: Merge formations and detachments, with formation being primary.

 

So a decent game would be (say) 8 activations each, comparable with Star Wars Legion and slightly larger than typical Titanicus. 5 - 10 might be extremes.

 

Formations would get one order and activate together.

 

Air support and battle tanks would go out of the current formations, and min-max formation size would hence be a narrower range. So the main formations would be:

1) infantry company (with later assault/devastator/terminator/mechanised variants)

2) tank company (later artillery company variant, might also have super-heavy variant) - basically one box of tanks

4) vanguard company (bikes, speeders)

3) air support wing - basically one box of planes

4) titan or knight banner

 

This actually makes it more like Warhammer - a formation/detachment is basically a box you buy in the shop, possibly two, just like a 40k unit.

 

This would appeal to my nostalgia because battle reports in White Dwarf seemed to be at this level.

 

It would enhance the feel of the game with me as commander: I make the big calls, I do not order an individual tactical squad of 20 dudes.

 

It would also solve some balance issues: now each activation is much more equal in points, a titan is worth a company not a squad.

 

The only downside I see is having to have some streamlined way to handle wound allocation when targeting a mixed save formation. But there would be less variation here anyway because I’ve separated infantry/cavalry/armour. Dreads and transport might need a little bit of special rule boxes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Indy Techwisp]

So, if anyone's used Outriders in a list yet, how do you feel they're performing balance wise?
Are they getting overshadowed by their Jetbike counterparts?

[Nagashsnee]

7 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

So, if anyone's used Outriders in a list yet, how do you feel they're performing balance wise?
Are they getting overshadowed by their Jetbike counterparts?

I haven't used them, but printed units of both and with rules now in hand find 0 reason to even put bikes on the table.

 

Their just worse all around. I have had 2 games with jetbikes and i never wished i had bikes instead or on top so far. 

Edited February 23 by Nagashsnee

[Crablezworth]

The great slaughter feels a bit phoned in for some units and bikes seem to be one of them.