Spartans - getting the best out of them

[SkimaskMohawk]

Ya me and crabs were talking after our last game about ranges.

 

A las rifles range in LI is 10" and a bolter is 8"; 30" and 24" in 30k. In LI, basic infantry marches 15" and charges 10"; in 30k, a charge is 12" maximum, and a run has been between 7-12".

 

So, traditionally a charge has been able to go as far as the rapid fire range for a bolter, but in LI, you go the range of a lasrifle; 12" to 30". You "run" an equivalent of 45". Assault marines basically charge 63". Oh, you also don't need LoS to charge any more. And infantry basically aren't slowed by anything. And you can do a transport march, disembark, and charge for a huge distance.

 

In effect, your melee has more threat range than range. But melee still also has that enhanced damage to "make up" for needing to get in melee. And on top of that, the only guns that "outrange" the longest non-arvus charge distance are tuned to explicitly not be great into infantry (and would still be super inefficient even if they did effect their armour). 

 

Compare this to Sm2 where a tactical moved 10cm (3.94") and an assault marines moved 15cm (5.9"). Both could charge double their movement, but that was a shorter range, and it lacked the march order to send them zooming into position beforehand. Oh, and a bolter shot 50cm (19.68"), 5x further than a basic infantry could move; marines definitely weren't charging further than they could shoot.

 

This really just underlines the lack of thinking they did when massaging the Sm2 rules into LI. Increase speed by a ton, shorten ranges by a ton, panic and give everything overwatch. Double the recommended point value and add progressive scoring. Result: a massive scrum in the middle that takes forever to resolve in real time but ends at turn 2. These systems clearly weren't made to work this way, and it's resulted in some really obvious imbalances. Well, obvious to anyone who doesn't play in the Warhammer World vortex, where the point of playing a game is really to sneak in a few more pints. 

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

On 5/5/2024 at 4:28 AM, Crablezworth said:

I think we all know the achilles heel of the core game design is close combat ignoring armor entirely and rend exacerbating that a bit too much into the haves and have not of combat. Tanks live or die far too often by not only when they're activated vis-a-vis infantry charging but how diligent one is in pre-measuring possible counter charge ranges. 10 inch charge is a lot too when, as stated, most terrain is open to inf whether or not is blocking los.

 

As skimaskmohawk said, infantry basically ignore all terrain and I think that's the best place to start with addressing incentives for stuff like transports. 

 

The rulebook does a good job of laying down core concepts like difficult and dangerous areas of terrain. But sorta fumbles it on guidance and examples on mixing terrain types or creating sub-types, with he one exception being obstacles and reinforced obstacles. 

 

What I'm saying is, if we want to create incentives for taking transports, then something like dangerous terrain should also have subsets that treat different unit types differently. So case in point, a variety of dangerous terrain that vehicles ignore but infantry do not. If something like that were to all of a sudden accompany structures in your local board/game meta then it might not fix deep strike or infiltrate but it may certainly present transports with a benefit they didn't really have prior.

 

A further example, as happy as I was to see rules for rivers, the current rules have all vehicles treating rivers as impassable. Now granted, this is also because contained within the river rules are rules for bridges, However it highlights a problem of classifying all vehicles in one fell swoop, there is no special rule like "amphibious" and I think its fair to say narratively that a small river would not be much impediment to a mighty sparant or land raider, in fact fluff would have them drive right through, depth being no issue. If transports, or at least some, benefited infantry from not being swept up or drowning, like with the proposed idea with dangerous terrain, it'd be another reason to reach for transports. 

 

 

I have gone back to SM2 rules in regards to infantry movement. This means a reduction of speed (4 inches) and the abolishment of march orders granting triple speed.

In addition the embarkation and disembarkation rules from SM2 have also been implemented. Those relied on percentage values of a transport vehicle´s speed which determined the final move allowance for the disembarking units.

 

Example:

Transport vehicle moves 100% of it´s speed value. Passengers may only disembark and not move.

Transport vehicle moves 50% of it´s speed value. Passengers may disembark and move 50% of their speed value.

Transport vehicle moves 0% of it´s speed value. Passengers may disembark and move 100% of their speed value.

 

And so one.

[Crablezworth]

6 hours ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

I have gone back to SM2 rules in regards to infantry movement. This means a reduction of speed (4 inches) and the abolishment of march orders granting triple speed.

In addition the embarkation and disembarkation rules from SM2 have also been implemented. Those relied on percentage values of a transport vehicle´s speed which determined the final move allowance for the disembarking units.

 

Example:

Transport vehicle moves 100% of it´s speed value. Passengers may only disembark and not move.

Transport vehicle moves 50% of it´s speed value. Passengers may disembark and move 50% of their speed value.

Transport vehicle moves 0% of it´s speed value. Passengers may disembark and move 100% of their speed value.

 

And so one.

 

Yeah seems closer to how it worked in 40k back in the day as well. This is what confuses me too is how they never thought any of those limits might be worthwhile. It feels like we only even got the distinctions on which transports allow assault more for gw bottom line than actual gameplay considerations. But you'd think all of this would be implemented, if anything so players would see the inherent benefit in a flyer transport at least in terms of speeds/distance and terrain interaction/avoidance. 

[Crablezworth]

On 6/9/2024 at 10:55 PM, SkimaskMohawk said:

Ya me and crabs were talking after our last game about ranges.

 

A las rifles range in LI is 10" and a bolter is 8"; 30" and 24" in 30k. In LI, basic infantry marches 15" and charges 10"; in 30k, a charge is 12" maximum, and a run has been between 7-12".

 

So, traditionally a charge has been able to go as far as the rapid fire range for a bolter, but in LI, you go the range of a lasrifle; 12" to 30". You "run" an equivalent of 45". Assault marines basically charge 63". Oh, you also don't need LoS to charge any more. And infantry basically aren't slowed by anything. And you can do a transport march, disembark, and charge for a huge distance.

 

In effect, your melee has more threat range than range. But melee still also has that enhanced damage to "make up" for needing to get in melee. And on top of that, the only guns that "outrange" the longest non-arvus charge distance are tuned to explicitly not be great into infantry (and would still be super inefficient even if they did effect their armour). 

 

Compare this to Sm2 where a tactical moved 10cm (3.94") and an assault marines moved 15cm (5.9"). Both could charge double their movement, but that was a shorter range, and it lacked the march order to send them zooming into position beforehand. Oh, and a bolter shot 50cm (19.68"), 5x further than a basic infantry could move; marines definitely weren't charging further than they could shoot.

 

This really just underlines the lack of thinking they did when massaging the Sm2 rules into LI. Increase speed by a ton, shorten ranges by a ton, panic and give everything overwatch. Double the recommended point value and add progressive scoring. Result: a massive scrum in the middle that takes forever to resolve in real time but ends at turn 2. These systems clearly weren't made to work this way, and it's resulted in some really obvious imbalances. Well, obvious to anyone who doesn't play in the Warhammer World vortex, where the point of playing a game is really to sneak in a few more pints. 

 

The end result as well is feeling like I need to have like not just 10 inch clearings but 20 inch clearings/fields between terrain to even give ranged weaponry the upper hand it should have but also because even if people are pretty diligent about pre measuring and conscientious about being assaulted it's easy to measure from the wrong models or not see one out of los and your opponent is under no real obligation there either, so on a dense board its easy to be surprised by a charge you didn't see coming. And this is also just visual like if there's isn't enough open area/negative space, when all the models are down it can almost be overwhelming. In the case of my solar aux they can blend a bit too well to urban/grey. 

 

I think one success of our game was a lot of the terrain slowing infantry as well, I had to march order at one point just to be able to get a whole detachment into cover and that actually felt right as they didn't end up 15 inches away, just sorta scrambled into the ruins. I also like that the only unit type that was not affected was our walkers, felt "right" that walkers would be the only ones not held up by like swamps or areas of fallen trees. 

 

In terms of most peoples very citivas centric board meta, I gotta think halving charge range from structures and getting rid of infantry treating unoccupied structures as open terrain would do a lot to help balance things out. 

 

Edited June 12 by Crablezworth

[vadersson]

One thing that has been pushing me away from 40K for awhile is how short weapon ranges are vs movement.  I think in reality gun ranges well out distance how far a person can run before being shot.  The whole triple infantry move and the short ranges in LI are very problematic to me.  I was really hoping we would see more SM2 type ranges when he game was announced too be influenced by SM2.  If they just adjusted that I think the game would be a lot better.

 

i still hope that the devs will eventually do a quick FAQ or more detailed rules upgrade.  Sigh.

[Gillyfish]

I wonder if one solution to the movement speed issue (temporarily) is to say that at the end of a march move you cannot be within X" of an enemy model to represent that this ought to be more of a reserve movement at speed rather than moving under potential fire. There are other rulesets with similar restrictions to such long-range moves, so this could work. The question is what value 'X' should be.

 

 

[Crablezworth]

1 hour ago, Gillyfish said:

I wonder if one solution to the movement speed issue (temporarily) is to say that at the end of a march move you cannot be within X" of an enemy model to represent that this ought to be more of a reserve movement at speed rather than moving under potential fire. There are other rulesets with similar restrictions to such long-range moves, so this could work. The question is what value 'X' should be.

 

 

 

Well, path of least resistance would be playing with more area terrain defined as difficult to pretty much anything but walkers/knights/titans. Halving speed takes march from 15 back down to 7.5m, granted models are only moving half speed for the portion of the move inside the terrain but that also can be controlled having having larger areas of difficult terrain. We've even clarified that if say cavalry with skimmer intend to end or start their move inside an area they're still slowed or taking dangerous for that portion of their move as they're dodging branches or swamp water, they can still move over un-impeded though if no part of their move has them ending in it as long as they don't start in it either. 

 

I like what deus ex machina posed for transports:

 

"Transport vehicle moves 100% of it´s speed value. Passengers may only disembark and not move.

Transport vehicle moves 50% of it´s speed value. Passengers may disembark and move 50% of their speed value.

Transport vehicle moves 0% of it´s speed value. Passengers may disembark and move 100% of their speed value."

 

But ya if terrain can me made a lot more about slowing advances it will also make the flyer transports make more sense as the ground ones won't be these giant movement catapults anymore, at least that's the hope. Still sadly a lot of the transport meta is skewed by easy access to infiltrate, so that still sorta needs limiting imo. 

[Crablezworth]

15 hours ago, vadersson said:

One thing that has been pushing me away from 40K for awhile is how short weapon ranges are vs movement.  I think in reality gun ranges well out distance how far a person can run before being shot.  The whole triple infantry move and the short ranges in LI are very problematic to me.  I was really hoping we would see more SM2 type ranges when he game was announced too be influenced by SM2.  If they just adjusted that I think the game would be a lot better.

 

i still hope that the devs will eventually do a quick FAQ or more detailed rules upgrade.  Sigh.

 

The current looks of 40k event boards is really disheartening, to your point about weapons ranges. You used to see some variety, creativity and story telling back in the day even with event boards, now its like planet L by mc escher on his off days.

 

The weapons ranges are really odd as are the incentives as its almost always better to charge than shoot if your weapon is so low ranged, add to that the structures buffs pretty much ensure that exchanging small arms fire from structure to structure is much less impactful than one side deciding to charge the other. 

 

A simple fix might be something tied to an order, example infantry on first fire can shoot at double range but at like -1 or something. I do think it's worth a good comparison to where it deviated from SM2 cuz it seems a lot of the problem spots are sort of there. The biggest sticking point for me is so much overwatch, it really shouldn't be on advance order.  

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

On 6/11/2024 at 6:18 PM, Crablezworth said:

 

Yeah seems closer to how it worked in 40k back in the day as well. This is what confuses me too is how they never thought any of those limits might be worthwhile. It feels like we only even got the distinctions on which transports allow assault more for gw bottom line than actual gameplay considerations. But you'd think all of this would be implemented, if anything so players would see the inherent benefit in a flyer transport at least in terms of speeds/distance and terrain interaction/avoidance. 

Why they changed it? In a nutshell: Because a broader audience can perform better on the battlefield. And now to a more detailed response:

 

 A few weeks ago I received the reprint version of Rogue Trader. In that tome it is explicitly stated that the emphasis in a game with laser & rockets is ranged combat. Shocking news, I know! In 2nd 40K the sentiment was also still in place as human infantry moved four inches (difficult to get into melee without specific gear and a plan) along the board. 

 

Then 3rd 40K happened and it went downhill from there pretty fast. A new concept reared it´s ugly head:

 

Melee had to be VIABLE.

 

What does this even mean? Let me get this straight: It has nothing to do with improved melee rules or good melee weapon profiles. Instead it facilitated a braindead game-style in which your infantry mobs can easily walk across an open field and reach the enemy lines in a jiffy because of their ludicrous high speed (six inches). Two more things add to this dilemma: Transport vehicles which allowed charges after said vehicle moved and the crippling nerf to the overwatch concept (either it didn´t exist in an edition or you would hit ONLY on a 6).

 

And this "melee had to be viable" concept apparently seeped into Legions Imperialis as well. World Eaters are BRUTAL when catapulted either into the middle of the board via transports or just by jogging (triple speed with march orders) towards the intended direction.

 

Dropzone Commander (DC) addresses this better. When infantry are on their own without transports then they move like snails. Though you don´t need to buy DC but just have to tweak a few rules in LI to have a better gaming experience.

[Crablezworth]

5 hours ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

Why they changed it? In a nutshell: Because a broader audience can perform better on the battlefield. And now to a more detailed response:

 

 A few weeks ago I received the reprint version of Rogue Trader. In that tome it is explicitly stated that the emphasis in a game with laser & rockets is ranged combat. Shocking news, I know! In 2nd 40K the sentiment was also still in place as human infantry moved four inches (difficult to get into melee without specific gear and a plan) along the board. 

 

Then 3rd 40K happened and it went downhill from there pretty fast. A new concept reared it´s ugly head:

 

Melee had to be VIABLE.

 

What does this even mean? Let me get this straight: It has nothing to do with improved melee rules or good melee weapon profiles. Instead it facilitated a braindead game-style in which your infantry mobs can easily walk across an open field and reach the enemy lines in a jiffy because of their ludicrous high speed (six inches). Two more things add to this dilemma: Transport vehicles which allowed charges after said vehicle moved and the crippling nerf to the overwatch concept (either it didn´t exist in an edition or you would hit ONLY on a 6).

 

And this "melee had to be viable" concept apparently seeped into Legions Imperialis as well. World Eaters are BRUTAL when catapulted either into the middle of the board via transports or just by jogging (triple speed with march orders) towards the intended direction.

 

Dropzone Commander (DC) addresses this better. When infantry are on their own without transports then they move like snails. Though you don´t need to buy DC but just have to tweak a few rules in LI to have a better gaming experience.

 

I completely agree that while I don't mind close combat being part of the game, it should primarily be about shooting, 

 

I think even big fans of LI can admit the combat is a bit wonky. Like without even getting into different unit types, just the infantry close combat is a bit meh. I don't mind paring off, I just find it odd how swingy it is, and even disregarding armour saves seems sorta odd because it's not like its saving you much time avoiding rolling a 5+ or 6+. I get that they wanted it to be deadly but its a bit like the confusing way they went about doing templates, its like they forgot where and how to save time with a mechanic. But I think even people who mostly enjoy the game as is will say marines feel a bit off when it comes to veletari and ogryns. And even the baseline bolters and lasgun guys, their weapons feel too short ranged, which means combat always seems to win out as the go to tactic because its often worth it and far more effective than getting into combat range of another infantry squad with advance just to plink at them. 

 

Another weird thing with assault/charging, I'm not even saying it's its necessarily bad but, we've had combats where it feels perhaps like there should be some connection between how well it goes for the winner and morale. A combat that saw marines killing most of my rapiers, I pass morale, we all just sorta stand there. I guess my point is there can be a disconnect between how brutal/effective a charge/assault is and the resulting effect on morale. 

 

Other problem we've had are complex assaults/combats and it feels a bit too involved, at least when compared to how simple exchanging fire can be, like in the case of tank unit a firing at tank unit b and tank unit b in turn activating and firing back at tank unit a, all of that stuff has been really straight forward and fairly intuitive, but combat is always where the book has to come out. 

 

The other added weirdness with combat is how it works with vehicles charging, it's one thing to not let me ram infantry in the open with tanks at speed, which honestly you really don't want a tank or ifv coming at you in a clearing/in the open and this game treats every infantry like he's carrying the biggest ied/explosive vest ever. The rhino and arvus charges are going to be one of the low points for the game I feel and an area where again I wish it resembled more 40k of old than what it currently is. 

 

Edited June 13 by Crablezworth

[Interrogator Stobz]

Has anyone got a link to SM2 so us relative noobs can have a read?

 

I do love LI, but it's as wonky as hell at times.

[Sherrypie]

On 6/14/2024 at 12:13 AM, Interrogator Stobz said:

Has anyone got a link to SM2 so us relative noobs can have a read?

 

I do love LI, but it's as wonky as hell at times.

You can read its refined community version, NetEpic Gold, freely on their website: https://netepic.org/

 

Not to be confused with NetEA, a list package for E:A. Which I'd mostly recommend for anyone frustrated with LI, as E:A is just a damn fine game that does the things many seem to be looking for in LI much more incisively.