Hopes for book 3

[LameBeard]

7 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

@LameBeardwhen you find the Heresy stuff please PM me a link.

I also have the EA pdf, I even printed it out because dead trees are easier for me to read.

But my search-fu is weak when things get that circular internetty confusion, so any help is always appreciated.

I am in a similar boat. I have found multiple online list builders, but the documents behind them are missing. For now I am having fun with BattleScribe - there may even be enough there to play, as horrible as the formatting is.

 

@Pacific81 sent me a link for some army lists, but they were too detailed for me, so my search goes on. I’ll post progress / a round-up somewhere later.

[Pacific81]

If you are after an army list builder, this has Heresy lists

http://adam77.github.io/snapfire/war/index.html

 

This is a link to the website archive for the Heresy AU lists/rules

https://web.archive.org/web/20201112013556/http://epicau.com/mw/index.php/Legion_Astartes

 

Finally, I did this guide over on the Dakka forum (this was pre Legions so not everything is up to date)

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page

 

 

[LameBeard]

Praise the Omnissiah for the web archive!  And what a beauty, a 2-page army list!

[Pacific81]

9 hours ago, LameBeard said:

We already got this “balance problems with LI” going in about 5 threads - it seems it can’t be avoided!  After reading them all I can’t help thinking I won’t even try, I’ll defect to Epic Armageddon. I even have the rules which GW once released as a pdf, so I just need community heresy lists.

 

Lamebeard do you have anyone you could have a go at both games with? The reason I say is that they play very differently. Although Armageddon is generally loved, a mate of mine really doesn't like it (just thinks it's to 'dry' and a range measuring exercise). And I do actually enjoy Legions when you get playing it, despite it's faults, and you can house rule stuff you find to damage your enjoyment of the game.

 

My fave will always be Epic Space Marine, as I think it's got a good level of abstraction and with Orks and Chaos in particular you have loads of fun random stuff happening (although this is the exact reason some Epic players don't like it!)

 

The great thing is you can largely collect some minis and they will be fine for both games (might need a stand or two more or less for unit sizes, but that's it).

[Valkyrion]

Forgetting infantry even exists for a moment - if you wanted to just use Tanks, Flyers, Knights and Titans, which ruleset works best - LI, NetEpic, NetEA?

[LameBeard]

32 minutes ago, Pacific81 said:

 

Lamebeard do you have anyone you could have a go at both games with? The reason I say is that they play very differently. Although Armageddon is generally loved, a mate of mine really doesn't like it (just thinks it's to 'dry' and a range measuring exercise). And I do actually enjoy Legions when you get playing it, despite it's faults, and you can house rule stuff you find to damage your enjoyment of the game.

 

My fave will always be Epic Space Marine, as I think it's got a good level of abstraction and with Orks and Chaos in particular you have loads of fun random stuff happening (although this is the exact reason some Epic players don't like it!)

 

The great thing is you can largely collect some minis and they will be fine for both games (might need a stand or two more or less for unit sizes, but that's it).

Realistically, my games are going to be me vs. my son, when he gets round to painting the Auxillia. So we could play both, but a game that plays quicker on a slightly smaller table with a slightly smaller force has a lot higher chance of actually being played (that applies to all GW games!) which is why I might have to be ruthless. 
 

The actual game time is going to be competing with Kill Team, Star Wars Legion and maybe a Zone Mortalis 28mm Heresy or Titanicus. Yeah we spread ourselves too thin, but those are the games most likely to be played! That’s what the legions models have to compete with, on the painting desk and the gaming board!

[Pacific81]

8 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

Forgetting infantry even exists for a moment - if you wanted to just use Tanks, Flyers, Knights and Titans, which ruleset works best - LI, NetEpic, NetEA?

 

Just on the basis of the Titan rules being awesome, my favourite is NetEpic/Epic SM. Unlike the other editions where Titans are basically a weapons platform with multiple wounds, in NE you get a hit chart and damage tables. It means Titans can go down easily with a lucky headshot, or sometimes refuse to go down at all (lots of tales a Reaver with no arms still trying to stomp on tanks). It's kind of a way towards Adeptus Titanicus without it slowing things down too much.

The very succinct tank weapon profiles would also be a blessed relief compared to those found in Legions.

[Pacific81]

1 hour ago, LameBeard said:

Realistically, my games are going to be me vs. my son, when he gets round to painting the Auxillia. So we could play both, but a game that plays quicker on a slightly smaller table with a slightly smaller force has a lot higher chance of actually being played (that applies to all GW games!) which is why I might have to be ruthless. 
 

The actual game time is going to be competing with Kill Team, Star Wars Legion and maybe a Zone Mortalis 28mm Heresy or Titanicus. Yeah we spread ourselves too thin, but those are the games most likely to be played! That’s what the legions models have to compete with, on the painting desk and the gaming board!

 

Ok if board size and model count is key I would probably go Armageddon. Model count is a fair bit smaller and as it's a more tactical game you'll have more meaningful choices within that smaller space.

The rules might seem a bit more complicated at first but I think it's a more intuitive game, has much cleaner mechanics for shooting and unit profiles would be easier to remember - so I would give that one a go for starters.

[DuskRaider]

LI can work if both you and your opponent have the same goals in mind. If your intention is to play a lore driven narrative game and stick to characterful choices, it can be fun. 
 

I don’t know. I love the premise, I love the models, and obviously I love the setting. I’ve considered sitting down with some friends and making some adjustments to the game to make the game more balanced and fun. 
 

Hell, I’m currently in the process of painting up the rest of my Death Guard for the game. My one friend recently finished painting up a Night Lords army and is keen to get some games in, so I’ll try that. 

[Deschenus Maximus]

So doing a bit of math, a reasonable limit (self-imposed through a gentleman's agreement or as part of a tournament pack) on models and activations per army could be max 40 models and max 10 activations per 500 pts. I came up with those numbers by calculating what the maximum number of bodies per point and activations per points would be an divided by 2 and then rounded up/down. 

 

Said limit would still allow for plenty of infantry to be fielded but would curb the worst excesses allowed by the army construction rules.

 

Thoughts?

[Interrogator Stobz]

I'd make it 8 detachments per 500. Force some big things each 500, or bigger units.

 

But, fixing the balance issue means those type restrictions are less necessary. 

[Deschenus Maximus]

57 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

I'd make it 8 detachments per 500. Force some big things each 500, or bigger units.

 

But, fixing the balance issue means those type restrictions are less necessary. 

yes absolutely but I’m being practical - its easier to get everyone to agree on a loose set of self-imposed army building restrictions than to get broad concensus on tweaks to the actual rules of the game. If GW ever gets off its arse and does make some pretty significant changes through a FAQ then yeah, we can just ignore any restrictions but honestly how likely is it they will actually do so? Haven’t even bothered to give us a real FAQ in well over 6 months since release.

[DuskRaider]

I’ve gotta wonder what the hell they've been up to in the year since this was supposed to be released… because this was supposed to be released around this time last year. Like they have to know about all the glaring issues, yeah? They have to have people on this forum and all over Facebook / Reddit at the very least seeing the complaints, right? 
 

Come on, GW… we want to love this game. Help us help you, because the sooner this is fixed, the sooner people will invest more into the game. I know I would. 

[Noserenda]

The specialist studio hates doing faqs apparently, just an annual one if we are lucky.

[Deschenus Maximus]

2 hours ago, Noserenda said:

The specialist studio hates doing faqs apparently, just an annual one if we are lucky.

I wish they’d farm it out to the community then and just bless whatever we come up with rather than give us literally nothing 

[DuskRaider]

2 hours ago, Noserenda said:

The specialist studio hates doing faqs apparently, just an annual one if we are lucky.

They were releasing FAQs fairly consistently with other Specialist Games, though. Maybe LI is proving to require more attention? Who knows. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

3 hours ago, Noserenda said:

The specialist studio hates doing faqs apparently, just an annual one if we are lucky.

 

39 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

They were releasing FAQs fairly consistently with other Specialist Games, though. Maybe LI is proving to require more attention? Who knows. 

 

Ya it's not all of the studio, because fantasy has had two since release and one was really quite good.

 

Its just the 30k schlubbs. They're on the eternal hamster wheel of churning out more campaign books to encompass each wave of mode releases. 

[Crablezworth]

To tie this back into hopes for book 3, I could imagine a scenario limitation like all infantry must start in a transport. I don't think that would do much more than see players reach for rhino's and arvus's but it would/could in theory limit the amount of infantry in a list. A fluff explanation for this requirement could tie into the life eater virus and infantry sorta melting if they stay outside too long. 

 

Infiltrate is the single biggest problem the game has imo, I hate it and I hope somehow some new scenario/game mode in book 3 will limit it or axe it all together. In other games it has limits, you can't charge, you can only get so close if you're entirely out of los otherwise there's push back, only so many units can do it etc. LI has no such limitations so one could feasible drop most of their army 4 inches from the opponent and be charging turn 1, it invalidates so much of the game, like paying points for transports. You don't need them if you already start with your boot on the opponent neck lol

 

We've limited infiltrators to two detachments max per side in our games and it still hasn't really done much to make the experience not a huge drag. The only counter player currently is to collect and paint a space wolf formation which just shouldn't be something locked away behind something that specific, its like a core mechanic turned into a gimmick. Again you can charge and its 4 inches, not 12, not 18, 4, it's not even about hoping your opponent will forget to pre measure and move close enough to be charge and fall into your devious trap, its literally often entirely impossible to mitigate. Again we all own planes and cool transports and we're not suing them, because we don't need to, and this inflate thing is FREE with pioneer company, we at least limit formations to 0-1 but again, just one pioneer company is enough to put quite a few infiltrators into the mix. 

 

So again tying this back into aspirations for book 3, I could see a scenario rule that just shuts down infiltrators entirely like "clouds of poisonous acidic gas - infiltrators are pointless, visibility is short and they will melt if outside for long". I also dare to dream that we will somehow see more small and large blast weapons, as cool as it was to get the flame template on the malc in book 2, 8 inches still sucks in many ways because infantry charge 10, so to have something, anything, smaller than a knight or titan being able to throw a 3 inch blast would be nice. It's actually strangely absent from a game that wants to be so deadly. Maybe one of the new super heavies will have a 3 inch blast. 

 

 

[Deschenus Maximus]

10 hours ago, Crablezworth said:

To tie this back into hopes for book 3, I could imagine a scenario limitation like all infantry must start in a transport. I don't think that would do much more than see players reach for rhino's and arvus's but it would/could in theory limit the amount of infantry in a list. A fluff explanation for this requirement could tie into the life eater virus and infantry sorta melting if they stay outside too long. 

 

Infiltrate is the single biggest problem the game has imo, I hate it and I hope somehow some new scenario/game mode in book 3 will limit it or axe it all together. In other games it has limits, you can't charge, you can only get so close if you're entirely out of los otherwise there's push back, only so many units can do it etc. LI has no such limitations so one could feasible drop most of their army 4 inches from the opponent and be charging turn 1, it invalidates so much of the game, like paying points for transports. You don't need them if you already start with your boot on the opponent neck lol

 

We've limited infiltrators to two detachments max per side in our games and it still hasn't really done much to make the experience not a huge drag. The only counter player currently is to collect and paint a space wolf formation which just shouldn't be something locked away behind something that specific, its like a core mechanic turned into a gimmick. Again you can charge and its 4 inches, not 12, not 18, 4, it's not even about hoping your opponent will forget to pre measure and move close enough to be charge and fall into your devious trap, its literally often entirely impossible to mitigate. Again we all own planes and cool transports and we're not suing them, because we don't need to, and this inflate thing is FREE with pioneer company, we at least limit formations to 0-1 but again, just one pioneer company is enough to put quite a few infiltrators into the mix. 

 

So again tying this back into aspirations for book 3, I could see a scenario rule that just shuts down infiltrators entirely like "clouds of poisonous acidic gas - infiltrators are pointless, visibility is short and they will melt if outside for long". I also dare to dream that we will somehow see more small and large blast weapons, as cool as it was to get the flame template on the malc in book 2, 8 inches still sucks in many ways because infantry charge 10, so to have something, anything, smaller than a knight or titan being able to throw a 3 inch blast would be nice. It's actually strangely absent from a game that wants to be so deadly. Maybe one of the new super heavies will have a 3 inch blast. 

 

 

i wonder if they won’t go with “all open ground counts as Dangerous Terrain to infantry and cavalry” for the special game mode.

[Crablezworth]

12 hours ago, Deschenus Maximus said:

i wonder if they won’t go with “all open ground counts as Dangerous Terrain to infantry and cavalry” for the special game mode.

 

The life eater virus gets you whether you're moving or not though so tiering to movement would mean infantry on first fire or advance that don't move won't suffer any damage.  

[Interrogator Stobz]

The Tallarn Life Eater hellscape will likely give us that tank/vehicle only mode.

[Mandragola]

I can't really speculate on the contents. In the past we've tended to see models before we get their rules though, so I wouldn't expect too many unexpected things, if that makes sense.

 

In terms of changes to the rules I think pinning is the first thing I'd look at. I'd make it so that vehicles, knights and titans without a melee weapon can't pin anything, and actually perhaps prevent them from charging in the first place. Something like a rhino or an Arvus should never prevent anything from moving or shooting.

 

You could possibly introduce ramming rules but I think the simplest thing would be to just remove the option of the charge order from these things. These units are costed based on their intended role and become much more valuable when you can use them to block enemy detachments from doing anything.

[Crablezworth]

11 hours ago, Mandragola said:

You could possibly introduce ramming rules but I think the simplest thing would be to just remove the option of the charge order from these things. These units are costed based on their intended role and become much more valuable when you can use them to block enemy detachments from doing anything.

 

Agreed, I don't think vehicles should be charging stuff anyway, I think they should be running things down in the open but unable to do so if the model is in area terrain/behind a barricade. I also just don't think arvus should be charging anything. And good point that these things are costed based on their intended role and the way things are currently makes them not only too valuable but also sees them in unintended and absurd roles. I love rhinos and Iove havoc launchers, but even just that combo often sees people take them not as transports but as almost a fill in for light armour/infantry fighting vehicles and while thats's fine it just sorta sucks that infantry are so fast and able to overcome most obstacles that they barely need transports. 

 

 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Old world just got its 3rd faq since its release in January, clarifying contentious mechanics and doing some light balancing. This is simultaneous to faction supplements rolling out.

 

Its pretty clear that LI falls into the Horus heresy school of release cycle and problem fixing. Aka, push out campaign books with a few new units and don't look back.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Yep.

Whilst I'm going full retard, I don't expect anywhere near main game support.

I originally thought GW was merely protecting IP by doing the bare minimum. So far I'm happy with that but would love a few more units and a bit of FAQ support.