One(ish) year in – your assessment of Legions Imperialis

[apologist]

Epic: Legions Imperialis (LI) has now been out for a year, so I thought it was a good time to sit down and take stock.

 

Please do give your thoughts on how you think the health of the game stands.

 

 

Models  I've been critical of the way the releases have been handled, but the stock issues now seem to have been mostly resolved, and the game is coming to a mature state in terms of available models. We've benefitted from a lot of releases, and following the Tallarn release, both Legions Astartes and Solar Auxilia have decently well-rounded options for a variety of styles of armies. Taken as a snapshot in time, this is a good time to be an Epic modeller and collector. There is more to look forward to, but even if you just stuck with what's available now you'd be able to make a cool army with lots of options.

 

On an individual basis, I think the kits are lovely. They sometimes err on being needlessly complex, and there are some occasional clangers (while the undercuts on the Marine infantry and lack of numbers on the Drop Pods don't particularly bother or affect me, they're common complaints) but overall I like the fact you can pick up a box with a small but complete formation, and there's no denying the game looks spectacular when eveything's painted up nicely.

 

A consistent scale and aesthetic is a subtle strength of the new game, and one that I want to dwell on, as the look of things is a key part of the appeal of tabletop wargaming. Titans and tanks and flyers and the swarming men and women around their feet lend Legions Imperialis a visual appeal that I think is a marked step up from any previous edition of Epic.

 

 

Rules  Firstly, I want to say that I do find these rules fun and enjoyable. Having said that, these came out of the gate looking over-complex, and while it's functional, I think the game is well overdue an FAQ, if not a substantial revision. By this time next year, I hope that the game gets a pseudo-second edition in the form of a compendium book to tighten up the nuts and bolts on what I think is a promising but flawed update on SM2. There are still a lot of rough edges that could do with polishing up and things being pinned down.

 

Off the top of my head, a couple of oddities (and trying to be objective and leaving aside personal preferences):

• The points of some Detachments getting discounted with scale, and other very similar ones not.
• Inconsistency with how upgrades to Detachments are handled – and resulting quirks, like the questionable CAF of plasma marines in Tactical Detachment.
• During deep strike, models die if they hit terrain and will stop short of Enemy models; but what happens with Friendly models or the edge of the table is unsure.
• Infantry generally moving far further than they can shoot (in contrast with SM2 in particular).
• Inconsistent granularity relating to the models – odd that Rhinos can use their pintle-mounted weapons, while Predators cannot, for example.

 

None of these are gamebreaking, and all are easily resolved with a little chat with the other player, but they're indicative of the game needing an extra few sets of eyes on it from the rules team and editorial.

 

 

Overall  I like Epic scale a lot, and having an 'official' ruleset is worth a lot, as it means more chance of getting in games of Epic (besides my beloved Armageddon). Part of me likes the fact that the game assumes a level of self-control in not abusing the rules, but I'd prefer there to be a little more internal balance so that this became a non-issue.

 

I do very much like the size and spectacle of the game as intended, and think it does a decent job of allowing mixed arms formations. There are some reservations on that. While I think LI handles flyers the best of any edition of Epic, I'm disappointed with how dull Titans and War Engines feel, and think that infantry could do with a little curbing.

 

In conclusion, I think in its first year LI was hampered by external factors relating to production, but also avoidable internal factors. The core rules could sorely do with a polish to bring them up to the quality of the models, rather than focussing on hanging on additional baggage in the form of expansions.

Edited August 7 by apologist

[Lord Marshal]

For the record it didn't go up for pre-order until mid November. August was the originally planned release.

 

Stock's definitely improved. I've noticed Marine kits tend to go in and out of stock somewhat often, but rarely for long, whereas getting hold of anything Solar Auxilia (beside the starter set) has never been difficult. It is just kind of indicative of how much more popular Marines are and always will be. While they're absurdly overpriced, I am pleased they seem to have taken the criticism of the cards instantly selling out to scalpers to heart and they're now in regular circulation (at least at the time of writing this) rather than being one-and-done.

 

The undercuts don't especially bother me. They're nothing new when it comes to plastic <15mm infantry and when you see the models with your own eyes it really puts it into perspective how small (ha) a tradeoff it was for single-piece plastics. Obviously when a lot of people were fanatically committed to hoping LI failed they made a big song and dance about it, but they seem to have settled down for the time. On the other side of the fence, the amount of parts certain kits need is almost funny. Three pieces for a Leviathan leg? I'm sure they tried all they could to get it working without it, but some kits are so fiddly and piece-heavy whereas others go together quickly and with close to no fuss.

 

If I had a gripe with the sprues it's the often random numbers you get, contrary to the actual unit profile. SA Rapiers are a notable example, where you get 4 Rapiers per type but a minimum of 3 going up in increments of 3. Then there's some Formations like Sky-Hunter Phalanx where the Outriders aren't included in the Mandatory's, so you need to buy at least two boxes. I'm sure it was just sprue-filling and they'd rather give you more models that don't have a place than leave big empty spaces, but it's also kind of indicative the kit designers and writers might not have been talking as much as you might expect. That's before mentioning pintle-weapons where the granularity (or not) varies based on the unit.

 

I haven't had the chance to get that many games in so I won't go to in-depth with my thoughts of gameplay, but I do think that Infantry are too speedy. Having Infantry March x3 instead of x2 seems like they were worried people would complain that "transports are mandatory, that's dumb, I want to run an infantry foot-horde only!" like you sometimes see in games like Flames of War, but it's just another thing that makes infantry all-around better. The bigger vehicles feel like they should be going up in wounds, if only because a Baneblade having the same number of wounds as a Malcador or Kratos feels odd. Everyone knows Missile Launchers are king.

 

On that note, the silence on any form of FAQ is deafening. I know that the Specialist Games have always been slower on that front but it's especially glaring when The Old World's already had several.

[Valkyrion]

I've only got two 'issues' with the gameplay itself; sequencing and melee.

 

Sequencing:

I'd prefer it if a detachment carried out its order to completion, rather than splitting up between movement and combat phases - so there wouldn't be a Movement Phase and Combat Phase, there'd just be Activation Phase. You could still have things happen in sequence, e.g resolve First Fire Orders, then resolve March Orders, and so on, but I think Charge and Fight, and Advance and Shoot should happen during the same activation. So my sequencing would be; First Fire, March, Charge and Fight, Advance and Shoot, resolve remaining fights.

I would also remove all rules that let you affect the other players activation (primarily overwatch).

 

There may be an obvious reason why this is a bad idea, of course. 

 

Melee:

I think Infantry should only be engaged and pinned with other infantry, where melee descends into an anarchic scrum, and that Point Defence weapons should improve CAF of vehicles when fighting Infantry, Cavalry and Walkers. 

 

[DuskRaider]

I love the game in theory. 
 

The models are delightful and have been a change of pace for me as far as painting goes. Hell, this game got me back into the hobby after having stalled for about a year. The mold undercuts never bothered me and as I had said when they were first revealed, you don’t even notice it when they are fielded in bulk. A nice paint job and some tactful paint work hides them from the eye for the most part. 
 

I’ve enjoyed assembling the kits for the most part, but as Lord Marshal pointed out, some of them are needlessly complicated. The Leviathan was interesting enough with the legs, but it was the Deredeo that really made me angry. The legs and torso are a poor choice as far as assembly goes and it’s easy to get it wrong. Otherwise, everything has gone together nicely and once you do a couple the process really becomes easy, especially with tanks. 
 

The rules… I really wish there was something nice to say about the rules. It feels as though GW themselves really didn’t know how they wanted the game to work. In some aspects, the game emulates its 28mm counterpart with units like tank, infantry numbers per squad and transport capacity, and in others it’s completely new which in turn seems to invalidate the other aspects.
 

There is a pointed emphasis on infantry to such a degree that it can pull you out of the immersion. All infantry running across the battlefield faster than a tank, punching said tanks to death rather easily, some units being much more capable in close combat than they have any business being, etc. 

 

It seems GW wanted to keep individual Legion rules simple to avoid bogging the game down too much, but in the process created massive imbalances that are are often game breaking instead of being a little flavor enhancement. 
 

The intention to make infantry the star of the show also resulted in other units, namely Knights and Titans, being extremely underpowered and becoming essentially just a walking gun platform. I won’t lie, it really upsets me that Adeptus Titanicus was essentially sacrificed for this game. People will point to the fact that the Dire Wolves and other releases still have AT components in the box, but that doesn’t mean that the game itself is still going to receive support because let’s be honest: it won’t. I don’t foresee any more expansions in the game from this point forward. 
 

The lack of any FAQ or Errata this far into the game’s release has me wondering if GW even sees a future for this system. Additionally, I don’t even know if one would fix all of the issues that are currently plaguing the game at this time or if it would need a re-write to remedy the issue… which also makes me wonder if it was every really playtested and if so just how much or how little was done. 
 

The game can be a lot of fun and I will continue to invest (albeit not as much as I had initially), but I think one of the best ways to enjoy it is to ensure you’re playing with other like minded individuals. The game is meant to be an historical experience in the world of Warhammer. If it’s treated as such, it can be a great time. If it’s treated like 40K’s tournament emphasis you will have a bad time. 

[Crablezworth]

I think the game just needs a good detailed faq/errata. 

 

It's undoubtedly a very good looking game. On that point, if I had one gripe, the sort of random nature of what is an option, what can and cannot have what from unit to unit is really weird. I may be messing up the number but, I believe the malcador leads the pack with like 48 or 54 possible permutations of weapon loadouts. All somehow costing the same. But you also have boxes like the land speeder one where, there's like one option, u want missile or laser? And worse, the other speeder you can fill all with one loadout, but only ever half with the other, that's not even good gw gouging, like the second anyone gets a second box, doing all plasma/hb or all multimelta/hf isn't a problem but u can only do that one way in the rules. 3 boxes for russes also doesn't bode well in terms of design and rules having any sort of relation. If we can't justify the option we get and worse yet, are forced by the fact that they all cost the same points wise, its going to be a lot of russ vanqs and annihilators and maybe a splash of demolishers. Really seems like a lot to dedicate 3 boxes to. I'm worried as they sorta scramble for more sets we'll get stuff that just seems redundant, the drill already borders on that if rule of cool wasn't so high on it, cost and weird forced chinese fire drill rule will get annoying. 

 

 

Without a faq the new fog rule does a lot to sate my violent displeasure with how good infantry have been over these last months and how I haven't enjoyed the time vampire that is combat resolution and worse still expensive tanks dying to still 10 inch charges by infantry. So I see that as a welcome re-adjust that's there if both players want a big shift in incentives for army construction. I sorta hated myself for how many ogryns my lists were starting to contain. I still worry that even with fog infiltrate will still just require a mutually agreed upon hard no because even with melting, 16-17 bases charging turn 1 may still prove to be effective even if it burns out fast. One interesting thing will be to see how the fog of war rule effects peoples choices in terms of how to arm their titans and certain knight loadouts. 

 

 

A universal truth is just about everyone can see super heavies need 3 wounds. I also think an alternative that can be borrowed from sm2 if not 3 wounds, 1+ saves. 

 

Knights and Titans need to feel a bit more special. Knights should be able to operate on their own more, even armigers, they can still be indexed 1 to 1 with other knights but the independent rule is a drag and the just feel like a ball and chain. We've had game where we both agreed to allow them to operate freely as their own detachment and they were a lot more fun for both sides.  I wish knights could have access to a bit more stuff like outflank and deep strike for additional points. With how insanely inexpensive drop pods are, it seems like ae non-issue if they can find and appropriate cost or add hard limits. Ion just sorta fries my brain, I also think more knights should be able to try and heal wounds. 

 

Titans, they'll never be as detailed as titanicus but they could be better. I'd give them more than just spliftire, I'd give them all the ability to reduce the weapons they fire in exchange for stuff like repairing voids early, wounds I'd also let them do stuff like if on first fire actually be able to fire a single weapon in the movement phase like in titanicus. And perhaps that no matter what order its on it can always fire 1 weapon. Maybe we'd see them move more and feel less like a stiff gun platform. I also think they should be able to just step on scale 2 and down models in their way but that's just me. 

 

 

If they can get both factions the missing unit types, super heavies and artillery for marines and light armour for solar aux without trying to sell 2 more books things might be ok, especially if a faq can get worked in there. What doesn't really do much for me are more formations. A good example, one of the new solar aux ones, feels like a mandate from above because it only allows the "new" russ variants. The other box of which are yet to be given a release date. It also dawned on me that the new sicarans will likely be their own detachments like the new malcadors and unable to mingle with other sicarans. Not that I love the idea of very complicated detachments but with the game being so crunchy anyway its very weird where it chooses to say yes or no while costing both things that should never meet the same anyway. 

 

But ya, saying yes to endless formations is something that might want to be addressed. A statement about the limitations of alternating activations and risk of imbalance if once side clearly has like 3 times the activations. There was a big mega battle I believe somewhere near chicago and I think their big take away they should maybe divide it into like a few more reasonably sized sub battles on separate boards. I can see anyone just starting thinking a big mega battle like in 40k is viable only to be at like turn 2 8 hours later like "what have we done?". I think they're going to take the lessons learned and split it up a bit more next time. The 2.5 in 3 hours stuff at warhammer world I think just showed that might be the wrong way to go. Here's hoping fog of war fixes infantry at least. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8 by Crablezworth

[Valkyrion]

How would doubling vehicle wounds across the board feel?

No other rules changes or points adjustments, just a straight double of ground vehicle wounds (not flyers, IMO. maybe the Thunderhawk to 3)

This would immediately increase melee survivability and might encourage more vehicle detachments over infantry ones to help balance the cheap and oppressive nature of infantry?

[DuskRaider]

I don’t think it would do as much as you think it would. Vehicles either need to be impervious to most infantry attacks or they need a way to simply run them over to give players pause before they just throw their troops into combat with a vehicle. 

[Crablezworth]

51 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

How would doubling vehicle wounds across the board feel?

No other rules changes or points adjustments, just a straight double of ground vehicle wounds (not flyers, IMO. maybe the Thunderhawk to 3)

This would immediately increase melee survivability and might encourage more vehicle detachments over infantry ones to help balance the cheap and oppressive nature of infantry?

 

I think I'd rather just say infantry can't initiate an assault against vehicles or that vehicles get their save in combat. 

 

 

 

[Crablezworth]

30 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

I don’t think it would do as much as you think it would. Vehicles either need to be impervious to most infantry attacks or they need a way to simply run them over to give players pause before they just throw their troops into combat with a vehicle. 

 

Agreed 100% 

 

I get like 8th edition ptsd at the thought now of lasgunners killing like just about anything non-infantry in combat. It just reminds me of that ethos of everything should be able to hurt everything on 6's sorta nonsense. 

 

I just think combat itself is awful to resolve, it's a total time vampire in a game where stuff dies at times a little too easily, so it's sorta extra annoying that a game that wants cover saves to be so useless and life so cheap, but also wants us spending time in accounting class and rolling a bunch for templates. I feel like even if it wasn't a drag to resolve it should be relatively rare. It feels like it is the way it is now to like overly sate peoples dreams of battles resembling box art and not something a little more in between historical and sci-fi/fantasy. 

 

I will say, I like some of the conextuality of combat but it's also an area where if one or both players are tired some of the like micro decisions one may be forced to make like where to start the combat in terms of fights etc or how to maneuver bases to maximize rolls or minimize losses sorta goes out the window for "go can we just get this over with, my brain is no place for quick math". Contrast that to shooting which is so much more straight forward to resolve most of the time. 

 

 

[Valkyrion]

Okay, simple fix idea number 378 - Infantry can only Charge the closest enemy unit.

This forces tactical choices with regards to adequate screening of your units against enemy chargers, and places emphasis on positioning, allowing for baiting and so on. 

 

Or

 

Idea 379 - Infantry require a successful morale check in order to charge scale 2 or above, with scale 4 imposing -1 and scale 5 imposing -2.

A bit like 2D6 charges in 30k/40k, introducing a random element to the charge action. This still has them being deadly, but is no longer guaranteed, and makes morale important beyond fleeing.

- optional addendum - if the morale test is failed, the target of the charge may fire point defence weapons or light AT weapons at the charging unit. This would make failing a charge pretty catastrophic rather than a stumbling block, thereby increasing the risk and inherently increasing vehicle survivability. 

[DuskRaider]

You know, I’ve realized something… the more we have to come up with or brainstorm “simple fixes” to remedy the problems we face with this system, the more I think it’s just a bad system. 

[Crablezworth]

7 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

Okay, simple fix idea number 378 - Infantry can only Charge the closest enemy unit.

This forces tactical choices with regards to adequate screening of your units against enemy chargers, and places emphasis on positioning, allowing for baiting and so on. 

 

Or

 

Idea 379 - Infantry require a successful morale check in order to charge scale 2 or above, with scale 4 imposing -1 and scale 5 imposing -2.

A bit like 2D6 charges in 30k/40k, introducing a random element to the charge action. This still has them being deadly, but is no longer guaranteed, and makes morale important beyond fleeing.

- optional addendum - if the morale test is failed, the target of the charge may fire point defence weapons or light AT weapons at the charging unit. This would make failing a charge pretty catastrophic rather than a stumbling block, thereby increasing the risk and inherently increasing vehicle survivability. 

 

I think I could settle for infantry only ever being able to charge infantry, I feel like infantry should be more focused on rooting other infantry out of structures than charging big stuff they really should have no business fighting. I don't mind the morale thing in that like you say it sorta returns the 40k random charge/chance of not making it which does feel oddly missing.  If infantry were going to remain the same in terms of being able to charge most units, I don't mind the morale test with the modifiers you mentioned, but It just feels lime more detail that isn't really needed with cleaner yes/no permissions and more telegraphed incentives. 

 

I think in general one aspect of combat that is just unfortunate is the level of detail/complexity and time potentially involved goes up so fast the bigger the moshpit/scrum. A core problem I have with combat as well is, there's no correlation between how deadly or not the combat was and the losing sides ability to pass a morale test. I've noticed this sort of thing occurring a lot, I or my opponent will lose like all but one model only to pass morale, or the combat is fairly even/bloody but the disparity is exactly like 1 models difference and they run away. And that's a whole other part, for a game that is quite deadly in other areas it sure wants remnant units running for the board a lot. Weird that there's no sweep mechanic for anything, hell that would have been something for titans, like you better not lose or you're very likely to lose morale and run.  

 

[apologist]

On vehicles and infantry in combat, I thought it'd be interesting to look at how Space Marine 2nd edition (SM2), handled things.

 

The core mechanics were identical – charge doubled your move and prevented firing; combat was worked out with 2D6 plus CAF; no saving throw. Even outnumbering worked in the same way (with no cap on the number of additional D6). The differences are in the details and basic stats, and it's an example of how altering things in isolation leads to unintended consequences. 

 

Take an example of basic Marines running to attack stationary Predators across the board; starting a typical distance of around 24in (60cm) away. 

 

Movement: in SM2, Tactical Marines had a move of 4in (10cm) – slightly less than in Legion Imperialis (LI), where Tactical Legionaries move 5" (12.5cm). That means that the LI infantry charge 10in (25.5cm), while the SM2 infantry charged only 8in (20.5cm).

There is also no Pile-in mechanic in SM2, so the LI, all models can move a little further, meaning more combat rolls ('Fights').

Pre-fire: In LI, the Predators's weapons have range of 22in (56cm) at maximum, and 12in (30.5cm) at minimum. With the Tactical Marines moving at their fastest (20cm with a charge order) The shots are also only hitting on 6s (thanks to Overwatch) when charged. In SM2, Predators' weapon were longer-ranged: 75cm (30in).

In LI, therefore, the Marines can March to go 15in, leaving them within charge range in turn 2. The Predators will get to fire at them onceIf hit, the Tactical Legionaries will usually receive a 5+ save, or at worst a 6+.

In SM2, the Marines will take a minimum of three turns to get into charge range, during which time the Predators will get to fire at them three times. The Tactical Marines receive no save. Also, unlike LI, SM2 had no Overwatch mechanic – but stands/vehicles in base contact could fire in the First Fire segment, as long as it was against the unit attacking them.

 

Combat: The combat itself was just as brutal, with no save. In both LI and SM2, Tactical Marines/Legionaries have CAF+2. Predators having in SM2 had +0, so once in combat, the Predators were likely to get wrecked. LI has improved their CAF to +2, making them even with Tactical Marines – but because more have likely survived and been able to get into contact, you're more likely to be dealing with ganging-up bonuses.

 

These are subtleties, but they add up. Because infantry can move much faster in general, it's easier for them to get into a position that they can charge; they take less damage while crossing the board; and they have armour to protect them while they do so. When they charge, they can also move further to tie up more enemy models – and there are more of them surviving to actually cause the damage. 

 

Further, that's assuming the Predators don't move at all to avoid the charge, which is very unlikely. In LI, Marching Tactical Legionaries can move 15in (38cm) to catch up with Marching Predators going 18in (45.5cm) – not leaving a turn's 'gap' as an opportunity to shoot. In SM2, the Tactical Marines can move at most 8in (20.5cm) on Charge orders; while the Predators had a movement of 25cm (9¾in) – meaning that they can simply Advance away and shoot at full effect while maintaining the gap; or Charge away 19½in (50cm) to get an extra two turns of shooting, before (in theory) repeating things.

 

The conclusion? in LI, Infantry are faster and tougher, while the changes to Vehicles are far more moderate, and end with them being substantially outcompeted.

 

I'm not really sure what the answer is, but my gut instinct is that making March simply double movement across the board (i.e. no exception for Infantry) would go a long way to rebalancing things – but even so, tanks could do with an across-the-board improvement in CAF by +1 or so.

Edited August 8 by apologist

[Crablezworth]

My whole problem is the mechanic of combat itself tbh, there's no caf number that satisfies for me the lack of tankshock, or knights/titans stomping on infantry and even larger stuff in the case of titans. I do think most people are down for kneecapping infantry's triple speed running, I would still leave a terrain rule carve out for force marching on roads provided the entire detachment starts AND ends the move entirely on the road. I'd still go the sm2 route for infantry getting out of transports which would basically just say you can't march out of a transport that has moved that turn. Can still advance out but only if the vehicle hasn't marched etc. That would actually let flyer transports shine a bit more as well as they won't have like rhinos stealing their thunder. 

 

 

I think it's unfortunate that so much rides on a caf stat, we've seen just how nuts it can be when u factor in something like rend adding a whole D6 to a stat they're generally pretty careful with, even some units going so far as being -x caf. 

 

I also think infantry charging 10 out of structures and transports can be a bit much, blind charges in general 10 inches around a corner are also a bit annoying. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

I've had a few more games using our house rule of max 3 dice for outnumbering, 4 if they have rend.

It balances awesomely and never creates problems. 

 

Giving tanks rend on the charge vs. scale 1 is another super simple fix. Mass Russ charges are brutal as they should be against infantry in the open.

The variable CAF bonus from rend allows for dodging.

Edited August 9 by Interrogator Stobz

[stretch_135]

Stock issues in Australia are making things tough. Basic Space Marine infantry haven't been in stock since before April. The vehicles I've put together so far have been fun. No chance to try out any games yet.

[apologist]

17 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

You know, I’ve realized something… the more we have to come up with or brainstorm “simple fixes” to remedy the problems we face with this system, the more I think it’s just a bad system. 

A sobering assessment. The sad thing is that there is a good system that incorporates a few nice additions from E:A into SM2 – it's just buried underneath a load of chrome and sorely needing more refinement.

[Pacific81]

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, and following on from @apologist's post above, really to me this just points to a lack of playtesting. You would have come across this imbalance pretty quickly.

 

My summary of the game, keeping it short :)

 

Positives:

The (generally) lovely minis, Epic on the store shelf again and more people playing the game & community growth.

The sight of lots of Epic minis fighting massive Heresy battles pleases me greatly :)

 

Negatives:

The barriers to entry: The overly-crunchy rules, granular detail, lack of availability initially (thankfully now improving), it's probably the least approachable version of Epic ever made. Play four people and even a year in to release those four will have different ideas about how parts of the rules work - this to me indicates a poorly written ruleset.

Not making the most of the scale opportunities: where are the crazy Ordinatus, mega tanks & terrain that you absolutely could not do in 28mm?

 

I love Epic, will always love Epic, but Legions feels a bit like a missed open goal - it will do well I think and I will enjoy it, but there is always that 'what could have been' to aspects of it.

 

I was actually lucky enough to have a game against one of the Epic Armageddon authors recently. He told me that when Jervis & the team were writing that game they were just so stuck on the granularity Vs tactical weapon loadout question and making the game too granular, while trying to keep some appropriate abstraction for the scale. At the 11th hour Jervis came up with the 'vs armour' and 'vs infantry' profiles, a beautifully elegant way of providing a granular effect without bogging down the player with minutae.

That I think whoever wrote Legions either knew about this and ignored it, or didn't know of Armageddon and instead chose page-long unit profiles for a tank 12mm in length, I think sums up everything that is wrong with the game.

[Valkyrion]

I've only skim read the previous rules, and get myself mixed up between all the versions, but can someone nutshell the firefight rules from whichever edition that was?

I have a vague memory that firefight was the melee system?

[Crablezworth]

Goonhammer's review of book 3 had a good part discussing all the leman russ variants and how they all cost the same points even though with math show obvious winners and losers. 

 

 

One area I tend to butt heads with people when trying to make homebrew units is point cost. I find myself often having to explain the cost I've gone with is in context with the game sorta where it stands currently. I made some rules for one of the new grimdark models from july that basically look like bigger more imposing versions of tarantulas. I basically justified my low cost for them with the fact that they'd be competing for the same slot with tarantulas and if I upped the point cost it would make them irrelevant because they'd always be a worse choice than just normal tarantulas. 

 

This also made me realize that, lets say me or any one of us tried to simply cost out titan weapons, we'd be met with the same "they're not even worth it as it is, now you want me to pay more points?" It would also have a knock on effect with making titans harder to squeeze into the 30%. 

 

I feel like the single worst part about all the detail and crunchiness is the designer(s) not wanting to take full ownership of it. Because with as much choice as is presented with titan loadouts, the lack of an economy basically just make cynical choice the name of the day and things fairly stagnant. Like there isn't that much to analyze once u realize you're almost universally best off taking the longest range weapons with the most shots. What also feels like a missed opportunity is just how little any of the titan weapons use templates, and how no attempt at any sort of "gets hot"-like mechanic. More weapons could use different range bands/multiple attacks stats. Why are titans able to remove terrain but can't step on scale 2 units in close proximity? I get having them do the caf/combat thing against other titans but instead its like a humiliation ritual with infantry taking them down. 

 

 

 

[DuskRaider]

Like I said previously, the designers didn’t seem to know if they wanted this game to emulate 28mm HH or not. There were some half hearted attempts at it with things like unit size and transport capacity, but then they went completely off the rails with everything else for the most part. 
 

The game needs to figure out what its identity is. If they want this game to be HH but smaller, there need to be some massive changes to the system. Units need to have their points changed as well as their abilities. Solar Auxilia infantry need to be made cheaper, lose CAF and most importantly lose Rend on the Veletarii (perhaps give them a higher CAF). Astartes need a jump in points, given a higher CAF and have units such as Terminators receive Rend. Their movement (infantry in general) needs to be reduced, especially on March orders. No more triple movement. At the very least, give tanks a higher CAF and wound level along with Tank Shock. Weapons and units need to be priced accordingly and some need better profiles, especially the aforementioned Titans. 

[Crablezworth]

1 hour ago, DuskRaider said:

At the very least, give tanks a higher CAF and wound level along with Tank Shock. 

 

I don't think it's worth even having tanks charging/tanks charging other tanks. Just having vehicles block one another's movement is good enough. 100% agree on tank shock. 

 

[Indy Techwisp]

I know it sounds weird to say, but my take away from Year 1 or LI is that GW have been rather... reserved.

 

I was fully expecting us to be seeing the first models of Faction 3 at the 6 month mark, but we're a full year in and there's no sign of any additional factions yet.

[Crablezworth]

 

I know it sounds weird to say, but my take away from Year 1 or LI is that GW have been rather... reserved.

 

I was fully expecting us to be seeing the first models of Faction 3 at the 6 month mark, but we're a full year in and there's no sign of any additional factions yet.

 

I don't really want more factions if they'll be released this way tbh. I'm still embarrassed that I feel like I need to lie or embelish about the state of the game to friends and prospective players given that we're at book 3 now and neither faction can even fill out their unit rosters, like marines still don't have super heavies or artillery and are only about to get light armour, solar aux has no light armour. Worse still, the knowledge that even if we get there, it will mean having to cart 4 books around, and when u compare the content of the rulebook to the other 3, it looks pretty cynical. I would hope if we do seem more factions its only after the units get rounded out and we have a faq or two. 

[Cleon]

I have to admit I'm borderline to giving up on the concept of playing LI, I'll just collect a force so I'm good to go when we get a coherent rules release with a second edition.