LI FAQ

[Mandragola]

Hi all,

 

Simple question really. What would you ask in a FAQ/Errata for LI? Specifically this is about stuff that is unclear or wrong, not a balance update.

So far this is what I've got:

 

1. Do walkers or titans with weapons with the wrecker trait need to charge a garrisoned building, or can they move into range?
2. Should successful shock pulse hits affect movement on the following turn?
3. Errata the rules for deep strike so passengers don't have to immediately disembark from transports. Add that rule to drop pods instead.
4. When does Overwatch occur on Drop Pods - before or after the troops get out?
5. Clarify garrisoning a building. We're not allowed to move 1inch of an enemy without charging. Does that mean I can block the garrisoning of a building by placing my models within 1" of the building?
6. With Master tactician I can change the orders of any unit that is yet to activate. Does this mean that I can change the order to one the unit couldn't have been issued at the beginning of the turn? E.G. can I change the order of a unit that used deep strike or disembarked from a rhino to charge?
7. Just to confirm, a Master Tactician can't change his own Detachment's order, right? The rules seem clear but we don't see why not!
8. Shock pulse. What happens if you hit a Detachment of vehicles - are all affected or just the one that is hit - in which case which model should it be? If the unit takes multiple hits are they all assigned to one vehicle or multiple ones? And as with Quake, the slowing effect does nothing as it will have worn off before the unit next moves. I suggest both quake and shock pulse should be Errata'd to last until the end of the following movement phase.

 

Anything else? I can pass on to the design team. Grateful for all contributions.

Edited August 25 by Mandragola

[DuskRaider]

The biggest one I can think of is concerning Infiltration and garrisoning buildings outside of your deployment zone. I know it’s generally agreed upon that you cannot do this, but the core book is a bit vague on it and I’ve had this discussion / outright argument with people, including just this past week on FB. 
 

As far as an Errata or change, movement needs to be nerfed big time. That’s one of the single biggest issues with the game currently, infantry needs to be slowed down big time. It would give tanks a bigger role, particularly transports. 

[Crablezworth]

All marine flyer heavy bolters are missing light AT 

 

All 3 new super heavies for solar aux have a mistake for their lascannon sponsons, they should list 2 dice but currently its only 1 (it's the same sponsons as the baneblade, but missing a dice)

 

Cyclops currently can break their own formations and can't legally attack structures without additional changes (the blast hole needs to be over the structure but as written can't be)

 

Stormhammer's turret can turn 360 but the stats list it front arc only, which only makes sense for hits hull battlecannons, not its turret. 

 

Quake/Shock Pulse both need fixing in terms of its effects as mentioned. 

 

 

 

Errata, they need to change infiltrate, either you shouldn't be able to charge or the range has to change for distance to enemy to be more than 10 inches. 

 

Infantry running triple needs to be cut down to 2x. 

 

Overwatch other than pd should only be on first fire. 

 

Index point level to the amount of formations players can field.   (example: 1 activation/detachment per 100pts, so at 2k, max 20 detachments, 3k, max 30 etc)

 

Cap formations or index them to point level. Consider limiting each formation to 0-1, or at least for problem formations. (marketing won't like it, but its needed)

 

End game scoring. This is a must in terms of changes, no one wants to watch battle reports that end in two turns. Scoring the game like meth head basketball isn't working, it just makes people tap out. It's also a really poor way to score a war game, no one is pinning medals on soldiers for holding an alleyway for 3 minutes longer than the bad guys, its just not how things work. 

 

Infantry need a massive nerf, either cost change, unit cap change, or full on inability to charge anything bigger than scale 1

 

Combat likely needs to start allowing saves, expensive units pay too much for resilience they rarely get to utilize. 

 

Vehicle charging to pin is a bad mechanic and just makes cheap transports like arvuses and rhinos way too good, borderline beyond obnoxious in  the case of arvus fighting in combat. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12 by Crablezworth

[Interrogator Stobz]

 

Infantry move less 1 inch. No 3x.

 

Maximum dice for outnumbering 3, but

Rend allows 4.

 

Rend on TDA.

Rend on Dreads. 

Tanks charging gain Rend.

 

All Super Heavy Tanks gain 1 wound.

 

Cerastus gain 1 wound.

Acastus gain 2 wounds

 

All Titans gain 2 wounds.

Titans recover wounds in end phase on 5+. The number of dice rolled should be the same as they have in AT, so based on servitors, 2-4.

 

 

 

Edited August 28 by Interrogator Stobz

[DuskRaider]

 

 

Infantry move less 1 inch. No 3x.

 

Maximum dice for outnumbering 3, but

Rend allows 4.

 

Rend on TDA.

Rend on Dreads. 

Tanks charging gain Rend.

 

All Super Heavy Tanks gain 1 wound.

Cerastus gain 1 wound.

Acastus gain 2 wounds

All Titans gain 2 wounds.

 

 

This. All of this. It still blows my mind that Aux have not one but TWO units with Rend and for some odd reason, Terminators do not. Especially when they’re literally modeled with Chainfists, Powerfists and freakin Thunder Hammers. The +4 CAF is nice, but it isn’t enough, especially when you’ve got Axemen running around doing more damage than a Demi-God wearing a tank. 
 

I do find it weird that Super Heavies only have two wounds… but so do Kratos and Spartans, neither of which are the same classification. 
 

Tanks absolutely need an offensive / defensive option for CC, especially with the proliferation of infantry that otherwise just pop them. I like the idea of giving them Rend if they slam into a unit, it’s basically tank shock. 
 

Not only do Titans (and Knights) need an additional wound or so, but their weapons need an overhaul. Look at something like the Plasma Blastgun. It’s so trash that it will never be used. 
 

I do believe that Titans should also have the ability to repair themselves and I seem to remember someone saying they should skip their movement or shooting to do so. I like that idea. 
 

Knights need to have their points dropped and Armigers need to be unbound from their larger brethren. 

[Deschenus Maximus]

I've been working on and off on an unofficial FAQ for a while now. Below is what I have so far. Not that this is sticking as close as possible to RAW - I didn't want to amend anything even though admittedly some changes would be warranted.

 

·         Tarantulas CAN be transported in vehicles. They Disembark the same as any other Detachment but obviously cannot move further afterwards. To embark, the Transport would need to be in base contact with the Tarantula before you activate said Tarantula’s Detachment during the Movement Phase.

·         During Army Selection, you may not select Detachments as part of a Formation if they are not able to fulfill all requirements of said Formation. For example, a Legiones Astartes Aerial Assault Formation may not currently include any Vanguard Detachments, as none of the currently available options are able to be transported in the currently available Air Support Detachment options.

·         Where a Detachment is defined as “not being counted for the purpose of calculating a Formation’s Break Point”, said Detachment are still counted for the purpose of reaching the Break Point during the game. Comment: This feels unintended. Likely things like Dedicated Transports were meant to be disregarded completely for all Break Points purposes. RAW, however, they do not.

·         Infantry CAN be transported in Dreadnought Drop Pods.

·         Air Support Detachments with the Transport special rule are not limited to transporting Detachments from the same Formation. Indeed, they are not even limited to transporting Detachments from the same Army. Comment: This is almost certainly an oversight. Don’t recommend actually playing it that way.

·         When a Detachment who lost a Combat fails its Morale Test, it does not gain a Fall Back Order. If, during the Advancing Fire stage, the Detachment suffers enough casualties that it would take a Morale Test, said test counts as automatically failed but has no effect i.e. the unit does not gain a Fall Back Order. Comment: The Morale rules are confusing and it’s not 100% clear this is the way the developers intended for this to played. This is just my best guess.

·         When verifying Line of Sight from your model to an enemy model, if ANY part of your model can see ANY part of the enemy model, your model does have Line of Sight.

·         Infiltrating Detachments may NOT occupy Structures outside of their Deployment Zone.

·         The Dice value listed for Sponson Weapons is for BOTH sponsons; you don’t get the Dice value for each sponson weapon mounted on the tank.

·         When shooting at a Detachment touching an Obstacle, you can opt to only target models not touching to avoid having the To Hit penalty. Otherwise, you have to apply the to-hit penalty to all your shots. Comment: The rules for Obstacles don’t actually work as written – you shoot at Detachments, not individual models. This is an amendment that make them work and aligns them with the rules for other Terrain types.

·         The target of a shooting attack is the one that selects the order in which the Hit Pool is resolved. This is especially relevant when attacking Titans as Void Shields can absorb Hits with a better Armour Penetration first.

·         Tarantulas may not perform Overwatch.

·         If a model with a Skyfire weapon opts to fire at a Flyer instead of its Detachment’s Primary Target, it must fire ALL of its weapons at the Flyer, not just the Skyfire ones. Comment: Skyfire weapons do not function the same as Point Defence weapons; the latter explicitly state that they may be fired at a different target than the model’s Primary Target. Skyfire weapons do not.

·         The Ultramarines’ Interlocking Tactics can be triggered by one model in a shooting Detachment causing a hit on the target Detachment, as Fast Rolling is an optional rule. Comment: This is the RAW interpretation of Interlocking Fire. For the sake of everyone’s sanity, I’d encourage Ultramarines players to use Fast Rolling even if it disadvantages them a little.

[Cleon]

I'm adding this here because it annoys me, even though the rules are clear.

 

Firestorm weapons should be able to overwatch, if a unit charges them or a nearby unit through their fire arc and they are on the appropriate orders. they should simply get a snapfire attack (6+) roll  on every model/base  moving as part of the attack in that detachment.

[DuskRaider]

Infantry can only charge if they have direct LoS. No charging around corners. 
 

Isn’t there also some weird rule with the Drop Pod Assault list where you can’t bring Deathstorm Drop Pods or the Pavaise Pod or something? Seems odd. 

[Crablezworth]

 

This. All of this. It still blows my mind that Aux have not one but TWO units with Rend and for some odd reason, Terminators do not. Especially when they’re literally modeled with Chainfists, Powerfists and freakin Thunder Hammers. The +4 CAF is nice, but it isn’t enough, especially when you’ve got Axemen running around doing more damage than a Demi-God wearing a tank. 
 

I do find it weird that Super Heavies only have two wounds… but so do Kratos and Spartans, neither of which are the same classification. 
 

Tanks absolutely need an offensive / defensive option for CC, especially with the proliferation of infantry that otherwise just pop them. I like the idea of giving them Rend if they slam into a unit, it’s basically tank shock. 
 

Not only do Titans (and Knights) need an additional wound or so, but their weapons need an overhaul. Look at something like the Plasma Blastgun. It’s so trash that it will never be used. 
 

I do believe that Titans should also have the ability to repair themselves and I seem to remember someone saying they should skip their movement or shooting to do so. I like that idea. 
 

Knights need to have their points dropped and Armigers need to be unbound from their larger brethren. 

 

I'd also be fine with super heavies being 1+ saves instead of 3 wounds. 

 

Making tanks better in CC just seems like a race to the bottom, combat's problem is that its no fun to resolve. I'm starting to think if they're going to stick with no saves in combat, they need to bifurcate what can charge what in the same way light weapons can't hurt tanks. I'd much rather the game just had tank shock, it'd be a faster mechanic. 

 

Titan weapons could use a re-write. For starters, they could do more dual stat stuff to have like different range effects, this would give titans with long range potentially still an incentive to a move a bit if for example getting a target into a closer range band meant more shots or better ap etc. As you've said plasma blast gun sucks, it doesn't even have a small blast and it could sure use one. 

 

I think it might have been me, was suggesting a really simple core system that'd apply to all titans, whereby they could shoot fewer weapons to repair voids or wounds early, also had the idea of allowing like 1 weapon to shoot in movement phase if on ff. 

 

Knights, agree on armigers being unbound and allowed to operate as their own detachments. Could still index them 1 to 1 with other knights so they're not like auto take or easy to spam without tax. 

 

 

[Crablezworth]

 

I'm adding this here because it annoys me, even though the rules are clear.

 

Firestorm weapons should be able to overwatch, if a unit charges them or a nearby unit through their fire arc and they are on the appropriate orders. they should simply get a snapfire attack (6+) roll  on every model/base  moving as part of the attack in that detachment.

 

Yeah I completely agree, flamers and heavy flamers are bad but one can at least overwatch with them, I've actually found it very frustrating to use the malcador infernus because it looks good on paper and a template is nice to have but this whole having to roll even after getting the template over a model, it's quite frustrating to cover like 4-5 bases and wound 2... it's a damn wall of a flame lol. But ya, not being able to overwatch with it just sucks and its one more point to infantry being broken :cuss:. 

[Crablezworth]

I wonder too about a simplified army construction that aims primarily to limit activations/detachments and perhaps spamming. 

 

Like a psuedo foc, minimum 1 hq model/base, each detachment can't be taken more than 3 times, activations indexed to point levels like 1 activations per 100pts. 

 

So at 1500pts you could field max 15 detachments/activations. 

 

Deploy as one army, 1/3 of activations or more must go in reserve. No break point tracking. 

 

No infiltrate. Anything that usually gets it just swaps out for outflank or forward deployment. 

Edited August 26 by Crablezworth

[Mandragola]

Thanks for all the contributions everyone. Unfortunately I was asked for FAQs and errata, and explicitly not balance changes. I hope that comes at another point because clearly there are things that need sorting. 
 

I’ve passed this on so let’s see what happens. 

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

Thanks for all the contributions everyone. Unfortunately I was asked for FAQs and errata, and explicitly not balance changes. I hope that comes at another point because clearly there are things that need sorting. 
 

I’ve passed this on so let’s see what happens. 

 

So request for FAQ items came directly from the studio?

[Crablezworth]

 

Thanks for all the contributions everyone. Unfortunately I was asked for FAQs and errata, and explicitly not balance changes. I hope that comes at another point because clearly there are things that need sorting. 
 

I’ve passed this on so let’s see what happens. 

 

Not to split hair but that's pretty much what the errata part is. And the result of a faq is balance changes, if they faq (fix) say marine flyers heavy bolters, that does change their efficacy and thus balance. Thanks for submitting it, hopefully we get a faq eventually. 

Edited August 28 by Crablezworth

[DuskRaider]

Yeah, I always thought of an Errata as a rules change. It seems they’re looking for rules which need clarification, not so much adjustment. 

[Crablezworth]

 

Yeah, I always thought of an Errata as a rules change. It seems they’re looking for rules which need clarification, not so much adjustment. 

 

The problem is, where does messing up an entire books detachment's in terms of point savings fit into that? It's not like saying "this 1 should be a 2, or you forgot x weapon trait on y".  

 

 

[DuskRaider]

 

 

The problem is, where does messing up an entire books detachment's in terms of point savings fit into that? It's not like saying "this 1 should be a 2, or you forgot x weapon trait on y".  

 

 

I get what you’re saying and I’m agreeing, I just don’t understand why they want an Errata but don’t actually want an Errata. 

[Mandragola]

 

 

So request for FAQ items came directly from the studio?

I honestly don’t know if I’m allowed to say. Make of that what you will.

 

The distinction between an Errata and a balance change is a bit unclear, I agree. My own understanding is that GW sees a difference between a mistake that makes something not work as intended, or at all, vs tweaks to balance. 
 

So for example termites arguably don’t work as intended. It’s silly they spit their passengers out when they emerge. That could be characterised as an error in the book, fixed by an Errata. 
 

On the other hand, Malcadors obviously shouldn’t cost more than Kratos, knights (and arguably most vehicles) are too expensive and so on. Changing the costs of things would be a balance change.

 

but it’s a bit unclear. Is it a mistake that a contemptor’s assault cannon is much worse against any target than a twin lascannon, meaning the assault cannon should get a second shot, or would that be a balance change? I don’t know. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

TBH, if feedback is wanted (or not) now is the chance.

It cannot hurt to let them know more than they want, they will ignore most of it anyway. That's the way it works.

I do commend them for listening, should they have instigated this discussion. But I will temper any expectations of mine

 

As we have discussed here and in other forums, in several long threads, the rules need more than an FAQ; we almost need a 2.0 version.

There are too many broken parts, and it's simply not as good as it should be.

 

I edited my post above to include Titan repairs.

Edited August 28 by Interrogator Stobz

[DuskRaider]

I do hope that they listen, and honestly I’d be shocked if none of the designers and whomever else over at GW weren’t here on the site as well, be it lurking or otherwise. I haven’t traversed any other boards in ages, but I’d think this is the largest concentration of LI players on a forum. 

Edited August 28 by DuskRaider

[apologist]

@Mandragola – thanks for bringing this up. Taken in the spirit it's offered, here are my suggestions for FAQ. Most I think are fairly clear, but from what I’ve seen, lead to a lot of confusion and discussion.

 

• When a Tactical Legionary Detachments are upgraded to take Plasma and/or Missile Launchers, do these Models use the CAF of the appropriate Detachments (i.e. +1), or retain that of the parent Detachment (i.e. +2)?
• Is it intentional that some Detachments get a discount with more Models, while others don’t? (e.g. Solar Auxilia superheavies in different expansions.)
• Deep strike again – the rules explain what happens with enemy Models and terrain, but not friendly models or the edge of the table. What happens if a deep striking Model scatters here?
• When deep striking, all models have to be placed within 2in of the first model placed – how does this work when the physical size of the models mean the Detachment can’t be placed? (e.g. very large groups of Drop Pods)
  • On Drop Pods – should measurements be made from the main walls, or the extent of the doors? How does this work if a player has mobile doors – could an unscrupulous player keep the doors closed to maximise deployment and minimise incoming attacks, and open them to maximise range of their own weapons?
• Predator et al. sponsons – is it correct that both guns on the physical model are abstracted to a single die?
• Space Marine tank HQs – doesn’t seem to be a limit on number of them in a Formation. Is this correct? As it stands you could take an Armoured Company of nothing but tank commanders. 
• Can Tarantulas and similar immobile infantry Embark and Disembark from transports? If so, how does this work?
  • Further to this, can immobile infantry garrison structures?
• If you upgrade a knight banner with armigers or moirax do the little guys count as the same detachment as the larger knights? i.e. do they have to be in coherency? The example mentions the Armigers in the first sentence, but omits them from the clarifying explanation.
• Do infantry garrisoned in buildings or in transports contribute to controlling objectives? 
• Does the Solar Auxilia command range extend from the entire footprint of a building if it is garrisoned?
• If Models are lost during Overwatch, does this immediately affect coherency of the survivors? Who decides where the transports are destroyed (controlling player or firing player); and does this affect where the surviving troops in transports can move (as you can’t voluntarily break coherency, and you don’t lose a group until a different stage)?

 

...and a couple of questions that aren't strictly FAQs, but rather suggestions:

• Missile Launcher Legionaries – are the stats and special rules correct for Frag rounds?
• Why are some units model-led, while others abstract out model options? (e.g. Rhinos and Land Raiders can take the modelled pintle-mounted Multimelta upgrades, while Predators can't take their pintle-mounted heavy bolter upgrades).
• Some options are strictly better than others – e.g. Leman Russ Vanquisher cannon versus Battle cannon; Missile Launcher Marines versus Plasma Marines. Is this intentional, or should there be a consequent difference in points?
• Is it correct that the March order allows Infantry to triple their movement? I'd love to hear that it was an oversight, and there should be no exception.

Edited August 29 by apologist

[Interrogator Stobz]

 

I do hope that they listen, and honestly I’d be shocked if none of the designers and whomever else over at GW weren’t here on the site as well, be it lurking or otherwise. I haven’t traversed any other boards in ages, but I’d think this is the largest concentration of LI players on a forum. 

There are over 8,000 members on one FB Legions Imperialis site I follow. Over 9,000 on an Epic 30k site.

Unfortunately for the BnC, it's no longer the premium numbers site.

I still prefer it, the discussion and behavior is much better and more focused. 

As such, the cudos and respect here is the premium that matters. 

Edited August 29 by Interrogator Stobz
Sp.

[apologist]

... couple more for the FAQ (taken from the Maximal Fire Discord channel):

 

• 'Models with at least one weapon with the Skyfire trait may choose to fire on its Detachment's target or a Secondary Target; a Secondary Target is an eligible target different from the first chosen target, and that has the Flyer special rule. All firing Skyfire weapons must target the same Flyer Detachment, unless another rule overrides this.' Does this mean a model with any skyfire weapons has to fire all its weapons at the flyer, or that it just fires its skyfire weapons at that target?
  • This is particularly an issue with Thunderhawk – if it wants to fire Skyfire at some flyers, does it waste the other weapons as they can't shoot a different target?
  • In short, should the phrasing specify other weapons can target as normal?
• On a related note, can a unit with Skyfire weapons, Point Defence weapons and 'normal' weapons potentially fire at three different targets?
• Is there a suggested mechanism for tracking Break point of formations?

 

...and a couple more hopeful nudges that could be changed via errata, rather than styled as updates(!):

• Titans' point defence weapons (e.g. Ardex-defensor cannons) are not listed – is this intentional or an oversight?
  • Warbringers in particular don't have their Hydra-like carapace weapons represented.
• Should Titans be able to repair damage as well as regenerate shields?
• Should Overwatch be restricted to units on First Fire orders?

Edited August 29 by apologist

[Crablezworth]

 

• Should Overwatch be restricted to units on First Fire orders?

 

 

We've played that way for a while, overwatch only on ff or point defense, and it's much much better. In terms of a very simple quality of life fix, it's huge. 

 

 

 

 

I think as far as feedback, an effective tactic is shaming gw with the truth. They're not exactly chomping at the bit to show what meta the incentives they've created has resulted in. Deep down someone at gw cares about li I would have to think, and they' can't exactly be thrilled by the square peg/round hole of what the game currently is. A sea of infantry and an undercosted giant titan isn't really anyone's mental image of epic or "new epic". Add to that their amazing looking modular board at warhammer world throws out about half the terrain rules. So if I envision epic and go to warhammer world and its a sea of infantry, a big titan and structures that can't be removed and replaced with area terrain, I'm left wondering if gw has just totally divorced itself from being anything other than a model company. 

 

I made this meme and it seemed to hit a nerve, I have to think people were expecting to be playing more combined arms, but the current game, and the way way construction works, is way too loose. Add to that the incentives are strange, and nothing control for activations. Coming from AT it feels sorta like what happened? Did they fire all the competent specialist games people? 

 

Edited August 29 by Crablezworth

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

• Does the Solar Auxilia command range extend from the entire footprint of a building if it is garrisoned?

 

I'll add any area of effect abiliy to this, such as Medicae for Marine Legion Command bases.