How to fix LI

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

Concerning the Legion rules:

Maybe it´s prudent to erase them. Why? Because apparently the Mechanicum didn´t get specific Forge World rules so they miss out on flavour just like the SA. And it won´t be too bad for the game as long as the other problems are addressed.

 

One more thing:

I have so far not bought a titan for LI just because there are no deviation dice and no dedicated hit and damage tables for them. This needs to be introduced asap as taking down titans are the most epic moments in LI.

[DuskRaider]

1 hour ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

Concerning the Legion rules:

Maybe it´s prudent to erase them. Why? Because apparently the Mechanicum didn´t get specific Forge World rules so they miss out on flavour just like the SA. And it won´t be too bad for the game as long as the other problems are addressed.

 

One more thing:

I have so far not bought a titan for LI just because there are no deviation dice and no dedicated hit and damage tables for them. This needs to be introduced asap as taking down titans are the most epic moments in LI.

But you do have Titans for Titanicus, yeah? 
 

… don’t disappoint me with your answer, brother. 

[Nagashsnee]

On 3/3/2025 at 9:52 PM, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

Concerning the Legion rules:

Maybe it´s prudent to erase them. Why? Because apparently the Mechanicum didn´t get specific Forge World rules so they miss out on flavour just like the SA. And it won´t be too bad for the game as long as the other problems are addressed.

 

No need to delete, just tone it down from 'free army wide buff' to something that wont swing entire games.  

+1 CAF for command squads, re roll 1 leadership per turn, 1 unit of termies gets 6+fnp. Just small flavorful rules that even if at times  a little too good to be free wont DOMINATE the entire meta. 

 

 I would like SA regiments, and again small things, 1 unit of lasrifles hit on 4+ instead of 5+ per formation, command russ gets 1 better morale kind of thing. 

 

And again mech. If from Graia one units plasma weapon per formation gets 1 better ap. Small fluffy things.

 

 

[Crablezworth]

9 hours ago, Nagashsnee said:

No need to delete, just tone it down from 'free army wide buff' to something that wont swing entire games.  

+1 CAF for command squads, re roll 1 leadership per turn, 1 unit of termies gets 6+fnp. Just small flavorful rules that even if at times  a little too good to be free wont DOMINATE the entire meta. 

 

 I would like SA regiments, and again small things, 1 unit of lasrifles hit on 4+ instead of 5+ per formation, command russ gets 1 better morale kind of thing. 

 

And again mech. If from Graia one units plasma weapon per formation gets 1 better ap. Small fluffy things.

 

 

 

I just think they should axe the legion rules entirely, they compound so many problems, my own legion raven guard, are a perfect example of that. World eaters as well, trait is just way too good. 

 

Same way I feel about primarchs, I'd be fine if they got models, but would think a generic primarch stat would be best. Could just be a higher wound command squad with like a one time orbital strike or something, or a way bigger command radius. 

 

I think for legion traits to work they need a core philosophy to follow, I'll give an example. Instead of locking a special rules behind one specific chapter like space wolves ability to push back infiltrators, it should have instead been a core rule that space wolves just do better. So if the rule normally pushed back infiltrators say 12 inches, perhaps with space wolves its 18 or 24. The stuff we really shouldn't see though are things like world eater's ability, I'd honestly try and stay away from re-rolls in general. The absurdity of the world eaters trait also means even their tarantulas are somehow better in close combat, these are indications they didn't entirely think things through. There are also legions with rules that have technical issues or at least involve more book keeping, ultramarines for example, their trait is by formation not army wide, and honestly that might not be an issue in a small game, but in a game where there are a lot of formations in play its just too much detail focused on the wrong thing imo. I feel that way about break points in general but that's a different problem. 

 

 

The more I reflect on LI's rules, my biggest issue is its just too weighted to close combat, and I could probably live with that if combat wasn't just such a drain on time and energy. And sadly its not just a drag to resolves larger combat, mentally all that math takes its toll, I'd actually be terrified of trying to do more than a couple games/rounds in a day. 

 

It reminds me way too much of medieval total war in that, too often games have just felt totally dominated by cc and infantry. Big expensive shooty things start to feel like trebuchets or catapults in medieval 2 total war, like you get a shot or two off and then get charged. The game feels too fantasy I guess, not 30k/40k enough, I wish it was weighted more towards shooting and much less towards combat. In better 40k/30k 1.0, the immediate go to wasn't to charge with every single infantry unit, there were models that also would never "charge" because they had better rules like tank shock, or just straight up getting stepped on by a knight. Stuff still charged when it made sense to or when designed to, but it was still a game with a lot of shooting, and templates too. 

 

LI I've had the most fun honestly when units are just exchanging fire, tanks battles have been fun even if not all the vehicles are well balanced, the experience of the activations is generally pretty fast and where the game feels like its engine purrs just fine. Then you get into giant protracted combats that are very contextual and just sorta get lost and not in a good way. 

 

The reality though sadly is I think whatever changes I would make to fix LI, would upset those who prefer the status quo. I get that too to some extent, if someone has painted hundreds of infantry bases to run pioneer companies they may certainly see any core changes as rendering those efforts moot/pointless if it shift the meta away from infantry being king and infiltrate not being curtailed. My only hope would be to show things like titans and knights all of a sudden feeling less emasculated by tiny shin kickers and hopefully functioning a bit better. Also hopefully of scoring shifts to end game instead of progressive the game can have more breathing room and actually get to turn 5 more often. I'd love to see an emphasis too on larger games having some sort of reserve mechanic to smooth out how many activations are in play at any one time and maybe reduce deployment time. Not entirely against speeding things up there with deploying all formations at once instead of alternating. 

 

 

[DuskRaider]

I don’t think getting rid of Legion rules is a good idea. I want it to feel like I’m playing Death Guard and not just Death Guard colored Marines.

 

That said, they need to be balanced. If GW insists on giving Raven Guard and Alpha Legion such a ridiculously broken trait, they need to pay a premium on their detachments over other Legions. Others need their traits boosted. I don’t know, I feel GW just kinda phoned it in on that aspect of the game, especially when other factions don’t get any traits at all… which is even more odd considering they literally have both Titan Legio and Knight Household traits they could port over from AT at the very least, and it may help boost the two factions a little. 

[Crablezworth]

18 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I don’t think getting rid of Legion rules is a good idea. I want it to feel like I’m playing Death Guard and not just Death Guard colored Marines.

 

That said, they need to be balanced. If GW insists on giving Raven Guard and Alpha Legion such a ridiculously broken trait, they need to pay a premium on their detachments over other Legions. Others need their traits boosted. I don’t know, I feel GW just kinda phoned it in on that aspect of the game, especially when other factions don’t get any traits at all… which is even more odd considering they literally have both Titan Legio and Knight Household traits they could port over from AT at the very least, and it may help boost the two factions a little. 

 

I mean only that if they can't get the core right, writing 18 different traits is never going to work. Part of the problem, to your point about paying a premium in their detachments over the legions is, the game already suffer in the same way AT did in that, they didn't leave themselves enough points to cost much of anything in context with its loadout or ability. In AT it already felt tough to cost weapons because it was integers of 5, so instead of all of the nuance of something costing anywhere from 1pt to say 25pts, because its all integers of 5 you lose a lot of ability to graduate costs. Granted LI at least does integers of 1 but the other problem is under costed to begin with you have like no room to add cost in a subtle way, and sadly actual weapon upgrade costs in li are very rare and always feel arbitrary, like, 3pts to upgrade a thunderbolts quad autocannons to avenger gatling cannons.

 

My legion is broken because their trait is tied to a core issue, that being infiltrate. But infiltrates problem isn't just the lack of cost, it's also the total lack of cap, and the core rule itself being bananas. It's a problem sandwich but shows that if the core is rotten it doesn't really matter how good or bad the 18 traits are if they're heavily relying on functional core rules that are mia. 

 

Maybe the answer is more in like how many of certain formations can be fielded or how many of any one given units/model type can be fielded, being dictated by legion, but sadly they've already given away the bank there so its tough to reign that one back. I don't much want to see faction specific rules for titans and knights, especially because again there so much work to do at a core level to fix them, anything tacked on is just too much and likely to cause more problems imo. They could introduce more hq stuff, I like the small addition for knights having a leader/seneschal or whatever, would be cool if they added that for titans, picking one titan like in AT and putting princeps seniores/hq in it. Like tanks commanders. 

 

 

 

On different matter, the more I think about it, the fact that there is no equivalent of "light" for close combat is a big problem, we've also seen at least in principle examples of a detachment/unit type that can't charge but can fight in cc, that being tarantulas, and they're still one of the strongest detachments/units in the game. So I think bringing it back to balance/fixing li, there needs to be a lot more control of what can charge what, if there is a chance of failure, like having to pass a morale, but also a few new traits, two that basically say a unit can't charge and the second saying the units caf attacks are so weak, its enemy is allowed its save. I also think balancing infantry with rend probably requires that they have to pass a morale check to charge SOME units, not everything but the fact that so many infantry can charge anything really is a huge problem, especially because the game has decided to go so detailed in terms of all the shooting special rules, and then went really abstract in cc, while making it take too long. I think too we need to be more content with units that just sit on objectives with like no other expectations of them. The morale test stuff would also be somewhere marines and mech can shine having so many units with decent or very good morale or units that are effectively fearless. I honestly understand mind wiped walking zombies taking on crazy targets in cc before like a solar aux dude with a lasgun. Even a marine, there's no fear in self preservation. I don't think a single marine or solar aux tercio dude is gonna storm out from a ruin to charge a warhound, a mindwiped techno zombie seems a bit more believable. I've sorta passed on the idea of allowing everything a save in cc, but there def needs to be more to it than there is now. 

[Nagashsnee]

@Crablezworth i agree with you.  The core rules are cooked, there only so much erratas and ducktape can do.  The game as is should never have left play testing. 

 

Fear is something that could work, make it pretty easy to pass and then have modifiers based on unit size/special cases.

 

SA charging a super heavy tank, ok easy enough, negative modifier is unit is under half str makes sense. Then you can have say Knights give -1 to  infantry and titans -2 (unless already engaged maybe?). There is room for a simple rule with depth if designed well. 

[Crablezworth]

On 3/11/2025 at 4:41 AM, Nagashsnee said:

@Crablezworth i agree with you.  The core rules are cooked, there only so much erratas and ducktape can do.  The game as is should never have left play testing. 

 

Fear is something that could work, make it pretty easy to pass and then have modifiers based on unit size/special cases.

 

SA charging a super heavy tank, ok easy enough, negative modifier is unit is under half str makes sense. Then you can have say Knights give -1 to  infantry and titans -2 (unless already engaged maybe?). There is room for a simple rule with depth if designed well. 

 

I think however the math works out there has to be a pretty heavy incentive to not charge a lot of these things however that shakes out. 

 

And using the tarantula example of a detachment that can't itself charge, but can still fight in close combat. It's one thing for a tank to initiate combat with a line of infantry that are lets say blocking its path, that still has tremendous value defensively however. We've also not scratched the surface on specialization. Like units that might have 0 caf on the charge but a higher caf if charged or a baseline caf but a buff fighting certain unit types. 

 

But to make combined arms work, they either need to just force in the form of actual army construction rules/tax units/something like a force org chart. But man, to have all the detail in terms of shooting/weapon special rules rendered largely pointless by making close combat so stone stupid/swingy is just a huge bummer. The baseline in 40k before it sucked was frag grenades no bueno, krak grenades u might have a chance, meltabomb now we're talking, 10 meltabombs, backup!, but li just feels like everything has meltabombs when it comes to tanks and larger units and close combat, its so dumb. 

 

I get that they don't want to get into wargear, how they ultimately achieve improvement has many paths. They've already gone down the lazy road of entire formation special rules, so assuming that can't won't be put back in the box anytime soon, and keeping with that sort of design. Could still do buffs and taxes, like "bla bla bla tank hunter formation, all infantry are considered to have demo charges and as such count their caf as x when fighting detahments of vehicles. But all infantry must purchase dedicated transport" yada, that sorta thing. 

 

Would also help put some daylight between units like walkers/vehicles/cav (skimmers) and so on. If its like a conditional stat buff too it wouldn't require re-writing any unit cards. 

[Nagashsnee]

On 3/13/2025 at 8:51 PM, Crablezworth said:

Could still do buffs and taxes, like "bla bla bla tank hunter formation, all infantry are considered to have demo charges and as such count their caf as x when fighting detahments of vehicles. But all infantry must purchase dedicated transport" yada, that sorta thing. 

 

This sounds good on paper, but i fear its implementation when you have 50 stands of say tactical marines running around and 10 of them are the demo charge holders. Throw in 1-2 other 'special' type of tacticals and it would take some serious note taking/mini marking. 

[Crablezworth]

6 hours ago, Nagashsnee said:

This sounds good on paper, but i fear its implementation when you have 50 stands of say tactical marines running around and 10 of them are the demo charge holders. Throw in 1-2 other 'special' type of tacticals and it would take some serious note taking/mini marking. 

 

You're not wrong, but this is also a game that wants you to track which formations those 10 of 50 stands belong to for the purposes of tracking break point, something that is equally as difficult to track as who has what wargear. 

 

By formation could still work though, look at the harpax formation that lets them count as scale 2 in combat, its possible to have a list with some harpax coming from that formation and others not and having the same problem, telling apart which ones can hold scale 2 and which ones can't. 

 

But I will say that formation isn't a good example balance wise because it doesn't really have any tax units or anything or caps. 

[Nagashsnee]

On 3/15/2025 at 3:24 PM, Crablezworth said:

 

You're not wrong, but this is also a game that wants you to track which formations those 10 of 50 stands belong to for the purposes of tracking break point, something that is equally as difficult to track as who has what wargear. 

 

 

Any time we go over 2k we dont even pretend.  Sure every now and then we will make a attempt to check, but no one in my gaming group would even blink if upon a proper check the numbers are off. 

[Black Cohort]

The more I have thought about LI rules, the more I am convinced the base rules are unsalvageable.  Simple tweaking around the edges can't paper over the fundamental problems with the rules.  I think this starts with no clear vision of what the rules are trying to do, this bleeds into things being weirdly detailed in some ways (we need how many different lascannon and autocannon profiles?) and very abstract in others (who cares what weapons you put on your Titans, they always cost the same even though some weapons are way, way better than others).  Weapon range and movement speed make no sense.  It feels like 0 testing was done for most of the game.

[Hallas]

2 hours ago, Black Cohort said:

The more I have thought about LI rules, the more I am convinced the base rules are unsalvageable ...

 

This is also my thinking. I'm aware that there are a lot of people who just play the game as it is for different reasons, but I'm in a group wanting rule changes from day 0. My first disappointment were rules rules for flyers but that was just the first red flag...

 

My main complaint about the rules is similar to the one quoted: throughout the rules there is no consistency in what is the smallest unit the rules care about: model or detachment? If you want to have 6k match, the feeling of really massive armies and be able end the game in one week, you cannot focus on models. If you want just smaller version of Horus Heresy then why to bother?

 

The rules start really good with how orders are handled. To a point (engagement) you may feel that this is all about detachments. But then it get into details of engagement, firing, loadouts and it becomes transparent that it is all about models. And from the marketing materials and the way the game was hyped, I expected a game about detachments...

... but we still buy the minis, so why should anything change officially?

[DuskRaider]

I’m a plastic crack whore, I cannot help myself. I keep saying how the rules are garbage and I shouldn’t give the company my money, but I keep doing it anyhow. It’s a vicious cycle. 

[apologist]

56 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

I’m a plastic crack whore, I cannot help myself. I keep saying how the rules are garbage and I shouldn’t give the company my money, but I keep doing it anyhow. It’s a vicious cycle. 

I was in two minds about whether to use the 'laugh' or 'support' reaction – I suspect your experience is eerily familiar to many of us reading this!

 

On 3/5/2025 at 4:59 PM, Crablezworth said:

The reality though sadly is I think whatever changes I would make to fix LI, would upset those who prefer the status quo.

 

Yes, and it's a shame. If you're lucky enough to come to a group consensus with friends, I think that's the best that can be done. Of course, the flip side of that is discussion fora like this one – rather than starting from scratch each time, people can at least playtest to find consensus. That's what the community did for the 'living rulebook' games like Epic: Armageddon and Blood Bowl.

[DuskRaider]

18 minutes ago, apologist said:

I was in two minds about whether to use the 'laugh' or 'support' reaction – I suspect your experience is eerily familiar to many of us reading this!

Ugh, it really is. I keep investing in a game that I feel is fatally flawed and at times I absolutely loathe, but god do I love seeing all of it painted up and fielded on the table. I told myself after the last Mech purchase that I was going to stop, but then they announce plastic Mech Knights and I just know I’m going to buy a couple boxes. I still have a ton of unpainted stuff and little time to paint nowadays and I still do it lol. 

[apologist]

1 hour ago, DuskRaider said:

Ugh, it really is. I keep investing in a game that I feel is fatally flawed and at times I absolutely loathe, but god do I love seeing all of it painted up and fielded on the table. I told myself after the last Mech purchase that I was going to stop, but then they announce plastic Mech Knights and I just know I’m going to buy a couple boxes. I still have a ton of unpainted stuff and little time to paint nowadays and I still do it lol. 

 

Given that my gaming group received LI with indifference, I've tended to play elsewhere in one-off events... but it struck me that some retro-appeal might convince the gang to give the community SM2 a go. (Or Epic: Armageddon, best tabletop wargame GW ever made)

 

SM2 is close enough to LI to tempt people in: they've already got all the order markers and units they need, and the rules are effectively a streamlined ancestor of LI. It also has a much lower bar of entry in terms of getting to grips with it, and it addresses a lot of the common complaints of LI we've seen in this thread, like Titans being boring, close combat being too dominant, and the models overly granular.

[DuskRaider]

I really want this game to work, but at the end of the day I can always fall back on Titanicus and be perfectly happy with it, it’s still my favorite game to this day and while I was hoping LI would be similar, it’s really not. 
 

There’s been rumors abound that AT may see some sort of update and I sincerely hope they’re not true. I can’t imagine what the current Design Team would do to that game, it makes me shudder. 

[Deschenus Maximus]

I think I agree that the current ruleset is just unsalvageable.

 

• I don't know who came up with the melee rules but they should never find employment as a game dev ever again. 
• The hidden orders thing... feels kind of unnecessary - in the overwhelming majority of situations, its painfully obvious what any given unit will do. The few cases where you pull off a surprise are not worth the hassle.
• Overwatch is just terrible, and completely unnecessary in an alternating activation game.
• Tracking formation break points only exists to provide some sort of counterbalance to spamming multiple small Formations over fewer, larger ones. More structured army-building rules would make this moot.

That said, as someone who loooathes house rules, I think the least disruptive solution is to have tight, pre-agreed upon army building limitations with your opponent. 1 activation per 100 points BUT ALSO a limit on total number of models - because I can still spam mass amounts of infantry with just the activation limit (a maxed out Missile Launcher Tactical Detachment is 95 pts...). A limit on how many of a given model type you can take is also worth exploring (no one likes Ogryn/Missile Launcher spam).

[Deschenus Maximus]

43 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

There’s been rumors abound that AT may see some sort of update

 

First I hear of this. What's the source?

[DuskRaider]

18 minutes ago, Deschenus Maximus said:

 

First I hear of this. What's the source?

I’m pretty sure it was over on Reddit so I’m hoping it amounts to nothing. I saw it in passing on my lunch break last week and haven’t seen anything since. 

[Crablezworth]

5 hours ago, Deschenus Maximus said:

I think I agree that the current ruleset is just unsalvageable.

 

• I don't know who came up with the melee rules but they should never find employment as a game dev ever again. 
• The hidden orders thing... feels kind of unnecessary - in the overwhelming majority of situations, its painfully obvious what any given unit will do. The few cases where you pull off a surprise are not worth the hassle.
• Overwatch is just terrible, and completely unnecessary in an alternating activation game.
• Tracking formation break points only exists to provide some sort of counterbalance to spamming multiple small Formations over fewer, larger ones. More structured army-building rules would make this moot.

That said, as someone who loooathes house rules, I think the least disruptive solution is to have tight, pre-agreed upon army building limitations with your opponent. 1 activation per 100 points BUT ALSO a limit on total number of models - because I can still spam mass amounts of infantry with just the activation limit (a maxed out Missile Launcher Tactical Detachment is 95 pts...). A limit on how many of a given model type you can take is also worth exploring (no one likes Ogryn/Missile Launcher spam).

 

Ya close combat is weird in that so few rules even interact with it like other than reach and rend. The whole idea of blanket no saves was a huge mistake. 

 

That's a really good point on the hidden order thing, it does indeed feel like the orders revealed are rarely surprising. Especially charge order. 

 

Overwatch was a bridge too far, if it was going to exist it should have only been on first fire. It's existence with flyers also only conspires to mess with stuff like interceptor special rule. 

 

Tracking should be moot honestly, morale already has that weird inconsistency between combat and shooting, I don't think it's helped by the amount of work it takes to make break point function as it should. And in larger games its just not feasible to track. 

 

 

I get not liking house rules, but it seems like infilrtate at a bare minimum likely needs some kind agreement between players, even if its just a handshake agreement to avoid it, or replace it with something else like forward deployment or outflank. 

[Crablezworth]

On 3/17/2025 at 12:34 PM, Black Cohort said:

The more I have thought about LI rules, the more I am convinced the base rules are unsalvageable.  Simple tweaking around the edges can't paper over the fundamental problems with the rules.  I think this starts with no clear vision of what the rules are trying to do, this bleeds into things being weirdly detailed in some ways (we need how many different lascannon and autocannon profiles?) and very abstract in others (who cares what weapons you put on your Titans, they always cost the same even though some weapons are way, way better than others).  Weapon range and movement speed make no sense.  It feels like 0 testing was done for most of the game.

 

I think I agree on just about everything, but the sunk cost fallacy still makes me think something can be salvaged. I think its more about how much effort is worth putting in, and to your point, it is in a state where it likely needs a re-write, so in other words a lot of work to salvage entirely. 

 

That said, with clear intentions and a philosophy of changing as little as possible rules as written, a lot can be done with caps and terrain setup/scenario. And a clear statement of purpose, like "here's how I would fix li: I'd rebalance close combat and shooting, so that shooting was more prevalent than close combat". So maybe not "I'm gonna save LI and make it universally more enjoyable" but perhaps just "if you agree with the premise that LI's close combat is too prevalent/boring/long/tedious etc try this". That's sorta the best formulation I can think of at this point. 

 

On the purely table side, if an event advertised its tables as VERY sparse compared to the usual urban hell of 20-40 structures, and players knew ahead of time that was the sorta table they'd be fighting on, they could at least build to that "table meta" in mind. Scenario wise, if the event advertised the scenario scoring as end game as opposed to progressive/per turn would also surely at least factor in to how attendees made their lists/armies. If infiltrate simply wasn't possible in the scenario but was replaced by outflank/forward deployment there'd be a positive re-alignment in terms of stuff like drop pods actually having something to offer more units. Transports may even become more common than just cheap ifv's to cover all that open ground.

 

I still think things like titans/knights and hell even a lot of non-transport flyers are a bit of a headache no matter what. I actually like what some events of have done where they just flat out require everyone to take at least one titan or knight detachment. I also think a hard detachment cap is a good idea, though finding a good number at any given point level may not be simple, 14 at 2k sounds decent, I do think indexing it like 1 every 100pts doesn't really work that well as its likely too punitive at the low end and not very useful at the high end in terms of points levels. (1000k-3000k 10 activations seems to low, but 30 activations seems to high at 3k.)

 

 

[Crablezworth]

6 hours ago, apologist said:

 

Given that my gaming group received LI with indifference, I've tended to play elsewhere in one-off events... but it struck me that some retro-appeal might convince the gang to give the community SM2 a go. (Or Epic: Armageddon, best tabletop wargame GW ever made)

 

SM2 is close enough to LI to tempt people in: they've already got all the order markers and units they need, and the rules are effectively a streamlined ancestor of LI. It also has a much lower bar of entry in terms of getting to grips with it, and it addresses a lot of the common complaints of LI we've seen in this thread, like Titans being boring, close combat being too dominant, and the models overly granular.

 

The funny thing too about sm2 is, the suggested point level was a much more realistic/reasonable 1500pts. If gw marketing had just started there and had the boxed battlegroups/armies ready to go from the start I think there would have been more uptake, instead that 3000pts white dwarf report like impressed/scared off players in equal measure. 

 

You also realize they just bolted on modern mechanics to sm2, sm2 make more sense in terms of how its transport rules work and infantry not being all kenyan suicide bombers. Its scoring was better as well, was like end game mixed with sudden death conditions, still way better than progressive scoring's nba basketball on crack vibe. 

[Black Cohort]

My intent is to use LI models with other rulesets, but LI rules sucking, and some of the weirdness with some of the models has really hurt my motivation to paint stuff even for using with other rules.