Legions Imperialis - Incentives

[Crablezworth]

So we've had a long running thread on how to fix li, I though this thread would mostly just discuss the current incentives when it comes to army construction and activations. 

 

With an faq/errata nowhere in sight, my thoughts on this is it'd be a resource for anyone wanting to put on an event to help balance things in terms of if the event itself was going to set any limits. We've seen for example an event in the states cap activations/detachments at 14 for 2k. An australian event I believe attempted to limit spam by putting a hard cap on spamming the same unit over and over, I believe designed to limit spamming marine missile launchers. 

 

I didn't want this to be a long winded thing, I basically just wanted to carve out the core problems with the current incentives on army construction. 

 

Currently the game does not limit the amount of formations or detachments an army can contain, the only real requirements are the compulsory slots that need to be filled in any given formation. 

 

There are SOME incentives to expanding existing detachments before taking additional ones, in that most detachments except those in book 2, have some kind of point savings to taking additional models. The problem is, no matter how large a detachment becomes, they generally with few exceptions need to all target the same enemy detachment, things like split fire are largely only present on titans. There are certainly detachments that warrant taking additional models, but generally speaking that applies largely to smaller/cheaper detachments. 

 

A good example of where this starts to make little sense in terms of incentives are detachments of super heavy tanks. The solar aux super heavies can be taken in detachments of 1. There is a small point savings for taking additional super heavy in an existing detachment than taking a second super heavy as its own detachment, but honestly not enough to really warrant doing so, and the larger problem, there is basically no incentive to ever take say 6 super heavies in one detachment. 

 

This also largely applies to flyers, although there may be some merit in running more than one flyer in a detachment, often one is able to run 2-3 as their own detachments, and again all of this greatly benefits activation over saving a few points. 

 

 

The last game I played, both sides made a 1k list and then we both took an acastus knight and detachment of 3 armigers, for 1430pts. Somehow at that point level my army had 18 activations, not a complaint so much as an observation but just goes to show that without any limits the amount of activations can really get up there. 

 

 

Also last weekend hosted an exhibition game of sorts taking a look at the fan-made eldar rules for li. The eldar player basically just had a maxed out formation, which really tied his hands in terms of the activation game, having a 6 strong unit of fire prisms (tank hunters) and a 3 strong unit of eldar fighters. The problem was activation also sorta conspired against him and it was just not a fair fight, the flyers got out activated and taken down, the fire prisms managed to shoot down one flyer but still got lit up by two lightnings. The game's tit for tat brutality and flyers largely ignoring the board/topography/los really made for a brutal game. But my point largely was, the same list a bit re-tooled to align with current incentives would at least be less at risk of getting out activated. I think too this is where I take issue with some people sort of shrugging off these considerations with something like "I/we don't play competitive, we just play narrative or fluffy so anyone taking consideration of these things clearly just want to play competitively" and that sadly just isn't true here, these issues will conspire to ruin the best laid intentions whether or not the end goal is a competitive tournament or fluffy event/game. Alternating activation just doesn't run as smoothly at scale as turn-based does. This is also a problem for "mega battles" because you basically can't do anything simul to save time and the game really doesn't play well for speed at scale. But ya, whether the goal is telling a story or winning a trophy, neither benefits from a 2 turn game so its important to sorta heed these warnings in terms of controlling for activation. 

 

 

 

To tie it all off, basically I'm sayin before even getting into house rules or home brew faq's etc or nerfing infiltrate and so on, just controlling for activations is a huge consideration. The last point I'll make on that is making knights and titans their own factions in the latest book also really conspired to mess with the incentives on activations. And I don't mean titan and knight armies are gonna win or beat face, they're largely just going to annoy or muck up events and make for boring games (much in the same way at the other extreme that all or largely all infantry armies will no fun to play against). Before this, you'd at least only see titans in 30% allies slots, so the larger ones like warlord and warmasters were relegated to larger games and events. That's no longer the case, sadly now someone can rock up to a small event with like 3 titans and I just fundamentally think that's something that needs addressing for events. The activation disparity of having one side with like 3-4 or maybe 5 activations and the other side having like 15-30 just makes the whole thing largely fall apart. If I can get a small event going in the next few months, I definitely think it will have a cap on detachments, possibly some sort of restriction on formations and will likely just flat out say only solar aux/legions/mech/dark mech, no all titan/knight armies, if players want to run them they can run mech or dark mech and taken them that way. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 27 by Crablezworth

[Interrogator Stobz]

What about activating whole Formations instead of detachment?

And the Titan issue, make them have to use the maniple system instead of being alone... you can have only one, but all subsequent units have to attach as a maniple for activation purposes. , 

[apologist]

Working with what we have, I'd suggest that events stipulate either that:

• Players must bring treat all Detachments in at least two Formations as compulsory (i.e. all optional detachments became compulsory) to forcibly reduce the ability to min-max Formations.
• A hard cap on Formations: perhaps 1 per 1,000pts.
• Each Allied Formation must be paired with a Formation, and can cost only half what the Formation costs (to ensure the bulk of the army is taken from a single faction).
• I like @Interrogator Stobz' suggestion that all Detachments in a Formation activate at the same time, though given the number that could be, I'd want to think through the implications a bit more.

All are rather awkward cludges. The root cause of the problem is that the army building rules are flexible to a fault, with the restrictions largely meaningless.

 

A return to something like the rigid army card system of Space Marine 2nd edition would be fun (since the game is effectively the bastard offspring of SM2), but a huge amount of work.

 

You could do it with a new Detachment list; by replacing Core Detachments with Company Detachments, and Optional Detachments with Support Detachments. For example, you'd have large inflexible Company Detachments:

• Line Company – Twelve units of Tactical Legionaries, one Command stand.
  • Option: Seven Rhinos for Xpts.
• Tactical Company – Six units of Tactical Legionaries, four units of Plasma Support Legionaries, two units of Assault Legionaries, one Command stand.
  • Option: Six Rhinos for Xpts.
  • Option: exchange four units of Plasma Support Legionaries for four units of Missile Support Legionaries [+Xpts]
• Predator Company – Nine Predators, one Command Predator
  • Option: [weapon choices].
• etc.

... and 0–3 smaller Support Detachments for each Company Detachment:

• Assault Squad – Four units of Assault Legionaries.
• Plasma Support Squad – Four units of Plasma Support Legionaries
  • Option: two Rhinos for Xpts.
• Missile Support Squad – Four units of Missile Support Legionaries
  • Option: two Rhinos for Xpts.
• etc.

... and 0–1 Special Detachment for each Company Detachment.

• Damocles Command Rhino
• etc.

These Support and Special Detachments would activate at the same time as the Company Detachment, meaning that activation advantage is partly balanced by you having access to fewer Support and Special units, which can have different order to the Company. 

 

But that's a ground-up revision to the way army building works, and really fundamentally changes the game.

Edited January 28 by apologist

[DuskRaider]

The only thing I would be wary of is setting the game up for Alpha Strike BS like we’ve seen in 40K. 
 

I don't think the problem lies with alternating activations in and of itself, but the fact that players have the ability to min max the hell out of the system to gain access to more activations. 
 

Alternative options have been suggested here already and I do like the idea of forcing the player to take X amount of bases in a detachment in order to either: 1) field it on the table, or 2) have access to Optional detachments. A hard cap on the amount of Formations you can take would also work. 
 

Another idea would be to have a random activation mechanic. It would involve using cards, but having cards representing each players’ detachments shuffled into a pile and randomly drawn would help randomize the experience and prevent some of the chicanery abound currently. We used to do this for Rackham’s Confrontation and while that game is very different in literally every way, it may mitigate some of the issues. 

[apologist]

1 hour ago, DuskRaider said:

Another idea would be to have a random activation mechanic. It would involve using cards, but having cards representing each players’ detachments shuffled into a pile and randomly drawn would help randomize the experience and prevent some of the chicanery abound currently. We used to do this for Rackham’s Confrontation and while that game is very different in literally every way, it may mitigate some of the issues. 

 

The Gates of Antares/Bolt Action mechanic is a favourite of mine – both players put one coloured die for each of their units in the same bag. The dice are then drawn bling, one by one, and if your colour die is drawn, you get to activate a unit. You then draw the next die from the bag and repeat until the bag is empty.

 

This is a little different from alternating activations, and create fun 'runs' as you get to string three or four activations in a row if you're lucky with the dice... though of course that then means it becomes increasingly likely that your opponent will get to do a similar thing!

 

It helps to ameliorate activation advantage because the player with more activations is more likely to get their dice drawn early (as they have more in the bag), which means they can't rely on having a string of unopposed activations at the end of each turn.

[DuskRaider]

39 minutes ago, apologist said:

 

The Gates of Antares/Bolt Action mechanic is a favourite of mine – both players put one coloured die for each of their units in the same bag. The dice are then drawn bling, one by one, and if your colour die is drawn, you get to activate a unit. You then draw the next die from the bag and repeat until the bag is empty.

 

This is a little different from alternating activations, and create fun 'runs' as you get to string three or four activations in a row if you're lucky with the dice... though of course that then means it becomes increasingly likely that your opponent will get to do a similar thing!

 

It helps to ameliorate activation advantage because the player with more activations is more likely to get their dice drawn early (as they have more in the bag), which means they can't rely on having a string of unopposed activations at the end of each turn.

That actually sounds like a lot of fun. It also throws a wrench in a lot of pre-planning and I like that. 

[Cleon]

Part of the problem for alternate activations is the points and power disparity between activations. - Flames of war had this issue with it's reserves system (one off for each one on) in its third edition and changed it to points for it's fourth edition.

 

If we did the same, I'd suggest giving each player one activation per x points of the battle scale (maybe one per 400?) and it's then up to them to put (if it was per 400) between 300 and 500 points of detachments in each 'activation' bucket. - possibly needs some thinking for how it handles single very expensive detachments (Titans), but in effect at 2000 points you'd get 5 activations, pre set at the beginning of the game to be relatively even, but they could get wonky as you take casualties.

[Crablezworth]

11 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

What about activating whole Formations instead of detachment?

And the Titan issue, make them have to use the maniple system instead of being alone... you can have only one, but all subsequent units have to attach as a maniple for activation purposes. , 

 

That's not viable though, not only because the number of detachments in a formation can be high but, some may be in reserve like deepstrike or outflank, but more importantly, the formation might be all over the place. That also doesn't really solve activation disparity, it more just begs the question why not just do turn based at that point? 

[Crablezworth]

5 hours ago, apologist said:

Working with what we have, I'd suggest that events stipulate either that:

• Players must bring treat all Detachments in at least two Formations as compulsory (i.e. all optional detachments became compulsory) to forcibly reduce the ability to min-max Formations.
• A hard cap on Formations: perhaps 1 per 1,000pts.
• Each Allied Formation must be paired with a Formation, and can cost only half what the Formation costs (to ensure the bulk of the army is taken from a single faction).
• I like @Interrogator Stobz' suggestion that all Detachments in a Formation activate at the same time, though given the number that could be, I'd want to think through the implications a bit more.

All are rather awkward cludges. The root cause of the problem is that the army building rules are flexible to a fault, with the restrictions largely meaningless.

 

 

 

I think the only thing to contain with formations is spamming ones that are just too good or allow access to strong detachments over and over or don't really have any kind of tax in terms of compulsory slots. Examples would be spamming pioneer companies, or for example the mech formation that can be literally just 3 separate karacnos. 

 

I totally agree the root cause is the army building rules being largely window dressing. 

 

I'd honestly say an foc but unfortunately a lot of special rules are tied up in formations. I just wish there was a way to make the game more combined arms instead of the current, spam as many cheap activations as possible. 

[Crablezworth]

4 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

The only thing I would be wary of is setting the game up for Alpha Strike BS like we’ve seen in 40K. 
 

I don't think the problem lies with alternating activations in and of itself, but the fact that players have the ability to min max the hell out of the system to gain access to more activations. 
 

Alternative options have been suggested here already and I do like the idea of forcing the player to take X amount of bases in a detachment in order to either: 1) field it on the table, or 2) have access to Optional detachments. A hard cap on the amount of Formations you can take would also work. 
 

Another idea would be to have a random activation mechanic. It would involve using cards, but having cards representing each players’ detachments shuffled into a pile and randomly drawn would help randomize the experience and prevent some of the chicanery abound currently. We used to do this for Rackham’s Confrontation and while that game is very different in literally every way, it may mitigate some of the issues. 

 

Well I'd agree that its not just alternating, but also tempo and expectations. End game scoring, reserves, possibly even forced reserves, all certainly help the game be better and hopefully further away from alpha strike 40k, but currently it absolutely can be that with how inexpensive pods are and free access to limitless infiltrate. 

 

Agreed that the minx max certainly doesn't help alternating, but the fact of activation disparity is there even in the most balanced game if its the one factor not accounted for. 

 

 

I'd be de down for more rigidity in army construction if it lead to more varied/realistic armies. It's a side note but I also think part of making that possible is re-adjusting detachment sizes for legion and aux now that we've seen the msu city that is mech, (in terms of detachments of 1-2 models being quite prevalent, esp karacnos). 

 

Random activation I don't think would work well, esp at scale, and not a big fan of cards imo. 

 

 

 

[Crablezworth]

2 hours ago, apologist said:

 

The Gates of Antares/Bolt Action mechanic is a favourite of mine – both players put one coloured die for each of their units in the same bag. The dice are then drawn bling, one by one, and if your colour die is drawn, you get to activate a unit. You then draw the next die from the bag and repeat until the bag is empty.

 

This is a little different from alternating activations, and create fun 'runs' as you get to string three or four activations in a row if you're lucky with the dice... though of course that then means it becomes increasingly likely that your opponent will get to do a similar thing!

 

It helps to ameliorate activation advantage because the player with more activations is more likely to get their dice drawn early (as they have more in the bag), which means they can't rely on having a string of unopposed activations at the end of each turn.

 

I think it'd be too difficult to do at scale. I'd almost prefer the was full spectrum dominance does it where both sides have a pool of dice they "spend" over the course of the turn. 

 

 

[Crablezworth]

2 hours ago, Cleon said:

Part of the problem for alternate activations is the points and power disparity between activations.

 

Yeah and it can be pretty staggering, from like a single model activating to a 6 strong detachment of super heavies or a warmaster titan, and its honestly those that seem like a bigger liability to enjoyment at times, we found that first time only one side had a warlord at 2k, warlord just conspired to make it a shorter game and not because it performed well, it just meant such a big activation disparity that its side got swamped. 

 

 

I used to think approximately 1 activation per 100pts, but I now thing much closer to like 150-200pts per activation. Hearing about the us event where everyone's games got to turn 5 on account of capping at 14 activations at 2k, I still think that sounds so much better than the other events where the game just grinds down and chokes itself and no one gets past turn 2-3.  

 

 

I do wonder about the viability of somewhat arbitrary requirements, like and event requiring all non-tarantula/rapier infantry to purchase and start the game in transports. But I fear without aurox being out that would be really unfortunate for solar aux and not as much of an issue for marines. I guess currently there just isn't a huge incentive for taking transports and that's unfortunate. 

 

 

Edited January 28 by Crablezworth

[Interrogator Stobz]

1 hour ago, Crablezworth said:

 

That's not viable though, not only because the number of detachments in a formation can be high but, some may be in reserve like deepstrike or outflank, but more importantly, the formation might be all over the place. That also doesn't really solve activation disparity, it more just begs the question why not just do turn based at that point? 

Yeah, I was kind of going in the other direction to the thinking of limiting Formations by some others here. 

It's been a few months now since my last game, but we played 3-6 Formations each, so more than some by the sounds of it.

 

I was thinking/spitballing that having the detachments all over the place can be good or bad, that's up to the player. But it does mean that the Command Squad for each Formation can be more important, they could actually lead their Formations, and maybe get minor buffs depending on their type. A bit like AT and orders. And if one is killed that could affect how the whole formation is activated.

 

But, if the norm outside my small group is to limit Formations then my solution won't work. Too much Alpha Strike potential. 

 

I do love the dice in a bag option too, that sounds fantastically chaotic. Forces players to live in the now.

 

[Crablezworth]

On 1/28/2025 at 1:57 PM, Interrogator Stobz said:

Yeah, I was kind of going in the other direction to the thinking of limiting Formations by some others here. 

It's been a few months now since my last game, but we played 3-6 Formations each, so more than some by the sounds of it.

 

 

How many points 3k? 

 

On 1/28/2025 at 1:57 PM, Interrogator Stobz said:

I was thinking/spitballing that having the detachments all over the place can be good or bad, that's up to the player. But it does mean that the Command Squad for each Formation can be more important, they could actually lead their Formations, and maybe get minor buffs depending on their type. A bit like AT and orders. And if one is killed that could affect how the whole formation is activated.

 

 

I think how it works now is ok, some things need more help for hq's than others, most of the time an hq/commander is being used to flip an order, like make something charge that normally wouldn't be able to in x situation, and that seems to work ok. I wish one could buff the command radius of more of them by paying x points. But overall we've been playing that each hq/commander is worth 1vp if killed and that has made for some interesting narrative stuff in a game that can be a bit dry. Still, fromations are a bit all over the map, some have an hq tax, some its optional, some have none, its very odd. I think the only limitations that likely need to happen at a formation level might be to avoid spamming formations that give a lot of buffs for no real points, like pioneer company or the new crazy dark mech one full of harpax that infiltrate and can lock down scale 2 units in cc. Even limiting 0-1 isn't much of a limit without capping detachments or like that australian event did with capping like max 16 of any one unit type. 

 

 

On 1/28/2025 at 1:57 PM, Interrogator Stobz said:

But, if the norm outside my small group is to limit Formations then my solution won't work. Too much Alpha Strike potential. 

 

I do love the dice in a bag option too, that sounds fantastically chaotic. Forces players to live in the now.

 

 

I don't think dice in a bag would be an easy sell. On the topic of alpha strike, that's also something a detachment cap wouldn't really fix on its own. Especially if an army is built around that largely like infiltrate heavy armies or drop armies etc. I also think skew is a problem in general, playing an army that wants the game over by turn 2 doesn't seem fun, I like pods but they can be oppressive for inexpensive they are. 

 

I think the goal should be to make the expectation to be play 5 turns. We've dabbled with forcing 1/3 of detachments into reserve in larger games and that helped quite a bit. It's just unfortunate that outside of outflank/deepstrike/flyers there isn't a core reserve rule, and that's also I think a bigger deal than some realize. Even in smaller games, things like outflank and deepstrike have actually been pretty fun and a much needed mechanic to break up the usual 2 lines clashing vibe most games have had. With well placed terrain, reserves help things seem less telegraphed, and also keep things interesting even if one player is beginning to be on the back foot. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Fair points brother... I l hope we get a LI 2nd Edition which addresses some or all of the issues.

I'm dreaming tho.

[Crablezworth]

So australian event in queensland, 2 days/4 rounds posted/revised some of their events format/restrictions. 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegionsImperialis/comments/1ih4i57/queensland_au_state_competition_updated_rules/

 

"max 1 warmaster"

 

"max 10 aircraft"

 

"no more than 32 models of any 1 variant excluding tactical legionaires with bolters, basic auxiliaries and tech-thralls"

 

"max 900 points of infiltrating units" 

 

missions tba, point level 2600 up from 2400 I believe from their last event. 

 

 

I asked whether they had considered restricting activations/detachments and I believe they said they had/its something they're considering. They've changed some of these restrictions slightly from the first time the event was posted, namely infiltrate they had changed to be 16 inches and further with space wolves as a round about way of preventing most first turn charges from infiltrate. I guess they got pushback so that has since been changed to capping infiltrators at 900pts of the overall list. 

 

 

They restricted warmaster to max 1 because someone literally had 2 last time at 2400pts because its legal on account of book 4 now. (ugh) 

 

The stated reason for having some kind of cap/change to infiltrate was on account of last time, alpha legion and raven guard and pioneer companies dominated (in their words). 

 

I don't think that is particularly shocking, infiltrate has been problem number one for a faq even more than quake since day one. 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, thought I'd post that in reference to incentives and that is how this even is trying to shift things. In the absence of a faq I think this is a pretty good way to go about it, I still feel like they should address activation caps/disparity before any of the other restriction but I understand why those exist. 

 

The problem of multiple warmasters i totally get dealing with, but I honestly at this point would just ban titans and knights as primary factions. Either go mech or take 30% allies. Hell I still think it'd be healthier for the game just to mandate or ban titans. Like everyone must take 1-2 or nobody gets any. I feel the same way about planes and largely flyer based armies, its just too much skew, its not fun. I don't think its purely balance in that its no a fear they'll steamroll, like with titan armies, its more a fear that they're too much of a liability to the enjoyment of the actual game, either rendering it too short or boring or both. Flyer in my mind are largely like titans and knights, either make us take a few or don't have more than a few 1-3 maybe. I think im fine with getting my butt kicked but my new standard is that's only acceptable over 5 turns, like the expectation from me should be to keep playing short of being wiped, and same for my opponent until they wipe me or vice versa. Sadly what we get are like 2 turn games that just feel like a 90 minute movie forced into an incomprehensible 25 minute acid trip/fever dream of combat that makes no sense and isn't even worthy of reflection, only lament lol. 

 

I don't want to seem like im throwing shade on the event, i totally get trying to have some structure/limits. But I almost feel like its too difficult/late because everyone is so used to the game being, well, terrible, but also don't want any of their purchases being invalidated.  The limit of 32 doesn't seem like much of a limit either, I'm sure it will limit things like marine missile launchers and mechanicum myrmidons with cbeamers but even then, 32 isn't really a huge cap, it was 16 before. If you though marine ml launchers were scary, try facing 32 cbeam shots, -2 ap makes about as big a joke of armour as combat does. 

 

Same time I totally get the need to cap problem units/spam given how permissive army construction is, I still feel like all of this comes secondary/after figuring out a detachment/activation cap for the point level (2600). I also think at that game size/level, its maybe not just about a cap in terms of list, even just a cap of how much can be deployed/forced reserves could hep smooth things out. There's also considerations like changing deployment from tit for tat formation to all at once to save time. 

 

I think fundamentally I'd want armies to A not be titan/knight centric without outright banning either, I'd say the same with flyers. But I'd want the format to encourage/require armies to have some kind of variance/diversity/combines arms vibe. I believe the event in the states that capped activations at 14 at 2k, I could be mistaken but I think it also required everyone to take at least one titan/knight or something along those lines. I don't know what the magic formula there would be but I do think it represents sort of a wish for the old foc's/armies that perhaps despite someone best efforts sill resembled armies. I remember a time in 40k, sorta 6-7 where every army was largely mechanized, but the end result was for a while, armies looked like armies. But part of that was the incentives aligned to make mechanized make sense game wise. LI will struggle to have that, or to deal with the infantry problem, because infantry in li are meth kenyans that are so fast they've moved beyond the need for mechanized transportation. So some sort of requirement there might need to happen. Or a shift in incentives like tallarn's deadly fog rule tried to do to get infantry to buy transports or stay inside. 

 

The pics from the last even in australia the armies at least all looked very nicely painted, excited to see pictures of this event as well. 

 

 

 

 

[DuskRaider]

Knights and Titans need a complete rework, as I’ve said many times before. Knights should be more in line with how they play in Titanicus in quantity, as I don’t see them as particularly game breaking in LI and are, in fact, pretty weak overall. 
 

The same can be said for Titans except for perhaps the Warmaster. The whole army is totally unbalanced and poorly thought out. I do agree that Titans shouldn’t be a faction on its own if they were properly written to be as powerful as they are in AT / lore, which they should be. 

I saw the post on FB / Reddit for the Aussie tournament and generally agree with their changes, it’s just a bit ridiculous that TOs have to make rules modifications that should have been written in the rules from the start. Movement will always be an issue as say, but to fix it to how it should be would basically require a complete rework of the basic rules and that’s just too much for a weekend tournament. 
 

I sure hope GW is paying attention to all of this and doesn’t have its head so far up its ass that it still feels they’ve written the best rules for the game as we’ve seen with HHv2.0. 

[Mandragola]

Personally I think LI needs a new edition to try and fix the really fundamental issues with gameplay that it currently has.

 

There are obviously far too many activations right now and it's too easy to have very cheap detachments delay things. The movement phase can be a it of a trainwreck with lots of small detachments running around, triggering overwatches and so on. It just takes forever and unfortunately the system incentivises tactics that slow the game down.

 

I'd go for a system based around Formations activating instead of detachments so that each player had a handful of activations, rather than dozens of them. I'd also probably put in some kind of points cost for each Formation, to give people a reason not to spam them.

 

It's really tough though while the units themselves, and particularly the infantry vs vehicles situation, is such a mess. It really shouldn't be viable to send human waves running across the board - least of all at epic scale - yet here we are. There's a lot to do.

[Crablezworth]

On 2/5/2025 at 8:31 AM, DuskRaider said:

Knights and Titans need a complete rework, as I’ve said many times before. Knights should be more in line with how they play in Titanicus in quantity, as I don’t see them as particularly game breaking in LI and are, in fact, pretty weak overall. 
 

The same can be said for Titans except for perhaps the Warmaster. The whole army is totally unbalanced and poorly thought out. I do agree that Titans shouldn’t be a faction on its own if they were properly written to be as powerful as they are in AT / lore, which they should be. 

 

 

I keep thinking there are obvious things that could be done to improve them. For starters I think all titans should be able to forego shooting a weapon to get a repair dice, like auto simulacra but takes effect immediately. If they're not going to cost the weapons, I think any fan made attempt just won't work because the titans as is are considered largely not worth it/over costed with the exception of the 2 largest ones. But a fan made weapons list could literally just change nothing to existing weapons but perhaps give many a secondary fire mode. That'd be a round about way of fixing some of the plasma weapons, secondary fire stat that is more buffed but has like a gets hot mechanic. It'd help bring back some fun/templates/chance of hurting oneself to the whole thing. I'd also just flat out let titans stomp on and remove like at minimum infantry bases in open terrain. I think a lot could be done by opening up who can charge what based on scale. If they were harder to charge with cheap units, then the need for specialized/expensive firepower or units kitted out to fight cc with titans like say lancers. 

 

On 2/5/2025 at 8:31 AM, DuskRaider said:

I saw the post on FB / Reddit for the Aussie tournament and generally agree with their changes, it’s just a bit ridiculous that TOs have to make rules modifications that should have been written in the rules from the start. Movement will always be an issue as say, but to fix it to how it should be would basically require a complete rework of the basic rules and that’s just too much for a weekend tournament. 
 

I sure hope GW is paying attention to all of this and doesn’t have its head so far up its ass that it still feels they’ve written the best rules for the game as we’ve seen with HHv2.0. 

 

It still feels to me like it will be an infantry s-show. I like their original limit on infiltrate, pushing it back 16-20 inches, so in a round about way basically denying it turn 1 charges. But now its been changed to max 900pts can infiltrate, well, that really solves very little, i get that that is 900 out of 2600, but the harpax formation that can lock down scale 2 or pioneer company or alpha legion or raven guard will still largely own the day imo. 

 

It just feels like way too much of the game going to close combat is not enjoyable. The meta feels way too much like a total war game where you're getting a few shots off with a catapult or trebuchet only to be overrun by infantry. One would figure shooting would be the majority of how units die at this scale but also given that its a modern game not like a medieval or fantasy game. I'm already biased in that, that was my expectation and still is, but also, even if I could live with cc at the current levels, resolving it is so much more of a time bleed than resolving shooting. And that's honestly what I think has driven off a lot of players, it feels like this portion of the game was cooked up by a high school math teacher with a sadistic streak for homework. I think gw may be forced to pay attention in that I don't think li is performing super well outside of a few pockets, here the shelves are largely full of it because no store will bother with having small scale terrain, but also, its a terrible value at 63$ per box. The perceived value just largely isn't there and even the people that do buy it often find it a pain to build and just sell it off. If gw is paying attention, they don't just need a faq/errata/new edition they need to realize people do the math on the boxes and quickly realized they're priced out with or without a local community who even plays it. If there is a new edition, it really needs to embrace starting at lower point levels and a lot more low level scenarios. If they were smart too they'd pivot to like starting on  a 2x3 because that's what one box of tiles builds I think. 

[Crablezworth]

8 hours ago, Mandragola said:

Personally I think LI needs a new edition to try and fix the really fundamental issues with gameplay that it currently has.

 

 

I hope it doesn't come to that, the books have already largely lost value in that they get no support and cost so much. If it does comes to that instead of a faq it will be difficult to think the new edition will be more supported/better than the last. I also think a new edition won't do any good if it's under the same ethos of combat having the same level of prevalence and the trends we've seen along the no saves in combat (kill team) and largely not costing weapon options (10th ed 40k). If they keep along those lines I can't even see 2nd ed being an improvement. 

8 hours ago, Mandragola said:

There are obviously far too many activations right now and it's too easy to have very cheap detachments delay things. The movement phase can be a it of a trainwreck with lots of small detachments running around, triggering overwatches and so on. It just takes forever and unfortunately the system incentivises tactics that slow the game down.

 

 

100% agree, the allowance of overwatch on advance and the fact that basically no weapons benefit in range or increased firepower from being on first fire or just not moving, it creates this endless movement phase where you forget you're not in the combat phase on account of just how much is overwatching. Games with a big central scrum and perhaps not enough los blocking just become such a grinding cluster f. 

8 hours ago, Mandragola said:

I'd go for a system based around Formations activating instead of detachments so that each player had a handful of activations, rather than dozens of them. I'd also probably put in some kind of points cost for each Formation, to give people a reason not to spam them.

 

I hate formations tbh, at least the way they've been done/applied. My concern with activating by formation is, if the formation isn't required to keep coherency, it just seems like a nightmare at scale. Dropzone commander had that problem in common, lists with sub lists with lists of what is inside what transport inside what transport and it just felt like russian nesting doll mixed with like way too much to track. It's already a bit of a nightmare with transports, some people are kind enough to put a model on the transport to indicate whats inside/that its occupied but its not even a rules requirement.

 

If more was required of formations, like most or all of it being compulsory it might work. But they'd also have to change stuff like formations handing out free buffs/rules. Should be more like opportunity to purchase infiltrate/deepstrike/outflank/forward deplyoment than just giving it away. Also stuff like no brainer buffs like the artillery company gets for no points and only a small tax of 1 hq. Also the dark mech's weird placeholder rule that does different things depending on the formation, all that stuff would need ironing out. I do think the upside of having to fill more of a formation is would also open up like only deploying one formation and forcing another into reserve, part of the problem is the game choking on too many things too soon, so if it was more of a marathon and just a 2 turn bloodbath it'd be more interesting. I still don't know how to work tracking all the formation stuff without proximity being part of it, but that also is another unfun part of he current game, tracking break points. I still just think an foc would be fine, because it could change indexed to point level.

 

8 hours ago, Mandragola said:

It's really tough though while the units themselves, and particularly the infantry vs vehicles situation, is such a mess. It really shouldn't be viable to send human waves running across the board - least of all at epic scale - yet here we are. There's a lot to do.

 

 

That's my issues as well, it doesn't even track with video games like say battlefield, its like, yes, someone could c4 your tank or maybe send a rocket at it, but most infantry are kitted to fight other infantry and there is a cost to moving in the open and that's easily getting cut down because, again, you're infantry moving from cover to cover. All the coolness of infantry occupying a structure disappears when they somehow charge 10-14 inches out of it at a detachment of heavy tanks. Armigers getting beat up by ogryns. Its actually insane how detailed the combat rules are contextually for something that makes use of so few of the rules and stats. Like it still amazes me how scale only factors in for locking detachments in combat and way too much leaning on the really abstract caf, when scale is honestly a way bigger factor at the extremes. Like titans should just be scooping infantry instead of having shin kicking competitions. But totally agree at epic scale, what they've chosen to focus on just feels so "off" from what it should be. 

Edited February 6 by Crablezworth

[DuskRaider]

A FAQ / Errata isn’t going to fix the myriad of problems that we run into when playing this game. It would require an entire rewrite, which I believe GW has no interest in doing only one year into it. 
 

At this point we are stuck with what we have and we have to make the best of it. I think making some changes to the system as the Aussie tournament has done are within an acceptable limit to where it doesn’t require a complete overhaul and won’t get too much pushback, but I’m sure even then there will be people that will naysay any changes to the official game, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will mainly be those who WAAC their way through these games. 
 

I really don’t know how to fix the disparity between Titan Formations and other factions. I guess the same can be said about Knights as well, but the problem is much worse with Titans. Knights can be fixed much easier with point reductions and making Banners larger, even if by 2 Knights. Even a point reduction for Titans won’t fix the myriad of issues they currently have. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Give titans and Knights templates again. If a super heavy solar tank can wield a flamer template, then so can the big walkers. As well as 3" and 5" blasts.

[Crablezworth]

9 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

A FAQ / Errata isn’t going to fix the myriad of problems that we run into when playing this game. It would require an entire rewrite, which I believe GW has no interest in doing only one year into it. 

 

Well faq or no faq, I do actually think the aussie event is on to something with basically like bullet point level changes. That's what I've tried to do with various scenarios I've whipped up is try to change like 3-5 key things and see what happens. There is clear consensus when a rule just flat out doesn't work like everyone agrees quake is incomplete/objectively needs a fix. Infantry don't need to move triple etc. The latter is more of an errata/quality of life thing. I agree though at this point a faq doesn't seem likely. 

 

9 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

At this point we are stuck with what we have and we have to make the best of it. I think making some changes to the system as the Aussie tournament has done are within an acceptable limit to where it doesn’t require a complete overhaul and won’t get too much pushback, but I’m sure even then there will be people that will naysay any changes to the official game, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will mainly be those who WAAC their way through these games. 

 

Well their changes won't change waac, like the core of this thread, incentives, they haven't done much there. Again not to seem like im going after that event, just using it as a fresh example. but all its really done is not allow one to take 2 warmasters, common sense but like, so would be just not allowing titans as a faction, max 10 aircraft, that's still probably like 800-1000pts of aircraft, I actually agree with capping aircraft but like with "max 32" of any one unit variant, its not really feeling like much of a cap. And finally, the max 900 pts of infiltrate doesn't feel like it caps anything, i can get 5 min sized pioneer companies at 900 pts, comprising 10 detachments of infiltrating tarantulas, for a total of 80 tarantulas, that's not all though, there's another 5 detachments of veletarii. 

 

I guess my point is I like the straight up bullet point changes as they're direct and up front and fairly easy to take in, I just think without a clear statement of intent for the event or for each change limit I don't really even get the point. Example, when they had initially changed infiltrate to not be capped but actually limited to 16/20 inches (20 for space wolves) so to in a round about way limit/say no to first turn charges from infiltrators, its still doesn't change the fact that in all likelihood one isn't so much concerned with hyper aggressive turn one charges, if the scenarios are still stuck with progressive scoring, they're more than likely just using infiltrators to sit on objectives. 

 

Like I think I'd just flat out go a different way and make my eternal hatred for infiltrate known as I really do think its like enemy number one for enjoyment of the game for all parties, competitive or casual/fluffy. 

9 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I really don’t know how to fix the disparity between Titan Formations and other factions. I guess the same can be said about Knights as well, but the problem is much worse with Titans. Knights can be fixed much easier with point reductions and making Banners larger, even if by 2 Knights. Even a point reduction for Titans won’t fix the myriad of issues they currently have. 

 

Well again gw just declaring them a faction on their own and doing like no extra new work, just basically re-printing the rulebook and whipping up some formations that don't really do anything. I just tell people to play mechanicum as list wise they can still get knights and titans in, just not all at once. 

 

Knights could use some work for sure, armigers/moirax need their scales adjusted, I'd say the same for titans as well. Also scale should mean a hell of a lot more than locking things in combat. Specifically for knights, I think more stuff need something similar to reach, Knights also should just honestly mostly have splitfire or ability to get it on like first fire, they don't rock enough firepower to cost what they do largely. 

[Crablezworth]

4 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Give titans and Knights templates again. If a super heavy solar tank can wield a flamer template, then so can the big walkers. As well as 3" and 5" blasts.

 

Agreed, one of my biggest pet peeves is because of the lack of templates, so many detachments tend to clump up in very silly looking ways, I feel like if there were a lot more templates in the games you'd at least see some detachments spread out a bit. It's also another issue with artillery, where in other games they're templates so there largely be a reason to spread out, basilisks etc not being blast means there's like no point in spreading out, which is unfortunate. I think re-writing titans might be too much for a fan-made thing but I do think writing a bunch of extra secondary fire modes for titans and knight weapons might be something worthwhile, esp for titans. Adding like a secondary fire mode to plasma with a sort of gets hot mechanic that adds like a template would be step in the right direction. 

[Hallas]

Sadly, or maybe not so, I had more time to read the rules than play the game.

 

The game is fun as long as someone does not try to optimize damage output. It has problems even it friendly setting, but those can be fixed by quality of life rule changes. My first complaint was about unreadable data sheets so I've created targeting cards to remove the mind exercises during firing.

 

As reported by more experienced players, close combat and overwatch (needed to defend against charge) are major problems. To make things worse, models are priced based on their ranged dice output and armour save, ignoring possible close combat damage output. For example, when looking at close combat, the dreaded Missile Launchers Support model cost 9 points and probably four of them obliterate Kratos costing 150 points (I would have to calculate probabilities to have the exact numbers).

 

So let's look at a targeting card of a Kratos with best anti-infantry setting possible: 6 front arc dice from point defence bolters. Currently, those translate to expected number of 1.33 charging infantry models killed during overwatch when no additional rules are in place. But certainly there are some additional rules like form HQ detachments, so there will be less than 1.33 kills during overwatch. Roughly speaking again, 6 Missile Launchers Support models would obliterate such Kratos. 54 points vs. 150 points.

 

To kill two birds with one stone: that is remove overwatch and mitigate infantry overpower I would change some stuff.

 

1. CAF0 or less means a unit cannot charge and then set this to all units we do not want to do such things. We have got rid of charging transports.

2. Some limitation to what can be charged. I think charge in a straight line is a solution here. It limits the possibility to go around to rear arc but still in urban environment, if tanks are between buildings,

the infantry would be able to charge through the buildings and make some kills.

3. Point Defence weapons always can fire in First Fire Stage. That actually moves overwatch to First Fire Stage but makes movement phase dedicated to actual movement.

4. Point Defence weapons always hit in First Fire Stage when targeting a model engaged with the firing detachment.

5. Give a bonus to AP to Point Defence weapons when firing to detachment which charged at the firing detachment. This needs some testing to get the number right but even upgrading AP by 1 would make 2 dice from bolter to expect nearly 1.66 models killed.

 

Sadly, this is only viable solution on hose environment and requires more changes something in Skyfire and Flying rules...

... LI rules are bad.