Hopes for the new legions imperialis book

[Crablezworth]

So I was expecting we would have heard a release date for the new book/card decks but so far nothing.

 

Perhaps there are more new units contained in it than just the marine ones previewed so far. There was a lot of concern that with it being a compendium it signaled some dire possibilities for legions imperials as the compendiums in AT heralded the end of releases, with the exception of the dark mech stalkers getting terminals there haven't been any AT releases since. The LI expansion books and cards have been pulled from the store, probably good move and a sign that the new book/cards are imminent. 

 

Other than point adjustments, what are players hoping for in the new book?

 

 

I'm hoping somehow there may be some sort of limit on detachments/formations/activations in addition to point changes. The far/errata was most welcome and made some good changes to infantry march speed and infiltrate no longer allowing charges. I still feel like infiltrate still needs a cap, its handed out too easily and its still possible for entire armies to infiltrate, which isn't just obnoxious as you get up in point size but also still conspires to mess with scenarios/missions too much esp for fluffy/narrative stuff. I doubt they'd ever do it but I would really love if all 3 main factions could get access to drills like they could in hh1, would also really like mechanicum to have access to tarantulas/avengers/lightnings again like in hh1. I doubt we'll see that in the new book but dare to dream. I'd also greatly welcome more scenarios like the bridge mission from book 3 with end game scoring. 

 

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Good points Brother. 

Shame the new BnC layout makes it so difficult to get around or I'd have found this sooner.

 

One can only hope, as a Compendium, that those book contains all current and all planned units. I doubt that of course, and we'll be buying another string of books over the next few years before the next Compendium .

 

I certainly don't worry about any rules being terrible anymore, it's the business norm for GW so they have excuses to upgrade editions. I just house rule anything that they've done poorly and keep throwing dice.

[Crablezworth]

1 hour ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Good points Brother. 

Shame the new BnC layout makes it so difficult to get around or I'd have found this sooner.

 

One can only hope, as a Compendium, that those book contains all current and all planned units. I doubt that of course, and we'll be buying another string of books over the next few years before the next Compendium .

 

I certainly don't worry about any rules being terrible anymore, it's the business norm for GW so they have excuses to upgrade editions. I just house rule anything that they've done poorly and keep throwing dice.

 

Yeah I feel like taking the legions imperialis name from the forum and making it a generic forum for small scale heresy makes it worse for at and li players to find it. There's a chance there are some new units in it yet previewed, so perhaps hopefully it will be a while yet before they start adding more books. From my last rough count I thought marines only had about 36 unit types and 34 for aux, so perhaps there is more yet within the book. 

 

"The Legiones Astartes card pack contains 47 datasheet cards including Detachment upgrades, and 17 Formation cards. The Solar Auxilia card pack contains 40 datasheet cards including Detachment upgrades, and 16 Formations. The Mechanicum card pack contains 39 datasheet cards including Detachment upgrades, and 27 Formation cards."

 

So they've finally announced when it will release https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/ceirqemh/sunday-preview-miao-ying-raises-a-storm-in-the-old-world/

 

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Lolz, I just started spending my hobby money on 28mm Reaver weapons, now I'll have to slow that down to get this book. I never buy the cards, why double up on things that will change soon enough  I'll just photograph and print from the book.

[Pacific81]

As someone who has stopped playing Legions, I selfishly hope they keep going with mini releases and expand the range (I am still buying Legions minis, which I think a lot of the Armageddon & other Epic community are, so hopefully that is helping with sales figures even if the rules are being used less).

 

Would love to see more Superheavies, primarchs, daemons, more armour marks & types of marines. There are lots of 'basics' that they still have yet to cover, even without making use of the opportunities the scale affords (we saw some awesome stuff with Dark Mech for example).

 

In terms of limits/controls I don't think we can expect much. Like Age of Darkness, think the game is going to continue to be regulated by the community. There are lots of 'game breaking' possibilities; we got to the point where our Raven Guard & Alpha Legion players stopped using full infiltrate as really its no fun for them either to know the result of a game before you roll the first dice. Similarly, we had one guy who had 30+ support stands and no-one wants to play him, so you get a levelling off in effect.

Edited Monday at 09:50 AM by Pacific81

[Lord Marshal]

Designer notes on the new Liber.

 

Also talks about new content in the future, probably to try and nip SpikeyBits' doomer bait in the bud:

 

Quote

Alongside these, you can expect to see legendary Formations such as the Theta-Garmon ‘Deathless’ Sub-Cohort and the White Scars Chogorian Warband. These open up exciting new opportunities for additional content in the future…

 

Edited Monday at 12:01 PM by Lord Marshal

[malika666]

No hope, no expectations, the future is just crappy cash grab wars

[Interrogator Stobz]

9 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

As someone who has stopped playing Legions, I selfishly hope they keep going with mini releases and expand the range (I am still buying Legions minis, which I think a lot of the Armageddon & other Epic community are, so hopefully that is helping with sales figures even if the rules are being used less).

 

Would love to see more Superheavies, primarchs, daemons, more armour marks & types of marines. There are lots of 'basics' that they still have yet to cover, even without making use of the opportunities the scale affords (we saw some awesome stuff with Dark Mech for example).

 

In terms of limits/controls I don't think we can expect much. Like Age of Darkness, think the game is going to continue to be regulated by the community. There are lots of 'game breaking' possibilities; we got to the point where our Raven Guard & Alpha Legion players stopped using full infiltrate as really its no fun for them either to know the result of a game before you roll the first dice. Similarly, we had one guy who had 30+ support stands and no-one wants to play him, so you get a levelling off in effect.

I feel bad with 12 support stands. Wowza, that guy.

[Crablezworth]

11 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

In terms of limits/controls I don't think we can expect much. Like Age of Darkness, think the game is going to continue to be regulated by the community. There are lots of 'game breaking' possibilities; we got to the point where our Raven Guard & Alpha Legion players stopped using full infiltrate as really its no fun for them either to know the result of a game before you roll the first dice. Similarly, we had one guy who had 30+ support stands and no-one wants to play him, so you get a levelling off in effect.

 

This is the critical housekeeping they need to do with the rules that I fear they just didn't do. It was truly a welcome change that they turned off charging after infiltrate but without actually capping infiltrate is still the number one ruin-er of games both competitive and fluffy alike. I hate it as an RG player because its difficult to take transports and not feel like its just a self taxing, would much rather there was just a global cap on how many detachments can infiltrate. I also don't get why they don't just make some formation 0-1 or hell most formations at this point. Infantry in general I fear still will be king even if their costs went up. 

 

8 hours ago, malika666 said:

No hope, no expectations, the future is just crappy cash grab wars

 

Yeah it doesn't feel great the way they're going about it. 

[Crablezworth]

So this dropped today https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/kamqgjvb/legions-imperialis-designers-notes-how-the-liber-strategia-shakes-up-the-whole-game/

 

So I guess I'll start with what sounds positive, they indicate that they've moved some things around in terms of what slot they'd take up in formations, so that might be good or bad. They also mention separating some vehicles like russes and malcadors into individual detachments. What I take from that is it likely frees up the ability to cost the different detachments instead of having to list upgrade costs for weapons. So in theory one might have a detachment specifically for vanquishers that costs more than say normal russes etc. This might also explain the extra cards sadly, so it might also be indicative that there really is nothing else coming in the new units department, though I hope that's not true.  

 

"We’ve taken the opportunity to look at every Detachment and make some minor adjustments – especially to those that were over or underperforming." 

 

See, I worry about a statement like this, it sets expectations all over the place, as I'm skeptical they looked at every detachment. I especially am concerned about the last statement about over or underperforming as, for example, over performing may also be on account of how many of any given unit one can field, and given army construction is entirely unconstrained in many cases, like even if they bumped up the cost of say karacnos, what good is that if on can still field and entire army of karacnos? I guess this is the crux of why I'm trying to temper my expectation, the theory that li's problems were just point costs is simply naive. If one can still infiltrate an entire army, why does it matter if it costs more? Like the more powerful units problems aren't just they're perhaps too cheap, its often that they can be fielded in silly numbers, and this is where I don't have a lot of faith in GW to fix that because those are changes that marketing fears.

 

Thankfully its not just point changes they reference as they do give an example of changing weapon profiles, exemplified with the contemptors kheres assault cannon now getting an additional dice/shot. Like that's a good step but its problem imo is far more about range, like a lot of weapons. It also doesn't change that the lascannon is still the better option given it hits on a 4 with accurate and its range is fare more applicable. I would venture to guess they will still be one detachment with a/b options so even if cost has changed, there's still the in built 10th ed problem for some detachments of some loadouts just being objectively better (see titans).

 

"Plasma guns have undergone an overhaul, too: they lost 2” from their range but gained the Assault trait" Again not sure how to feel about that, my problem with plasma was its range sucked compared to a missile launcher, would have much rather had like a new gets hot mechanic where one can double range but 1's cause wounds to the shooter. It's not wonder infantry just charge everything if the majority of their shooting attacks are going to be less than they charge.  

 

"Many Titans and Knights have seen significant points drops, as well as adjustments to Ion Save characteristics, while Armigers are now a Detachment of their own."

 

Ion is a bad rule, just give them an invul save in front arc and be done with it. Glad armigers are their own detachments, lets hope they fixed their scale. Knights probably do need some love in terms of point cost, but I think I would have preferred love in the form of better rules. Case in point, why does AT let players give questoris knights whatever loadout they want, but li makes these weird forced loadouts while somehow allowing macladors more freedom. 

 

"Pintle weapons are now represented by profiles of their own." Not sure what this means but my hope would be that perhaps now they are a standard upgrade option for more tanks and transports. 

 

 

"Our final update is a reformat of what were previously called Formations of Legend. These are now called Iconic Formations and they encompass more than just special characters and infamous units – though those still exist.

 

Many of the new Iconic Formations offer unique special rules to existing units. These include the Solar Auxilia Solar Pattern Cohort, which provides large numbers of Veletaris mounted in Dracosans backed up by elite commanders, and the Legion Stonebreaker Siege Force, which combines the new Vindicators and Whirlwinds with Legion Infantry to assault structures."

 

Ugh, I don't trust GW with this kinda stuff, cards on the table I think the whole formation thing is bad and has been badly handled but worse, it never deals with activation/detachment count or disparity. 

 

 

 

"buy this stuff, here's a free prize" style design. Not to mention doing them legion specific as if they'd ever get the time to do them for all legions is just not respecting anyone's intelligence. 

 

I'm quite willing to still be pleasantly surprised by changes, but none of this communicates to me that they "get" li's bigger problems: activation disparity exacerbated by pretending knights and titans are their own functional factions, progressive scoring scenarios being too much of the standard leading to too many 2 turn games, no core reserve mechanic or forced reserve mechanic to help mitigate activation disparity. No indexing of detachment sizes to point level played. Its fallen to events to have to introduce detachments caps as well as police stuff like titans and that's not really fair for a rule set people pay for, I'm content that everything will at least be in one place/book but its also hard to hide that they just invalidated 300$ worth of cards and books. Very happy to finally see plastic counters, though again I'd sadly use the count of those as further evidence gw isn't playtesting, 20 first fire tokens is indicative of that, not to mention only 20 advance, with it being the most common order, then march and charge with 16, I'd say first fire would be dead last in terms of utility, never seen more than maybe 4-5 used in a round ever but played plenty of rounds where advance was used like 90% by both sides. 14 fallback orders seems like a lot, never had more than maybe 3-4 detachments falling back at any one time. 

 

 

 

[Black Cohort]

None of this sounds like it is going to fix any of the fundamental problems with LI, which continues to contribute to my lack of motivation to paint any of my LI stuff.  Honestly I am surprised that this point that they are even making new LI stuff, between the supply issues early on and the frankly terrible rules, sales of anything LI have to have massively dropped off and the only people GW have to blame are themselves.

[Gillyfish]

It's interesting. Dropzone also has alternate activation and picking an army list often involved balancing how many activations you might get with other design considerations. That didn't mean it was the best option, or the worst. 2nd Ed Epic was always notorious for wiping units before they got a chance to activate, so it's not a surprise that that is still an issue.

 

I do wonder if a mechanic akin to that used in Blucher where your opponent rolls initiative dice and keeps them hidden might work (it would definitely need refining to work in this system, but bear with me). In that system you can activate units most economically by core (formation in LI?) and less economically out of formation to represent the command and control of the Napoleonic period. Once you have you issued the command which takes you over the number rolled on the initiative dice and executed the move your opponent reveals them and tells you to stop. Combat is then resolved.

 

There are ways that could be adapted to LI; it would require quite a few changes to work, but it could and it would prevent some of the issues over number of activations. However, it would mean that there would be a lot more, generally shorter, turns.

 

Ultimately, I am still not sure that they know what they want the game to be. The formations and list design stuff could be cool, but it does seem far too unstructured at present; there is a part of a command and control game, part of a large scale wargame (but with lots of unit detail in there) and quite a lot of a free for all.

[Interrogator Stobz]

What about Apocalypse rules where everyone gets to go before casualties are removed?

It's the same type of conflict, different scale.

[Crablezworth]

On 8/18/2025 at 7:10 PM, Black Cohort said:

None of this sounds like it is going to fix any of the fundamental problems with LI, which continues to contribute to my lack of motivation to paint any of my LI stuff.  Honestly I am surprised that this point that they are even making new LI stuff, between the supply issues early on and the frankly terrible rules, sales of anything LI have to have massively dropped off and the only people GW have to blame are themselves.

 

Yeah, shifting points seems like a bit of window-dressing if they're not going to limit formations/constrain army construction. 

[Black Cohort]

1 hour ago, Crablezworth said:

 

Yeah, shifting points seems like a bit of window-dressing if they're not going to limit formations/constrain army construction. 

 

I would suggest the problem is deeper than that, at the most fundamental level LI doesn't know what it wants to be and that ripples through the entire game.  I suspect that if you asked all the people who worked on the core LI rules what its design goals and assumptions are you would get wildly different answers from each person.  At times the game wants to be a 1 for 1, if a stand has 5 marines it represents exactly 5 marines, and it wants slightly different rules for every iteration of heavy bolters, autocannons and lascannons; at others it clearly wants to be "we are simulating battles between huge forces, so some handwaving and streamlining is required".  Outside of no one seeming to know what scale LI represents it it full of other very poorly thought out things like most infantry moving faster in one turn than they can shoot, the mess that is close combat (and that SA with power axes are better than most astartes at melee) and the weirdly simplified rules for Titans.  My feeling when I read the core rulebook was that LI was a first draft that the writer forgot the deadline for and their boss never read it.  I sometimes wonder if LI was deliberately sabotaged by internal politics or if the internal champion left GW and no one else cared, but then they continue releasing new products for it.

And look at the community response, when LI was announced there was a ton of buzz and excitement, now this section of B&C rivals the play by post section for how few people care about it.

[Crablezworth]

10 minutes ago, Black Cohort said:

 

I would suggest the problem is deeper than that, at the most fundamental level LI doesn't know what it wants to be and that ripples through the entire game.  I suspect that if you asked all the people who worked on the core LI rules what its design goals and assumptions are you would get wildly different answers from each person.  At times the game wants to be a 1 for 1, if a stand has 5 marines it represents exactly 5 marines, and it wants slightly different rules for every iteration of heavy bolters, autocannons and lascannons; at others it clearly wants to be "we are simulating battles between huge forces, so some handwaving and streamlining is required".  Outside of no one seeming to know what scale LI represents it it full of other very poorly thought out things like most infantry moving faster in one turn than they can shoot, the mess that is close combat (and that SA with power axes are better than most astartes at melee) and the weirdly simplified rules for Titans.  My feeling when I read the core rulebook was that LI was a first draft that the writer forgot the deadline for and their boss never read it.  I sometimes wonder if LI was deliberately sabotaged by internal politics or if the internal champion left GW and no one else cared, but then they continue releasing new products for it.

And look at the community response, when LI was announced there was a ton of buzz and excitement, now this section of B&C rivals the play by post section for how few people care about it.

 

I think that's a fair assessment and I agree with a lot of it, i think the biggest indication other than the rough launch in terms of feeling unfinished is the fact that there's so many weapon traits for shooting (24) and only 3 for close combat, yet they also want close combat it be at the core of the game and SO viable on account of no saves that it basically trumps shooting for many units, often bafflingly so given even unarmed units (arvus) and infantry armed only with light weapons are somehow all meltabomb wielding maniacs in cc. 

 

Another aspect that is baffling and frustrating is detachment sizes. Why are karacnos/the newer malcadors able to start at detachments of 1 but other tanks its like 2 or 3 or 4. And going the other why why are detachments so big for tanks and super heavies? Why do mech get infantry detachments that start at like 2 for some, but marines and sa are stuck basically taking giant blobs of infantry? So much does indeed feel arbitrary and more dictated by what they managed to get on sprue than any real logic design-wise. 

 

That's also a point worth hammering home on in that, if one could imagine a developer mode for legion builder app that would let one tweak detachment sizes for example, it would open up the low end of the game quite a bit. The problem is I don't think marketing would ever let the rules department even experiment what that because they want the expectation from new players to be 3k is the starting point because money. It's funny too because even SM2, which was their starting point for li, only suggested 1500 to start, which is so much more reasonable. 

 

But ya it is a game that struggles to know exactly what it wants to be. And that means its a lot more work on both player's parts to make it function/enjoyable. That can happen but sadly it requires a lot of transparency and basically for both players to answer that question gw never did, what kind of game do u want to have? In my case its one where titans and knights aren't a primary faction, mechanicum can't just whip out a warmaster at 1500pts, flyers are more constrained, possibly to choice of missions/scenario. And the game is mostly combined arms, where shooting is weighted heavily and more likely than close combat. That and terrain is more proscriptive from the mission/scenario with at least some guidelines like maybe don't do 50 civitas structures for his mission/scenario. And of course infiltrate isn't guaranteed to even be a thing in ever misison/scenario. 

[Crablezworth]

On 8/19/2025 at 3:42 AM, Gillyfish said:

Ultimately, I am still not sure that they know what they want the game to be. The formations and list design stuff could be cool, but it does seem far too unstructured at present; there is a part of a command and control game, part of a large scale wargame (but with lots of unit detail in there) and quite a lot of a free for all.

 

100%, and formations just rub me the wrong way ever since 40k. I'm very interested in the units/detachments and their rules and stats but find formations just exhausting and baffling even if some make sense, it only makes me question the arbitrary ones even more, and worse still they can't just settle on a way of doing things, like some have very strong buffs that cost no addition points and often don't really have much of a tax or buy in. 

[Black Cohort]

yeah 3k as "standard" makes no sense.  Unless you started playing on much larger tables it doesn't take too many points for the table start to feel congested.
 

I am also confused by the lack of other armies, like the two core armies are elite guard and astartes.  You could probably cover Custodes and Sisters of Silence fairly well with 1 infantry box and 2 vehicle kits.  Lower quality imperial army/cultists would also be easy with a few kits.  You could probably cover each Chaos god's daemons with 1 box for each god.

[Gillyfish]

13 hours ago, Crablezworth said:

100%, and formations just rub me the wrong way ever since 40k. I'm very interested in the units/detachments and their rules and stats but find formations just exhausting and baffling even if some make sense, it only makes me question the arbitrary ones even more, and worse still they can't just settle on a way of doing things, like some have very strong buffs that cost no addition points and often don't really have much of a tax or buy in. 

 

Well, formations have always been a part of Epic in some form or other (no pun intended). I think the attempt to add in additional rules as per maniples in AT is a good idea when you might have one or two core formations and then detachments supplementing them (as in AT in many ways), but when you have the number of formations and units you do in LI, I do wonder about the complexity. 

 

I quite like the idea of different formation types helping you select themed forces and giving you different mixes of units. It may be that lists should be limited to X number of formations (which may have bonus rules). Additional units can then be drawn from a support section associated with that formation. So for an Astartes list that might always include the tactical entry and Rhinos and Predators (plus other units), for example, but they would not benefit from the rules associated with the formation. Certain units such as titans would always be available (subject to existing points restrictions) as support.

 

Again, the point with the above is that it comes back to 'What is the game trying to be?' and how would list building support that look and feel. I really liked the suppression mechanics of 3rd ed Epic and Epic Armageddon. The latter, in particular, had a very clear concept of how it should 'feel' and play and what it was trying to accomplish.

 

There are elements of several good wargames at the heart of LI, but they are confused and mixed. Personally, whilst I like the big battles, I would like something that helped bring out the differences in the way the different forces fought, which might be command and control, suppression and morale based. I would like combined arms actions and planning to be rewarded; so, if I use artillery or other fire to suppress a unit, it should make it easier to assault. Equally, high morale units might be more resistant to that kind of suppression. How do the command structures of the different forces effect the way they play? At the moment, there is the Auxilia rule about the command unit being killed and everything only being given advance. That's okay, but I am looking for something less about losing the model and more about command itself; what benefit does the command structure bring, or does having a more direct command structure bring, rather than just the disadvantages vs. the more dispersed/initiative reliant version of marines? Should that affect the formations of the Auxilia and/or their deployment?

[Pacific81]

14 hours ago, Black Cohort said:

yeah 3k as "standard" makes no sense.  Unless you started playing on much larger tables it doesn't take too many points for the table start to feel congested.

 

It's quite interesting I've shown a couple of guys how to play Armageddon with their Legions collections, and they've been pretty amused that their armies are half or even one third of the size. On the 6 x 4 table size as well you have a lot more room for manoeuvre.

[Crablezworth]

On 8/20/2025 at 2:05 PM, Black Cohort said:

I am also confused by the lack of other armies, like the two core armies are elite guard and astartes.  You could probably cover Custodes and Sisters of Silence fairly well with 1 infantry box and 2 vehicle kits.  Lower quality imperial army/cultists would also be easy with a few kits.  You could probably cover each Chaos god's daemons with 1 box for each god.

 

I think it's a mixed bag that's its based in 30k, but the upside is gw can only mess up so much with a limited scope and because of the allies rules you can at least patch around poor balance somewhat. As much as everyone wants xenos, the same people when asked if they trust gw to do xenos would likely say no or not entirely. I mean their attempt to bring in new armies is so forced and poorly considered its how we ended up with having to pretend all titan or all knight armies make sense or function. And my concern with them doing cutsodes or daemons is that they'll again try and hamfist them as their own faction instead of something meant to supplement loyalists and traitors. Mechanicum is an example too of them not going all the way and trying to patch them by letting them take knights and titans outside of 30%, but all that does imo is mess with things too much and you end up with silly stuff where like half a mech list is just a warmaster. 

[Crablezworth]

13 hours ago, Gillyfish said:

 

Well, formations have always been a part of Epic in some form or other (no pun intended). I think the attempt to add in additional rules as per maniples in AT is a good idea when you might have one or two core formations and then detachments supplementing them (as in AT in many ways), but when you have the number of formations and units you do in LI, I do wonder about the complexity. 

 

I quite like the idea of different formation types helping you select themed forces and giving you different mixes of units. It may be that lists should be limited to X number of formations (which may have bonus rules). Additional units can then be drawn from a support section associated with that formation. So for an Astartes list that might always include the tactical entry and Rhinos and Predators (plus other units), for example, but they would not benefit from the rules associated with the formation. Certain units such as titans would always be available (subject to existing points restrictions) as support.

 

Again, the point with the above is that it comes back to 'What is the game trying to be?' and how would list building support that look and feel. I really liked the suppression mechanics of 3rd ed Epic and Epic Armageddon. The latter, in particular, had a very clear concept of how it should 'feel' and play and what it was trying to accomplish.

 

There are elements of several good wargames at the heart of LI, but they are confused and mixed. Personally, whilst I like the big battles, I would like something that helped bring out the differences in the way the different forces fought, which might be command and control, suppression and morale based. I would like combined arms actions and planning to be rewarded; so, if I use artillery or other fire to suppress a unit, it should make it easier to assault. Equally, high morale units might be more resistant to that kind of suppression. How do the command structures of the different forces effect the way they play? At the moment, there is the Auxilia rule about the command unit being killed and everything only being given advance. That's okay, but I am looking for something less about losing the model and more about command itself; what benefit does the command structure bring, or does having a more direct command structure bring, rather than just the disadvantages vs. the more dispersed/initiative reliant version of marines? Should that affect the formations of the Auxilia and/or their deployment?

 

For sure formations have always been part of epic, but they weren't always part of 40k, and their application and randomness feels oddly similar in application. I also feel like they may have been more considered in prior iterations of epic, now they seem like something one quickly loses track of. Part of that two is naming, some of them seem fairly straight forward in concept, some of them its very difficult to connect the name to the purpose of concept. I'd be completely lost without legion builder in terms of making army lists, also with gw going to a similar system of hh3, one of the biggest complaints I've seen is that making armies and lists for hh is a big paint now and I get it. I just miss having a force org. 

 

 

I like the idea of suppression mechanics but also don't love how counter-heavy it seems having to put down all the blast markers, its something I didn't love about bfg, but also just from a game photography stand point, its too pretty a game to smother in counters. I will say though I definitely get why people prefer epic's other than the ones based on sm1/sm2. I get now too why they all had a such visceral reaction to li being based on sm2 and having caf etc. 

 

 

I find the command stuff annoying on account of being silly aura nonsense. I think it works well enough to distinguish marines a bit more in being elite but in practice it largely doesn't matter a tonne most of the time, in sa's case largely because veletarii and orryns don't need it to charge. It can sometimes matter for tanks in terms of march or ff, but honestly the most common order by a mile is almost always advance. They try to make it matter for mechanicum, but it's all largely tied into the bots, while most of the infantry don't really care about it for the same reason veletarii and ogryns don't. I still think one of the examples of the game now knowing what it wants to be is break point, we've basically stopped playing with it because it's never not been a total nightmare and chore from hell. It's been much easier to just ignore it, worse, you see how ugly the game has to get in order to track formations, u see all kinds of game aids that destroy the aesthetics of the game just to remember that russ squad a is part of formation x while russ squad b is part of formation y. 

13 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

 

It's quite interesting I've shown a couple of guys how to play Armageddon with their Legions collections, and they've been pretty amused that their armies are half or even one third of the size. On the 6 x 4 table size as well you have a lot more room for manoeuvre.

 

Room to maneuver is something also totally lost in li's whole obsession with deploying entire armies and not having any core reserve rules. It also largely contributes to it just not playing very well with everything clustered together, more like a demolition derby than a battle. 

[vadersson]

Hi All,

 

I did a little investigating.  I found the product codes for the new stuff coming out.  Most of the tanks are 03-89 to -94.  -91 is still missing.  Of course I don't have the numbers for the new card packs, so that is three numbers.  The interesting thing is that the Liber book is 03-102.  Even assuming 95, 96, and 97 are cards, that still leaves at least 4 or 5 numbers unaccounted for.  So maybe something else is still coming?  Of course sometimes there are other gaps in product numbers (like for combined packs or something) but rarely are they more than 2 number with only one that was 3.  So I am hopeful that this means there is more stuff either in the book that has not been revealed yet or more stuff to come after the book.

Thanks,

Duncan

[Crablezworth]

2 hours ago, vadersson said:

Hi All,

 

I did a little investigating.  I found the product codes for the new stuff coming out.  Most of the tanks are 03-89 to -94.  -91 is still missing.  Of course I don't have the numbers for the new card packs, so that is three numbers.  The interesting thing is that the Liber book is 03-102.  Even assuming 95, 96, and 97 are cards, that still leaves at least 4 or 5 numbers unaccounted for.  So maybe something else is still coming?  Of course sometimes there are other gaps in product numbers (like for combined packs or something) but rarely are they more than 2 number with only one that was 3.  So I am hopeful that this means there is more stuff either in the book that has not been revealed yet or more stuff to come after the book.

Thanks,

Duncan

 

Nice, really hoping that means there's a second wave of kits they haven't previewed yet. We should know on saturday when the embargo lifts.