Some thoughts from Adepticon, 3 2k pt games, which was a well run event imo: Composition: * I find that mixed arms make the game more interesting. More infantry, melee and shooting both, Dreadnoughts, tarantulas. Deep strikes. I'm looking forward to mixing in jetbikes and other speedy things. Just tanks shooting at each other, there's not much to it. The most exciting thing can be a good or a bad roll. * Planes and Titans don't add much spice either, they're effective but too rock-paper-scissorsy to be interesting; you either take them down with AA or overwhelming firepower, or don't interact with them all game and accept that you'll lose things every now and again. Table: * We played 2k games at 4x4" and they didn't feel as packed. There was less terrain all over. More than AT, but not this much. * Also, craters and forests add spice that goes beyond just buildings; you can see through them, different things are differently able to move through etc. Infantry and tanks can * I'm ok with the scoring system, but, I play infantry a lot, and my local meta does too. Infantry dies easy. Make sure there are no garrisonable buildings within each objective and things start to die and swing. Yeah, the game is still ~decided after a few rounds, once a player starts edging towards tabled. But the rounds before that can be more exciting with a few changes to the table and army composition. I agree that the game doesn't match AT in quality, but I think there's more enjoyement to be squeezed out of it than could be seen here. I hope this helps. I enjoyed the batrep anyway and I hope to see more. Cheers
Rather than remove buildings, tech your list to be able to reliably demolish one or two civitas a turn. Your opponents will soon realise these things are death traps and would rather face the music outside of them. The game then becomes interesting late game as you will want to ensure you maintain this ability to avoid one or two stands entering a key building and becoming a problem.
We play 2k on 6x4 and it spreads the game out a lot more. The objectives are not so close and you don’t car park as much. Also sometimes less scenery is better. We have also stopped using just buildings and started using woods, craters, etc much better experience.
I might have this wrong?, but I think you make a morale check if you lose close combat and only if the morale check is failed do you have to withdraw from the combat.
Knights solve the car park problem, they excell in melee vs tanks, being able to wipe out 4-5 in a single round. Also a lack of melee options or enough infantry stands to outnumber the tanks 3:1, infantry are really only a threat to tanks in melee. If any of the objectives had an overlap with a building, car parking tanks also becomes unfeasable, as it would be super ineffecient to outcap infantry with tanks Still a valid problem with the system tho, but not something impossible for the player to elleviate with their list
With the Assault Marines there, they still roll Morale from Overwatch and if failed lose the Charge Order. The move is still completed and still become Engaged for later in the turn, but they lose the CAF bonuses.
32:28 I think part of the car parking comes from neither player having proper melee units (eg those with Rend) and partly from neither player Infiltrating. It still happens, but not quite so much.
Commenting on the carpark issue. In this case i can see the terrain amplifies the issue. All the walls and the small gaps in them makes the effective playing area 2*2. If your an armageddon player i can understand the feeling of it being crampt. But me as an old epic player i dont have a problem with it, we used to play with a lot of stuff. :) Incorporating a version of the old victory points for killing might also make it a bit mor fun. Like you get 1Vp for every full 100p. This and using the All Out War missions way for deploying objectives but with a normal deployment zone for deploying units might be fun and is probably how we will end up plying it normaly for gaming day, we will also be playing it on a 4*6.
I don't like these tournament style objectives in any of GW's games. It makes all games feel too similar. I think it just stands out more in Legions cause there's less factions. The game system feels more old school... I'm having way more fun with it playing oldschool scenarios or making up narratives.
I agree. We're looking at changing the scoring system to 3rd turn onwards, so you actually get some manoeuvre and tactical play, rather than just everyone trying to scrum the objectives on turn 1. It gets boring quite quickly.
The positioning of objectives and the way the scoring works means that you actually play on a much smaller table than 4*4. A couple of ideas that could improve this: (i) Deployment zones of 6 inches by 24 inches or right angle triangle of 18 inches by 18 inches in opposite corners and objectives span across the corner to corner diagonal lines of the table - this makes more use of the full table as the diagonal lines are longer than the vertical and horizontal. (ii) Objectives only score from turn 3 and escalate in value each turn - would make games last a little longer rather than throwing everything forwards in a suicide rush.
Great battle report. I kind of agree with some of your complaints, eg. the objectives being too close together, I would prefer one in each deployment zone and then 3 spread along the middle line. Your comments about board size is also true. However I think the reason you lose is that you have much less infantry. I also think with so little assault troops thats why vehicles are just rushing onto objectives and firing an point black range. Imagine what a 54 point unit of 8 assault marine stands would do to tanks moving up. Hope you look past theae issues or address them with further apart objectives, bigger board and using more infantry and assault units so we can watch more excellent battle reports. Thanks for the excellent reports you've already given us.
Thanks, they based coated black, then all airbrush, GW Lupercal green base, then GW Sons of Horus, then MSP Pale lichen, I use GW Aggrax earthshade to weather and rhinox hide to chip, then any organge heavuly thinned for rust. There is a full video tutorial on my Patreon :)
i just came back from an LI tournament in australia, Im not sold that this game can be played competitively. I think it will only shine in narrative settings. We tried the EA mission in game 1 of the event. It felt slightly better but it still had the meat grinder feeling and lack of room to maneuver. Game 2 was more narrative and had a better feel than having objectives and progressive scoring.
@@Tabletop_Standard we played 1500 points on a 6x4 using the EA tournament mission. It was better but it was more a case of what’s actually left after 3 turns to take objectives rather than how EA usually plays
@@aglumm9469 I think on account of higher lethality, missions would benefit from something forcing like 1/3 of both armies detachments into reserves. A steady stream of reserves coming in over turns 2-4 would help the game's pacing, limit overall activations on the board at any one time but also help games get to turn 5 in terms of feeling close, not have them all feel decided by turn 2-3.
Didn't you guys forget the shield bubble on t1? The IF Sicarans and Rhinos would have been protected from the fire from the Preds and Sicarans - their tacs would also have been protected a bit from the kratos point defenses i reckon.
@@Tabletop_Standard Possibly - it might also have been the 6" distance - they actually dealt with it later on in the video. I was probably expecting it to have more of an influence :)
I think whoever wrote the scoring system must have really loved lunchtime football at school because every game just turns into a mass scrum on the centre of the table. What annoys me a bit is that they referenced so heavily from Epic Space Marine, but that game has a far, far superior scoring/victory system. Epic Armageddon too for that matter.
@@Tabletop_Standard Watched the vid and it was good - definitely have come to similar conclusions both about the faults and the ways to resolve them. I know there is an event coming up next month in Gloucestershire (run by the Advancing Fire podcast guys) where they are looking at scoring from Turn 3 onwards and reducing the VP count, just so you don't get that snowball/blowout effect and the games are meaningful beyond turn 2.
I want to love this game but I think I prefer the old epic to it. I’ve played over a dozen games now and I’ve never seen a “come back from behind” victory. Generally you know who’s going to win by the end of turn two.
@@EAfirstlast We've made a house rule where overwatch can only be done on first fire or with weapons with point defense. It fixes the stupid planes overwatching interceptors nonsense.
So basically game better by he who stands last wins with game being car parks on 1st fire as going forward actively punished. Thanks but no. Multiple ways to win preferable to 1
End game isn't solution to that. Terrain and player skill is. My games have units left toward late. How? Simple. Plenty and varied terrain and i don't throw everything to front right away :) i only commit minimum needed to score each turn. Problem solved. Enemy can't kill what you don't allow. Throw all to the front and you lose all fast. Simples. End game just leads to static dice rolling game. No need to use miniatures. One side tables other just as fast as now and wins.
Some thoughts from Adepticon, 3 2k pt games, which was a well run event imo:
Composition:
* I find that mixed arms make the game more interesting. More infantry, melee and shooting both, Dreadnoughts, tarantulas. Deep strikes. I'm looking forward to mixing in jetbikes and other speedy things. Just tanks shooting at each other, there's not much to it. The most exciting thing can be a good or a bad roll.
* Planes and Titans don't add much spice either, they're effective but too rock-paper-scissorsy to be interesting; you either take them down with AA or overwhelming firepower, or don't interact with them all game and accept that you'll lose things every now and again.
Table:
* We played 2k games at 4x4" and they didn't feel as packed. There was less terrain all over. More than AT, but not this much.
* Also, craters and forests add spice that goes beyond just buildings; you can see through them, different things are differently able to move through etc. Infantry and tanks can
* I'm ok with the scoring system, but, I play infantry a lot, and my local meta does too. Infantry dies easy. Make sure there are no garrisonable buildings within each objective and things start to die and swing.
Yeah, the game is still ~decided after a few rounds, once a player starts edging towards tabled. But the rounds before that can be more exciting with a few changes to the table and army composition.
I agree that the game doesn't match AT in quality, but I think there's more enjoyement to be squeezed out of it than could be seen here. I hope this helps. I enjoyed the batrep anyway and I hope to see more. Cheers
I appreciate this comment. Thinking now no buildings next objectives really would help them be contestable
Will try that tomorrow. il
Rather than remove buildings, tech your list to be able to reliably demolish one or two civitas a turn. Your opponents will soon realise these things are death traps and would rather face the music outside of them. The game then becomes interesting late game as you will want to ensure you maintain this ability to avoid one or two stands entering a key building and becoming a problem.
If the game only has 3 turns, would that have helped?
i wish more people were making battlereports of this. more often. :( had to wait 2 weeks :(
Bearfoot minis, mini wargaming, play on and us.. Not sure who else is covering it?
Great vid. Thx for the upload. Lf to your next one
Thank you. A comment like this goes a long way
We play 2k on 6x4 and it spreads the game out a lot more. The objectives are not so close and you don’t car park as much. Also sometimes less scenery is better. We have also stopped using just buildings and started using woods, craters, etc much better experience.
Also make sure all buildings are more than 3” away from objectives 😅
Great battle! And awesome setting on our Necropolis game mat 👍🔝
Very nice mat! Great work, guys
I might have this wrong?, but I think you make a morale check if you lose close combat and only if the morale check is failed do you have to withdraw from the combat.
You are correct
Bigger table and more spread out objectives really helps a lot.
Agreed but we were playing from an event mission pack
@@Tabletop_Standard Absolutely. Hopefully they will adapt for next time with constructive feedback.
Knights solve the car park problem, they excell in melee vs tanks, being able to wipe out 4-5 in a single round.
Also a lack of melee options or enough infantry stands to outnumber the tanks 3:1, infantry are really only a threat to tanks in melee.
If any of the objectives had an overlap with a building, car parking tanks also becomes unfeasable, as it would be super ineffecient to outcap infantry with tanks
Still a valid problem with the system tho, but not something impossible for the player to elleviate with their list
With the Assault Marines there, they still roll Morale from Overwatch and if failed lose the Charge Order. The move is still completed and still become Engaged for later in the turn, but they lose the CAF bonuses.
Ultimately it was a dreadful plan 😂 as ASM only get a net +1 for it, and there were more than enough Missiles to deal with the building!
Cheers bud
That said, seems the Thunderhawk forgot the Point Defence Bolters?
32:28 I think part of the car parking comes from neither player having proper melee units (eg those with Rend) and partly from neither player Infiltrating.
It still happens, but not quite so much.
Great match.
Thank you 🙂
Commenting on the carpark issue. In this case i can see the terrain amplifies the issue. All the walls and the small gaps in them makes the effective playing area 2*2.
If your an armageddon player i can understand the feeling of it being crampt. But me as an old epic player i dont have a problem with it, we used to play with a lot of stuff. :)
Incorporating a version of the old victory points for killing might also make it a bit mor fun. Like you get 1Vp for every full 100p. This and using the All Out War missions way for deploying objectives but with a normal deployment zone for deploying units might be fun and is probably how we will end up plying it normaly for gaming day, we will also be playing it on a 4*6.
I don't like these tournament style objectives in any of GW's games. It makes all games feel too similar. I think it just stands out more in Legions cause there's less factions. The game system feels more old school... I'm having way more fun with it playing oldschool scenarios or making up narratives.
I agree. We're looking at changing the scoring system to 3rd turn onwards, so you actually get some manoeuvre and tactical play, rather than just everyone trying to scrum the objectives on turn 1. It gets boring quite quickly.
The positioning of objectives and the way the scoring works means that you actually play on a much smaller table than 4*4. A couple of ideas that could improve this: (i) Deployment zones of 6 inches by 24 inches or right angle triangle of 18 inches by 18 inches in opposite corners and objectives span across the corner to corner diagonal lines of the table - this makes more use of the full table as the diagonal lines are longer than the vertical and horizontal. (ii) Objectives only score from turn 3 and escalate in value each turn - would make games last a little longer rather than throwing everything forwards in a suicide rush.
I do think the idea of using epic armageddon missions might be neat
Worth a punt
Great battle report.
I kind of agree with some of your complaints, eg. the objectives being too close together, I would prefer one in each deployment zone and then 3 spread along the middle line. Your comments about board size is also true.
However I think the reason you lose is that you have much less infantry. I also think with so little assault troops thats why vehicles are just rushing onto objectives and firing an point black range. Imagine what a 54 point unit of 8 assault marine stands would do to tanks moving up.
Hope you look past theae issues or address them with further apart objectives, bigger board and using more infantry and assault units so we can watch more excellent battle reports.
Thanks for the excellent reports you've already given us.
@@rathstar I definitely don't have enough infantry 😅
Will the Strategic Anomaly cards become available at some point? Would love to try.
I think the max fire lads are making the pack public so best bet is hit them up
Lovely armies! Can you remember what your recipe was for the SoH green please?
Thanks, they based coated black, then all airbrush, GW Lupercal green base, then GW Sons of Horus, then MSP Pale lichen, I use GW Aggrax earthshade to weather and rhinox hide to chip, then any organge heavuly thinned for rust. There is a full video tutorial on my Patreon :)
@@Tabletop_Standard thanks!
Like and comment to support the channel as usual
When can we expect new pure Titanicus reports?)
Cheers always appreciated. Some time in the near future for AT.. I have a couple coming out for our Patrons then I plan to do one for YT
great game, Could i ask, where did you get them flying bases from please ?
@stevenstorrie5235 I made them, there is a post on how on the channel community tab. Just need to scroll down a bit to find it
i just came back from an LI tournament in australia, Im not sold that this game can be played competitively. I think it will only shine in narrative settings. We tried the EA mission in game 1 of the event. It felt slightly better but it still had the meat grinder feeling and lack of room to maneuver. Game 2 was more narrative and had a better feel than having objectives and progressive scoring.
How many points and what size tables?
@@Tabletop_Standard we played 1500 points on a 6x4 using the EA tournament mission. It was better but it was more a case of what’s actually left after 3 turns to take objectives rather than how EA usually plays
Cheers bud. Good to know. I'd like to try it myself. Maybe 1750/2000 points
@@aglumm9469 I think on account of higher lethality, missions would benefit from something forcing like 1/3 of both armies detachments into reserves. A steady stream of reserves coming in over turns 2-4 would help the game's pacing, limit overall activations on the board at any one time but also help games get to turn 5 in terms of feeling close, not have them all feel decided by turn 2-3.
The turn 2 to 3 finish seems to be the rule not the exception 👍🏻
Didn't you guys forget the shield bubble on t1? The IF Sicarans and Rhinos would have been protected from the fire from the Preds and Sicarans - their tacs would also have been protected a bit from the kratos point defenses i reckon.
Without watching it I can only imagine their save was no worse than a 5+ from the attacks?
@@Tabletop_Standard Possibly - it might also have been the 6" distance - they actually dealt with it later on in the video. I was probably expecting it to have more of an influence :)
@@OlivierHomps saved a Spartan. That was about it 🙂
Where did you get the flight stands from?
Home made. There is a post about them on the channel community tab
Where’s your terrain from? It looks amazing!
Thanks. All over the place. The walls and buildings are from gamerforge. There is a video on the channel somewhere
Do you have a Discord link?
We do not. We have a chat server on our Patreon.
I think whoever wrote the scoring system must have really loved lunchtime football at school because every game just turns into a mass scrum on the centre of the table. What annoys me a bit is that they referenced so heavily from Epic Space Marine, but that game has a far, far superior scoring/victory system. Epic Armageddon too for that matter.
@Pacific81x have a look at my "I have a LIMP problem" vid 😁
@@Tabletop_Standard Watched the vid and it was good - definitely have come to similar conclusions both about the faults and the ways to resolve them. I know there is an event coming up next month in Gloucestershire (run by the Advancing Fire podcast guys) where they are looking at scoring from Turn 3 onwards and reducing the VP count, just so you don't get that snowball/blowout effect and the games are meaningful beyond turn 2.
@@Pacific81x Aye, they're using some of the ideas we've used on some of our Patreon games 😉
Will. Not. Start. A. New. System.
Youre not helping guys.
Awesome video.
Sorry, not sorry 😁
@@Tabletop_Standardhaha thanks. My poor impulse control is the issue...
That flyer base for the Thunderhawk could be a bit longer.
@@euphoria7046 🙄
I want to love this game but I think I prefer the old epic to it.
I’ve played over a dozen games now and I’ve never seen a “come back from behind” victory. Generally you know who’s going to win by the end of turn two.
This appears to be the common theme
My second (and only 3k) game I game back from behind when I realized how silly plane overwatching was
@@EAfirstlast We've made a house rule where overwatch can only be done on first fire or with weapons with point defense. It fixes the stupid planes overwatching interceptors nonsense.
@@CoverSlaves The planes are their own issue , particularly the solar ones which are way under costed for their firepower.
Regular overwatch is fine.
Charging rhinos is bad game feel. I'd suggest trying to avoid it
Sorry I don't follow?
Those and arvus's charging feel really weird.
Think of it more as close quarters combat not literal hand to hand
progressive scoring isn't good, end game scoring is much better tbh.
That's my gut instinct too.
So basically game better by he who stands last wins with game being car parks on 1st fire as going forward actively punished.
Thanks but no. Multiple ways to win preferable to 1
@@bakuchidancer I'd rather play a 5 turn game than 2 turn game
End game isn't solution to that. Terrain and player skill is. My games have units left toward late. How? Simple. Plenty and varied terrain and i don't throw everything to front right away :) i only commit minimum needed to score each turn. Problem solved.
Enemy can't kill what you don't allow.
Throw all to the front and you lose all fast. Simples.
End game just leads to static dice rolling game. No need to use miniatures. One side tables other just as fast as now and wins.