@Tabletop_Standard I belive you have rocky outcrops that block LOS but are also impassable. Rolling hills do the same job for LOS, but can be moved over
Rocky outcrops are nice in terms of them being impassable to everything. I haven tried playing with hills, I do have plateau/butes like cliff faces with flat tops. When we've played them as cliffs, it's been far too advantageous to infantry. I think battlefield in a box might have some desert hills/dune, might check those out. But ya hills seem interesting, at least vehicles benefit as well.
Definitely agree on the bigger boards we always play on a 4x6. We also have started to play around with allowing players to take one "extra save" to add to the survivability of units and it has worked quite well!
I agree as well, the problem I have though with bigger boards is they eat into more and more sideboard until there isn't any left. An 8x4 with a 6x4 mat and two feet of sideboard can work, its just most stores tend to only have tables big enough for 6x4's, so you have to do 5x4 or 4x4 boards to have some sideboard.
I agree 1000%! This is exactly how I feel about the game. The Epic Armageddon basic tournament mission is so simple and elegant I don't think there was any way for them to improve on it. Every other system is a step backwards. The current GW design philosophy is just crazy amounts of models, pack them on a table, roll dice pointlessly until one side falls off. The table size is an absolute abomination. No room to maneuver, no tactics in movement. I don't even know if these modern game designers understand tactics anymore beyond smashing models together. I just can't be bothered with GW games post 2010. Epic Armageddon, Necromunda, earlier versions of 40k are the only thing I can stand playing.
@@TheKingElfstone It does share a few common problems tho, ever growing need for more sideboard and difficulty scaling up point level of games on account of alternating activation not being very practical for multi player per side gaming.
@@Tabletop_Standard It's a trend, part of it too we've seen is, at 2k for example, if one side takes say a warlord and the other doesn't take any knights or titans, the disparity in activations becomes fairly pronounced. We're finding games go better with more communication, not that anyone want to give away their lists but we've had to do more gentleman's agreements on the big ticket items because they can be such a liability to balance and activation count. Game is just over by turn 2, no coming back and in this was the player with the warlord.
Aye The big Engines can be a problem. They take quite a few resources to deal with which then aren't helping with other enemy units. I know it's early days but just a few I've noticed
@@Tabletop_Standard The best success we've had is like have a talk before we make lists, we'd do stuff like "how about 1k and we both try taking an acastus/warhound etc" or at least agree to spend similar point levels of titans/knights. It's not a perfect solution but it has helped a bit to avoid too much of a disparity like with the warlord.
Small miniatures, bigger tables - absolutely! I play on a 6’ by 9’ table and am deep into a massive city fight terrain project that’ll take me a couple of years to make (already spent £2k on GW terrain) so the table will be really dense.
Completely agree with you 100%. Every game I've played so far was really decided at turn 2. Also the tables size should be larger to spread everything out more including the objectives.
I've only gotten a single game in, myself. It was a 1k game, and I already saw the table being crowded if we went to the recommended 3k. My nain gripe with the system is the same one I had from 2nd edition. That being keeping track of which formarikns are broken, particularly if you're running a lot of identical detachments. I miss blast markers. They added so much readability to the table.
Tracking broken formations just isn't fun, and as you said, especially with identical ones or ones that have the same models. And it only become a bigger and bigger chore demanding more and more space on the sideboard to track as game size goes up. It feels very out of place.
Spot on in terms of missions. Most games the winner is clear after T2, occasionally T3. They’ve shifted towards end of turn scoring now, it’s the same in 30k, but I think the issue in LI is how quickly units die
Completely agree with the board size. I've only seen games on 6x4 and they were only 2000 points. It was packed enough on that size, 4x4 is nuts ! Moving primary scoring to the end has its own issues in that w winning list is just one that wipes the opponent out as, as you said, the opponent can't score if they have nothing left. I would like to see scoring starting on turn 2 at the earliest so forces are forces to blindly rush into the midfield. Even increasing the scoring as the turns progress (eg. mid field objectives worth 1,3,5,7 for turns 2,3,4,5) would be great. It would move the game back to strategic maneovring and keeping resouces alive for the late game rather than this blind rush into the middle with the resulting blood bath.
@rathstar tables are far too crowded which makes the blood bath dice fest. I've been enjoying 2k on a 6x4. Big areas of the table to cross and having to make decisions were units go.
I have been playing games on the reccomended 5x4 size of tables and so far (at 1k points) and the board still feels pretty sparsely populated, with parts of the boards seeing only a few scattered troops. So a bigger table is definitly a must We have also been using dense / moderate amounts of terrains with lots of obstructing and conceiling terrain (ruins and craters) and 1-2 buildings and this has caused everything to be VERY survivable. The difference of cover can not be unerestimated. LOS blocking is also very important. So far all of my games were decided on turn 5, with the advantage swinging back and forth between players as the dice decide who lives and dies (like one of my malcadors tanking the entire space marine gun line for 2 turns straight). I don't know what you are playing, but vehicles are very much glass cannons. They have massive amounts of long range fire power, but crumble if something sneezes in their direction. At least 1/3 of your points should be in infantry. Infantry needs to soak fire by in cover by threatening to charge / take objectives. A heavy focus on tanks will lead to the rolling matches you have described, which is a definity weakness of the system (who doesn't want to field waves of armour?)
@@Tabletop_Standard Understanable, hordes of tanks are quite a sight to behold! You might want to house rule a few things (after talking to your opponent ofc) to make tanks more surviveable. One thing that comes to mind would be that all units can reroll armour saves (favouring tanks above infantry for the surviveability increase to stop them popping from a mutlilaser looking at them the wrong way) I do hope they revise this problem, but that is probably something for a potential 2nd edition as it is part of the integral design of the game atm
@@stormshadow4533 Infantry seem a bit too strong given so few things slow them at all, they get to march 15, through structures, over cliffs, and it doesn't even slow them a drop. They're just a bit too good.
I agree. I was able to play a few games between 1500 and 2000 points. I like the fact that games are won with infantry. I find that it is a fairly successful part of LI, each army corps finds a very specific role. Firepower of tanks, Knights and Titans, precision of aviation, occupation of terrain of infantry. I also agree with the importance of having a certain density of land. The game clearly has its flaws. It's very lethal for sure, but I think it represents the Horus Heresy battles well, a big massacre :D
@@Tav80 Ya its more I think that infantry just get off too east on the terrain front, like b-lining up and down cliff faces without being slowed down is a bit much, as well as treating unoccupied structures as open terrain.
I’d be curious to play the 40K Leviathan pack of missions just to see some different deployments and scoring. Might not always translate well, but the gist might work well enough.
If it's the missions and scoring that feel bad, definitely trying some easily available alternatives are a good start, would be good to see how the game changes. Sounds counter intuitive but have you played just kill points to see how a straight fight feels? The reports I've seen so far seems to lack the diversity coming into the game also, with the variety of dreadnoughts being a notable start!
Not played LI, but sounds pretty much what I've seen in HH (2E). Two turns and you're done, mostly... I played one game that lasted to turn 5. Generally, 2. Seems to be a common pattern with modern GW games.
Not really covered but I think the strengths of infantry narrows tactics particularly in combat. Personally I'd say the combat increases by d3 rather than d6 each time a model fights and rend gives a d6 after the first fight.
Our event had 2k games on 5x4. I think the smaller suggestion was to overcome henrange advantage Auxilia had at launch and, frankly, still have. If so, I'm not sure they understood how that didnt matter when there was so much Rending going on, but hey.
Iv played about fifteen to twenty games now and statered out at 500 pts now play at 3k. Its a brilliant game we have found , defo works better on a big board and you defo need to use different units to mix it up, scenary is a must iv made loads of mini rocks, woods an a big city which really make the difference. The secondary missions we tend to ignore an just do primary, we have found it very close to tte wire at the end or a white wash. Keep at it an great report's guys.
Yeah we went to 4x5 as soon as we got over 750pts. Good shout on use of scenery; very influential on the game for LIMP (love the abbreviation BTW). RE: car park. There is a wacky races towards the objectives in the first couple of turns, but I'm starting to see that change as I add different until types (e.g. airborne detachment). Might be a case of unit mix (infantry+armour only) is impacting on your game.
I do think things will change like you say as different units become available. I'll maybe revist this in a year or so (if we still exist) It yeah Whacky racers in the first round is a thing currently 😄
100% agree. The difference between your LI and Epic30k battle reports is like night and day. The EA rules are vastly superior in so many ways - I want to love this and loving the models but there are issues
I'm not enthused by LI. I'm prepared to give it another go, but compared to EA my couple of games left me feeling very 'meh'. Mostly, due to everything you have pointed out. Scoring, recommended game and table size, the lethality - additionally, tracking formation state is just unfun. Secondary to this is their choice to spread unit rules (even for basic units like bikes and land raiders) across multiple bloody books (which you likely can't get hold of - I certainly can't).
Yeah man. Steve feels the same. I'm gonna do my best to enjoy it. I see the potential but I'm seeing my points are quite common. I'd like to have EA and this as separate rule sets to enjoy. Tony is working on some Tryanids for EA 🤫
Yeah I agree with all these things. Like I’ve said, I’ve ran into the exactly the same issues. But I do wonder if it because of my huge EA bias. EA is my favourite GW game and it’s very hard to let go.
i have not played the game, but i really want to get in to it, the games i have seen have been very one sided after first 2 turns due too the size of the board, it should be a 6/4 means people would have to deply a reserve to support a side that is getting hit hard, you should try playing an epic arma mission with the LIMP model rules on a 6/4 and see how it goes
Here are my thoughts about this video… just my opinions - not intended to attack or suggest that other folks opinions are wrong - just my perspective based on the games I’ve seen and played. Hard to come back after taking heavy casualties This seems to be poor planning on the side of the commanders. If a player looses their army in the first turn, yeah, it will be hard to come back. That is true of most games. The trick them seems to be don’t loose the army in the first turn; there are reserves, players can take more resilient units or use cover. Lots of ways around this. This seems like poor tactics. Recommended table sizes The rules say 4’x5’ is the standard game and all of the missions in the book are writen as 4’x5’. 4’x4’ for smaller games is only GW recommendation, but by no means is a “rule” ( I would only use 4’x4’ for games under 2000 points). Conversely, player can play on a bigger table if they want, nothing prevents it - just the game may have more turns where units will be out of range - it gives ‘shooty’ armies a little be of an advantage - and the units needed to counter that are expensive (Thunderhawks, Storm eagles, Drop pods). Crowded tables Have you ever looked at Epic art work? (like Epic 40,000 box cover, it is super crowded - this has always been the fluff and doublely so in the Horus Heresy, some of the most epic (pun intended) art has two armies, with thousands of soldiers and titans all nose to nose… that’s grim dark, has been that way since 1989. In EA they tried to do that with the fire fight and small arms rules - never hardly anyone gets that close and shoots. But Warhammer has always been about getting up close and smashing the enemy with a chain sword or some other equally brutal weapon - hell: commissars in a russ, drive me closer meme… if the players do not like crowded tables play smaller games or play on bigger boards - but it’s crowded by design - it was like that in 2e and NetEpic as well. Car Park I think this is the same as hard to come back above and boils down to tactics. If you don’t like that style of play, then why do you play that style? Why not send a formation on flanking maneuver around the backside to take you opponents objective (worth more points in most scenarios). Or hold infantry in reserve while your tanks cut down the enemies ability to hold objectives at all then swoop in turn 2/3 and hold everything with superior numbers? Tactics! I haven’t had a single game end up they way the channels games do (yet) but these seems that the players are not feeling the loss of units - like the association between units dying and not being able to hold or complete objective later are not connecting - these are directly related and inversely proportional... don’t play like it Napoleonic wars and it won’t be like Napolenic wars. Maybe I’m missing something - but this the one, from all the grievances, that I just don’t understand. ** hint: scoring hits from the rear increases the AP of weapons… so maybe try do to that… Sticky objectives I think stick objectives is a throw back to space marine 2e and in my opinion is realistic. I personally have found memories of Jervis and Andy playing Epic where Jervis deep strikes terminators into the back field taking an undefended objective away from Andy’s Ork mob. I’ll admit that the points per objective is on the high side and this makes for very swingy games - but I think the motivation was to avoid that swoop in last turn and win approach so common on Armageddon… I believe the high points is to encourage players to get in a scrap rather than sit back… Games being over by turn 2 or 3? Yeah great - who wants a single game to take 8 hours any way? Secondaries hard to achieve Most games I’ve seen on youtube do not use the rules are written. They roll a secondary and then start the game - you’re supposed to role 2 missions and pick one in secret. This obviously give a player some control of picking a secondary their army is suited to achieve (but I’ve not seen any one actually do that - and keep it secret). Some objectives are harder than others, sure, but like carnage? All the players have to do is destroy the opponents units - easy - players were going to do that any way… this is where break points and focusing on certain detachments can come into play - more tactics… I might argue that secondary objectives should score more relative to standard objectives but I don’t think they are hard if a player wanted to do them. Players can’t wait until the last turn to think about them though… They aren’t usually accidental rewards - the players will have to plan and execute to earn those points. One of the secondaries is you have the exit the game from your opponents table edge, how is that hard? 2 turns of march from a rhino or 3 turns from an infantry unit… probably easier if all of the opponents models are parked in the middle of the board too! Missions As mentioned before missions are all written for 4’x 5’ Every single one in the main rule book. If a different sized table is used then the setup should also be adjusted IMO. I’ve seen games that were 42 to 12 at the end of turn 3, then swing the other way by turn 5. The points are swingy - but it swings both ways if the players plan ahead. If the opponents scores 5VPs for objectives in their deployment zone and 3VPs for objectives in neutral areas - let them have the neutral ones and focus on the deployment objectives. I think there are huge opportunities for new missions for sure - and I love the idea of EA style 3 objective per player games (especially if it encourages players to model up their objectives - I do miss that) I would still score objectives every turn to avoid the last turn objective grabs or only allow infantry units to score objectives. Nothing worse than a unit of land speeders marching across the board in the last turn to steal an objective… Conclusion It seems to me that a lot of EA players are struggling with these same issues because subconsciously they are still playing EA. Legions Imperialis is not Epic Armageddon, it’s Space Marine and in order to play it well (IMO) EA players will have to unlearn the tactics and thinking of EA and go back to SM or if they didn’t play Epic back then, learn a new set of tactics in order to succeed in LI. I think the game is more aligned to the fluff and the setting than previous editions. I personally love it.I played and liked EA too, that was a manuver warfare game - and definitely a better rule set for that kind of game. But not too many HH stories focused on maneuver warfare… Just my opinions and not intended to piss anyone off. - I hope you guys keep playing and experimenting to make it work for you.
So, the table is full and that's by design so it's OK... BUT everything dying quickly and it being a car park with no room to manoeuvre is a skill issue and players should get gud? Well, which is it? If the table is full by design, then inevitably everything will die quickly and there will be no room to manoeuvre. Maybe that's a bad design choice?
@@BittermanAndy the table being full is not the reason things die. Things die because they are being run up in front of each other and being shot. If the table is too full, don’t fill it up so much. I don’t understand why they is such a hard concept. You can have a 8’ x 4’ table that is also “too full”. So that is not the reason. Players can have dense city board and not sit nose to nose. There are also models and rules for removing that terrain if a player was so inclined… this is not an issue of the game IMO.
@@CoverSlaves it say you “can” not that you must. You ‘can’ also play on a bigger board, or with smaller forces. My point on this is the results being seen are not a function of the rules but of the players. And I mean that in the nicest way. ** example: speed limit is 60 mph, some people are speeding, making all cars go slower is not the answer, IMHO.
1500 on nothing smaller than 5x4. No buildings within 3" of objectives (but some cover). Not bother with break point (to me it just adds admin for a mechanic which is already impactful enough). Don't bother with the increase scoring for holding more than 1 objectives, and jiggle other scoring to be at end of game/change values etc. ...shouldn't have to put these rules in as a player, to me it shows not as good game design as it should be.
"Not bother with break point (to me it just adds admin for a mechanic which is already impactful enough)" Agree 100% and that's a great way to put it, the admin is bad enough, but its the mechanic itself that isn't impactful enough on the game to make it worth all the extra admin/time. Even more so given that by the time stuff breaks the score is likely so far ahead for one player or one side has already tapped out. It just eats up too much time and sideboard to track it all for something that doesn't control for much.
The thing is too, they also modified 2nd to do stuff it wasn't supposed to, for example, in 2nd overwatch is tied to first fire, you can't just do it whenever. 2nd also had like sudden death style end game scoring I believe instead of the ham-fisted progressive scoring that's causing all these 2-3 turn games.
Yeah, they lost nearly ALL of us original players. A few still did NetEpic, but the fact is Epic40k and it's descendents was a different kind of game, that did not scratch the itch at all. I really do liken it to the change from WHFB to AoS; not similar games, totally different feel, and although it did pick up a new crowd, it lost the bulk of the crowd that built the game and community in the first place.
I am not saying Armageddon is bad or anything; it's just a totally different game with a totally different design philosophy that really didn't do it for the original crowd. It is ok, just not interesting and when playing it, like when playing AoS, it just feels really lacking. There are some cool ideas, and the missions definitely were more well rounded; but it wasn't really the core epic. It's kind of like if D&D decided to ditch polyhedrals and just go to a Chaosium style % system; not the same game experience.
We play on 8x5 table. Anything less is silly/stupid and becomes a dice rolling simulator. Also...Terrain will have an immense impact on games as well. The denser you go the better off you are. LOS breaking is a must. Which seems to be an issue in most game reports I see. Nothing but a small handful of terrain pieces... and then huge firing lanes for tanks etc. Which contributes to the massive death tolls in the first rounds. You break up the LOS and it forces movement. And increases the survivability of your infantry formations. But the game is still changing. There are many aspects that havn't been revealed just yet. As each new release will have an effect on the over all tactics/strategies to be used. I would revisit this topic in say 1 year....By then most things should be out (cross your fingers) and then things should become more stable. Unless they plan on adding a 3rd faction. (Which is needed desperately IMO!)
Exactly. Old 2nd ed was 8x4 foot battlespace, and it forced maneuver and artillery placement. The objective system was simple and worked (Dropzone Commander had a fun variation of this idea where you actually would pick up the objectives and run off with them, haha).
I think I one piece of scenery I have not seen in any LIMP battle report I have watched and could make all the difference is.... Hills!!!
Did we not have some in our mars mat rep? If not can be arranged
@Tabletop_Standard I belive you have rocky outcrops that block LOS but are also impassable.
Rolling hills do the same job for LOS, but can be moved over
Rocky outcrops are nice in terms of them being impassable to everything. I haven tried playing with hills, I do have plateau/butes like cliff faces with flat tops. When we've played them as cliffs, it's been far too advantageous to infantry. I think battlefield in a box might have some desert hills/dune, might check those out. But ya hills seem interesting, at least vehicles benefit as well.
Definitely agree on the bigger boards we always play on a 4x6. We also have started to play around with allowing players to take one "extra save" to add to the survivability of units and it has worked quite well!
I agree as well, the problem I have though with bigger boards is they eat into more and more sideboard until there isn't any left. An 8x4 with a 6x4 mat and two feet of sideboard can work, its just most stores tend to only have tables big enough for 6x4's, so you have to do 5x4 or 4x4 boards to have some sideboard.
I agree 1000%! This is exactly how I feel about the game. The Epic Armageddon basic tournament mission is so simple and elegant I don't think there was any way for them to improve on it. Every other system is a step backwards.
The current GW design philosophy is just crazy amounts of models, pack them on a table, roll dice pointlessly until one side falls off. The table size is an absolute abomination. No room to maneuver, no tactics in movement. I don't even know if these modern game designers understand tactics anymore beyond smashing models together.
I just can't be bothered with GW games post 2010. Epic Armageddon, Necromunda, earlier versions of 40k are the only thing I can stand playing.
Adeptus Titanicus doesnt have said problems.
I agreed with that summery (Titanicus was and is awesome)
@@TheKingElfstone It does share a few common problems tho, ever growing need for more sideboard and difficulty scaling up point level of games on account of alternating activation not being very practical for multi player per side gaming.
@CoverSlaves I've played 4v4 AT and it worked better than most games would with that many...
@@TheKingElfstone How many turns did u get?
Please try out your suggestions in the next report! Quite a few games have bad scenarios initially- definitely make your own.
We will be bud. AT had poor missions when it first dropped
100% agree, none of our games have gone beyond turn 2.
It's the trend it seems
@@Tabletop_Standard It's a trend, part of it too we've seen is, at 2k for example, if one side takes say a warlord and the other doesn't take any knights or titans, the disparity in activations becomes fairly pronounced. We're finding games go better with more communication, not that anyone want to give away their lists but we've had to do more gentleman's agreements on the big ticket items because they can be such a liability to balance and activation count. Game is just over by turn 2, no coming back and in this was the player with the warlord.
Aye The big Engines can be a problem. They take quite a few resources to deal with which then aren't helping with other enemy units. I know it's early days but just a few I've noticed
@@Tabletop_Standard The best success we've had is like have a talk before we make lists, we'd do stuff like "how about 1k and we both try taking an acastus/warhound etc" or at least agree to spend similar point levels of titans/knights. It's not a perfect solution but it has helped a bit to avoid too much of a disparity like with the warlord.
Small miniatures, bigger tables - absolutely! I play on a 6’ by 9’ table and am deep into a massive city fight terrain project that’ll take me a couple of years to make (already spent £2k on GW terrain) so the table will be really dense.
That sounds truly amazing!
I purposely built custon woods, hills and other terrain so it wasn't always cities.
I've also made some woods. We have a decent mix of stuff. Cities look cool though
One of the missions in the main book actually had a mix of progressive and end game scoring.
Cool. I'll keep an eye out for that
Completely agree with you 100%. Every game I've played so far was really decided at turn 2. Also the tables size should be larger to spread everything out more including the objectives.
This seems to be the rule not the exception
I've only gotten a single game in, myself. It was a 1k game, and I already saw the table being crowded if we went to the recommended 3k. My nain gripe with the system is the same one I had from 2nd edition. That being keeping track of which formarikns are broken, particularly if you're running a lot of identical detachments. I miss blast markers. They added so much readability to the table.
I use 3D printed ones for that job, and Chris likes to use Lego, certainly makes it easier to keep track of!
Lego 🤣
Tracking broken formations just isn't fun, and as you said, especially with identical ones or ones that have the same models. And it only become a bigger and bigger chore demanding more and more space on the sideboard to track as game size goes up. It feels very out of place.
Spot on in terms of missions. Most games the winner is clear after T2, occasionally T3. They’ve shifted towards end of turn scoring now, it’s the same in 30k, but I think the issue in LI is how quickly units die
Combination or the two I think
Completely agree with the board size. I've only seen games on 6x4 and they were only 2000 points. It was packed enough on that size, 4x4 is nuts !
Moving primary scoring to the end has its own issues in that w winning list is just one that wipes the opponent out as, as you said, the opponent can't score if they have nothing left. I would like to see scoring starting on turn 2 at the earliest so forces are forces to blindly rush into the midfield. Even increasing the scoring as the turns progress (eg. mid field objectives worth 1,3,5,7 for turns 2,3,4,5) would be great. It would move the game back to strategic maneovring and keeping resouces alive for the late game rather than this blind rush into the middle with the resulting blood bath.
@rathstar tables are far too crowded which makes the blood bath dice fest. I've been enjoying 2k on a 6x4. Big areas of the table to cross and having to make decisions were units go.
My first and only game was 1500 pts on 4x4. Too small even at that size. Bring back the 4x8 table!
I have been playing games on the reccomended 5x4 size of tables and so far (at 1k points) and the board still feels pretty sparsely populated, with parts of the boards seeing only a few scattered troops. So a bigger table is definitly a must
We have also been using dense / moderate amounts of terrains with lots of obstructing and conceiling terrain (ruins and craters) and 1-2 buildings and this has caused everything to be VERY survivable.
The difference of cover can not be unerestimated. LOS blocking is also very important.
So far all of my games were decided on turn 5, with the advantage swinging back and forth between players as the dice decide who lives and dies (like one of my malcadors tanking the entire space marine gun line for 2 turns straight).
I don't know what you are playing, but vehicles are very much glass cannons. They have massive amounts of long range fire power, but crumble if something sneezes in their direction. At least 1/3 of your points should be in infantry. Infantry needs to soak fire by in cover by threatening to charge / take objectives. A heavy focus on tanks will lead to the rolling matches you have described, which is a definity weakness of the system (who doesn't want to field waves of armour?)
I pretty much play Epic for the tanks 😅
@@Tabletop_Standard Understanable, hordes of tanks are quite a sight to behold!
You might want to house rule a few things (after talking to your opponent ofc) to make tanks more surviveable. One thing that comes to mind would be that all units can reroll armour saves (favouring tanks above infantry for the surviveability increase to stop them popping from a mutlilaser looking at them the wrong way)
I do hope they revise this problem, but that is probably something for a potential 2nd edition as it is part of the integral design of the game atm
@@stormshadow4533 Infantry seem a bit too strong given so few things slow them at all, they get to march 15, through structures, over cliffs, and it doesn't even slow them a drop. They're just a bit too good.
I agree. I was able to play a few games between 1500 and 2000 points. I like the fact that games are won with infantry. I find that it is a fairly successful part of LI, each army corps finds a very specific role. Firepower of tanks, Knights and Titans, precision of aviation, occupation of terrain of infantry.
I also agree with the importance of having a certain density of land.
The game clearly has its flaws. It's very lethal for sure, but I think it represents the Horus Heresy battles well, a big massacre :D
@@Tav80 Ya its more I think that infantry just get off too east on the terrain front, like b-lining up and down cliff faces without being slowed down is a bit much, as well as treating unoccupied structures as open terrain.
I’d be curious to play the 40K Leviathan pack of missions just to see some different deployments and scoring. Might not always translate well, but the gist might work well enough.
Worth a punt. To be fair I've not been into 40k since 5th ed so haven't a clue
If it's the missions and scoring that feel bad, definitely trying some easily available alternatives are a good start, would be good to see how the game changes. Sounds counter intuitive but have you played just kill points to see how a straight fight feels? The reports I've seen so far seems to lack the diversity coming into the game also, with the variety of dreadnoughts being a notable start!
Worth a punt but playing a game just for kill points may not be that fun. My next port of call will be the Epic Armageddon mission
@@Tabletop_Standard have a look. Honestly they did a good job at giving some variety. Could be useful even just for the random deployment.
It's hard to achieve secondary objectives when you're dead....😂
No argument here.
😅
Not played LI, but sounds pretty much what I've seen in HH (2E). Two turns and you're done, mostly... I played one game that lasted to turn 5. Generally, 2. Seems to be a common pattern with modern GW games.
Not really covered but I think the strengths of infantry narrows tactics particularly in combat. Personally I'd say the combat increases by d3 rather than d6 each time a model fights and rend gives a d6 after the first fight.
Our event had 2k games on 5x4. I think the smaller suggestion was to overcome henrange advantage Auxilia had at launch and, frankly, still have. If so, I'm not sure they understood how that didnt matter when there was so much Rending going on, but hey.
Iv played about fifteen to twenty games now and statered out at 500 pts now play at 3k.
Its a brilliant game we have found , defo works better on a big board and you defo need to use different units to mix it up, scenary is a must iv made loads of mini rocks, woods an a big city which really make the difference.
The secondary missions we tend to ignore an just do primary, we have found it very close to tte wire at the end or a white wash.
Keep at it an great report's guys.
Glad you've got a solid mix of results. Thanks for the feedback 👍🏻
Yeah we went to 4x5 as soon as we got over 750pts. Good shout on use of scenery; very influential on the game for LIMP (love the abbreviation BTW). RE: car park. There is a wacky races towards the objectives in the first couple of turns, but I'm starting to see that change as I add different until types (e.g. airborne detachment). Might be a case of unit mix (infantry+armour only) is impacting on your game.
I do think things will change like you say as different units become available. I'll maybe revist this in a year or so (if we still exist) It yeah Whacky racers in the first round is a thing currently 😄
And where are the booster packs for Predators, Leman Russ, Sicarians and Malcadors? Seems an oversight not to have released them yet.
Agreed
100% agree. The difference between your LI and Epic30k battle reports is like night and day. The EA rules are vastly superior in so many ways - I want to love this and loving the models but there are issues
I was hoping LI was going to be a new version of the Armageddon rules
@@Tabletop_Standard so whats the plan for the channel going forward. you sticking with LI - maybe on a larger table?
Sticking with it for sure. Still loads to explore. Plus all the other games we enjoy
I'm not enthused by LI. I'm prepared to give it another go, but compared to EA my couple of games left me feeling very 'meh'.
Mostly, due to everything you have pointed out. Scoring, recommended game and table size, the lethality - additionally, tracking formation state is just unfun.
Secondary to this is their choice to spread unit rules (even for basic units like bikes and land raiders) across multiple bloody books (which you likely can't get hold of - I certainly can't).
Yeah man. Steve feels the same. I'm gonna do my best to enjoy it. I see the potential but I'm seeing my points are quite common. I'd like to have EA and this as separate rule sets to enjoy. Tony is working on some Tryanids for EA 🤫
Yeah I agree with all these things. Like I’ve said, I’ve ran into the exactly the same issues. But I do wonder if it because of my huge EA bias. EA is my favourite GW game and it’s very hard to let go.
I probably have the same bias mate
i have not played the game, but i really want to get in to it, the games i have seen have been very one sided after first 2 turns due too the size of the board, it should be a 6/4 means people would have to deply a reserve to support a side that is getting hit hard, you should try playing an epic arma mission with the LIMP model rules on a 6/4 and see how it goes
The EA missions are on my to do list
Here are my thoughts about this video… just my opinions - not intended to attack or suggest that other folks opinions are wrong - just my perspective based on the games I’ve seen and played.
Hard to come back after taking heavy casualties
This seems to be poor planning on the side of the commanders. If a player looses their army in the first turn, yeah, it will be hard to come back. That is true of most games. The trick them seems to be don’t loose the army in the first turn; there are reserves, players can take more resilient units or use cover. Lots of ways around this. This seems like poor tactics.
Recommended table sizes
The rules say 4’x5’ is the standard game and all of the missions in the book are writen as 4’x5’. 4’x4’ for smaller games is only GW recommendation, but by no means is a “rule” ( I would only use 4’x4’ for games under 2000 points). Conversely, player can play on a bigger table if they want, nothing prevents it - just the game may have more turns where units will be out of range - it gives ‘shooty’ armies a little be of an advantage - and the units needed to counter that are expensive (Thunderhawks, Storm eagles, Drop pods).
Crowded tables
Have you ever looked at Epic art work? (like Epic 40,000 box cover, it is super crowded - this has always been the fluff and doublely so in the Horus Heresy, some of the most epic (pun intended) art has two armies, with thousands of soldiers and titans all nose to nose… that’s grim dark, has been that way since 1989. In EA they tried to do that with the fire fight and small arms rules - never hardly anyone gets that close and shoots. But Warhammer has always been about getting up close and smashing the enemy with a chain sword or some other equally brutal weapon - hell: commissars in a russ, drive me closer meme… if the players do not like crowded tables play smaller games or play on bigger boards - but it’s crowded by design - it was like that in 2e and NetEpic as well.
Car Park
I think this is the same as hard to come back above and boils down to tactics. If you don’t like that style of play, then why do you play that style? Why not send a formation on flanking maneuver around the backside to take you opponents objective (worth more points in most scenarios). Or hold infantry in reserve while your tanks cut down the enemies ability to hold objectives at all then swoop in turn 2/3 and hold everything with superior numbers? Tactics! I haven’t had a single game end up they way the channels games do (yet) but these seems that the players are not feeling the loss of units - like the association between units dying and not being able to hold or complete objective later are not connecting - these are directly related and inversely proportional... don’t play like it Napoleonic wars and it won’t be like Napolenic wars. Maybe I’m missing something - but this the one, from all the grievances, that I just don’t understand. ** hint: scoring hits from the rear increases the AP of weapons… so maybe try do to that…
Sticky objectives
I think stick objectives is a throw back to space marine 2e and in my opinion is realistic. I personally have found memories of Jervis and Andy playing Epic where Jervis deep strikes terminators into the back field taking an undefended objective away from Andy’s Ork mob. I’ll admit that the points per objective is on the high side and this makes for very swingy games - but I think the motivation was to avoid that swoop in last turn and win approach so common on Armageddon… I believe the high points is to encourage players to get in a scrap rather than sit back… Games being over by turn 2 or 3? Yeah great - who wants a single game to take 8 hours any way?
Secondaries hard to achieve
Most games I’ve seen on youtube do not use the rules are written. They roll a secondary and then start the game - you’re supposed to role 2 missions and pick one in secret. This obviously give a player some control of picking a secondary their army is suited to achieve (but I’ve not seen any one actually do that - and keep it secret). Some objectives are harder than others, sure, but like carnage? All the players have to do is destroy the opponents units - easy - players were going to do that any way… this is where break points and focusing on certain detachments can come into play - more tactics…
I might argue that secondary objectives should score more relative to standard objectives but I don’t think they are hard if a player wanted to do them. Players can’t wait until the last turn to think about them though… They aren’t usually accidental rewards - the players will have to plan and execute to earn those points. One of the secondaries is you have the exit the game from your opponents table edge, how is that hard? 2 turns of march from a rhino or 3 turns from an infantry unit… probably easier if all of the opponents models are parked in the middle of the board too!
Missions
As mentioned before missions are all written for 4’x 5’ Every single one in the main rule book. If a different sized table is used then the setup should also be adjusted IMO.
I’ve seen games that were 42 to 12 at the end of turn 3, then swing the other way by turn 5. The points are swingy - but it swings both ways if the players plan ahead. If the opponents scores 5VPs for objectives in their deployment zone and 3VPs for objectives in neutral areas - let them have the neutral ones and focus on the deployment objectives.
I think there are huge opportunities for new missions for sure - and I love the idea of EA style 3 objective per player games (especially if it encourages players to model up their objectives - I do miss that) I would still score objectives every turn to avoid the last turn objective grabs or only allow infantry units to score objectives. Nothing worse than a unit of land speeders marching across the board in the last turn to steal an objective…
Conclusion
It seems to me that a lot of EA players are struggling with these same issues because subconsciously they are still playing EA. Legions Imperialis is not Epic Armageddon, it’s Space Marine and in order to play it well (IMO) EA players will have to unlearn the tactics and thinking of EA and go back to SM or if they didn’t play Epic back then, learn a new set of tactics in order to succeed in LI. I think the game is more aligned to the fluff and the setting than previous editions. I personally love it.I played and liked EA too, that was a manuver warfare game - and definitely a better rule set for that kind of game. But not too many HH stories focused on maneuver warfare…
Just my opinions and not intended to piss anyone off. - I hope you guys keep playing and experimenting to make it work for you.
valid opinions and well presented. LI was a massive nostalgia trip for me and the game is still in its infancy so I'm happy to keep playing.
So, the table is full and that's by design so it's OK... BUT everything dying quickly and it being a car park with no room to manoeuvre is a skill issue and players should get gud? Well, which is it? If the table is full by design, then inevitably everything will die quickly and there will be no room to manoeuvre. Maybe that's a bad design choice?
It's easy to miss but the rulebook does indeed state 2500 and under on 4x4
@@BittermanAndy the table being full is not the reason things die. Things die because they are being run up in front of each other and being shot. If the table is too full, don’t fill it up so much. I don’t understand why they is such a hard concept. You can have a 8’ x 4’ table that is also “too full”. So that is not the reason. Players can have dense city board and not sit nose to nose. There are also models and rules for removing that terrain if a player was so inclined… this is not an issue of the game IMO.
@@CoverSlaves it say you “can” not that you must. You ‘can’ also play on a bigger board, or with smaller forces. My point on this is the results being seen are not a function of the rules but of the players. And I mean that in the nicest way. ** example: speed limit is 60 mph, some people are speeding, making all cars go slower is not the answer, IMHO.
Need loads of terrain
Aye could help. But I'd like to play on mixed tables
1500 on nothing smaller than 5x4. No buildings within 3" of objectives (but some cover). Not bother with break point (to me it just adds admin for a mechanic which is already impactful enough). Don't bother with the increase scoring for holding more than 1 objectives, and jiggle other scoring to be at end of game/change values etc. ...shouldn't have to put these rules in as a player, to me it shows not as good game design as it should be.
"Not bother with break point (to me it just adds admin for a mechanic which is already impactful enough)" Agree 100% and that's a great way to put it, the admin is bad enough, but its the mechanic itself that isn't impactful enough on the game to make it worth all the extra admin/time. Even more so given that by the time stuff breaks the score is likely so far ahead for one player or one side has already tapped out. It just eats up too much time and sideboard to track it all for something that doesn't control for much.
They probably went with 2nd as Epic 40k tanked hard, regardless of the designers preferring the latter.
Armageddon is where it's at
The thing is too, they also modified 2nd to do stuff it wasn't supposed to, for example, in 2nd overwatch is tied to first fire, you can't just do it whenever. 2nd also had like sudden death style end game scoring I believe instead of the ham-fisted progressive scoring that's causing all these 2-3 turn games.
Yeah, they lost nearly ALL of us original players. A few still did NetEpic, but the fact is Epic40k and it's descendents was a different kind of game, that did not scratch the itch at all. I really do liken it to the change from WHFB to AoS; not similar games, totally different feel, and although it did pick up a new crowd, it lost the bulk of the crowd that built the game and community in the first place.
I am not saying Armageddon is bad or anything; it's just a totally different game with a totally different design philosophy that really didn't do it for the original crowd. It is ok, just not interesting and when playing it, like when playing AoS, it just feels really lacking. There are some cool ideas, and the missions definitely were more well rounded; but it wasn't really the core epic. It's kind of like if D&D decided to ditch polyhedrals and just go to a Chaosium style % system; not the same game experience.
We play on 8x5 table. Anything less is silly/stupid and becomes a dice rolling simulator. Also...Terrain will have an immense impact on games as well. The denser you go the better off you are. LOS breaking is a must. Which seems to be an issue in most game reports I see. Nothing but a small handful of terrain pieces... and then huge firing lanes for tanks etc. Which contributes to the massive death tolls in the first rounds. You break up the LOS and it forces movement. And increases the survivability of your infantry formations. But the game is still changing. There are many aspects that havn't been revealed just yet. As each new release will have an effect on the over all tactics/strategies to be used. I would revisit this topic in say 1 year....By then most things should be out (cross your fingers) and then things should become more stable. Unless they plan on adding a 3rd faction. (Which is needed desperately IMO!)
We can expect three more factions but I expect it will take 2 years plus to see them all
It'll be very interesting to see what's what in a year. AT had some terrible missions when it dropped. So there is still hope
Exactly. Old 2nd ed was 8x4 foot battlespace, and it forced maneuver and artillery placement. The objective system was simple and worked (Dropzone Commander had a fun variation of this idea where you actually would pick up the objectives and run off with them, haha).
Infantry is WAY too good for their cost. Infantry is super easy to win with, tanks cannot kill them fast enough, and generally die faster
I really wanted this to be a tank game as well
Could be worse.....I thought it said you had a gimp problem....😅
Funnily enough, I had a full leather gimp suit for my stag do. Looked great in the airport to Berlin 😁
@@Tabletop_Standard 🤣