apologist

As always, thank-you for your commentary and insights. I know very little about the technowizardry of financials, so appreciate being led through.

2W and 2A, with lots of weapon options. They're a neat way of creating 'Codex-style' Space Marines, with one heavy and one special weapon; though they're also more flexible than that. I'm very pleased with them, because I think they're great rules for 'truescale/movie marines' when fighting things like Solar Auxilia. Gives them a bit more beef and keeps the numbers low.

I'll agree with overcomplicated, but thematically I think it makes a lot more sense that a field apothecary can triage small arms wounds, but is at a loss when his comrades are hit with tank busters! The designers have made explicit that they want the game to be more narrative, and so I get the feeling the reason rules like these feel a bit over-crunchy is the desire to hew closely to 'feel' rather than slickness. I'm not sure they're hit the mark every time, but I admire the effort. For what it's worth, I think apothecary rules have always struggled a bit. They're either realistic but ineffective (2nd ed. 40k) or overly abstract and 'game-y' (10th ed. 40k). While I always thought I wanted abstractness and clean rules, there's been a bit of a sting in the tail of me getting my wish. 40k has got smoother and faster and slicker, but ultimately I now find it a bit ... soulless? +++ I always liked having an Apothecary present in my army, but it felt weird seeing one in every squad. These 'Medic!' rules appear over-complex on the face of things, but I suspect after a game or two they'll become second nature. My impression is that they have ensured that taking an Apothecary in a squad will be more driven by narrative and rule-of-cool than an auto-take, and that's a narrative win. ... and as a final thought, it strikes me that these rules tally well with Legions Imperialis, where the Medic only has a chance at saving infantry hit by Light weapons (i.e. small arms) – they're ineffective against bigger stuff.

By the will of the God-Emperor/ Completely by coincidence (delete as appropriate), I dug these out of my garage over the weekend. A lot of fun, and some very fond memories.

The book is the sleeper hit of this preview (the Whirlwinds and Vindicators my actual faves – what took you so long, lads?) I loathe ‘splatbooks’. Absolutely detest the idea of breaking up a single armylist across half a dozen books, so voted with my wallet by simply ignoring them. I can kinda understand them for something like 40k, or AoS, which have been ticking along for years, but for GW’s boxed games, which almost by definition should be a bit more self-contained and less ambitious in scope, it just comes across as anti-consumer. This preview, of a book that contains the actual complete army lists for every army in the game, and notes in a quiet phrase that they’ve been rebalanced? Well, that to me says that this is the version that has benefited from all the early adopters, and has every potential to be worth picking up. I really want to like Legions more than I do; I hope this release finally gives me the reason to do so. (also, Whirlwinds – awesome!)

Yeah, this is exactly the route I use. Rules are secondary to models, but it's always pleasing when you can make a decent approximation of what your model's actually holding within the rules.

I agree with the sentiment (I like all my toy soldiers to tally up scale-wise!), but I think there's a conscious effort to differentiate 30k and 40k; and minimise crossover. I would expect any resized Cataphractii and Tartaros to be only incrementally larger, and certainly no larger than the more recent character series figures in Tactical Dreadnought Armour. The Imperial Fist Praetor in Tartaros plate is notable for being a slightly smaller one that quickly replaced a very large figure. Anyone have some of the more recent resin Terminators to compare with the plastics?

Whether planned or not, this is good to hear. It's nice to see a clear rundown on what's in, what's not, and perhaps most critically, an explanation of why certain decisions were made. It looks like a thorough list, so fair play to them for addressing things properly, rather than more vague statements that further inflame things. (and on a related note, I'll happily retract my prediction that Tartaros Terminators' loss of Power Fists suggested that they were being rethought as a unit, since that's an example explicitly called out.) +++Edit+++ Although now I read a bit more closely... is the implication actually that it is intentional that Tartaros won't have power fists except through this PDF?

Ah; have I got things wrong? I thought it worked like: Crusade Primary Detachment Centurion – opens up two potential Auxiliary Detachments Unlocks my Praetorians (Elite) through Logistical Benefit Auxiliary Detachment 1 – e.g. Dreadnought Chaplain – opens up one potential Auxiliary Detachment Auxiliary Detachment 2 – e.g. Land Raider Master of Signals – opens up one potential Auxiliary Detachment Auxiliary Detachment 3 – e.g. Heavy Support Squad Is that not right? If it is, then that covers everything I'd typically have in a game.

As a vague exercise, using @Mandragola's – excellent, thank you! – article as a guide, I thought I'd look at what my army might look like, and what (if anything) I need to change. + Mustering the Praetors of Calth and 190th Company + In 2nd edition, I wanted to differentiate my older models from newer ones (like the examples above) by making them veterans, but as they were equipped with old-style Tactical equipment (the army pre-dated Age of Darkness first edition, being built for the Tempus Fugitives campaign weekends), this was a bit awkward. I ended up building some new bolter-armed individuals to replace the special/heavy weapons in those squads, but there wasn't a neat way of making them functionally different beyond using them as Seekers, which I did a couple of times, but always felt a bit 'icky' doing. In the end, I tended to leave them out of the army entirely, and rely on the new models I built almost completely – but then 2nd edition AoD never really took off in my group, so I only played a handful of times. Secondly, I also wanted to field all my low-level characters – Lieutenant Holion, Master of Signals Pullo, Chaplain Highheart and my Herald – as I was proud of them, and wanted to show them off. The force org meant that 1 had to be left out. A very minor problem, really, but an annoyance. The new approach seems flexible to the point of fault – as @LameBeard says above, the system looks a lot like Legions Imperialis' super-complicated and functionally irrelevant army building, where it takes a very long time to find out that there aren't really any limits on what you can take. On the face of things, I think it looks slightly more polished than LI, with the Prime slots mechanic a clever reward for basic theming (and allowing me to do fuffy things like allowing Sergeant Mox to have some slightly improved stats to represent his background story of being the senior sergeant in the Company); and not having the awkward Formation break point to track. +++ + Good in parts + So, I can fill out the new Detachment quite nicely: No High Command – since it's optional, I'm not encouraged to use Praetor-level stats for my Lieutenant-level character; and can just take Holion as a Centurion (command) – and happily he can now take both his Axe of Ultramar and special shield (I forget the name). Pullo and Highheart fill the other two Command slots, but Holion remains a little bit special as he can occupy the 'Prime' slot, so he feels more in charge (albeit with a brevet rank of Captain, following his commander's death during the initial attack on Calth). I can then field three squads of ten Tactical Marines (Troops), each with their own Rhino; plus have one of my old squads fielded as Troops with a Prime slot... or I can take two squads of twenty Tactical Marines and my Breachers. +++ + Some limits + Oh, wait... my Breachers have power swords, because that was an option for Ultramarines. So I can't take those... except that they're now a special Ultramarines-only unit (Praetorians). Those are presumably Elites, which aren't an option on the Crusade Primary Detachment, so by virtue of taking three officers I'll have to take those from an Auxiliary Detachment, right? ... Ah. Looks like there's no option for Elites here, so I have to go back to the Crusade Primary Detachment and rethink. Oh – looks like Holion's as-yet unused Prime benefit can be used to take a Logistical Benefit, which will unlock the right slot, so that's that. For bigger games, I might want to bring in some more specialist stuff – and at that point I start running into choices. I can take Captain Aethon at this point as a High Command choice; but to me, High Command implies Tetrarch rank (i.e. there's only a handful of them, rather than being 'ordinary' Chapter Master level), so I'd rather not do that. At this point, however, I run into a problem. As far as I can see, there's no way to get more Command slots without using the High Command slot. And I haven't yet been able to squeeze in my Herald. Perhaps I need to get over the idea that High Command represents genuinely exceptional individuals (like Abaddon and Sigismund), and accept that Chapter Masters (in Ultramarine terms, Captain Aethon is an equivalent) are okay to take as High Command. If I do that, then things get a little more fun as I can take an Apex Detachment. I can now take the three squads of my old Praetors of Calth as Veteran Tactical Squads in the Army Vanguard, which are allowed exactly the equipment the models have (hooray!), and still get Mox as slightly better than Epipatros and Santiagon. Pullo (my Master of Signals) allows me to unlock the Armoured Fist detachment and take my Land Raider; and Highheart allows me to take a Heavy Support detachment so I can field my Dreadnought Lazaron. I think that still leaves me with the Centurion (Holion's) two Detachment choices to play with, so I can also bring to the field Techmarine Arius and my apothecary. +++ + Stop rambling – what's your point? + ... anyway, this is all a long detour towards a general thumbs-up on the army building. As long as I can get over the idea that Captains can be High Command, this version of Age of Darkness better fits my idea of what an army should look like, is flexible enough to fit my idea of background theme – and I get to field the force as I originally wanted it, all those years ago. Is it perfect? No, not at all – I feel very sad for anyone whose army doesn't fit in, or whose hard-built favourite units don't have a place. There's no getting away from the fact that it's a [SCRAPSHUNTERRORABORT] if your old army doesn't translate across or requires cludgy 'counts-as'. As noted above, I know that feeling well from 2nd edition. Nevertheless, I found the exercise of army building in AoD 3rd edition a lot more approachable and fun than the Legions Imperialis army building experience, which (despite my keen desire to like it and a lot of patience) is about as fun as hammering nails into splintery two-by-fours. +++ + Further ideas + In writing this, it struck me that the bolt-it-on approach of the new way of army building has got my brain fired up for expansion. In theory, I can build more Tactical Marines; or field my Salamanders or Iron Hands as Allied Detachments quick as a wink, rather than having to slog through making 1,500pts+ of them. Being able to game with those smaller forces alongside my Ultramarines is great, I think I'd struggle to have the motivation to build them otherwise. I think the new system also lends itself to expansion better. If a model comes out that I like the look of, I'm not talking myself out of it by thinking about what I'll have to lose from a set force – and if I decide that I want to field something really weird like an Apothecary-heavy army for a scenario like defending the genebanks, I'll be able to do so without being forced to drag an important officer from the frontlines.

I'd like to get a few games in to make a judgement on that. I've always loved hordes of basic Tactical Marines and low-level officers (I felt weird having a Praetor for a Company-level engagement), and have had multiple editions in which that sort of force has been largely a punching bag (fine with me – at least I get to push models around and go pew-pew!). From what I can see, the addition of Line and Vanguard, and the general toning-down of the more extreme combos, will make my sort of army much more effective, if not flashy. What am I saying here? At root, I'm looking forward to an edition where you want to take basic Troops because they're genuinely good, rather than because you're forced to. I'll likely still get my head stoved in gaming-wise, but I'll have a lot more fun doing it if I'm facing more hordes of troops than just watching my phalanx getting taken apart by tiny over-equipped Death Stars. Of course, hope springs eternal, so ask me again after some test games!

Not only this edition, but in the setting in general! Legions Imperialis also suffers from this style of rules writing. It's a Catch-22 – compare the examples below ; the first from Epic: Space Marine 2nd edition, the second from Legions Imperialis. The former is brief, conversational and anecdotal (i.e. giving a single example); the second is more in-depth, formal and general. I think the SM2 version is easier to read, while the LI version covers more of the inevitable edge cases. The older style of writing rules was more open to misinterpretation and (in some cases) people playing in bad faith. On the other hand, because it's less abstract than the newer style, it's easier to take in, in turn making the game easier to learn. I really dislike the new style of writing. While it gains a small measure of clarity, it makes reading onerous; and I think that colours the way people approach the game. Is it better to try to legislate for people taking the **** by writing in such a legalistic way? I don't think so. Better instead to have a brief summary in naturalistic language, with the 'legal stuff' boxed out nearby. +++ To take Bastion of Fire as an example, I think a naturalistic couple of sentences accompanied by a list of bullets is not only more enjoyable and immersive, but clearer too. If you play in good faith, you can get away with just the basic text, but the 'legal terms' are there in case there's an disagreement or different interpretation. Compare:

Facetious or not, this is an interesting point of discussion. There's a point of design principle here – of granularity in wargear options versus abstraction. There's a balance to be struck; and I'd say that placing restrictions on unit is fine if the design space it opens up is meaningful, but that this should be consistent. When 3rd edition 40k came out, a lot of the individual weapons from the previous editions were homogenised into a few catch-all camps (close combat weapons, power weapons etc.); and that met with similar reactions – howls of dismay from some, indifference from others; some people changing their models to be 'legal', and others sorting it with a chat before the game. In the designers' notes in White Dwarf, I think it was noted that this was likely to be upsetting, and they said that 'counts-as' is fine if you didn't want to take a knife to your models. This abstracting of the various assault squad weapons is similar to what's happening to the Varygr Terminators (and similar units). Let's call it consolidation – an abstraction in favour of simplifying and speeding things up. However, that consolidation was applied universally – whether Eldar, Space Marines or Orks, your army was similarly consolidated by the universal rules. In contrast, between HH2 and HH3, it's currently looking like some Legions and units retained options, while others didn't – and that does strike me as inconsistent. The Legion Champion being restricted to either volkite serpenta or combi-melta is an understandable position*, but immediately feels wrong when the other officers have free choice. From what the leaks show, it looks like different units have been treated in different ways; and it's not clear why. That's understandably annoying – particularly if you've ended up with a model that (for whatever reason) now 'feels wrong' to you, and doubly so if your mate's force hasn't been similarly affected. +++ I think this is also related to two other things. Firstly, that consolidation in the name of simplification and speeding things up seems to run counter to the designer's explicit aim of making the game more involving, complex and rich. Secondly, that the changes are accompanied by potentially unrelated tweaks – things like the loss of Tartaros power fists, which (as noted above) I don't think is consolidation, but rather the deliberate rethinking of a unit to give it more design space to breathe. The Ultramarines new** special unit, the Praetorians, are a better way of handling the desire for a sword-and-board unit than the previous way of adding a set of rules to the Breacher unit. Neither, I think, is a problem is and of its own – but without an overview and explanation, I can see why people are getting grumpy. +++ * To be clear, understandable from a game design point of view; but not the option I would have liked. ** New to me, at least – apologies if I'm behind the times!

Haven't played Age of Darkness for ages, but from what I can see, the core rules look fun. I like the fact that a lot of the old 'success/fail' mechanics have been softened a bit, so there's a bit more granularity. I had a little play around with the leaks, seeing how my Ultramarines would translate into the new edition. I'm in the happy position that I think I can field my force largely as I envisioned it way back before the HH rules were released. With that said, I'm sorry to see people finding problems fitting things in, though – I had a similar problem in the previous edition, where the way I'd built my Veterans meant they had to be awkwardly crammed in as Seekers. I remember it knocking my enthusiasm. As a minor observation, the new army building method suffers from what happened in Legions Imperialis, in that it's simultaneously complicated and arbitrary. If I'm understanding the word soup correctly, there's not any meaningful restrictions. Do you really only have to take one choice from the Crusade Primary Detachment before selecting whatever units you want from whichever Auxiliary/Apex/Additional Detachments you like? +++ ... and on a completely different note, I think the lack of power fists on Tartaros is deliberate – heralding more of a distinction between the various types of Terminators, and new models. Making Tartaros the faster but more lightly-armed Terminator choice opens up some design space – though I appreciate that's cold comfort if you've got a load modelled with fists on.

...quite literally! While most of the army has been in a KR case, a few of these figures have been lurking on top of my workspace (the nearest I get to a display cabinet), and have gathered a lot of dust. I'll have to give them a gentle rinse and a scrub. Pictured above are, from left to right, a standard Legionary; Captain Aethon, Lieutenant Holion and a Standard Bearer; while below you can see two Tactical squads with all the trimmings (banner, commlink and sergeant), plus my Master of Signal Pullo, and Chaplain Highheart. An old list I dug out had the following. The square brackets note what I had to previously use them as. Look like the new rules will let me use them as intended!