Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think it's kinda refreshing of knights to go from being the perennial whipping boys in AT to seeming much more more resilient in LI. I do find the wound count a bit puzzling though, would have thought a baneblade would have 3 wounds before a questoris.

Having got started to paint finally have to say...the guy i saw paintinj legion symbol freehand on shoulder pad is nuts

Debatinj about eyes myself.

Now to wait for rest of order arrive and gw to announce wave 2.

Anyone have a comparison pic of a Leman Russ and a Centurion main battle tank from Vanguard?

Or failing that, the length in mm of the Leman Russ?

 Fugazi wrote:
Anyone have a comparison pic of a Leman Russ and a Centurion main battle tank from Vanguard?

Or failing that, the length in mm of the Leman Russ?

Russ hull seems to be 30mm in length, with trench rails adding about 8mm to the rear. gun barrels overhang a bit at the front

width is about 22mm wide, hull about 14mm high, with the turret about 20mm high

Very helpful, leopard. Thank you, my friend.

tneva82 wrote:
One hit has no effect though. You need 2 to take down even smallest building. 1 means you have to spend next turn as well shooting at it.

Not that 4 is quarantee either. Odds of missing 3 4+ out of 4 isn't THAT small. 2 is average amount. You still score 0 or 1 hits about 30% times


It might be just a building...or building with bunch of infantry inside.

Guys, you are forgetting firing at structures gives a +1 to hit. p73, Targeting Structures.

However in this case, you 'd still want 4 rather than 2. But it improves the odds.

4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!

 tauist wrote:
4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!

24 dice, if the internet majority interpretation is right. Ie you don't count the sponsons twice, they are represented by one row on the profile. The detachment entry lists one set of " ... SponsonS" and the sponsons weapon entry has 2 shots.

LC sponsons have 1 shot, same as a single hull Russ LC. Plural of Cannon is Cannon, so this is even less clear. Abstracted weapon efficiency, same as 1 marine base Bolters have 1 shot, not 5 although there are 5 boltgubs present on the model (base). Not always logical I know, but RAW.

And if LC sponsons had 2 shots the Predator & Sicaran would be a bit broken, and sponson weapons better than main weapons. This is where the Kratos shines as it has "Two" hull weapons and one set of sponsons.

Pretty amazing they did not make this more clear or consistent tbh, its item #1 for the coming FAQ.

Edit : 4 x 6 = 24

 tauist wrote:
4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!

Well, if you were going to fire a Warp Missile at a non-Titan target, that would be the one.

 tauist wrote:
4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!

24. Each kratos has 2 hull weapon and sponson. 3x2 so 6 shot per kratos. 4 thus 24 shots.

That's how i built 1st box. 8" range also means infantry can get close so gomd overwatch handy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:

 tauist wrote:
4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!

12 dice, if the internet majority interpretation is right. Ie you don't count the sponsons twice, they are represented by one row on the profile. The detachment entry lists one set of " ... SponsonS" and the sponsons weapon entry has 2 shots.

LC sponsons have 1 shot, same as a single hull Russ LC. Plural of Cannon is Cannon, so this is even less clear. Abstracted weapon efficiency, same as 1 marine base Bolters have 1 shot, not 5 although there are 5 boltgubs present on the model (base). Not always logical I know, but RAW.

And if LC sponsons had 2 shots the Predator & Sicaran would be a bit broken, and sponson weapons better than main weapons. This is where the Kratos shines as it has "Two" hull weapons and one set of sponsons.

Pretty amazing they did not make this more clear or consistent tbh, its item #1 for the coming FAQ.

Even if you count hull once and sponson once that's 2 for 4 shots. 4x4=16. How you get 12?

But not really uncllear if you follow these 2 steps:

A) read rule
B) apply it literally without "i think" like "there's 2 sponsons so i think you count twice".

People don't apply literally enough. Sheet says weapons and quantities. Apply those literally without "i think's" and not unclear.

tneva82 wrote:

 tauist wrote:
4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!

24. Each kratos has 2 hull weapon and sponson. 3x2 so 6 shot per kratos. 4 thus 24 shots.

That's how i built 1st box. 8" range also means infantry can get close so gomd overwatch handy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:

 tauist wrote:
4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!

12 dice, if the internet majority interpretation is right. Ie you don't count the sponsons twice, they are represented by one row on the profile. The detachment entry lists one set of " ... SponsonS" and the sponsons weapon entry has 2 shots.

LC sponsons have 1 shot, same as a single hull Russ LC. Plural of Cannon is Cannon, so this is even less clear. Abstracted weapon efficiency, same as 1 marine base Bolters have 1 shot, not 5 although there are 5 boltgubs present on the model (base). Not always logical I know, but RAW.

And if LC sponsons had 2 shots the Predator & Sicaran would be a bit broken, and sponson weapons better than main weapons. This is where the Kratos shines as it has "Two" hull weapons and one set of sponsons.

Pretty amazing they did not make this more clear or consistent tbh, its item #1 for the coming FAQ.

Even if you count hull once and sponson once that's 2 for 4 shots. 4x4=16. How you get 12?

But not really uncllear if you follow these 2 steps:

A) read rule
B) apply it literally without "i think" like "there's 2 sponsons so i think you count twice".

People don't apply literally enough. Sheet says weapons and quantities. Apply those literally without "i think's" and not unclear.

Yeah, my morning Maths were based on two Kratos. 6 HB shots per Kratos. So 12 HB dice from all 2 HB Kratos, 24 from 4 Kratos.

GW do wrote such wordy rules though, most people have trouble reading them clearly.

Getting down to the building.

Predators are lovely. But whoever decided the exhausts were to be separate pieces is a sadist.

Sicarans however are a dream. Just be aware the turrets are weapon system specific.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kratos is a lovely kit.

Whilst one could magnetise to have swappable hull weapons, I went with Autocannon as a nice jack of all trades, able to engage Infantry and Light Vehicles with reasonable affect, and can at least force a save on heavier vehicles.

Best of all? You don’t need to magnetise the main turret weapon. The two cannons nestle quite nicely. Though of course, give the cannon sub-assemblies time to dry before fitting them, lest overspill of glue interfere.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Getting down to the building.

Predators are lovely. But whoever decided the exhausts were to be separate pieces is a sadist.

Sicarans however are a dream. Just be aware the turrets are weapon system specific.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kratos is a lovely kit.

Whilst one could magnetise to have swappable hull weapons, I went with Autocannon as a nice jack of all trades, able to engage Infantry and Light Vehicles with reasonable affect, and can at least force a save on heavier vehicles.

Best of all? You don’t need to magnetise the main turret weapon. The two cannons nestle quite nicely. Though of course, give the cannon sub-assemblies time to dry before fitting them, lest overspill of glue interfere.

If only solar aux plastic were so lucky. I think you maybe swap malc turrets but need to magnetize the top of the hull. The rest it seems like you get weapon options but just one turret so may be able to magnetize where the barrels mount maybe.

I think with the Malcador main gun you could, maybe, make it interchangeable but removing the pivot bit so the whole assembly can slide in/out from the front. hull weapon perhaps with a hole drilled in the hull and a bit of wire on the guns

to be honest I'm not sure if its worth the effort, model a few and make a note what they are armed with push comes, at this scale while WYSIWYG is nice I think so long as its clearly noted and consistent e.g. "all leman russ are vanquisher pattern" don't lose much sleep over it

leopard wrote:
I think with the Malcador main gun you could, maybe, make it interchangeable but removing the pivot bit so the whole assembly can slide in/out from the front. hull weapon perhaps with a hole drilled in the hull and a bit of wire on the guns

to be honest I'm not sure if its worth the effort, model a few and make a note what they are armed with push comes, at this scale while WYSIWYG is nice I think so long as its clearly noted and consistent e.g. "all leman russ are vanquisher pattern" don't lose much sleep over it

I've seen pics where they magnetize the top of the hull on malc and are able to swap, not sure if they had to do a lot of modification to get that far though.


Disagree, wysiwyg is essential at this scale imo. There are units previewed that are literally a or b like the tarantulas las/aa. It's a binary, you really can't toss out wyswyg because it will be the only distinction between the two tarantulas. An example with the starter, contemptor dreads are a or b build, the only difference is the weapon. I don't get to just decide it's a lascannon or kheres when convenient, its the only distinction. Can run it as a mixed unit but are only given the parts on sprue to make 2 las and 2 kheres.

I think WYSIWYG varies on a few factors

1) How easy can you actually tell the weapons at game distance. Eg the Knights have a few small defensive shoulder guns, the difference between them is insanely tiny at normal viewing. This means that either you have to remember anyway; lean down to check every time; or have some way to mark the different units.

2) If you can mark units to stand apart in another way.

Eg a symbol or base colour are often used to denote different specific squads/units (harder here because a lot of tanks don't have a base). If you can mark the yellow based models as being X unit; not only is it good for combat resolution and board viewing; but it also means you can more easily proxy weapons and still have quick referencing without getting mixed up.



Broadly speaking I do agree with WYSIWYG as much as possible. However I also believe in being practical about it and some units will have so many possible weapon options that aren't magnetizable; that modelling every option would be cost and time prohibitive. So if you can mark out those models in another way so they can be easily referenced; that's ok in my view and very practical

 Overread wrote:
I think WYSIWYG varies on a few factors

1) How easy can you actually tell the weapons at game distance. Eg the Knights have a few small defensive shoulder guns, the difference between them is insanely tiny at normal viewing. This means that either you have to remember anyway; lean down to check every time; or have some way to mark the different units.

2) If you can mark units to stand apart in another way.

Eg a symbol or base colour are often used to denote different specific squads/units (harder here because a lot of tanks don't have a base). If you can mark the yellow based models as being X unit; not only is it good for combat resolution and board viewing; but it also means you can more easily proxy weapons and still have quick referencing without getting mixed up.



Broadly speaking I do agree with WYSIWYG as much as possible. However I also believe in being practical about it and some units will have so many possible weapon options that aren't magnetizable; that modelling every option would be cost and time prohibitive. So if you can mark out those models in another way so they can be easily referenced; that's ok in my view and very practical

Asking someone to remember a single bolter is a lascannon is so different than asking someone to remember a series of colours and symbols one has cooked up. There's a point where you really are just putting the burden on your opponent. If someone isn't trying to correct these things from game to game and its only getting worse, or asking me to remember more and more stuff is other stuff is other stuff, its just not tenable, its not a fair ask. Especially if every one of my models corresponds to the list I have.

I'll again use the contemptor example, its not my fault the opponent didn't read the rules and built one with two fists or two las arms or two kheres arms, they litereally only have a and b options for on arm. It's like a tank with mismatched sponsons, nothing about this is fair to ask. It's all fine for a display or diorama or just for fun but he rules just don't allow for it. That's so not on me. I didn't write them

As a Tyranid player I've seen GW mess with legal weapon options almost every single edition of the codex.

Carnies can take 2 heavy weapons this edition; next one they can't; then they can again; then they can't.



So on one level GW can mess with what's legal in the game and take a legal army and make it illegal.

Furthermore, as I noted, many of those weapon options at 8mm are going to be darn tiny when 1ft away. Chances are both players will consult their army list more often than in a 40K game where weapons are pretty big.

So again there are situations where you can denote the unit and then simply refer to the unit card/sheet during the game.



As I also noted there are practical situations where this is just sensible; eg shoulder weapons on knights.

Finally, as I noted, being able to tell different units on the board is helpful not just for weapon/gear; but also just telling which is which.



In the end I'm not outright disagreeing with you; just applying what I consider is a practical approach to WYSIWYG which accounts for tiny detail differences; hard to see variations and the reality of collecting models where someone cannot magnetize every single weapon; not build models to suit every single possible combination of armourments just-incase they want to vary things.

There's room for accommodation or compassion "my left sponson broke off"but "my lascannon spons sare bolters and all my bolters are flamers and all flamers are lascannons except this one" yeah... no


Even if we can get past the miracle of wyswyg as an expection in terms of an ask on everyone's part to have the models correlate to what's in one's list. Even if we get past that, there very much likely needs to be some kind of home rule about mixed weapon loadouts. I can't even count the variations of weapon loadouts a malcador could have, so even with strict wyswig i'd have to get real close if out of 6 malcadors all 6 have a different weapon combination of hull, sponsons and turrets of which there are 3-4 options in each spot. So already a lot of dice, trying to parse out those dice and which weapons are firing, oh the person wants to fast dice and correlate 5 different colours.... like its a game where the crunchiness can be really cool or absolute poison that grinds everything to a halt to account for 7 different weapons firing in 6 different range bands.

So I guess its pick our battles, I already find the accounting for formations breaking points incredibly frustrating on a very limited sideboard where we also have to account for which units are in which structures. Game has a lot of potential and is fun, but has its fun sponges.

One solution, whilst not ideal?

Handmade flags, listing a unit’s load out which you move alongside the unit.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
One solution, whilst not ideal?

Handmade flags, listing a unit’s load out which you move alongside the unit.

Could also just play with poker chips that say leman russ

Not quite the same

I think I’m happy with Lascannon Sponsons, as I can’t ever imagine me fielding less than Loads of infantry, who ought to provide all the small arms fire I need.

Crablezworth I will say you possibly need to have a more 'understanding' view on WYSIWYG in this game. Let me explain: your terrain and modelling at Epic scale is exceptional, I will say it's probably some of the best I have ever seen (and I have played Epic since the 90s). Definitely a lot of people on of this forum, and there are some very very skilled, dedicated hobbyists here, probably couldn't match it. Outside of this asylum, probably 99% view that in the same way they would painted minis in a Golden Demon comp, in that it's something people don't have the time, energy or ability to try and replicate. But you have to be cognisant that the vast majority of people will not have the ability, time/patience to do similar to you, and that includes mass-magentise their vehicle collections.

I was watching some magnetising of turrets for this game and a lot of it looks like a nightmare - 1 x 1mm magnets, I've been doing 8"-length battleship turret magnetisation, I found even that almost impossibly fiddly and I've spent a lot of time doing that sort of thing. What chance does casual, one game-every-two-weeks Joe public have? Or do we expect them to buy and paint up new miniatures for each loadout they want to use? GW might want us to do that, but I don't think it's fair.

I think if you are expecting people to WYSIWYG between Battlecannon/vanquisher turrets for their little Leman Russes, you are going to be butting heads with a lot of people in this game. A quick conversation before the game starts over what each weapon loadout is should be sufficient and thats all I, or anyone I am playing, expect to do.

This is definitely one of the 'fun sponges' that you have mentioned, but GW have made that decision by some mentalist deciding 8mm scale should have a ton of different weapon loadouts.

I think I could probably design some 3D printable bits to make magnetising a lot easier with minimal impact on how the models look.

Do I want to? No. Will I? Probably not, if I were going to go to the effort I'd probably just 3D print entire tanks, I'm already finding some of the LI vehicles excessively fiddly to build.

If they'd made it so that entire detachments had to be equipped the same, it'd make life easier in terms of "pretending" that different units have different weapons to what they are modelled with, but when you have to keep track of each individual unit? Urgh, no thanks.

 westiebestie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 tauist wrote:
4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!

24. Each kratos has 2 hull weapon and sponson. 3x2 so 6 shot per kratos. 4 thus 24 shots.

That's how i built 1st box. 8" range also means infantry can get close so gomd overwatch handy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:

 tauist wrote:
4 Kratos with Melta Blastguns and all Heavy Bolters would make for quite the bunker buster squadron. You'd have 16 dice of 5+ point defence to throw at any infantry trying to get to you before you take out the building, too!

12 dice, if the internet majority interpretation is right. Ie you don't count the sponsons twice, they are represented by one row on the profile. The detachment entry lists one set of " ... SponsonS" and the sponsons weapon entry has 2 shots.

LC sponsons have 1 shot, same as a single hull Russ LC. Plural of Cannon is Cannon, so this is even less clear. Abstracted weapon efficiency, same as 1 marine base Bolters have 1 shot, not 5 although there are 5 boltgubs present on the model (base). Not always logical I know, but RAW.

And if LC sponsons had 2 shots the Predator & Sicaran would be a bit broken, and sponson weapons better than main weapons. This is where the Kratos shines as it has "Two" hull weapons and one set of sponsons.

Pretty amazing they did not make this more clear or consistent tbh, its item #1 for the coming FAQ.

Even if you count hull once and sponson once that's 2 for 4 shots. 4x4=16. How you get 12?

But not really uncllear if you follow these 2 steps:

A) read rule
B) apply it literally without "i think" like "there's 2 sponsons so i think you count twice".

People don't apply literally enough. Sheet says weapons and quantities. Apply those literally without "i think's" and not unclear.

Yeah, my morning Maths were based on two Kratos. 6 HB shots per Kratos. So 12 HB dice from all 2 HB Kratos, 24 from 4 Kratos.

GW do wrote such wordy rules though, most people have trouble reading them clearly.

6 HB shots per Kratos? My epub claims its 4 HB shots per Kratos, assuming you equip both sponsons and the hull with em.. what am I missing?

Re-read it just now and both wepon profiles state "Heavy Bolters" ie plural.. by my logic this means that you get 2 dice of HB from sponsons and 2 dice of HB from the hull mounts. Nowhere does it state I would multiply these numbers due to anything..?

 tauist wrote:


6 HB shots per Kratos? My epub claims its 4 HB shots per Kratos, assuming you equip both sponsons and the hull with em.. what am I missing?

Re-read it just now and both wepon profiles state "Heavy Bolters" ie plural.. by my logic this means that you get 2 dice of HB from sponsons and 2 dice of HB from the hull mounts. Nowhere does it state I would multiply these numbers due to anything..?

Its here in the weapon loadout, it says two hull mounted HB and a single sponson mounted HB
Since both those profiles have two dice each thats six dice in total.

The stats sheet for the hull HB says "Hull Mounted heavy bolters", but the weapon load out says "Two Hull Mounted heavy bolters or two Kratos lascannon or two Kratos autocannon".

It's poorly written. Calling them "Hull Mounted heavy bolters" would imply to me that it should include both hull heavy bolters in the profile, but since the weapon load out options specifically say "Two" where the weapons stats don't, I'd say that you get 2x the HB profile for the hull but only 1x for the sponsons.

That's super confusingly worded, hopefully we'll get a FAQ about it.

If that's the case, then the best weapon to equip to hull mounts would be Autocannons for 4 dice with rerolls, no doubt about it..

24 dice of 5+ HB's for overwatching will delete most infantry for sure, maybe one wouldn't even need that much.. Perhaps the best "goldilocks" loadout for dealing with infantry, buildings and tanks would be Melta Blastgun, 2x hull HBs and Lascannon sponsons, you could threaten buildings & superheavies up close, would still get 16 dice of 5+ overwatch against chargers, and could lascannon/autocannon stuff at longer ranges. Against tanks and light vehicles at range, you'd go Battlecannon, 2x hull autocannons and sponson lascannons

A Kratos is a very flexible gun platform, it seems..

Got my LI coin sorted BTW! I wanted one for denoting which player has the iniative in any given turn.. I'm a sucker for metallic tokens hehehe! If someone made metallic order counters for LI, they'd be an instabuy for me

It seems like for the Baneblade, the hull lascannon turrets are 2 shots, but for the Kratos instead of giving it 2 shots in the profile, they have one shot in the profile and say "two" in the loadout options.

So it's weird, but I guess the end result is consistent?

Effectively in any shooting phase only 1 of the side sponsons will fire, but if it's a hull turret both of them can fire.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think I could probably design some 3D printable bits to make magnetising a lot easier with minimal impact on how the models look.

Do I want to? No. Will I? Probably not, if I were going to go to the effort I'd probably just 3D print entire tanks, I'm already finding some of the LI vehicles excessively fiddly to build.

If they'd made it so that entire detachments had to be equipped the same, it'd make life easier in terms of "pretending" that different units have different weapons to what they are modelled with, but when you have to keep track of each individual unit? Urgh, no thanks.

I won't do it myself, I'm into the game and scale enough that I'll either get duplicates or make sure I go for the correct profile and build those. I'm just saying if I go to my local club on a weeknight and someone points at their Russ armoured company that 'these are vanquishes, not battle cannons' I won't mind that.

The more I see of this game the more I think it's again, like Necromunda, designed for people who are either massively into something (i.e. us on forums) so we spend a significant amount of our free time on it, or students/the unemployed. Or I suspect, the guys who designed it and are up most evenings until midnight 4 or 5 times a week playtesting. They got bored running through stuff after 40 attempts at one scenario and then so decide to add multiple weapon profiles for a single tank. "For us, not for them". You actually have to hope that the casual players who want a game once or twice a month haven't joined the Facebook groups which have multiple discussions/arguments on lascannon Vs HB, or the detailed photo diagrams of where someone has used 1x1mm magnets on something that looks like it will require the same dexterity of performing open heart surgery - because if they do, they probably will cancel their purchase and not effing bother.

And breathe. (sorry got going a bit there!)