132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
 kodos wrote:With advertising that a normal game is 100+ pieces and one "piece" being a 25mm base or larger, it will be 6x4 at least
IMHO it's a given that larger is always better with epic, to make the most out of transports, artillery and fliers. With too small a table, you run in the 'parking lot' problem a lot.
31456
Post by: Bolognesus
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Kind of?
The Legions had Chapters as part of their overall structure. However, a Chapter being defined as 10 Companies of 10 squads of 10 Marines does come from the post-Heresy Codex Astartes. But, given the author of that august volume, I think we can comfortably say the Ultramarines Chapter was comprised of Companies each 1,000 (or thereabouts) Marines.
During the Heresy casualties and induction varied so wildly between Legion and indeed war zone I don’t think it was especially well defined? There would’ve been some standardisation with a given Legion if only for logistics. As in, if 5 companies were committed to a given battle or war zone, the Primarch and command would have a solid idea of how many boots on the grounds that would mean.
Oh hey that's a fair point. Come to think of it I can't remember seeing many, if indeed any, ultramarines models in 'official' HH media put out by GW; the idea they could paint a thousand smurfs and *add* variety to their promotional materials gives me a good chuckle 
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
Dudeface wrote:leopard wrote:dunno about actual plastic tiles, however off the back of other games I can see folding paper/card type gaming mats
They mentioned model count but not table size which seems fishy to me tbh, I suspect it'll be either 4x4 or 6x4 otherwise they'd be drumming up marketing saying "use your existing play surface" type stuff.
My not-so-secret hope is that they will release a set of 12"² ruined cityscape tiles to match the bases and the buildings, similar to the Necromunda tiles.
102719
Post by: Gert
 Bolognesus wrote:Oh hey that's a fair point. Come to think of it I can't remember seeing many, if indeed any, ultramarines models in 'official' HH media put out by GW; the idea they could paint a thousand smurfs and *add* variety to their promotional materials gives me a good chuckle
Uh?
Also for the way that Legions were generally organised, look no further than the Principia Belicosa:
Most Legions adhered to this structuring with the only real difference being that as the Legions grew, so did their Chapters and Companies.
86045
Post by: leopard
that sort of background detail is why I really love this game
31456
Post by: Bolognesus
 Gert wrote: Bolognesus wrote:Oh hey that's a fair point. Come to think of it I can't remember seeing many, if indeed any, ultramarines models in 'official' HH media put out by GW; the idea they could paint a thousand smurfs and *add* variety to their promotional materials gives me a good chuckle
Uh?
Also for the way that Legions were generally organised, look no further than the Principia Belicosa:
Most Legions adhered to this structuring with the only real difference being that as the Legions grew, so did their Chapters and Companies.
...Oh. Oops. Wasn't really "around" for 1e HH so that box slipped my mind, for sure! Is the force organization structure chart 1e material as well or have I just skimmed over it in the 2e book(s)?
86045
Post by: leopard
thats from one of the 1st edition Black Books, the level of background they have is incredible
missed that box but grabbed two of Burning of Prospero which I thought was the better of the two - both decent though and the actual game inside wasn't that bad either
102719
Post by: Gert
First ever Black Book for the original FW series, Betrayal. God it was such a magical time when that came out. You won't see that level of detail in the army books but Siege of Cthonia has done a bang-up job of equalling the level of detail and dedication. Any worries I had about HH2 not being up to scratch in terms of background were alleviated with the image spreads in the army books and blown away by Siege.
3309
Post by: Flinty
Always interesting to see a force org. Also interesting to see at what level GW adds in the infinitely expanding bit. Seems to be 2 places here, chapters and companies.
Baseline humans can deal with maybe 4 or 5 separate work streams at any one time. I suppose marines could handle more as they are augmented. Also interesting to see that the force org also acknowledges intermediate groupings of companies, likely for this reason.
86045
Post by: leopard
Gert wrote:First ever Black Book for the original FW series, Betrayal. God it was such a magical time when that came out. You won't see that level of detail in the army books but Siege of Cthonia has done a bang-up job of equalling the level of detail and dedication. Any worries I had about HH2 not being up to scratch in terms of background were alleviated with the image spreads in the army books and blown away by Siege.
yes, will be getting that when the FLGS gets it back in stock, likely getting all the books, they are worth it.. I want the ones for the false emperor anyway just to see what vile dirty tricks his followers have available but so far they are just very good books
126446
Post by: ohreally
leopard wrote:
yes, will be getting that when the FLGS gets it back in stock, likely getting all the books, they are worth it.. I want the ones for the false emperor anyway just to see what vile dirty tricks his followers have available but so far they are just very good books
It's direct only. You need to ask your FLGS to special order it for you through the webstore.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Plastic tiles ala Zone Mortalis tiles? Certainly look like it...
Also, looks like the Firefight mechanic is staying in some fashion
67795
Post by: RexHavoc
Please be plastic tiles! The one thing I've always struggled with in Epic was getting good terrain done and half of that is I could never get roads/bases right for terrain! I'd honestly buy plastic tiles up and hoard them like the necromunda folk did back when they came out!
I still wasn't 100% if this would come off as a cheap, one and done type game and the first pictures that went up were ok but not of the quality I'd expect of this sort of release.
But these are much better. Had I been scrolling through social media and passed these, I'd probably have mistaken them for a decent looking 40k game. Only the multi basing really gives it away.
The new terrain looks ok, but not terrible exciting. Thankfully there a lot of plastic terrain options to add more variety.
I'm still disappointed about the lack of Orks, they would have looked so good with a new range of stompa models!  But I'm ok with it, I can buy into this and keep playing E40k and keep using vanguard orks. Its not the release I'd have asked for, but I can definitely make the best games with this as part of the larger hobby! I am excited to get my hands on the plastic tanks (for cutting them up for ork terrain of course!)
126443
Post by: Matrindur
Could be plastic tiles but after we never got the Kill team floors I wouldn't bet on it
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Really not liking the big turds between the feet of all the infantry models, hoping they aren't too hard to remove.
72249
Post by: beast_gts
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Really not liking the big turds between the feet of all the infantry models, hoping they aren't too hard to remove.
Why - don't you want every model to have their own tactical rock? /s
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
beast_gts wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:Really not liking the big turds between the feet of all the infantry models, hoping they aren't too hard to remove.
Why - don't you want every model to have their own tactical rock? /s
Haha, if they were actually standing on the rock it might be less offensive.
I'm guessing they either had issues with legs breaking when they're clipped out of the sprue, or they want to have it so they can be glued down with superglue without constantly falling off. I imagine if the models are plastic, and they're glued down with plastic cement, the tactical turd will be unnecessary from the strength perspective.... but maybe it's hard to remove without breaking a leg off.
26519
Post by: xttz
They've done it to increase surface area contact between the model and base so that any glue is stronger. Quite often models like Tyranid or Chaos daemons which have thin claws dug into the ground have bits of debris / junk attached for the same reason.
I wonder why they didn't just use the old Epic recessed-style infantry base design instead.
65284
Post by: Stormonu
 xttz wrote:They've done it to increase surface area contact between the model and base so that any glue is stronger. Quite often models like Tyranid or Chaos daemons which have thin claws dug into the ground have bits of debris / junk attached for the same reason.
I wonder why they didn't just use the old Epic recessed-style infantry base design instead.
Because those things are the devil to pop the individual infantry into those holes.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
xttz wrote:They've done it to increase surface area contact between the model and base so that any glue is stronger. Quite often models like Tyranid or Chaos daemons which have thin claws dug into the ground have bits of debris / junk attached for the same reason.
If it's glued with plastic cement, the attachment point will be as strong as the rest of the model, so the model will probably be more likely to break at the knee than the foot.
I wonder why they didn't just use the old Epic recessed-style infantry base design instead.
I'm guessing because they wanted the moulded detail on the bases.
Maybe they were also trying to save some money by having the same base for everything. If they used recessed bases, the infantry would need different bases to the dreadnoughts, which would be different from the monstrous infantry.
I noticed they've also done bases for the Knights. I wonder if all the AT stuff is going to get reboxed with new bases. A lot of the AT range is "No longer available Online", hopefully just a reboxing.
52897
Post by: Ignispacium
I plan to just glue sand/ballast to the bases, so it's less of an issue for me, but they do stand out a bit if you're going for the bare stone look. The legs look wide enough on the marines that it shouldn't be too difficult to nip them or cut them with a hobby knife.
552
Post by: Prometheum5
NVM- now that there's more examples to see I think it is a base slug between the legs on flat bases. Was initially thinking the tactical rock helped hide the seam for a circle cutout like on the old bases.
16469
Post by: Nils
Ignispacium wrote:I plan to just glue sand/ballast to the bases, so it's less of an issue for me, but they do stand out a bit if you're going for the bare stone look. The legs look wide enough on the marines that it shouldn't be too difficult to nip them or cut them with a hobby knife.
Same here, I based all my old Epic miniatures like that and it worked well.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Tsagualsa wrote: kodos wrote:With advertising that a normal game is 100+ pieces and one "piece" being a 25mm base or larger, it will be 6x4 at least
IMHO it's a given that larger is always better with epic, to make the most out of transports, artillery and fliers. With too small a table, you run in the 'parking lot' problem a lot.
Gw likes parking lot look though. And they can't make money out of 6x4.
Only good news hh2 is 6x4 so maybb hope.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Those floors are so plain they might as well be MDF.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Really liking the ruined buildings. Probably the best epic terrain I’ve seen from GW. Nice bit of height, and looks to be pretty flexible in terms of building upwards.
I’m hoping they’re fully compatible with the returning AT terrain, so we can have a lower floor more intact, and a big old hole blasted into it further up.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Cracked paving, roads and drains? Admittedly maybe mdf with some cardstock or plasticard on
130613
Post by: Shakalooloo
Those streets look like a Monopoly board!
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Forward men! For today we march...ON MAYFAIRRRRRRR!!!
67795
Post by: RexHavoc
Shakalooloo wrote:Those streets look like a Monopoly board!
SamusDrake wrote:Forward men! For today we march...ON MAYFAIRRRRRRR!!!
I'm not totally against this!
Go straight to eye of terror, do not pass Mars.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
"Sir, we've arrived. Apparently we're being charged £2,000. Something about a hotel..."
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
...and Horus is the mastermind behind it. 
26519
Post by: xttz
 zedmeister wrote:
"Sir, we've arrived. Apparently we're being charged £2,000. Something about a hotel..."
That's just the price of the new resin Forge World tiles.
The houses & hotels cost extra.
65284
Post by: Stormonu
xttz wrote: zedmeister wrote:
"Sir, we've arrived. Apparently we're being charged £2,000. Something about a hotel..."
That's just the price of the new resin Forge World tiles.
The houses & hotels cost extra.
And the Votann have all the Land Trains...
34906
Post by: Pacific
 RexHavoc wrote:Please be plastic tiles! The one thing I've always struggled with in Epic was getting good terrain done and half of that is I could never get roads/bases right for terrain! I'd honestly buy plastic tiles up and hoard them like the necromunda folk did back when they came out!
Troublemaker games do a good roads set
https://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/shop/roads-set/
I used a cheap method (which I stole from someone else) of a thin wargaming mat, where I cut out the floor plan and road sections and then just back then on some thin cork. You can then put your buildings and things on those, so you don't just have buildings on green grass.
98217
Post by: Skinflint Games
 Pacific wrote: RexHavoc wrote:Please be plastic tiles! The one thing I've always struggled with in Epic was getting good terrain done and half of that is I could never get roads/bases right for terrain! I'd honestly buy plastic tiles up and hoard them like the necromunda folk did back when they came out!
Troublemaker games do a good roads set
https://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/shop/roads-set/
I used a cheap method (which I stole from someone else) of a thin wargaming mat, where I cut out the floor plan and road sections and then just back then on some thin cork. You can then put your buildings and things on those, so you don't just have buildings on green grass.
That is truly a GLORIOUS spectacle
29661
Post by: stratigo
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Citation is gonna be “Chinny Reckon”. Spesh as GW don’t, and have never, offered sales figures per line. Indeed their next six month report isn’t due for another couple of days, going on the last published date of 10 January 2023.
So in theory, we’ll get the latest, year end, report on Monday. Certainly at some point next week.
Talking to people who have a line on independent retailers and the product they move. HH stuff doesn't sell (Except vindicators actually) well for at least the past year. It did massive when the game first dropped, but the sales have plummeted and stores are struggling to move the product.
Not a foolproof source, but I doubt that GW virtual or their own store sales are incredibly misaligned with independent retailers.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Thing is, the product that the retailers order in but doesn't sell and sits on their shelves is paid for and sold as far as GW is concerned - they track their own sales they make direct-to-consumer and to their distributors and retailers, they don't track the sales that their retailers make to their customers. As long as retailers continue to order-in and stock Horus Heresy product, GW will continue to believe its a hot-selling commodity.
As for GWs online and physical stores, theres a surprisingly large group of what I consider non-savvy consumers who use those as their primary resource to acquire GW product, even though its more expensive than other options. This is why GWs online and physical stores frequently sell out of their product allocations for many products, even while theres an excess of the same product available at local independent retailers. Over the past year I have seen quite a bit of new HH product sell out on release via GWs own website, even while local stores struggle to get any sales at all of the same kits.
87012
Post by: Toofast
stratigo wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Citation is gonna be “Chinny Reckon”. Spesh as GW don’t, and have never, offered sales figures per line. Indeed their next six month report isn’t due for another couple of days, going on the last published date of 10 January 2023.
So in theory, we’ll get the latest, year end, report on Monday. Certainly at some point next week.
Talking to people who have a line on independent retailers and the product they move. HH stuff doesn't sell (Except vindicators actually) well for at least the past year. It did massive when the game first dropped, but the sales have plummeted and stores are struggling to move the product.
Not a foolproof source, but I doubt that GW virtual or their own store sales are incredibly misaligned with independent retailers.
I'm friends with a few people that own gaming stores in a couple different states. I've heard the same and noticed it myself. When 30k launched, there were people lining up on release day outside my FLGS. One of my warhammer stores presold like 40 copies of the starter box. Individual squads would sell the day they hit the shelf. Now every store in my area has all the 30k releases going back about the last 8-10 months just sitting on the shelf collecting dust. The original 2-3 they ordered at release are still sitting there while they've sold through their entire 40k stock many times over. Nobody is playing the game, either.
IMO GW took way too long to release units after the starter set launched. Also, every important unit for your legion was sold out on FW for months. I wanted a full iron circle escort for Perturabo along with an IW dread. For 3-4 months they were sold out with 1 restock which was also gone by the time I woke up and checked my email. After that I threw all my 30k stuff in the closet and it hasn't come out since.
86045
Post by: leopard
yes HH does suffer from what could loosely be called "where are my assault marines?" syndrome.
there are some locally playing it, and a few more who say they would, if they could get the units they actually want
98762
Post by: RazorEdge
People expected "Warhammer The Horus Heresy" not "Warhammer the Tank Game"...
86045
Post by: leopard
RazorEdge wrote:People expected "Warhammer The Horus Heresy" not "Warhammer the Tank Game"...
now look here see, if Battlefront can pretend WW1 was pretty much a tank on tank war I'm sure GW can tell fibs about a fictional battle being similar...
probably
or something
I'm waiting for them to troll everyone with a tank commander who has a jump pack
87012
Post by: Toofast
RazorEdge wrote:People expected "Warhammer The Horus Heresy" not "Warhammer the Tank Game"...
Don't forget, your tank will get 1 rounded by a Contemptor that cost 100pts less...
67795
Post by: RexHavoc
leopard wrote:RazorEdge wrote:People expected "Warhammer The Horus Heresy" not "Warhammer the Tank Game"...
now look here see, if Battlefront can pretend WW1 was pretty much a tank on tank war I'm sure GW can tell fibs about a fictional battle being similar...
probably
or something
I'm waiting for them to troll everyone with a tank commander who has a jump pack
They will release a HH Primaris tank commander with jump pack this summer
86045
Post by: leopard
RexHavoc wrote:leopard wrote:RazorEdge wrote:People expected "Warhammer The Horus Heresy" not "Warhammer the Tank Game"...
now look here see, if Battlefront can pretend WW1 was pretty much a tank on tank war I'm sure GW can tell fibs about a fictional battle being similar...
probably
or something
I'm waiting for them to troll everyone with a tank commander who has a jump pack
They will release a HH Primaris tank commander with jump pack this summer
but, and this matters, will he also have a flag?
125822
Post by: Boosykes
Doesn't seem like they are hyping this enough. I thought we would have daily articles leading up to its launch
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
I'm enjoying building Heresy armies very much... but I don't think it's realistically doable without a 3d printer and decent skill in digital kitbashing to boot. Outside nutters who can casually afford Forgeworld of course, but those were doing it already, the new edition didn't expand that demographic.
I kinda expect "Epic" to go the same way, massive sales of the starter and then a realization that the model range isn't large enough for fully functional games and there isn't even a backlog of Forgeworld resins in the right scale. Existing players will be divided between those who switch and those who don't but in the end Epic will still be largely played only by the same people who played it before the reboot.
8042
Post by: catbarf
 lord_blackfang wrote:I kinda expect "Epic" to go the same way, massive sales of the starter and then a realization that the model range isn't large enough for fully functional games and there isn't even a backlog of Forgeworld resins in the right scale. Existing players will be divided between those who switch and those who don't but in the end Epic will still be largely played only by the same people who played it before the reboot.
It's way, way easier to 3D print stuff at Epic scale, so even if you don't have a printer yourself there's going to be a glut of alternative minis available for sale.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
A 3d printer is really the only way I was able to get some of the bits I needed for HH, I need alot of apothecary arms, so I had to print them.
Same with reader squads for songs of horus
82928
Post by: Albertorius
GW released a whole lot of plastic tank kits, which is nice'n all, and something every legion can use...
...but I don't think people play HH to play "Tank: the Game". And at any rate, it's something better done at the scale of LI than at the scale of HH.
So here we are. With lots of tanks but lacking many basic options.
83198
Post by: Gimgamgoo
Toofast 809458 11565090 wrote:
I'm friends with a few people that own gaming stores in a couple different states. I've heard the same and noticed it myself. When 30k launched, there were people lining up on release day outside my FLGS. One of my warhammer stores presold like 40 copies of the starter box. Individual squads would sell the day they hit the shelf. Now every store in my area has all the 30k releases going back about the last 8-10 months just sitting on the shelf collecting dust.
I figure that's down to GW's conditioning of its customer base. Their fomo sales technique. GW customers are conditioned to buy it on release, or don't buy it at all, as they expect it to be gone for good anyway.
126382
Post by: EightFoldPath
 Albertorius wrote:GW released a whole lot of plastic tank kits, which is nice'n all, and something every legion can use...
...but I don't think people play HH to play "Tank: the Game". And at any rate, it's something better done at the scale of LI than at the scale of HH.
So here we are. With lots of tanks but lacking many basic options.
It is crazy, I think quite a few people (including me) thought the idea was to make tanks and dreads that could pull double duty (and get double sales or more) in 30k and 40k. It seemed like a genuinely smart decision by GW for once.
86045
Post by: leopard
3d printerings..
well since this was announced I have printed, and painted
- 6x Land Raider
- 8x Rhino
- 6x Whirlwind
printed and awaiting paint
- 2x Damocles
- 6x vindicator
- 10x tactical marine stands, the excellent "galactic crusaders" range
- 2x assault marine stands
my aim is upon release to have at least the box contents as viable alternatives, note I will be getting the box as well anyway but this way will be able to get a game very rapidly
was amazed just how good these guys are when printed, a lot of the models are the 40k version but the level of detail is astounding
34906
Post by: Pacific
lord_blackfang wrote:
I kinda expect "Epic" to go the same way, massive sales of the starter and then a realization that the model range isn't large enough for fully functional games and there isn't even a backlog of Forgeworld resins in the right scale. Existing players will be divided between those who switch and those who don't but in the end Epic will still be largely played only by the same people who played it before the reboot.
I hope this doesn't happen. Yes I know you will get some who just hop on the latest shiny thing and come and go, but I think the scale and concept can stand up on its own and hopefully the Epic community will get a nice bump to its numbers even after the game is no longer fashionable.
You have players coming in from AT and AI as well, and it's a short jump for them.
Probably a lot will rest on the quality of the ruleset (if it's a good one, there will be no shortage of people in the community proselytising about it).
If the model range is poor, there is already a massive range of proxies and 3D prints available - hopefully there will be enough people playing in clubs that they can help direct those who would normally only buy new/official GW stuff.
29661
Post by: stratigo
 catbarf wrote: lord_blackfang wrote:I kinda expect "Epic" to go the same way, massive sales of the starter and then a realization that the model range isn't large enough for fully functional games and there isn't even a backlog of Forgeworld resins in the right scale. Existing players will be divided between those who switch and those who don't but in the end Epic will still be largely played only by the same people who played it before the reboot.
It's way, way easier to 3D print stuff at Epic scale, so even if you don't have a printer yourself there's going to be a glut of alternative minis available for sale.
If enough people do this the game is still as dead as if no one buys anything at all
Albertorius wrote:GW released a whole lot of plastic tank kits, which is nice'n all, and something every legion can use...
...but I don't think people play HH to play "Tank: the Game". And at any rate, it's something better done at the scale of LI than at the scale of HH.
So here we are. With lots of tanks but lacking many basic options.
People I know mostly grumble about HH not getting garbled word salad rules cleaned up in two years. 40k and AoS are really charmed in having a fast turn around of FAQs and balance updates.
I mean I still play and have fun with HH, but Legions Imperialis is probably gonna take up all that space I have an interest for in the setting (*Stares forlornly at the way too much money spent on HH*)
Pacific wrote: lord_blackfang wrote:
I kinda expect "Epic" to go the same way, massive sales of the starter and then a realization that the model range isn't large enough for fully functional games and there isn't even a backlog of Forgeworld resins in the right scale. Existing players will be divided between those who switch and those who don't but in the end Epic will still be largely played only by the same people who played it before the reboot.
I hope this doesn't happen. Yes I know you will get some who just hop on the latest shiny thing and come and go, but I think the scale and concept can stand up on its own and hopefully the Epic community will get a nice bump to its numbers even after the game is no longer fashionable.
You have players coming in from AT and AI as well, and it's a short jump for them.
Probably a lot will rest on the quality of the ruleset (if it's a good one, there will be no shortage of people in the community proselytising about it).
If the model range is poor, there is already a massive range of proxies and 3D prints available - hopefully there will be enough people playing in clubs that they can help direct those who would normally only buy new/official GW stuff.
It's all down to profit. GW's willing to support a game that makes consistent returns, but there will always be a lag after they drop what they originally planned while they assess whether the profits justify producing more
But several games are getting consistent support. And several... aren't.
34439
Post by: Formosa
I printed
Lion El jonson
10 knight cenobium
10 deathwing companions
60 mkII tacticals
10 Interemptors
6 Rhino
2 Armoured proteus
1 Spartan
2 Deredeo
2 Leviathans with storm cannons
3 contemptors 2 with las/fist and 1 dual lascannon
and I will still buy the box on release as I want continued support for it as time goes on, I will not be printing Titans and the like as I really like the GW models and the prices are not too bad considering.
8042
Post by: catbarf
stratigo wrote:If enough people do this the game is still as dead as if no one buys anything at all
Well, sucks to suck I guess. If GW doesn't provide a sufficiently complete range to actually play the game, people are going to turn to alternatives.
If there are a variety of plastics right out of the gate at reasonable prices then there won't be any incentive to deal with Etsy sellers.
81204
Post by: Dryaktylus
Well, reading the lyrics is one thing. I hope they also have the voices to perform them properly. 
18045
Post by: Snord
lord_blackfang wrote:I'm enjoying building Heresy armies very much... but I don't think it's realistically doable without a 3d printer and decent skill in digital kitbashing to boot. Outside nutters who can casually afford Forgeworld of course, but those were doing it already, the new edition didn't expand that demographic.
I don't entirely agree. Clearly, 3-D printing is filling the gaps for many HH players. But there is a lot of scope for converting what you need from other kits. There are a few problematic issues, but there is a lot of enjoyment to be had in coming up with your own versions of things. As an Ork player in WH40k, I'm used to building what I can't buy. I have had to resort to eBay though.
I suspect that 10th Edition will drive some more players to try HH. But there is no doubt that GW needs to plug the main (non-vehicle) gaps in the range with plastic kits, and probably do a proper FAQ for the rules.
1001
Post by: schoon
lord_blackfang wrote:I kinda expect "Epic" to go the same way, massive sales of the starter and then a realization that the model range isn't large enough for fully functional games and there isn't even a backlog of Forgeworld resins in the right scale...
Very hard to say and depends greatly on the quality of the rule set.
AT had (and I would argue still has) solid sales despite a lack of variety. That's partially because it's a solid set of rules and fun to play.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
 schoon wrote:AT had (and I would argue still has) solid sales despite a lack of variety. That's partially because it's a solid set of rules and fun to play.
I would say AT was a full game experience when it had 3 titan chassis at the latest. Epic might take a while getting there if, for example, there are profiles for core elements such as transport vehicles and artillery in the book already and no models for them forthcoming for what could be a year or more at the usual specialist games pace. People will definitely feel like they're not getting to play the full game if they can't field everything in the book.
26519
Post by: xttz
lord_blackfang wrote: schoon wrote:AT had (and I would argue still has) solid sales despite a lack of variety. That's partially because it's a solid set of rules and fun to play.
I would say AT was a full game experience when it had 3 titan chassis at the latest. Epic might take a while getting there if, for example, there are profiles for core elements such as transport vehicles and artillery in the book already and no models for them forthcoming for what could be a year or more at the usual specialist games pace. People will definitely feel like they're not getting to play the full game if they can't field everything in the book.
It's going to be significantly easier to round out the Epic roster more quickly than it was with regular HH. For example, we've already seen that the basic space marine infantry sprue includes half a dozen unit types, each of which would require a separate plastic kit (or resin upgrade) at regular scale. Lots of the vehicle variants can be done with a single kit too, and may skip some of the more esoteric options (we don't need 10 different Predator weapon profiles at this scale).
I suspect that in 6-12 months time the main content 'missing' for marines will be niche things like Primarch models or alternative armour marks that exist solely for a cosmetic difference. By then we'll be looking towards a new book with things like Mechanicum models.
What are people expecting from today's Heresy Thursday article? I'm going with core transports like rhinos or land raiders.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
xttz wrote:What are people expecting from today's Heresy Thursday article? I'm going with core transports like rhinos or land raiders.
They've been shy in showing off anything beyond the core box. If they do, and I think it unlikely, it probably will be an iconic unit like those two. Of course, the Kratos, Spartan or Land Speeder would be nice. For solar auxilia, I'm hoping for Carnodons and Dracosans.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Where is the best place to look for the news as it comes, is it just the Warhammer Community -> Articles page?
26519
Post by: xttz
FWIW the Reaver titan was announced prior to release of the Titanicus launch box, and released very shortly after. I could see them doing something similar with staple units like rhinos.
Of course they might just do a full article on the new terrain today and release that instead
Pacific wrote:Where is the best place to look for the news as it comes, is it just the Warhammer Community -> Articles page?
If you open the specific HH page and click on the News option you can often see articles around 10-15mins before they appear on the main listing.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/the-horus-heresy/
1464
Post by: Breotan
xttz wrote:FWIW the Reaver titan was announced prior to release of the Titanicus launch box, and released very shortly after. I could see them doing something similar with staple units like rhinos.
Of course they might just do a full article on the new terrain today and release that instead
To be fair, they have already previewed the new plastic Dire Wolf kits. I think the new terrain-specific preview will be posted before launch since the pictures already show it.
I expect the previews and releases to follow the same pattern that AT-18 did.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Transports might not be quite as sexy as the other stuff, but should be a VITAL part of any game at that scale.
There better be there at release or very soon after >_>
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Pacific wrote:Where is the best place to look for the news as it comes, is it just the Warhammer Community -> Articles page?
This page also tends to update before the front page:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/latest-news-features/
34906
Post by: Pacific
Thanks guys!
Yes I agree Albertorius, Rhinos and Land Raiders and the meat and two veg of Epic scale, would be pretty unthinkable for them to release the game without them!
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Pacific wrote:Thanks guys!
Yes I agree Albertorius, Rhinos and Land Raiders and the meat and two veg of Epic scale, would be pretty unthinkable for them to release the game without them!
Land Raiders were also the OP-est unit in the original Epic 40k ruleset, so yes please have them but don't make them like that 
126443
Post by: Matrindur
The articles themself are often uploaded a few minutes before xx:00, the front page only shows them 10-15 min later but this page normally shows them around 5 mins after xx:00 and if you switch between All and All News you force the page to refresh the articles even before they are shown normally. Thats how you normally get them 2-3 mins before xx:00
We shouldn't forget that Heresy Thursday won't just show LI but also HH2.0 in the future but I also expect today to be another LI article. Whatever they show I expect it to be parallel between SA and SM in the same way the starter is. For example if they show Land Raiders I would also expect the Dracosan. But for today I think we will see either Rhinos and Aurox transports or the new terrain.
Also in this article they said the first wave of releases would be arriving within weeks of the launch box, so I expect the weekend with the box to not have anything else but not a long wait until we get more.
Also there aren't that many Thursdays anymore until the release if they also show a few things for HH2.0
We'll probably also get something shown at GenCon at the beginning of August but I wouldn't expect too much stuff in the first wave after the launch box
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
If transports aren't available more or less from day 1, I'm going to assume the devs are as out of touch with Epic as they are with Heresy not needing melee troops.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Being able to put units in transports and move them is one of *the* fundamental parts of Epic, and that has been the case for every edition.
Throwing a few survivor tactical units into their two remaining rhinos and heading off to capture a game-winning, unguarded objective on the last turn etc.
It's one of the big differences to 28mm scale, where you have to assume the tanks never get out of first or reverse gear and moves about 30 feet forwards or backwards.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
lord_blackfang wrote:If transports aren't available more or less from day 1, I'm going to assume the devs are as out of touch with Epic as they are with Heresy not needing melee troops.
Pacific wrote:Being able to put units in transports and move them is one of *the* fundamental parts of Epic, and that has been the case for every edition.
Throwing a few survivor tactical units into their two remaining rhinos and heading off to capture a game-winning, unguarded objective on the last turn etc.
It's one of the big differences to 28mm scale, where you have to assume the tanks never get out of first or reverse gear and moves about 30 feet forwards or backwards.
Basically that. Not seeing transports in the launch set already sets off some alarms, for me.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Full disclosure, I only ever played one match of Epic (E:A) with someone else's army
Was always an avid fan but by the time it was feasible for me to buy it (ie. we joined the EU and I had credit card) it had died out. I got a few large Ork lots from eBay but never used them.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
I reckon a big thing will be price and quality of the rules. Also how they handle the rules, if they pull a typical GW and spread the rules across multiple expensive books, that's not going to encourage a big uptake. It might work for 40k because people are plastic crack addicts when it comes to 40k and 40k already has the massive benefit of being ubiquitous, but with this side games that need to establish themselves and it's very off putting when you realise how much you need to spend to get all the rules.
I'll prooobably buy the starter... killing AI has simultaneously made me salty, burned out my hobby budget in the "last chance to buy" FOMO, and also increased my pile of shame far more than I'd have liked. I'm already regretting buying Leviathan, so as much as I love Epic and want it to succeed, I might observe from the sidelines this time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: lord_blackfang wrote:I kinda expect "Epic" to go the same way, massive sales of the starter and then a realization that the model range isn't large enough for fully functional games and there isn't even a backlog of Forgeworld resins in the right scale. Existing players will be divided between those who switch and those who don't but in the end Epic will still be largely played only by the same people who played it before the reboot.
It's way, way easier to 3D print stuff at Epic scale, so even if you don't have a printer yourself there's going to be a glut of alternative minis available for sale.
Especially infantry. I'm mainly interested in GW's new Epic from the perspective of vehicles, because I've never managed to get vehicles that don't have print lines on them.
But infantry is sooooo easy to print. Can print several hundred infantry models in a weekend and they come out ready to paint with zero mould lines to clean up. From the close up images, I don't think GW's plastics are any better quality than what I printed on my cheap 50 micron printer, let alone what people do on high res printers.
118994
Post by: No_Marines_Here
This 'transports upsell' business is souring my excitement a tad. As others have pointed out, unless they have changed the game in some fundamental way, transports will be essential. That's already an obligatory extra purchase before you can think about the stuff you want.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Remembering the Epic 40k boxed set with its 12 Rhinos, 6 Land Raiders, 6 Whirlwinds, 3 Stompas, and 12 Battlewagons.
66936
Post by: Vorian
The are 2 Warhounds in this one, to be fair.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
On the one hand, that's something not everybody is going to need, on the other, nobody is getting excited over a bunch of rhinos
IMHO it's an attempt to have most major 'foodgroups' of the game in the starter box: light infantry, heavy infantry, some specialists, walkers, tanks, titans. Only thing missing would be lynchpin characters like Primarchs (understandable not to put in the starter, as it locks you into a legion), air power and non-titan superheavies, so essentially it's a complete-ish overview of the system.
Leaving transports out is still a pretty big omission from a tactics and 'How is this played' point of view, but they may be relatively ubiquituous in the force-specific boxes, we don't know that yet.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Which is going to bump up the price unnecessarily, would much rather see more tanks/infantry in the main boxed set and buy Warhounds separately than the other way around (especially since I, and I imagine many others, already have Warhounds from AT anyway ).
66936
Post by: Vorian
Sure, you may or may not want Warhounds in there - but comparing the non Warhound contents and saying one has more is obviously going to favour the one without two titans.
I would imagine Rhinos and Land Raiders are almost certain to be out within 2 or 3 weeks of the core set.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
I have, I dunno, 8 AT Warhounds? But they seem like a healthy inclusion to me. Showcase a different tier of model. Honestly a bit of a shame they didn't put a Thunderhawk too, show off flyer and transport rules.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
That's what they should be selling separately instead, yes  Automatically Appended Next Post: AllSeeingSkink wrote:Which is going to bump up the price unnecessarily, would much rather see more tanks/infantry in the main boxed set and buy Warhounds separately than the other way around (especially since I, and I imagine many others, already have Warhounds from AT anyway ).
I have 8 Warhounds already, yes >_>
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
Can’t have too many Warhounds. It’s an asymptotic state, like “enuff dakka” or “the exact value of 1÷∞” - you can get arbitrarily close but the goal is always slightly further away.
86045
Post by: leopard
hopefully with transports they do "do a Battlefront" and decide they play no part in the game so omit them, providing mobility with what amounts to a "strategem card"
serious face desk if they do that
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Oh boy, please do not
86045
Post by: leopard
BF did it so as to avoid having to make plastic transport models they knew not everyone would buy to replace resin ones
GW will include them, specifically because they will flog a box with Rhinos inside, it will also include other stuff you won't want a silly number of.
personally a box with a number of rhino scaled to be one or two models over what a typical detachment would require works (so you can expand slightly), the sort of thing someone with a combine arms force wants one or two of and an infantry heavy wants maybe double that
nice would be having the rear hatch as a drop on part with options for a whirlwind, razorback and command rhino (and yes I know the razorback isn't in HH yet)
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
leopard wrote:hopefully with transports they do "do a Battlefront" and decide they play no part in the game so omit them, providing mobility with what amounts to a "strategem card"
serious face desk if they do that
What utter madness is this? The idea that 'Epic' does not have Rhinos, Land Raiders, Spartans, Gorgons, or the Thunderhawk Gunship, for Pete's sake, is incomprehensible!
86045
Post by: leopard
MarkNorfolk wrote:leopard wrote:hopefully with transports they do "do a Battlefront" and decide they play no part in the game so omit them, providing mobility with what amounts to a "strategem card"
serious face desk if they do that
What utter madness is this? The idea that 'Epic' does not have Rhinos, Land Raiders, Spartans, Gorgons, or the Thunderhawk Gunship, for Pete's sake, is incomprehensible!
it makes about as much sense as a WW2 game without softskin trucks, jeeps etc or a WW3 game without stuff like mortars or again transports
given GW want to flog models though I'd suspect if they could not only would you have the rhinos but you will be required to also have (and thus buy) models for fuel trucks, recovery vehicles, mobile canteens etc
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
leopard wrote:
BF did it so as to avoid having to make plastic transport models they knew not everyone would buy to replace resin ones
GW will include them, specifically because they will flog a box with Rhinos inside, it will also include other stuff you won't want a silly number of.
personally a box with a number of rhino scaled to be one or two models over what a typical detachment would require works (so you can expand slightly), the sort of thing someone with a combine arms force wants one or two of and an infantry heavy wants maybe double that
nice would be having the rear hatch as a drop on part with options for a whirlwind, razorback and command rhino (and yes I know the razorback isn't in HH yet)
GW surely will be releasing rhinos because almost every other SM tank is a Rhino with stuff stuck to it. There's literally no reason not to sell barebones rhinos as a result, and since we all know that models make rules, not the other way around, at GW, there will be Rhino rules, and once you got these, you can do other transports as well because why wouldn't you.
86045
Post by: leopard
I've got some Rhino printed, and heck even painted, in anticipation
29661
Post by: stratigo
lord_blackfang wrote: schoon wrote:AT had (and I would argue still has) solid sales despite a lack of variety. That's partially because it's a solid set of rules and fun to play.
I would say AT was a full game experience when it had 3 titan chassis at the latest. Epic might take a while getting there if, for example, there are profiles for core elements such as transport vehicles and artillery in the book already and no models for them forthcoming for what could be a year or more at the usual specialist games pace. People will definitely feel like they're not getting to play the full game if they can't field everything in the book.
They have a stock of releases they are gonna feed out for probably around a year. I guarantee they have already a large stock of rhinos, land raider types, and a few baneblade variants. They'll release these in drips because they always need to be releasing something and, frankly, we would all lose our gak if GW actually sold everything they were planning to release at once and then we had to wait 2 years before the designed products hit production.
The game might go fallow after they finish releasing everything they already planned to.
42373
Post by: Shadow Walker
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
Oh poo. All keyed up for nothing.
86045
Post by: leopard
guessing it will ramp up in say the fortnight ahead of pre-orders going live
67795
Post by: RexHavoc
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Which is going to bump up the price unnecessarily, would much rather see more tanks/infantry in the main boxed set and buy Warhounds separately than the other way around (especially since I, and I imagine many others, already have Warhounds from AT anyway ).
Same. I'd rather buy a single box of warhounds (though I already have a couple) and be able to buy the starter 2+ times to get basic infantry and rhinos. They way they are doing it, I'm going to end up with a box full of unbuilt warhounds and have to pay a fortune to buy a chapters worth of rhinos.
Epic isn't Epic with out hundreds of rhinos on the table top. I'd also rather paint 200 rhinos than 4 warhounds.
The way they have put together the starter is just going to encourage me to keep buying 3rd party alternatives, or I'll finally just get around to buying a 3d printer. (Then chances are I'll have even less use for the releases)
I didn't expect there to be a legions article today, though I'd been hoping they were going to show off the terrain and confirm the tiles are plastic and see some of the new building sprues.
26519
Post by: xttz
leopard wrote:guessing it will ramp up in say the fortnight ahead of pre-orders going live
It's possible they're keeping some of the juicier Epic stuff back for Gencon / NOVA in August. FW resin characters don't have the same appeal there.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
xttz wrote:leopard wrote:guessing it will ramp up in say the fortnight ahead of pre-orders going live
It's possible they're keeping some of the juicier Epic stuff back for Gencon / NOVA in August. FW resin characters don't have the same appeal there.
I'm still hoping they're preparing to flash everybody with an Imperator-class titan as the centerpiece model - even if it was impractical to play, many would buy it just to paint, and it would not be that much larger than what they do for 40k-scale Knights nowadays.
1001
Post by: schoon
Tsagualsa wrote:IMHO it's an attempt to have most major 'foodgroups' of the game in the starter box: light infantry, heavy infantry, some specialists, walkers, tanks, titans. Only thing missing would be lynchpin characters like Primarchs (understandable not to put in the starter, as it locks you into a legion), air power and non-titan superheavies, so essentially it's a complete-ish overview of the system.
Pretty much this.
They had to start somewhere with the main box, and they decided that Marines, Auxilia, and Warhounds were the "food groups" they wanted to showcase.
I would expect to start seeing the "other food groups" much closer to the release date.
I must say that I'm looking forward to deploying Marines from a Thunderhawk...
34899
Post by: Eumerin
A mass-produced Imperator at or just after launch would draw flack from players due to the other stuff that would be displaced from the production schedule to make room for it.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
Eumerin wrote:A mass-produced Imperator at or just after launch would draw flack from players due to the other stuff that would be displaced from the production schedule to make room for it.
It would take up a single knight-sized production slot in plastic (or resin, shudder...), and they seem to have room for stuff like the Acastus Knight variants for big-Heresy, so i'm not sure how much of a foundation that would have. And there is obviously demand for something like that, judging from scratchbuilds and 3rd-party products. And on top of that, literally everything is drawing flack today, some of it justified and some of it not so much
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
leopard wrote:
BF did it so as to avoid having to make plastic transport models they knew not everyone would buy to replace resin ones
GW will include them, specifically because they will flog a box with Rhinos inside, it will also include other stuff you won't want a silly number of.
personally a box with a number of rhino scaled to be one or two models over what a typical detachment would require works (so you can expand slightly), the sort of thing someone with a combine arms force wants one or two of and an infantry heavy wants maybe double that
nice would be having the rear hatch as a drop on part with options for a whirlwind, razorback and command rhino (and yes I know the razorback isn't in HH yet)
BF didn't eliminate transports at all, they are very much still part of Flames of War (in all its variants) and Team Yankee, and they continue to release new ones. What they did eliminate were unarmed softskins and logistics vehicles, which are things that have never existed in 40k or epic in any form. SDKFZs, M3s, Universal Carriers, M113s, BMD's, BMP's, BTR's, and every other form of APC and armored transport imaginable are still very much present, even Jeeps and Humvees.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tsagualsa wrote:Eumerin wrote:A mass-produced Imperator at or just after launch would draw flack from players due to the other stuff that would be displaced from the production schedule to make room for it.
It would take up a single knight-sized production slot in plastic (or resin, shudder...), and they seem to have room for stuff like the Acastus Knight variants for big-Heresy, so i'm not sure how much of a foundation that would have. And there is obviously demand for something like that, judging from scratchbuilds and 3rd-party products. And on top of that, literally everything is drawing flack today, some of it justified and some of it not so much
How appropriate would an Imperator be for Epic though? Its really more a titan meant for fighting other titans than it is one meant for engaging massed infantry and tanks. Doesn't mean that an Imperator *can't* do that, mind you, but its more an Adeptus Titanicus release than a Legions Imperialis release.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
I would rather have the 20 odd new regular units that would take up the same production capacity as an Imperator, myself. Would certainly make for a healthier game.
181
Post by: gorgon
chaos0xomega wrote: How appropriate would an Imperator be for Epic though? Its really more a titan meant for fighting other titans than it is one meant for engaging massed infantry and tanks. Doesn't mean that an Imperator *can't* do that, mind you, but its more an Adeptus Titanicus release than a Legions Imperialis release.
It's not even a good AT release. The Warmaster is only barely useable in AT, and I have to think it'd dominate your average LI game (unless Titans are nerfed to hell in LI). An Imperator should be a full step beyond that. I don't know what good it would be other than a hobby project and display piece. Having said that, it could still happen as a FW resin piece for collectors with FW Titan pricing. FW loves a good whale hunt.
100848
Post by: tneva82
RexHavoc wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:Which is going to bump up the price unnecessarily, would much rather see more tanks/infantry in the main boxed set and buy Warhounds separately than the other way around (especially since I, and I imagine many others, already have Warhounds from AT anyway ).
Same. I'd rather buy a single box of warhounds (though I already have a couple) and be able to buy the starter 2+ times to get basic infantry and rhinos. They way they are doing it, I'm going to end up with a box full of unbuilt warhounds and have to pay a fortune to buy a chapters worth of rhinos.
Epic isn't Epic with out hundreds of rhinos on the table top. I'd also rather paint 200 rhinos than 4 warhounds.
The way they have put together the starter is just going to encourage me to keep buying 3rd party alternatives, or I'll finally just get around to buying a 3d printer. (Then chances are I'll have even less use for the releases)
I didn't expect there to be a legions article today, though I'd been hoping they were going to show off the terrain and confirm the tiles are plastic and see some of the new building sprues.
GW tries to make their discount boxes so that you don't want to spam them too much. Goal is after all send kits at full price as well and not just discount boxes.
At least maybe this way few don't hog up every discount box leaving most without even single. Automatically Appended Next Post: chaos0xomega wrote:
How appropriate would an Imperator be for Epic though? Its really more a titan meant for fighting other titans than it is one meant for engaging massed infantry and tanks. Doesn't mean that an Imperator *can't* do that, mind you, but its more an Adeptus Titanicus release than a Legions Imperialis release.
To not break game resulting it either being OP or auto lose it is not even appropriate for AT...There's only so big single ruleset can reasonably work. Imperator is so big that it would be either silly OP or auto lose(generally due to not being able to score enough objectives) in that scale.
You would need game that's what epic is vs AT. Scale up. Maniples of titans fighting each other.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
So basically Imperator would be more playable in Epic than in Titanicus because the less detailed rules allow for huger armies so that it doesn't warp the whole battle?
26519
Post by: xttz
chaos0xomega wrote:
How appropriate would an Imperator be for Epic though? Its really more a titan meant for fighting other titans than it is one meant for engaging massed infantry and tanks. Doesn't mean that an Imperator *can't* do that, mind you, but its more an Adeptus Titanicus release than a Legions Imperialis release.
Given it was specifically designed for Epic, the Imperator is meant for fighting anything & everything. It possesses weaponry at all scales, from anti-infantry and anti-aircraft point defense, to multiple anti-armour options, up to being able to vaporise most opposing titans in one volley. It was not only designed with a transport capacity, but the original rules even allowed for infantry combat inside the titan.
I'd argue it's more appropriate for Epic than AT, where half of that flavour and functionality would be lost.
Tsagualsa wrote:Eumerin wrote:A mass-produced Imperator at or just after launch would draw flack from players due to the other stuff that would be displaced from the production schedule to make room for it.
It would take up a single knight-sized production slot in plastic (or resin, shudder...), and they seem to have room for stuff like the Acastus Knight variants for big-Heresy, so i'm not sure how much of a foundation that would have. And there is obviously demand for something like that, judging from scratchbuilds and 3rd-party products. And on top of that, literally everything is drawing flack today, some of it justified and some of it not so much
Keep in mind that this sized production slot was the entirety of plastic releases for AT in 2021. I highly doubt they would want to invest in an Imperator anywhere near the early stages of an Epic reboot. It would make more sense to focus on smaller AT kits like Dire Wolves, Rapiers, Knights, and extra titan weapon options which can all be sold as impulse bought add-ons to an Epic army.
If we ever do get an Imperator release it'll happen at the tail end of the production cycle like the Warmaster, or as a centrepiece for a new cycle (Titan Legions reprint anyone?).
34906
Post by: Pacific
In Epic SM (the Titan Legions release) the Imperator was great - I remember friends and I playing a game I think with three of them and six mega gargants on the other side, I think about 20,000pts all in. The game took about an entire weekend to play because there were just so many special rules! When you are messing about moving plasma between engines and guns (or repair crews around the Gargants) it was a level of granular detail that was almost a game in itself, and I think more suited to Adeptus Titanicus than Epic.
Ok the other hand, I found the 'HP bar' of Titans in Armageddon really underwhelming. Hopefully they keep some of the granular detail (you want your titans taking fire or perhaps going down to a lucky reactor shot) but without going 'full Titan Legions'
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
Pacific wrote:In Epic SM (the Titan Legions release) the Imperator was great - I remember friends and I playing a game I think with three of them and six mega gargants on the other side, I think about 20,000pts all in. The game took about an entire weekend to play because there were just so many special rules! When you are messing about moving plasma between engines and guns (or repair crews around the Gargants) it was a level of granular detail that was almost a game in itself, and I think more suited to Adeptus Titanicus than Epic.
Ok the other hand, I found the ' HP bar' of Titans in Armageddon really underwhelming. Hopefully they keep some of the granular detail (you want your titans taking fire or perhaps going down to a lucky reactor shot) but without going 'full Titan Legions'
I think something like the degrading profiles for vehicles in 9th could work well for Titans at an Epic scale, it would be a bit more complicated than just having a 'health bar', but simple enough to not overly complicate larger engagements. Add in something like Hazardous for the most potent weapons or especially taxing orders, or perhaps degrading shield regeneration etc., and you have a simple, yet serviceable system. You could also dial it up and down by having fewer degradation levels for the lighter engines, and more for the heavier ones. It would also have the benefit of fitting neatly on a unit card, and not require rolling on too many tables.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
BFG critical hits offer some streamlined degradation too
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
To be fair though, the 2nd Ed system for Titans only went on the wonk with the advent of the Imperator and Mega Gargants.
The more traditional Titans could take a kicking and still be up and about, with any locations which could lead to insta-gib typically being harder to hit and pretty well armoured to the front.
For those unfamiliar, every Titan had a body chart. For every hit, the attacker chose a location from the relevant facing, then rolled the Titan Location Dice. Those dice could do nothing, or shift the location hit Up, Down, Left or Right. If the direction took the hit off the chart, the attack missed.
The bigger the Titan, the bigger the chart. This made tiny Titans like Warhounds and latterly Revenants surprisingly tricky to damage.
The location hit then took a save in the usual way. If it failed, you rolled on the damage chart.
And it honestly takes longer to explain that it does to do it 😂😂
But it added an extra level of interest to Titans compared to everything else in the game.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Back in 2nd/Titan Legions, an Imperator was 2250 points. Typical games were 3000-4000 points. So, yeah, you had to specifically play a BIG game to effectively have the support required (you know, to take objective and whatnot). I'd love to see an Imperator eventually but not right away.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be fair though, the 2nd Ed system for Titans only went on the wonk with the advent of the Imperator and Mega Gargants.
The more traditional Titans could take a kicking and still be up and about, with any locations which could lead to insta-gib typically being harder to hit and pretty well armoured to the front.
For those unfamiliar, every Titan had a body chart. For every hit, the attacker chose a location from the relevant facing, then rolled the Titan Location Dice. Those dice could do nothing, or shift the location hit Up, Down, Left or Right. If the direction took the hit off the chart, the attack missed.
The bigger the Titan, the bigger the chart. This made tiny Titans like Warhounds and latterly Revenants surprisingly tricky to damage.
The location hit then took a save in the usual way. If it failed, you rolled on the damage chart.
And it honestly takes longer to explain that it does to do it 😂😂
But it added an extra level of interest to Titans compared to everything else in the game.
I think we need a look at the actual rules of the game first before we start theorizing about any of that If it uses something like E:A's AT/ AP/ AA/ MW profiles, it will be fundamentally different than a firepower-table system, or some sort of hybrid thingy, and that directly informs what 'resilience' even means. Also, morale, suppression, objectives etc. all directly impact the use and viability of large warmachines, and as of now we know diddly-squat about anything.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
xttz wrote:
Given it was specifically designed for Epic, the Imperator is meant for fighting anything & everything. It possesses weaponry at all scales, from anti-infantry and anti-aircraft point defense, to multiple anti-armour options, up to being able to vaporise most opposing titans in one volley. It was not only designed with a transport capacity, but the original rules even allowed for infantry combat inside the titan.
I'd argue it's more appropriate for Epic than AT, where half of that flavour and functionality would be lost.
I'd argue thats nonsensical.
An Imperator is a land battleship of the super-dreadnought variety. Battleships were noted for their obscene firepower spanning the full gamut of calibers, sizes, ranges, and purposes - weapons designed to destroy other battleships, weapons designed to destroy smaller warships, weapons designed to destroy aircraft, weapons designed to destroy small watercraft or gun down personnel manning the decks of enemy ships and repel boarders, etc. Battleships were certainly very capable against other battleships and major surface combatants (i.e. other titans), but they were particularly ineffective against targets much smaller than themselves (aircraft and the smallest surface combatants such as destroyer escorts and motor torpedo boats), despite the large amounts of firepower they were equipped with specifically to counter those targets. Likewise, while battleships were effective in shore-bombardment against enemy fortifications, emplacements, and infrastructure, they weren't noted for being particularly effective against enemy infantry and tank forces on maneuver (and even though they could devastate enemy fortifications, the infantry occupying them often suffered comparatively light losses even after days of continuous bombardment), with the notable exception of the combined bombardment of 18 battleships and hundreds of strategic bombers to halt the advance of a counterattacking German Panzer Corps near Salerno (even then, they caused only minor losses, comparatively speaking - their effect was halting maneuver, not inflicting attrition). What did prove effective in a shore bombardment role against enemy ground formations (tanks, artillery, and infantry) were the much smaller, lighter, more responsive, and faster-firing guns of smaller, faster, and more maneuverable warships like cruisers - light cruisers in particular (i.e. warlord and reaver titans).
I would consider anything up to a Warlord to be an effective combatant against conventional forces, once you get beyond that, the titans and their weapons are overwhelmingly too large, slow, and unwieldy to effectively handle forces significantly smaller than themselves. Despite their massive weapons load, its all too densely concentrated in one platform that cannot be everywhere at once in order to maximize its utility against a variety of potential targets. Slow speed makes it hard to keep up with smaller, lighter, faster targets, its size makes it difficult to maneuver in order to bring its weapons to bear against small targets in an efficient and effective manner.
86045
Post by: leopard
I find myself hopeful the game will be more than "this unit has firepower rating x" given they have shown that tanks have weapon options etc, it would be somewhat pointless if they then gave them all the same rating
may even be back to the glory days of different weapon profiles, hushed reverent whisper maybe even fire arcs
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
leopard wrote:I find myself hopeful the game will be more than "this unit has firepower rating x" given they have shown that tanks have weapon options etc, it would be somewhat pointless if they then gave them all the same rating
may even be back to the glory days of different weapon profiles, hushed reverent whisper maybe even fire arcs
I think I’d be happiest with Epic Armageddon’s weapons, where your weapons had an Anti-Tank and/or Anti-Infantry ratings. This was a nice upgrade from 2nd Ed, and added some extra consideration.
So far we’ve seen some tanks will have a choice in Sponson and Turret guns. If we consider the venerable Predator? I’d like the choice to go all Lascannon, gaining solid Anti-Tank but no Anti-Infantry, Autocannon and Heavy Bolters for solid Anti-Infantry, or Lascannon Turret Heavy Bolter Sponsons for a bit of both.
This also differentiated Infantry between armies. Tactical Squad stands all had AT and AI shots. Imperial Guard were predominantly AI, with Every Other Stand having a heavy weapon for AT. At least from memory.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
The latest Apocalypse game had AI/AT firepower stats too, didn't it?
86045
Post by: leopard
well first edition was built around a weapon having one profile v armoured and another v unarmoured (with a fair few only working v unarmoured targets too) - it looked complicated but given your usual army didn't have all that many of the different guns it worked
IIRC tactical squads had bolters and also a melta gun, the profiles being written so bolters did nicely for anti infantry while the melta was very short ranged but made armour keep a respectful distance unless it had infantry support.
its the bit I miss from 1st, I've got the main rules and Codex Titanicus, but so much was in white dwarf which I sadly lack
I suspect the fact the predator seems to have a choice on both turret and sponsons tends to suggest either we get weapon profiles or there will be a few set loadouts with differing stats
never did get why Eldar couldn't get falcons to transport Aspect Warriors though
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Tsagualsa wrote:
On the one hand, that's something not everybody is going to need, on the other, nobody is getting excited over a bunch of rhinos
IMHO it's an attempt to have most major 'foodgroups' of the game in the starter box: light infantry, heavy infantry, some specialists, walkers, tanks, titans. Only thing missing would be lynchpin characters like Primarchs (understandable not to put in the starter, as it locks you into a legion), air power and non-titan superheavies, so essentially it's a complete-ish overview of the system.
Leaving transports out is still a pretty big omission from a tactics and 'How is this played' point of view, but they may be relatively ubiquituous in the force-specific boxes, we don't know that yet.
I'd get excited over a bunch of Rhinos.
I think the more likely thing is they know people will need more tanks so they don't want to include them in the starter set, they want people to spend more money on buying them separately.
It's the old game of upping the monetary value of the starter set while minimising the value of it and minimising the impact on the sales of other kits, and it's that sort of nickel and diming attitude that pushes people away.
2x Warhounds are probably close to a quarter of a medium sized army, and maybe people do want Titans but want a Reaver, or a Warlord, or maybe they don't want Titans at all, and many people are already going to own Warhounds from their inclusion in the AT starter set.
The way the Epic40k boxed set got around it was to include the Mega Gargant cardboard cut out, and have a scenario written around a Mega Gargant so people could try it out. But modern GW would never do something like that.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
leopard wrote:well first edition was built around a weapon having one profile v armoured and another v unarmoured (with a fair few only working v unarmoured targets too) - it looked complicated but given your usual army didn't have all that many of the different guns it worked
IIRC tactical squads had bolters and also a melta gun, the profiles being written so bolters did nicely for anti infantry while the melta was very short ranged but made armour keep a respectful distance unless it had infantry support.
its the bit I miss from 1st, I've got the main rules and Codex Titanicus, but so much was in white dwarf which I sadly lack
I suspect the fact the predator seems to have a choice on both turret and sponsons tends to suggest either we get weapon profiles or there will be a few set loadouts with differing stats
never did get why Eldar couldn't get falcons to transport Aspect Warriors though
Depending on the edition you could put aspect warriors in grav tanks or wave serpents, you just had to buy them as a separate attachment. Thats how it worked in 2nd ed anyway, I don't think aspect warriors existed yet in first edition. I think possibly eldar with wings came out in a white dwarf supplement, but this was far before the aspect warriors as we know them came out.
86045
Post by: leopard
Codex Titanicus included Swooping Hawks, the rest came later
though Guardians were called "Avenging Warriors"
oh yes and "Banshees" were actually dreadnaughts
the weird and wacky world of 1st edition 40k in full swing
also had orks, with bolters and heavy plasma guns
83198
Post by: Gimgamgoo
As a person interested in trying this game out, and with all the talk of rhinos, is troop movement a really important part of the game?
I've played a few games of Dropzone Commander with my wife and we enjoyed it - does 'epic' in all it's incarnations have a similar feel?
Most of the other GW games we play still always feel as we're "pushing stuff to the middle to roll lots of dice"
86045
Post by: leopard
 Gimgamgoo wrote:As a person interested in trying this game out, and with all the talk of rhinos, is troop movement a really important part of the game?
I've played a few games of Dropzone Commander with my wife and we enjoyed it - does 'epic' in all it's incarnations have a similar feel?
Most of the other GW games we play still always feel as we're "pushing stuff to the middle to roll lots of dice"
it presumably will be important, it has been in previous editions.
Rhinos and similar provide both protection and mobility, and from the last time I played (many years back) mobile units really mattered as its more than the push to the centre and roll dice stuff - starts to feel more like combined arms as the board is a lot larger than weapon ranges and done right you have some terrain areas that really need infantry to deal with
not played DZC but have seen it, like other games in smaller scales movement tends to matter - it was the thing that crippled the Eldar aspect warriors, a lot of other infantry came with transports, they didn't (similar for the Imperial guard who when I was playing didn't have infantry transports other than the Gorgon)
34906
Post by: Pacific
I can't speak for Epic Space Marine 1st edition or Epic 40k (3rd edition) but certainly for Epic Space Marine 2nd and Armageddon it's important. For SM 2nd (and NetEpic) especially, as you had the objective system and games often rested on controlling as many of the 8 of them that you could. You could win by destroying enemy units, but there was a good points-swing system whereby even a depleted army could wrest control of objectives late in a game.
This is why Marines (who were probably one of the worst armies if you just looked at their stats on paper) could often win games, as they all came with a rhino per 10 man unit (even devastators!) and units like Terminators came with Land Raiders. The Rhinos, even though pretty useless in combat, could move your units to advantageous positions early on and then also redeploy to capture objectives later in the game. Some of the 'foot slogging' armies (most Orks, chaos, Imperial guard) could mass a lot more fire, but were less capable in that regard. Usually those armies could buy transports, but because they were separate it then used up their support unit allocation (which had a limit of 5 cards per company) forcing those armies to lose out on other things if they wanted to fully mechanise.
It was a really interesting and I think characterful balancing mechanism in the games, and forced Marine (I think also Eldar) to try and box clever, using their mobility to strike more vulnerable parts of enemy forces.
86045
Post by: leopard
that objective system in 2nd worked very well, they tried it in WD towards the end of 1st as well. seriously good way to score a game.
they also did siege type games where the defender placed only four, and then presumably defended them - and could buy static defences as part of their force, bunkers etc. but normal units cost double.
that was a fun game too
but as you note organic mobility was huge then, 1st you could just buy the transports but 2nd had a quite clever army building system
the 1st edition WD lists usually placed limits, IIRC an Imperial Guard Battalion could buy a transport pool option, but it only provided enough for two of the four detachments
133382
Post by: ThePaintingOwl
Gimgamgoo wrote:As a person interested in trying this game out, and with all the talk of rhinos, is troop movement a really important part of the game?
I've played a few games of Dropzone Commander with my wife and we enjoyed it - does 'epic' in all it's incarnations have a similar feel?
Most of the other GW games we play still always feel as we're "pushing stuff to the middle to roll lots of dice"
We don't really know. We know it has the same models as Epic but we know almost nothing about the mechanics. And we have the example of Aeronautica Imperialis where GW dumbed down a maneuvering-heavy game to focus on "meet in the middle and roll dice until someone runs out of models" gameplay and published it under the same title. The new not-Epic game could do the same kind of thing.
1001
Post by: schoon
lord_blackfang wrote:So basically Imperator would be more playable in Epic than in Titanicus because the less detailed rules allow for huger armies so that it doesn't warp the whole battle?
Essentially, yes.
That said, I don't think they'd do one. "More payable" is not "good idea."
For those that really want one, there is the Battle Bling "not-Imperator," which ought to be available again after that finish printing all the ones sold to their pre-order campaign.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Gimgamgoo wrote:As a person interested in trying this game out, and with all the talk of rhinos, is troop movement a really important part of the game?
I've played a few games of Dropzone Commander with my wife and we enjoyed it - does 'epic' in all it's incarnations have a similar feel?
Most of the other GW games we play still always feel as we're "pushing stuff to the middle to roll lots of dice"
DZC is absolutely superior to every iteration of Epic when it comes to the correct representation of combined arms. But it is much smaller in "scope" for an average game. It does not feel like any edition of Epic.
Epic has usually been about large sweeping movement and massive ground combat engagements. Though this has decreased with every edition of Epic, with E:A overall having the smallest force composition for a normal game.
I enjoy and play DZC and Epic 3rd because they have completely different feels and accomplish different things.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
 judgedoug wrote:I enjoy and play DZC and Epic 3rd because they have completely different feels and accomplish different things.
Agreed, both are great games that do pretty different things.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Oh yeah. Now you may very well call me slow. But….
This game will have one significant improvement over Epics 40K and Armageddon.
A. Choice. Of. Warlord. Titan. Weapons.
I might even hope that extends to non-paired carapace weapons. Like the old the days. The good days. The all or nothing days wait maybe not that one.
34906
Post by: Pacific
I agree completely, for me it was one of the big strength of 2nd edition, and lost a lot of flavour afterwards just having cookie-cutter Titans and HP bar-style damage. You also had that ability to really customise the Titan and what you wanted to achieve with it on the battlefield.
And I don't think it really slowed the game down that much (certainly if you stayed away from Imperators and Mega Gargants). In my last game had some really characterful stuff happen: a Gargant belly gun shot, went straight through the shields of a Warhound, hit the leg, max damage (taking it off at the knee), the Warhound came crashing down and the shot continued straight through a building and destroyed a unit on the other side! I know it's a few extra dice rolls, but love stuff like that happening in games..
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Though….with modern sensibilities?
I’d be happy for individual Titan weapons to have points values. Or at a bare minimum? The load out to be declared when I’m writing my army list. There’s little more irritating to my mind than a list with an open “wait and find out who you’re facing then pick the guns most likely to be useful” option.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Oh yeah. Now you may very well call me slow. But….
This game will have one significant improvement over Epics 40K and Armageddon.
A. Choice. Of. Warlord. Titan. Weapons.
I might even hope that extends to non-paired carapace weapons. Like the old the days. The good days. The all or nothing days wait maybe not that one.
...I feel like you haven't checked Epic 40k in a long while , because the Warlord has a number of choices for titan weapons: 2 for the carapace (non- paired) to choose from Death Ray, Megacannon, Vortex Missile, Multiple Rocket Launcher and Heavy Weapon Battery, and two arm weapons (again, non-paired) to choose from Death Ray, Megacannon, Multiple Rocket Launcher, Heavy Weapon Battery and Close Combat Weapon.
And that's on the core box. The Adeptus Titanicus expansion had many, many more.
87012
Post by: Toofast
Boosykes wrote:Doesn't seem like they are hyping this enough. I thought we would have daily articles leading up to its launch
I was surprised when the first Heresy Thursday after the big Epic reveal had nothing about Epic. Just a line in the end about bringing your magnifying glass next week. Automatically Appended Next Post: Gimgamgoo wrote:Toofast 809458 11565090 wrote:
I'm friends with a few people that own gaming stores in a couple different states. I've heard the same and noticed it myself. When 30k launched, there were people lining up on release day outside my FLGS. One of my warhammer stores presold like 40 copies of the starter box. Individual squads would sell the day they hit the shelf. Now every store in my area has all the 30k releases going back about the last 8-10 months just sitting on the shelf collecting dust.
I figure that's down to GW's conditioning of its customer base. Their fomo sales technique. GW customers are conditioned to buy it on release, or don't buy it at all, as they expect it to be gone for good anyway.
They certainly don't fear missing out on any of the 30k releases of the past year...
82928
Post by: Albertorius
I'm just back from the FLGS and I can confirm at least that they have all of the HH stuff (released to stores), and that is in the deepest corner of the store, and seems to have at least one of everything.
Which proves exactly nothing, OTOH. Also, some guy came like five minutes before me and bought five AT knight boxes.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Albertorius wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Oh yeah. Now you may very well call me slow. But….
This game will have one significant improvement over Epics 40K and Armageddon.
A. Choice. Of. Warlord. Titan. Weapons.
I might even hope that extends to non-paired carapace weapons. Like the old the days. The good days. The all or nothing days wait maybe not that one.
...I feel like you haven't checked Epic 40k in a long while , because the Warlord has a number of choices for titan weapons: 2 for the carapace (non- paired) to choose from Death Ray, Megacannon, Vortex Missile, Multiple Rocket Launcher and Heavy Weapon Battery, and two arm weapons (again, non-paired) to choose from Death Ray, Megacannon, Multiple Rocket Launcher, Heavy Weapon Battery and Close Combat Weapon.
And that's on the core box. The Adeptus Titanicus expansion had many, many more.
It’s not my fault I scrubbed all knowledge of that abomination from my mind
But I accept and welcome your cited correction!
82928
Post by: Albertorius
I have to say that for the kind of game I want to play when playing Epic, titans in Epic 40k used to hit a sweet spot in terms of complexity, but they were a bit too fragile against massed fire.
87012
Post by: Toofast
Albertorius wrote:I'm just back from the FLGS and I can confirm at least that they have all of the HH stuff (released to stores), and that is in the deepest corner of the store, and seems to have at least one of everything.
Which proves exactly nothing, OTOH. Also, some guy came like five minutes before me and bought five AT knight boxes.
When every store you go to in multiple states/countries looks like that for HH but has trouble keeping anything 40k in stock, it proves that HH isn't as popular as it was on release. Lack of options in plastic, lack of rules errata and contemptors being super OP probably have some part in that.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Albertorius wrote:I have to say that for the kind of game I want to play when playing Epic, titans in Epic 40k used to hit a sweet spot in terms of complexity, but they were a bit too fragile against massed fire.
Titan legions fixed that I think. Shields could only be taken down by weapons that had at least a -1 modifier. Bolters and small arms could no longer take down a Titians shields.
One of the things I really liked about the titans, which I think has disappeared was the placement of the vital plasma reactor. The Warlords reactor was dead center in the front, heavily armored but still targetable, which really made you want to sit back a bit with it, use it more as a support platform, once your shields were down one lucky shot could blow you to kingdom come. The reaver however being designed more for assault/Urban combat did not have reactor access in the front, it had to be shot in the sides or back to get that crit on the plasma reactor. I always thought that that was just a very cool little piece of design and made the reaver more than just a smaller faster Warlord.
The flavor of Titans was really a major fun factor. Ork Titans felt Orky, could take tons of damage and really had to be taken apart piece by piece, and the different belly gun ammo, Eldar Titans felt well....Eldary with their  holo field making them almost impossible to hit, but pretty fragile once stripped of it. Those holo shields didn't help though if I took a Deathstrike center fire cannon and the landspeeder scout pad. So much fun with titans. The problem was that really the Empire was spoiled with Titans and weapons, the other races really didn't have nearly as much variety.
1001
Post by: schoon
Toofast wrote:Boosykes wrote:Doesn't seem like they are hyping this enough. I thought we would have daily articles leading up to its launch
I was surprised when the first Heresy Thursday after the big Epic reveal had nothing about Epic...
They're still at least a month away from release and I suspect they've got the frequency of sneak peaks scheduled to reach a pinnacle closer to that date.
I'm a little surprised at the frequency thus far, not that I'm complaining mind you.
92245
Post by: Darnok
Yeah the whole thing is some weeks away still, so expecting daily articles is a bit off. I feel like those expectation were set by the amount of stuff posted on WHC last week (ish) - but keep in mind this is not 40K 10th edition or even anywhere close. If we get no more than one weekly article for the rest of July I would not be surprised.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
 Darnok wrote:Yeah the whole thing is some weeks away still, so expecting daily articles is a bit off. I feel like those expectation were set by the amount of stuff posted on WHC last week (ish) - but keep in mind this is not 40K 10th edition or even anywhere close. If we get no more than one weekly article for the rest of July I would not be surprised.
I guess it's rules articles in July, and then demo games at GenCon if they want a mid-late August release (or preorder).
26519
Post by: xttz
This week has been fairly light on WarCom content in general, probably due to them preparing stuff for the 40k preview today. The week of the WHF preview was similar, with lots of articles being kept back for the weekend.
95318
Post by: SU-152
Tsagualsa wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be fair though, the 2nd Ed system for Titans only went on the wonk with the advent of the Imperator and Mega Gargants.
The more traditional Titans could take a kicking and still be up and about, with any locations which could lead to insta-gib typically being harder to hit and pretty well armoured to the front.
For those unfamiliar, every Titan had a body chart. For every hit, the attacker chose a location from the relevant facing, then rolled the Titan Location Dice. Those dice could do nothing, or shift the location hit Up, Down, Left or Right. If the direction took the hit off the chart, the attack missed.
The bigger the Titan, the bigger the chart. This made tiny Titans like Warhounds and latterly Revenants surprisingly tricky to damage.
The location hit then took a save in the usual way. If it failed, you rolled on the damage chart.
And it honestly takes longer to explain that it does to do it 😂😂
But it added an extra level of interest to Titans compared to everything else in the game.
I think we need a look at the actual rules of the game first before we start theorizing about any of that If it uses something like E:A's AT/ AP/ AA/ MW profiles, it will be fundamentally different than a firepower-table system, or some sort of hybrid thingy, and that directly informs what 'resilience' even means. Also, morale, suppression, objectives etc. all directly impact the use and viability of large warmachines, and as of now we know diddly-squat about anything.
I expect charts like 1st/2nd edition.
GW has already hinted "CAF", and you can see 1st edition orders in the box contents. There is no doubt.
34906
Post by: Pacific
 Andrew1975 wrote: Albertorius wrote:I have to say that for the kind of game I want to play when playing Epic, titans in Epic 40k used to hit a sweet spot in terms of complexity, but they were a bit too fragile against massed fire.
Titan legions fixed that I think. Shields could only be taken down by weapons that had at least a -1 modifier. Bolters and small arms could no longer take down a Titians shields.
One of the things I really liked about the titans, which I think has disappeared was the placement of the vital plasma reactor. The Warlords reactor was dead center in the front, heavily armored but still targetable, which really made you want to sit back a bit with it, use it more as a support platform, once your shields were down one lucky shot could blow you to kingdom come. The reaver however being designed more for assault/Urban combat did not have reactor access in the front, it had to be shot in the sides or back to get that crit on the plasma reactor. I always thought that that was just a very cool little piece of design and made the reaver more than just a smaller faster Warlord.
The flavor of Titans was really a major fun factor. Ork Titans felt Orky, could take tons of damage and really had to be taken apart piece by piece, and the different belly gun ammo, Eldar Titans felt well....Eldary with their holo field making them almost impossible to hit, but pretty fragile once stripped of it. Those holo shields didn't help though if I took a Deathstrike center fire cannon and the landspeeder scout pad. So much fun with titans. The problem was that really the Empire was spoiled with Titans and weapons, the other races really didn't have nearly as much variety.
Yes definitely the case with Warlords! Used to be something of a running joke with us that the Warlord used to go down almost every game to a reactor shot, just absolutely everything within range would be shooting straight for that spot as once you got through the armour, it was a pretty low damage role that would result in a big smoking crater (and another reason you didn't set it up next to loads of your own infantry!)
Loved the way Gargants could soak up damage too, although you quite often ended up where it became ineffective (either unable to move or shoot, or do so at reduced effectiveness) and they were just sat there smoking with grots firefighting, but the other side still trying to make them pop because they were worth so many VP!
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Pacific wrote:Loved the way Gargants could soak up damage too, although you quite often ended up where it became ineffective (either unable to move or shoot, or do so at reduced effectiveness) and they were just sat there smoking with grots firefighting, but the other side still trying to make them pop because they were worth so many VP!
Used to love playing with and playing against Gargants. You'd unload everything into it, the head was blown off, fires raging, ammo exploding and it'd still be lurching towards you, a true Orky menace! So many fun games...
131978
Post by: bobthe4th
At the end of today's Sunday preview article on Warhammer Community:
"Next week we’re continuing our coverage of Legions Imperialis with a look at the all-new Aethon Heavy Sentinel, as well as a heaping of nostalgia for games featuring especially tiny Space Marines."
31456
Post by: Bolognesus
https://twitter.com/warhammer/status/1675565138521341953/photo/1
top right apparently the mentioned Aethon Heavy Sentinel, acc. to warhammer official themselves in the thread.
133382
Post by: ThePaintingOwl
Bolognesus wrote:https://twitter.com/warhammer/status/1675565138521341953/photo/1
top right apparently the mentioned Aethon Heavy Sentinel, acc. to warhammer official themselves in the thread.
And according to the earlier previews (we've seen it already).
98762
Post by: RazorEdge
They could show us the Sprue...?
82928
Post by: Albertorius
That'd spill the beans too early, maybe. Like, how many vehicles can we expect to see per box and all. They might want to keep it "secret" for the moment.
Although most probably the stuff in the launch box is a pretty good indicator of what to expect.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Albertorius wrote:
That'd spill the beans too early, maybe. Like, how many vehicles can we expect to see per box and all. They might want to keep it "secret" for the moment.
Although most probably the stuff in the launch box is a pretty good indicator of what to expect.
The cost/model is what I'm mostly interested in. If Predators come 3 to a sprue, 6 to a box, and a box costs the same as 6 Lightnings do for Aeronautica Imperialis.... then I think GW will have priced me out of it.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Albertorius wrote:
That'd spill the beans too early, maybe. Like, how many vehicles can we expect to see per box and all. They might want to keep it "secret" for the moment.
Although most probably the stuff in the launch box is a pretty good indicator of what to expect.
The cost/model is what I'm mostly interested in. If Predators come 3 to a sprue, 6 to a box, and a box costs the same as 6 Lightnings do for Aeronautica Imperialis.... then I think GW will have priced me out of it.
You do know that's the most probable case, right? Or even the most favorable... I would expect them to go the way of knights: 3 per sprue, one sprue per box.
125822
Post by: Boosykes
Albertorius wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote: Albertorius wrote:
That'd spill the beans too early, maybe. Like, how many vehicles can we expect to see per box and all. They might want to keep it "secret" for the moment.
Although most probably the stuff in the launch box is a pretty good indicator of what to expect.
The cost/model is what I'm mostly interested in. If Predators come 3 to a sprue, 6 to a box, and a box costs the same as 6 Lightnings do for Aeronautica Imperialis.... then I think GW will have priced me out of it.
You do know that's the most probable case, right? Or even the most favorable... I would expect them to go the way of knights: 3 per sprue, one sprue per box.
Well if it's Priced, like arenotica then we can expect it to do about as well and last about as long. Maybe a little longer as people do like their titans.
Personally I don't have much intrest buying into a dead game.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Albertorius wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote: Albertorius wrote:
That'd spill the beans too early, maybe. Like, how many vehicles can we expect to see per box and all. They might want to keep it "secret" for the moment.
Although most probably the stuff in the launch box is a pretty good indicator of what to expect.
The cost/model is what I'm mostly interested in. If Predators come 3 to a sprue, 6 to a box, and a box costs the same as 6 Lightnings do for Aeronautica Imperialis.... then I think GW will have priced me out of it.
You do know that's the most probable case, right? Or even the most favorable... I would expect them to go the way of knights: 3 per sprue, one sprue per box.
Maybe, but the Knights are quite complex, and Predators are going to be physically smaller than Lightnings once constructed, so I'm hoping against hope that they're at least 9 per box and perhaps slightly cheaper than AI boxed sets.
Honestly, there's a good chance GW just kills Epic for me completely
82928
Post by: Albertorius
With what's on the launch box, we can pretty much give it for granted that we'll have 3 preds per sprue. I don't really expect GW to sell us three sprues per box.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh, so tey posted it... early?
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/17/lifting-the-bonnet-on-the-aethon-heavy-sentinel-the-faster-meaner-solar-auxilia-combat-walker/?utm_source=CUSTOMERS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=gw_17th_july_legions_spa_&utm_content=&utm_term=
Kind of looks absurdly top heavy...
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
lmao isn't everything walker based that GW makes?
34906
Post by: Pacific
I would like 10 Predators per box! A full company, 3 detachments and 1 HQ Predator
82928
Post by: Albertorius
A point xD. But the regular Sentinel seems more,,, you know, balanced, than that.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
At least it’s not Warmachine with tiny ickle babby legs and HUGE HONKING BEEFCAKE TORSO. 😂😂
1464
Post by: Breotan
Albertorius wrote:With what's on the launch box, we can pretty much give it for granted that we'll have 3 preds per sprue. I don't really expect GW to sell us three sprues per box.
I expect smallish vehicles like Predators to come three per sprue with two sprues per box, following the example of Aeronautica Imperialis.
Pacific wrote:I would like 10 Predators per box! A full company, 3 detachments and 1 HQ Predator
Yea, about that...
31456
Post by: Bolognesus
Maybe it's at least a mixed sprue of three preds and two sicarans, two sprues to a box? Because if this ends up being GBP25+ just for six chintzy preds that's... problematic at least.
Aeronautica models are expensive but the benefit is you buy a couple boxes and you're essentially set for a complete force, with options, as I understand.
That'll be a very, very hard buy-in to pitch for a side game/system.
1001
Post by: schoon
The top-mounted weapon and side-mounted missile pods blend visually into the "top," making it look that way.
Might look better with some spacers of the missile pods.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
My issue with the sentinel is it follows GW's decade long psychosis of covering every inch of every new model in guns.
34906
Post by: Pacific
I really like it. It's something a bit different, and you can imagine it moving around like something from a stop motion animation, like ED209 in the original Robocop.
74088
Post by: Irbis
lord_blackfang wrote:My issue with the sentinel is it follows GW's decade long psychosis of covering every inch of every new model in guns.
It has one gun and two missile launchers. If you think this is too much you apparently never saw an IFV in last 30 years:
Having a gun and then two missile launchers on the sides is standard loadout these days (I'd even say light one, usually there is also automatic MG turret on top and some sort of close defense system, too) but I guess GW taking cues from RL designs is somehow 'psychosis' and not just total ignorance of actual military designs
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
What the hell is Forumwrmy tho
26519
Post by: xttz
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/18/legions-imperialis-the-epic-history-of-small-scale-warhammer/
This article is fairly in-depth for WarCom, and even includes comparisons of old and new Epic minis.
It also says regarding the 1991 edition of Space Marine:
"This edition is one of the major influences for the Legions Imperialis rules – but it’s important to note that they are not the same game."
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Woooooo!!!
That same article wrote: This edition is one of the major influences for the Legions Imperialis rules – but it’s important to note that they are not the same game.
Woooooooooooooooooooooooo! I’ll take 2nd Ed being the major influence!
34906
Post by: Pacific
That is quite a cool article and good to see some of the history of the game, there will be a lot of new people coming into the scale and think it's good to tell them this game is standing on the shoulders of (very tiny) giants!
Super, super happy that it sounds like SM 2nd ed is the foundational format for this game. Hopefully they have kept the three factors that, for me, make it my favourite version of Epic:
1) The streamlined rules, fast pace of play which means you can play massive battles.
2) The abstract process of giving orders (secretly), trying to guess what your opponent will do, while giving the feeling of being a commander looking down on the battle.
3) The army construction system of companies, special and support cards, which was *so* good I have never understood why GW didn't use similar for all of their other games.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I can live without the cards, provided the structure they represented remains roughly the same (so each company can have x support, and each unit being fixed in composition)
34906
Post by: Pacific
Yes, me too. Although it would be fun if they did them again. Or imagine a cool little app where you could drag and drop little card icons to build up a force!
It's pretty sad, but honestly that one sentence has just made my day
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
For me and seemingly for GW it was Epic’s heyday. I mean, any rule system that lasts nearly a decade with, from memory only minor tweaks, has to have a lot going for it.
So it does make sense to go back to it. Especially the Order system, which is where the real tactical skill came into play. It’s all fine and well packing your force full of dead Killy things, but if you’re losing sight of Objectives, you can easily failed to accurately predict what I’m up to in return.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
Man, removing those tabs is going to be such a PITA...
87618
Post by: kodos
so the bases are cast between the legs and not underneath, making it hard to cover with base decoration and will be a problem removing them
not the best idea for the models
128124
Post by: Billicus
They're not *that* noticeable even in these relative close-ups, at table distances they're barely gonna register.
113031
Post by: Voss
Billicus wrote:They're not *that* noticeable even in these relative close-ups, at table distances they're barely gonna register.
Disagree. They're really noticeable.
They were my first impression takeaway from the reveal. If they were required for casting, they should've designed bases with recesses, like the old epic bases.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
Voss wrote:Billicus wrote:They're not *that* noticeable even in these relative close-ups, at table distances they're barely gonna register.
Disagree. They're really noticeable.
They were my first impression takeaway from the reveal. If they were required for casting, they should've designed bases with recesses, like the old epic bases.
You can't not notice once you know they're there
83198
Post by: Gimgamgoo
kodos wrote:so the bases are cast between the legs and not underneath, making it hard to cover with base decoration and will be a problem removing them
not the best idea for the models
As GW are the Rolls Royce / Ferrari (or whatever they claim) of the mini making world, why couldn't they have done the troop bases more like this?
When I sand/flock my bases, these GW troop models are all going to look like they have piles of mud between their legs.
:-(
112998
Post by: JimmyWolf87
Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.
9394
Post by: Malika2
Gimgamgoo wrote: kodos wrote:so the bases are cast between the legs and not underneath, making it hard to cover with base decoration and will be a problem removing them
not the best idea for the models
As GW are the Rolls Royce / Ferrari (or whatever they claim) of the mini making world, why couldn't they have done the troop bases more like this?
When I sand/flock my bases, these GW troop models are all going to look like they have piles of mud between their legs.
:-(
Whose models are those? Where can one get them?
85057
Post by: vadersson
So what are the chances they go back to metric for IL? I actually like the idea of centimeters instead of inches.
128124
Post by: Billicus
They're Dropzone Commander, formerly hawk wargames now TTCombat
26519
Post by: xttz
JimmyWolf87 wrote:Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.
It also means you can throw spare infantry models onto other unit bases & terrain much easier, which I suspect is intentional.
I do think a big part of the issue is that these studio models have recessed shading right on the joins for some reason. If that's the same colour as the rest of the base and viewed a bit further out than this zoomed-in photo, you won't really notice during a game.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 vadersson wrote:So what are the chances they go back to metric for IL? I actually like the idea of centimeters instead of inches.
One of the pictures on the new Epic website showed red whippy sticks, metric whippy sticks were traditionally blue, so looks like new Epic will be Imperial.
I prefer cm... however Epic mostly used increments of 5cm, which is ~2", so it's not like they were using the granularity afforded by centimetres anyway.
87618
Post by: kodos
Gimgamgoo wrote:
As GW are the Rolls Royce / Ferrari (or whatever they claim) of the mini making world, why couldn't they have done the troop bases more like this?
guess because everyone is doing it that way and GW must be different
JimmyWolf87 wrote:Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.
it is not about that you need slots, but that there is plastic that you cannot hide because someone though it is a good idea to put the tabs between the legs and not underneath
and you cannot put the models freely around that why either because you will see the tab if they are not on the ground
people go crazy with models having tabs that are easy to hide with base decoration, but with tabs that are impossible to hide, it does not matter.....
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
xttz wrote:JimmyWolf87 wrote:Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.
It also means you can throw spare infantry models onto other unit bases & terrain much easier, which I suspect is intentional.
I do think a big part of the issue is that these studio models have recessed shading right on the joins for some reason. If that's the same colour as the rest of the base and viewed a bit further out than this zoomed-in photo, you won't really notice during a game.
I actually think they're going to be more noticeable in real life, because photos are static the not-so-tactical-rocks can be hidden by just painting them the same colour as the base, but in real life where your view of the models is constantly changing, I think it'll stand out more.
I'll certainly be looking to trim them off. If the models are plastic, I don't see why gluing the feet to the base without the lump would be a problem. My experience with 3d printed Epic models is they tend to break at the knees or hips/thighs rather than the foot-ground connection anyway.
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
Concerning major influences from 2nd Space Marine:
What specifics do we know? Do we have the order system, CAF, army building via cards, destructible terrain, etc?
112998
Post by: JimmyWolf87
kodos wrote: Gimgamgoo wrote:
As GW are the Rolls Royce / Ferrari (or whatever they claim) of the mini making world, why couldn't they have done the troop bases more like this?
guess because everyone is doing it that way and GW must be different
JimmyWolf87 wrote:Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.
it is not about that you need slots, but that there is plastic that you cannot hide because someone though it is a good idea to put the tabs between the legs and not underneath
and you cannot put the models freely around that why either because you will see the tab if they are not on the ground
people go crazy with models having tabs that are easy to hide with base decoration, but with tabs that are impossible to hide, it does not matter.....
Frankly I just don't buy into the notion that they'd be impossible to hide. Or even difficult to hide. Would I just clip them off in some instances? Sure. I can't though, see why it makes it any more or less difficult to disguise them with basing decoration/texture between their legs as opposed to underneath them.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
JimmyWolf87 wrote:Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.
Well, that is why the strip bases had actually multiple positions... I can't find a photo of the sprue at the moment, but IIRC, there were 8 bases to the sprue, each with different hole distribution.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
 Strg Alt wrote:Concerning major influences from 2nd Space Marine:
What specifics do we know? Do we have the order system, CAF, army building via cards, destructible terrain, etc?
Well, we’ve spotted marching Order Counters from an image. CAF is a guess at the moment, based on “nod and a wink” in a WarCom article. Destructible terrain has been explicitly mentioned.
Army Building we don’t know. There are no cards shown in the boxed set, but that doesn’t stop them being added as an optional purchase.
34906
Post by: Pacific
I don't think those tabs will that be difficult to hide with a layer of sand or other basing material.
And even if they are not, they are likely to only be noticeable in zoomed/macro lense shots, as we are seeing here. In practice they won't be noticeable on the tabletop.
Strg Alt wrote:Concerning major influences from 2nd Space Marine:
What specifics do we know? Do we have the order system, CAF, army building via cards, destructible terrain, etc?
Nothing really other than that line in the mentions, and that it won't be exactly the same.
We can infer some things, that Titan hit location dice won't be used, or flamer/barrage templates, or the order tokens themselves - although that is assuming that the photos we have seen are of the entire box content, and there isn't a sheet with push-out tokens.
So perhaps it doesn't say a lot, but, at least it means a few bullet points we can take away, such as it not being based on Epic 40k, or a completely new scratch-built set of rules.
79481
Post by: Sarouan
kodos wrote:
it is not about that you need slots, but that there is plastic that you cannot hide because someone though it is a good idea to put the tabs between the legs and not underneath
and you cannot put the models freely around that why either because you will see the tab if they are not on the ground
people go crazy with models having tabs that are easy to hide with base decoration, but with tabs that are impossible to hide, it does not matter.....
Still, this new version is far better than the old one with round base under the feet. Because it was a bigger PITA to remove and it was even more noticeable if you dared not use sloted bases for the infantry units. Meaning restricting choices on how to put them on their unit bases.
I also agree with the others with it not being that eye-catching at the level of a game (unless you do paint them with contrasted colors in comparison to the base). You don't do zoomed close-ups like in the picture most of the time. It's only a matter for nitpicking.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Pacific wrote:3) The army construction system of companies, special and support cards, which was *so* good I have never understood why GW didn't use similar for all of their other games.
Well for one they have been moving more and more toward idea you buy box, you can field. No "you also need to buy that and that and that" or "because you have X and Y can't take that box as well".
So unless they sell models in box that fills card completely they can just slot in doesn't fit well to where GW been moving toward
86262
Post by: MaxT
Pacific wrote:
Nothing really other than that line in the mentions, and that it won't be exactly the same.
We can infer some things, that Titan hit location dice won't be used, or flamer/barrage templates, or the order tokens themselves - although that is assuming that the photos we have seen are of the entire box content, and there isn't a sheet with push-out tokens.
So perhaps it doesn't say a lot, but, at least it means a few bullet points we can take away, such as it not being based on Epic 40k, or a completely new scratch-built set of rules.
We have seen the back of the box on the https://thehorusheresy.com/legions-imperialis website. There's a pushout sheet with what looks like order tokens, flamer/round templates and a scatter dice. No left/right/up/down dice tho.
And you can do the army building via companies/platoons/squadrons/support etc without the cards, Flames of War have done exactly that for 20 years now. Whether GW will stick with that is another question, but it feels like that's something they would do nowadays (buy this box and it gets you the exact contents for these support options) for example.
85057
Post by: vadersson
It will be nice to get to use my scatter die and templates again since 40K moved away from them. I can’t make out all the orders on the reference sheet. Anyone know what they all are. I can see:
First Fire
Advanced
Charge
Fall Back
The last one looks like a double helix, some sort of heal or rally order?
Thanks,
Duncan
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Looks like
First Fire
Advance
March
Charge
Fall Back
To me, all with "Orders" as a suffix.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
JimmyWolf87 wrote:Frankly I just don't buy into the notion that they'd be impossible to hide. Or even difficult to hide. Would I just clip them off in some instances? Sure. I can't though, see why it makes it any more or less difficult to disguise them with basing decoration/texture between their legs as opposed to underneath them.
The tactical turds are about ankle height, so to "hide" them in basing it'd take relatively large basing material (whereas most people use very fine basing material when basing Epic to match the scale). Automatically Appended Next Post: Sarouan wrote: kodos wrote: it is not about that you need slots, but that there is plastic that you cannot hide because someone though it is a good idea to put the tabs between the legs and not underneath and you cannot put the models freely around that why either because you will see the tab if they are not on the ground people go crazy with models having tabs that are easy to hide with base decoration, but with tabs that are impossible to hide, it does not matter.....
Still, this new version is far better than the old one with round base under the feet. Because it was a bigger PITA to remove and it was even more noticeable if you dared not use sloted bases for the infantry units. Meaning restricting choices on how to put them on their unit bases.
But because it was below their feet, you could build up basing material/filler to the same height and the model would stand on top of it, the tactical turds stick up ankle high so when you build up the basing material high enough to hide them, it'll be like they're wading through the basing material. I also agree with the others with it not being that eye-catching at the level of a game (unless you do paint them with contrasted colors in comparison to the base). You don't do zoomed close-ups like in the picture most of the time. It's only a matter for nitpicking.
I don't think it's "zomg!1!11 ThIs iS unUsaBle" levels of bad... but these are going to be premium priced models so they deserved to be nitpicked. At this point, I reckon 3D printed models are winning over GW's plastics when it comes to infantry at a fraction of the price. I fully expect the Galactic Crusaders line will start getting take down notices soon.
133139
Post by: James12345
With flock etc, you usually obscure the feet of epic scale minis, I think the tabs will help avoid this
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Glad it looks like mostly second ed.......but I was also hoping they would incorporate the blast markers, they added a lot to the game. But we know modern GW hates actually using morale in game for more than a token effort.
If you really really hate the tactical rocks, just get some sanding sticks. Could it have been done better, sure, but it apparently wasn't.
At least its not like first edition space hulk that showed these cool blue plastic terminators on the back....then when you opened the box you got a bunch of "charming" bricks. I remember being so pissed off when I opened that box.....luckily the game was awesome. I wasn't expecting to get the metal painted ones on the side of the box.......but when you show a bunch of plain blue plastic guys on the back....thats what you expect. No amount of "Contents might vary from those shown" prepares you for the lumps inside.
18045
Post by: Snord
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I don't think it's "zomg!1!11 ThIs iS unUsaBle" levels of bad... but these are going to be premium priced models so they deserved to be nitpicked.
You are wildly overstating the issue. The blobs around their feet only show up because the unit bases that GW have designed for them are so flat and featureless (although you can see that the GW painters have tried to make the blobs look like tactical rocks). I think what they did makes sense from a model design perspective - you want these small models to have decent point of contact on the base. Just put a few bits of gravel (rubble) around the feet, and some staticgrass, and the blobs will disappear.
65284
Post by: Stormonu
Now that I've seen that the figures are about twice the size as the old Epic figures, what about the vehicles? Anyone got a size comparison for 1E Space Marine vehicles (which is what I have) and the size of these new models?
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
 Stormonu wrote:Now that I've seen that the figures are about twice the size as the old Epic figures, what about the vehicles? Anyone got a size comparison for 1E Space Marine vehicles (which is what I have) and the size of these new models?
I don't think they are twice as big, epic sizes were very inconsistent, later scouts towered over the original marines. There was no way, no matter how you crushed them that 10 epic tacticals were fitting in a rhino...which oddly enough made them comparable to 40k scale (cause thats not happening either). Size of the vehicles probably wont matter so much, (they even said you could use the legacy minis if you want...how long that policy lasts is anybodys guess) but I'm going to reserve printing up stuff until I get the new ones in hand so I can at least be close. My guess is that like the titans they will be larger and the old epic scale vehicles will look out of place.
49827
Post by: MajorWesJanson
The base/feet of the models is likely where they are attached to the sprue. The plastic seems like a way to make that area more solid, and not bend or snap the knees of the model when clipping them off the sprue.
34906
Post by: Pacific
I see the 'Orbital Knights' are still a available from Etsy, a good option for anyone that doesn't have their own printer. Will be interesting to see if they stay up.
MaxT wrote: Pacific wrote:
Nothing really other than that line in the mentions, and that it won't be exactly the same.
We can infer some things, that Titan hit location dice won't be used, or flamer/barrage templates, or the order tokens themselves - although that is assuming that the photos we have seen are of the entire box content, and there isn't a sheet with push-out tokens.
So perhaps it doesn't say a lot, but, at least it means a few bullet points we can take away, such as it not being based on Epic 40k, or a completely new scratch-built set of rules.
We have seen the back of the box on the https://thehorusheresy.com/legions-imperialis website. There's a pushout sheet with what looks like order tokens, flamer/round templates and a scatter dice. No left/right/up/down dice tho.
And you can do the army building via companies/platoons/squadrons/support etc without the cards, Flames of War have done exactly that for 20 years now. Whether GW will stick with that is another question, but it feels like that's something they would do nowadays (buy this box and it gets you the exact contents for these support options) for example.
Ah thanks, I had not seen the push-out tokens sheet! That makes me more hopeful 
1001
Post by: schoon
On the "plastic turd" between the legs issue:
While not ideal, this just doesn't seem like that big a deal to alter/remove. If you're a perfectionist about your minis, you likely have the skill to do this. No worse than the old slotta bases.
On 2nd ed. Space Marine force building:
Cards could very well be sold separately, much the same way Titan weapon cards or command terminals were done for AT18. If the system is close to SM2e, then I actually hope they do something along those lines.
98762
Post by: RazorEdge
Unit Cards also can feature Profiles and Rules for those.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
I reckon army building will be like 4th - fixed detachments and layouts. In a way, 4th is very similar to 2nd without the cards.
And I can see GW releasing a set of handy army cards for reference with each new release that are stock limited...
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I’m intrigued as to how large the companies or equivalent are going to be.
In 2nd Ed they were pretty substantial for all the races (except Nids who had their unique card system). But I could see smaller ones allowing for greater player freedom.
Maybe we’ll see Demi Company, Company and Grand Company sizes, with different detachment and Special Card equivalents?
Purely speculation and pondering.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I’m intrigued as to how large the companies or equivalent are going to be. Maybe we’ll see Demi Company, Company and Grand Company sizes, with different detachment and Special Card equivalents?
You'll probably get a mixture of generic detachments mixed with Legion specific detachments. I wouldn't be surprised if the detachments don't end up being named after the rites of war (Pride of the Legion for a Veteran/Terminator Detachment, Armoured Spearhead for Tanks, etc etc).
34906
Post by: Pacific
Remember even SM 2nd had Chapter-specific companies and detachments (Dark Angel Deathwing etc.)
I wouldn't be surprised if they have taken a leaf from the community ruleset Imperialis Dominatus - that system has basically re-made all of the Heresy-specific units into equivalent Epic companies and detachments
https://imperiusdominatus.org/#Army%20Books%20&%20Cards
An example of a few. The ruleset itself is an expansion of 2nd edition/NetEpic
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
schoon wrote:On the "plastic turd" between the legs issue:
While not ideal, this just doesn't seem like that big a deal to alter/remove. If you're a perfectionist about your minis, you likely have the skill to do this. No worse than the old slotta bases.
We'll have to see, because it attaches to the sides of the legs it might be fiddly to get it off.
I'd rather they just didn't have it, I imagine it's there because it's tricky to get them off the sprue without the legs being joined, but the trick is to not use clippers but rather use a sharp fresh blade. Either that or I'd rather they just did it like the old ones that had a circular base, those genuinely could be hidden easily by basing materials. Automatically Appended Next Post: Pacific wrote:Remember even SM 2nd had Chapter-specific companies and detachments (Dark Angel Deathwing etc.)
I wouldn't be surprised if they have taken a leaf from the community ruleset Imperialis Dominatus - that system has basically re-made all of the Heresy-specific units into equivalent Epic companies and detachments
https://imperiusdominatus.org/#Army%20Books%20&%20Cards
I actually would have guessed detachments are going to be more flexible in terms of their content. Maybe it means nothing, but the picture of the starter set box contents has grouped the infantry into 9 base groups. One has a command + 6 tactical bases + 2 heavy weapons bases, the other SM group has command + 4 tacticals + 2 Terminators + 2 Assault Marines. The Solar Auxilia are 1 command + some mix of assault-looking-dudes and rifle-looking-dudes. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Snord wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:I don't think it's "zomg!1!11 ThIs iS unUsaBle" levels of bad... but these are going to be premium priced models so they deserved to be nitpicked.
You are wildly overstating the issue. The blobs around their feet only show up because the unit bases that GW have designed for them are so flat and featureless (although you can see that the GW painters have tried to make the blobs look like tactical rocks). I think what they did makes sense from a model design perspective - you want these small models to have decent point of contact on the base. Just put a few bits of gravel (rubble) around the feet, and some staticgrass, and the blobs will disappear.
Overstating? You literally quoted the part where I said they're premium priced products therefore deserve to be nitpicked
If these were bargain basement models I'd hold them to a different standard, but given GW's history you're likely going to be selling you first born to play Epic
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Pacific wrote:Remember even SM 2nd had Chapter-specific companies and detachments (Dark Angel Deathwing etc.)
I wouldn't be surprised if they have taken a leaf from the community ruleset Imperialis Dominatus - that system has basically re-made all of the Heresy-specific units into equivalent Epic companies and detachments
https://imperiusdominatus.org/#Army%20Books%20&%20Cards
...snip...
Oh man, getting me excited. Though, as I said above, if the army building is like 2nd or 4th, I can easily imagine a set of limited release army cards for army construction...
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Hm... I mean, detachment cards are cool and all, but weirdly limiting, particularly when you have an ecclectic collection.
But we can at least say that transports are a separate support option to detachments, given what we see on the box
66936
Post by: Vorian
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Pacific wrote:Remember even SM 2nd had Chapter-specific companies and detachments (Dark Angel Deathwing etc.)
I wouldn't be surprised if they have taken a leaf from the community ruleset Imperialis Dominatus - that system has basically re-made all of the Heresy-specific units into equivalent Epic companies and detachments
https://imperiusdominatus.org/#Army%20Books%20&%20Cards
I actually would have guessed detachments are going to be more flexible in terms of their content. Maybe it means nothing, but the picture of the starter set box contents has grouped the infantry into 9 base groups. One has a command + 6 tactical bases + 2 heavy weapons bases, the other SM group has command + 4 tacticals + 2 Terminators + 2 Assault Marines. The Solar Auxilia are 1 command + some mix of assault-looking-dudes and rifle-looking-dudes.
Looks like Command, 4 Tactical, 2 slots of 2 special stands for the marines.
It's 2 heavy and 2 special weapons, not 6 Tac and 2 heavy.
Edit: Actually looks the same for Solar Aux. 4 basic infantry and then 2x flamers + 2x Axes
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Vorian wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Pacific wrote:Remember even SM 2nd had Chapter-specific companies and detachments (Dark Angel Deathwing etc.)
I wouldn't be surprised if they have taken a leaf from the community ruleset Imperialis Dominatus - that system has basically re-made all of the Heresy-specific units into equivalent Epic companies and detachments
https://imperiusdominatus.org/#Army%20Books%20&%20Cards
I actually would have guessed detachments are going to be more flexible in terms of their content. Maybe it means nothing, but the picture of the starter set box contents has grouped the infantry into 9 base groups. One has a command + 6 tactical bases + 2 heavy weapons bases, the other SM group has command + 4 tacticals + 2 Terminators + 2 Assault Marines. The Solar Auxilia are 1 command + some mix of assault-looking-dudes and rifle-looking-dudes.
Looks like Command, 4 Tactical, 2 slots of 2 special stands for the marines.
It's 2 heavy and 2 special weapons, not 6 Tac and 2 heavy.
Edit: Actually looks the same for Solar Aux. 4 basic infantry and then 2x flamers + 2x Axes
You have better eyes than I
But yeah, I wonder if that means some flexibility in how detachments are assembled rather than the rigid fixed detachments of some previous editions.
I personally like Epic 40k's method of almost complete freedom, it let you build armies free form with very little restriction on needing to take X of this and Y of that. But I think a lot of people were confused with it and used it to try and make 40k-like mini armies.
51394
Post by: judgedoug
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Woooooo!!!
That same article wrote: This edition is one of the major influences for the Legions Imperialis rules – but it’s important to note that they are not the same game.
Woooooooooooooooooooooooo! I’ll take 2nd Ed being the major influence!
"This edition is one of the"
who knows what that actually means
34906
Post by: Pacific
Other influence being Trolls in the Pantry?
I suppose it's the fact they didn't mention that on any of the other edition notes (other than putting the boot in with Armageddon, which I think has upset a fair few people on the community pages!)
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Any wild bets on what tomorrow’s reveal is gonna be?
I think maybe Vindicators.
98762
Post by: RazorEdge
Rhino APC... or Space Marine Infantry, which isn't Part of the Launch Box.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
A flyer would be nice, but what we really need is a look at the rules.
34906
Post by: Pacific
If they start revealing tanks like that before the Rhino and Land Raider, then really what the hell is going on?!
98762
Post by: RazorEdge
Marines in Mk4 Armour please!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The tabs on the Terminators look silly when Parts of the Feets (Toes) are missing.... and makes them impossible to remove without missing Parts on those Bodies.
16469
Post by: Nils
Still much better than the old tabs in my opinion.
26519
Post by: xttz
Someone please pass the salt...
A mysterious pastebin link has been floating around online since last week, listing Heresy units with Epic-style stats:
https://pastebin.com/GJfHMNzY
Full text below in case in gets taken down.
Reasons to think that it might be geniune:
The posting date lines up with when GW would normally send out preview copies to content creatorsThe unit stats look similar (but not the same) as 2nd edition EpicThis was posted online before GW confirmed the new rules are inspired by that edition of the rules.
85057
Post by: vadersson
Well that is interesting. I wonder if it could be real. I love to review stats.
I am a bit concerned that I don’t see any Arty units (I think, not totally familiar with Heresy units.). Did 2nd handle artillery as off board? Or was ther not much arty in Epic? That is the main thing that jumps out at me. I’ll see if I can review some of these numbers and find some patterns, but I have little previous Epic experience.
Thanks,
Duncan
82928
Post by: Albertorius
vadersson wrote:Well that is interesting. I wonder if it could be real. I love to review stats.
I am a bit concerned that I don’t see any Arty units (I think, not totally familiar with Heresy units.). Did 2nd handle artillery as off board? Or was ther not much arty in Epic? That is the main thing that jumps out at me. I’ll see if I can review some of these numbers and find some patterns, but I have little previous Epic experience.
Thanks,
Duncan
No, onboard artillery in Epic is definitely a thing. Hell, one of the things in the core Space Marine sprue were Whirlwinds.
98762
Post by: RazorEdge
They mentioned Basilisks in one of the Articles on WarCom.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
No Land Rider detachment either, despite Rhinos being in their own detachment?
34906
Post by: Pacific
Well that's interesting, I had read that that list was doing the rounds on the Epic Discord channel.
Yes it is the same stat list as SM 2nd, the only difference being the addition of a 'W' column (wounds?) It looks like a 'split' version of the original stat sheets, and so we are missing range, dice, to hit roll, saving throw modifier, if it were to follow the original format.
It looks like the Titans cost a lot less points (a Warlord is 600, vs 900 in the original). This might be useless if just viewed by itself, but a tactical detachment (calculated using the original format of 6 squads and 3 rhinos) comes to exactly the same points as the original, 250pts.
The movement values look about right, converting from CM to inches.
One red flag is the absence of a Land Raider.
85057
Post by: vadersson
We know from the articles that there are different weapons for tanks, dreads, and titans. Maybe the final cost includes weapons which are not here? That would certainly increase vehicle and Titan costs and why the stats are not in line.
Overall, I think this looks cool, let’s hope there is some truth to it.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Hmm. I smell poo.
But then, I am watching Mac & Me, so it could be that.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Im going to be very annoyed if they just go to straight wounds for titans, Thats just not how titans die. Why they wouldnt use the up down left right dice is a question in itself, but if they just go to wounds.....well I probably will not like that aspect.
Also the largest unit we see is detachment, no companies. I have a feeling this game is going to have smaller engagements than 2nd ed.
34906
Post by: Pacific
I agree about the titans, that's very similar to Armageddon and in my opinion the worst aspect of that system. I loved how in SM you could get Titans gradually getting damaged or worn down, or just taken out by a sudden KO.
So from that perspective, I hope it is fake (or at least there is more to it!)
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Pacific wrote:I agree about the titans, that's very similar to Armageddon and in my opinion the worst aspect of that system. I loved how in SM you could get Titans gradually getting damaged or worn down, or just taken out by a sudden KO.
So from that perspective, I hope it is fake (or at least there is more to it!)
It will really depend on how playable you want the game to be with titans. The more complex they are to use and track, the less you can actually field.
There's also another whole game to use titans that way.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Albertorius wrote: Pacific wrote:I agree about the titans, that's very similar to Armageddon and in my opinion the worst aspect of that system. I loved how in SM you could get Titans gradually getting damaged or worn down, or just taken out by a sudden KO.
So from that perspective, I hope it is fake (or at least there is more to it!)
It will really depend on how playable you want the game to be with titans. The more complex they are to use and track, the less you can actually field.
There's also another whole game to use titans that way.
AT is much more complicated than 2nd ed Titians. 2nd ed Titans with the exception of the Emperor Titan were pretty quick. The amount of flavor you got out of rolling one more handful of dice (two direction dice and a d6) was well worth the process. Titans got so generic in editions after 2nd, it was one of the things that turned me off the game. If a warlord now has 6 regenerable shields and then 6 wounds....it could take forever to take them down and its also very boring.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Andrew1975 wrote: Albertorius wrote: Pacific wrote:I agree about the titans, that's very similar to Armageddon and in my opinion the worst aspect of that system. I loved how in SM you could get Titans gradually getting damaged or worn down, or just taken out by a sudden KO. So from that perspective, I hope it is fake (or at least there is more to it!)
It will really depend on how playable you want the game to be with titans. The more complex they are to use and track, the less you can actually field. There's also another whole game to use titans that way.
AT is much more complicated than 2nd ed Titians. 2nd ed Titans with the exception of the Emperor Titan were pretty quick. The amount of flavor you got out of rolling one more handful of dice (two direction dice and a d6) was well worth the process. Titans got so generic in editions after 2nd, it was one of the things that turned me off the game. If a warlord now has 6 regenerable shields and then 6 wounds....it could take forever to take them down and its also very boring.
Can't really say... what I can say, though, by experience, is that in Epic 40k a Warlord Titan had 6 Void Shields and 12 damage points, and, if anything, they always felt a bit too fragile. Also they had critical damage and catastrophic damage tables, which spiced things up (and a fair number of weapons always crit)
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Also super dubious that infantry get a save.
Terminators and Command, sure. But not mere plebs. They’re there to die in their droves.
86045
Post by: leopard
movement that far in inches in this scale?
also note that this means the army in the box is not game legal, e.g. the heavy weapons marines, two stands is not a legal unit
assault marines not far off terminator marines in combat?
smells wrong, though could be something thrown out in the testing phase I guess
either way someone will get a proper preview copy soon, or something will leak as likely the boxes are on their way here now
7722
Post by: em_en_oh_pee
If that sheet came out before any LI announcements, it has the Aethon on it. So that really gives it some legitimacy.
86045
Post by: leopard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also super dubious that infantry get a save.
Terminators and Command, sure. But not mere plebs. They’re there to die in their droves.
they had saves in 1st edition though, it was one of the main things that split marines from the more plebby plebs, a better save, given they all had basically the same shooting ability
looks like we have vehicle, walker, infantry as unit types which suggests potentially different to hit requirements for weapons maybe?
have to see how it all goes, not too much longer, but given GW have hinted on picking the correct type or weapon for the type of target something akin to the 1st ed concept of a weapon having different to hit scores based on the target type could be coming back.
26519
Post by: xttz
Pacific wrote:I agree about the titans, that's very similar to Armageddon and in my opinion the worst aspect of that system. I loved how in SM you could get Titans gradually getting damaged or worn down, or just taken out by a sudden KO.
So from that perspective, I hope it is fake (or at least there is more to it!)
Writing an overly simplified set of rules for titans in Epic would ensure there's still a reason for people to keep playing AT as a parallel game system. That makes it a bit more believable to me.
31456
Post by: Bolognesus
 em_en_oh_pee wrote:If that sheet came out before any LI announcements, it has the Aethon on it. So that really gives it some legitimacy.
Pastebin posted July 8th, Warcom preview on July 1st shows image with box contents, and mentions Aethon by name:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/01/warhammer-preview-battle-on-an-epic-scale-in-the-horus-heresy-legions-imperialis/
Not sure if the pastebin is more of a copy-pasta-bin that appeared earlier but unless so, no such luck I'm afraid.
26519
Post by: xttz
Another pastebin from July 6th:
The game is based off sm2ed with a movement phase, a shooting phase and an end phase.
Thousand Sons:
Legion Special Rules The following special rules apply to all Thousand Sons models in a Legiones Astartes Army.
Kine Shields: Thousand Sons models with the Commander special rule gain the Shield Generator (6+) special rule.
White Scars Legion rule makes jink saves better for units that have jink. However, in the core rules only flyers have jink so far. No idea when jetbikes/land speeders are coming out for LI…
Dark Angles:
Legion Special Rules The following special rules apply to all Dark Angels models in a Legiones Astartes Army.
Formations of the Hexagrammaton: At the start of the battle, before any Detachment is deployed, determine which Dark Angels Formations contain a total of three or more different Detachment types – Dedicated Transports are ignored for the purposes of this calculation.
Any Formation that meets these requirements gains one of the following benefits, chosen by the controlling player from the list below:
All Detachments within the Formation that contain only Dark Angels Infantry models gain the Phosphex and Implacable special rules.
All Detachments within the Formation that contain only Cavalry models gain the Outflank special rule.
All Detachments within the Formation that contain only Vehicle models gain the Nimble special rule.
If a Formation has a Dedicated Transport, the model types gain the relevant special rules but the Transports do not.
For example: A Dark Angels Formation contains two Legion Tactical Detachments, a Legion Dreadnought Detachment and a Legion Predator Detachment. Therefore it meets the requirements of the Formations of the Hexagrammaton special rule and chooses one of the special rules to apply.
If the Formation had two Legion Tactical Detachments and two Legion Dreadnought Detachments, it would not meet the requirements, even if the Tactical Detachments had Dedicated Transports.
Alpha Legion:
Legion Special Rules The following special rules apply to all Alpha Legion models in a Legiones Astartes Army.
Mutable Tactics: For each Formation in an Army made up entirely of Alpha Legion Detachments (ignoring Allied Contingents) the controlling player may select up to 3 Alpha Legion Detachments in the Army to be affected by Mutable Tactics. For each Allied Contingent in an Army made up entirely of Alpha Legion Detachments, the controlling player may select up to 1 Alpha Legion Detachment to be affected by Mutable Tactics. Detachments with the Flyer special rule cannot be chosen.
A Detachment chosen to be affected by Mutable Tactics gains a special rule dependent on the Detachment Type. If a selected Detachment is made up of Infantry, Cavalry, Walker or Vehicle models, all models within it gain either the Infiltrate, Outflank or Forward Deployment special rule – this is chosen by the controlling player and different Detachments can choose different rules. If the selected Detachment is of another type, it gains the Forward Deployment rule.
Ultramarines:
Legion Special Rules The following special rules apply to all Ultramarines models in a Legiones Astartes Army.
Interlocking Tactics: An Ultramarines model may re-roll any Hit rolls of a 1 when firing upon an enemy Detachment that has already had one or more Hits scored against it this round by an Ultramarines model from the same Formation as the firing model.
Emperor’s Children
Legion Special Rules The following special rules apply to all Emperor's Children models within a Legiones Astartes Army.
Exemplars of War: Once per battle, an Army that includes at least one Formation consisting entirely of Emperor's Children models (ignoring models within an Allied Contingent) may choose to win Initiative instead of rolling. They must declare they are doing this before rolling. If both players have this rule, the player who did not have Initiative last round chooses if they use the rule first – if they do so, no other player can use it this round.
If an Army includes at least one Allied Contingent comprised entirely of Emperor's Children Detachments then once per battle the controlling player may re-roll the dice roll for Initiative instead. They can only do this if at least one Emperor's Children Detachment is on the battlefield or in Reserve; if all have been destroyed or left the battlefield due to other special rules, this rule has no effect.
World Eaters:
The following special rules apply to all World Eaters models in a Legiones Astartes Army.
Incarnate Violence: Whenever they make a Fight Roll, all World Eaters Infantry, Cavalry and Walker models can re-roll a single D6 when making Fight rolls.
Word Bearers:
The following special rules apply to all Word Bearers models in a Legiones Astartes Army.
True Believers: Detachments within a Word Bearers Formation never count as Broken for the purposes of being issued an Order, i.e., they can be issued any Order they normally could instead of just the Advance Order or March Order. In addition, all Word Bearers Detachments ignore the effects of the Dread Aura (X) special rule.
Death Guard:
Sons of Barbarus: Death Guard Detachments do not suffer Hits for moving through Dangerous terrain.
In addition, at the start of the battle, before any Detachments are deployed, a player may pick up to two areas of terrain if their Army contains at least one Death Guard Formation. For the remainder of the battle, these areas count as Dangerous terrain, in addition to any other rules that apply.
Two Structures can be selected in place of a single area of terrain. Each time a model Garrisons or leaves a Structure designated as Dangerous terrain, it counts as having moved 1" through it.
Iron Warriors:
The Bitter End: When determining which player controls a neutral Objective marker, Iron Warriors Infantry and Walker models count their Tactical Strength as 1 higher than normal. In addition, when determining who controls an Objective marker in a deployment zone, Iron Warriors Infantry and Walker models count their Tactical Strength as 2 higher than normal if within their own deployment zone.
For example, an Iron Warriors Legion Tactical Detachment model would contribute 7 to the total Tactical Strength instead of 5 while in its own deployment zone, for the purposes of determining which player controls an objective within that deployment zone (but not for other reasons unless stated).
Salamanders:
Strength of Will: When making a Morale check, a Detachment that contains only Salamanders models rolls two D6 and chooses which result they prefer. In addition, all Salamanders Detachments in the Army gain the Implacable special rule
Solar Auxilia Army List The following section presents the Army List for the Solar Auxilia, reflecting the foundation upon which the various Solar Auxilia cohorts were based. Within you'll find all the rules needed to build a Solar Auxilia Army.
A Solar Auxilia force can include a maximum of 1 Legate Commander per full 1,500 points of the points limit (e.g., a 2,000 point Army can include a single Legate Commander, a 3,000 point Army can include 2 Legate Commanders, etc.).
Close Formation Fighting: The Solar Auxilia train to fight shoulder to shoulder, each warrior supporting those next to them to present an unyielding wall. A Solar Auxilia Infantry model increases its CAF by 1 while in base to base contact with one or more friendly Solar Auxilia Infantry models. If a Detachment is Garrisoned within a Structure, it is presumed to be in base contact with at least one other model from that Detachment.
Solar Auxilia Command Structure: Many Solar Auxilia Detachments have the Chain of Command special rule, which limits the Orders they can be issued with unless they are in range of a Detachment with the Solar Auxilia HQ (X) special rule. These rules can be found in the Special Rules section to the right.
Tank Commander: Certain Formations and/or Detachments allow a model to be upgraded to a Tank Commander – where applicable, this will be stated in the relevant description. A model upgraded to a Tank Commander gains the Solar Auxilia HQ (6") special rule and increases its Morale characteristic by 1, to a maximum of 2+.
Where possible, a model upgraded to a Tank Commander should be clearly visible – this can be done through having an officer in the cupola, a small banner, an alternative paint scheme or similar identifiable method.
Chain of Command: Detachments with the Chain of Command special rule can only be issued an Advance Order unless instructed otherwise. If an Independent Unit (see page 91) contains only models without this rule, then that Independent Unit can be issued another Order, even if the larger Detachment can only be issued with the Advance Order.
Solar Auxilia HQ (X): If a Detachment with the Chain of Command special rule has at least one model wholly within the Command Range of a model with the Solar Auxilia HQ (X) special rule, it can be issued with any Order it would be eligible to be issued (i.e., First Fire Order, Charge Order, March Order or Advance Order), instead of just an Advance Order. A model's ‘Command Range' is a number of inches equal to the value in brackets noted as part of this special rule. This special rule does not allow a Broken Detachment to be issued an Order other than the Advance Order or Charge Order.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
I can tell you I played Titans in both, 2nd ed was much better, and really was just as easy, but GW gonna do, what GW gonna do. Just waiting to see what the rule set is like, hopefully there are more things I like than dislike.
Looks like they brought back the old Imperial guard chain of command rules.
133367
Post by: MrHobbles
That list is also missing the Ares Gunship, which we know should be there.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also super dubious that infantry get a save.
Terminators and Command, sure. But not mere plebs. They’re there to die in their droves.
They have had saves before.
And no save would make infantry super expensive as you would need dozens and dozens of standsto not just vanish casually t1. Unless even weapons like vulcan mega bolter has like 2-3 shots at most.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Tons of specific-term special rules and 'mutable tactics'? That definitely has modern GW rules writing all over it. Just have to hope that they have restrained themselves and not gone 'full Necromunda' and made the game unplayable to anyone that isn't prepared to live and breathe it.
Andrew1975 wrote:I can tell you I played Titans in both, 2nd ed was much better, and really was just as easy, but GW gonna do, what GW gonna do. Just waiting to see what the rule set is like, hopefully there are more things I like than dislike.
Looks like they brought back the old Imperial guard chain of command rules.
Yes I feel the same way. I didn't ever play Epic40k: looking at the critical hit chart that Albertorius posted, that did at least keep some of the random damage flavour, although without the hilarious potential (which seemed to happen all too often) of a warp missile scattering and going between a Titan's legs
86045
Post by: leopard
a lot of those faction rules seem there as a token effort, but nice they are not game dominating but it does make the legions different so at least its nice they are not generic
the Titan stuff of 2nd was simple enough, and a slightly more detailed system than just "oh yes these have several hit points" makes sense.
a titan having a small record sheet or a series of damage counters "leg arm destroyed" or whatever works.
it is a very good sign though they have gone back to 2nd and how that worked to have a look at, shows clearly who this is aimed at which I think is good
and yes the missile scatter down from the reactor as the titan goes onto tip toes to avoid it was always good
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
It all seems plausible, but a 6-wound warlord titan doesn't strike me as 'gods of the battlefield' level power. Also not too sure about how some legion abilities are a single sentence while others are more convoluted.
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
MarkNorfolk wrote:It all seems plausible, but a 6-wound warlord titan doesn't strike me as 'gods of the battlefield' level power. Also not too sure about how some legion abilities are a single sentence while others are more convoluted.
Hyper-specific rules and details for a game we don't have the basic rules yet is a telltale mark of made-up BS, i'm afraid. These pastebins would be more believable if they contained more basic stuff, but it's always a complete block of statlines (suspiciously in this case with stuff we have seen already, and stuff we can reasonably infer, but nothing more) or pages of army-specific rules and nothing else. I think it's fake.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
PHWOARRRRRR!
Note this is a single box!!!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
They're very pretty, but I think most've us would prefer plastic 30k scale versions...
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
This is (prices aside, see earlier comments re those) shaping up to be everything I hoped for.
Decent sized boxed packed with stuffs. And, hopefully, those stuffs are instant deployable units.
Though revising prices? The contents here are making it tricky to judge what my upper limit might be. Maybe up to £40, £45? With some wiggle room on the upper to allow for uncertain online discount.
Other opinions are available and mine are just mine,
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Looking good.
I would guess the price of the regular 6 plane AI box.
Which may or may not be prohibitive depending on game size, I dunno
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
Not this guy!
Those are looking pretty nice. Of course price is important but that's a nice collection of tiny tiny pew pew.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
This is more and more like a big old hug from the nostalgia monster. No I don’t mind it’s clearly a Hugger Mugger.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Wow those do look nice, the Dreadnoughts in particular. I would hope no more than £30 or (you have to remember even the dreadnoughts will still be smaller than a typical 28mm mini). I take heart that the words 'boutique', 'artisan' or 'finely sculpted' were not used once in the article, so hopefully they will be priced so people will buy 2 or 3 of the packs..
As much as I love the originals, if you want some of idea of how miniature sculpting has developed over the years, here is my 1st-edition (I think about 33 years old) -1 to hit with the bent barrels!
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Also we’re yet to get an idea of points. Because pounds to points is an important consideration.
Random example, with numbers purely for demonstration?
Let’s say an average game is 4,000 points. And each boxed set is in the region of £40.00.
If those boxed sets are around the 300 point mark in terms of contents? It’s a different value to if they’re 500 points of contents.
126443
Post by: Matrindur
These are clearly two times the same sprue and very likely the same size sprue as the aeronautica stuff which most of the time also has a single sprue doubled up on the box.
The Aeronautica boxes with this sprue configuration all have the same price at £30/40€/$50 so even if they increase the prices I wouldn't expect more than £35 for that box
26519
Post by: xttz
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This is (prices aside, see earlier comments re those) shaping up to be everything I hoped for.
Decent sized boxed packed with stuffs. And, hopefully, those stuffs are instant deployable units.
Though revising prices? The contents here are making it tricky to judge what my upper limit might be. Maybe up to £40, £45? With some wiggle room on the upper to allow for uncertain online discount.
Other opinions are available and mine are just mine,
Pricing is gonna be hard to estimate. Similar more recent releases for Necromunda & Warcry vary anywhere from £30 to £37.50, though the latter include things like card packs too.
There's also the 'heresy factor' where kits last year have released a bit cheaper than expected* because they're selling the same kits to all players.
e.g. the new deimos rhino released slightly cheaper than the old rhino kit
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
True, true.
I can foresee Element getting a significant slice of my August pay all the same 😂😂
126443
Post by: Matrindur
Solar Auxilia will probably also get a box like this with their own Rapiers and Tarantulas and instead of the dreadnoughts with Basilisk and Medusas?
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
I think in ye olden times this sort of box would cost as much as five 28mm Marines
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
 Matrindur wrote:Solar Auxilia will probably also get a box like this with their own Rapiers and Tarantulas and instead of the dreadnoughts with Basilisk and Medusas?
Quite possibly.
16469
Post by: Nils
I would be OK with a price around £30 for a box like that. Of course I'm hoping for a lower price but I don't think it's very likely.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Things of beauty. Love the new design tarantulas
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
The support box looks great, and probably that and a box of Knights will fill out the launch set just nicely.
85057
Post by: vadersson
I did a bit of calculation work. Based on the potentially fake data posted on paste bin and the contents of the starter and the support box I calculated the following points.
Starter Box: 1737.5 points.
Support box: 276 points.
A couple comments. I think that this shows that weapons for things like Titans and potentially tanks likely impact points. I would expect at least the starter to have a nice round number like 2000 points.
I also have some errors due to some detachments shown as alternatives for add on squads like adding 2 assault squads to a tactical detachment vs a 4 squad detachment. I might clean up my calls later.
For the support box, I also expect different weapons affect the cost as it would likely be around 300 points.
Also, I believe some of the articles said games would likely be around 3000 points,
Again, take that all with a grain of salt.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 H.B.M.C. wrote:They're very pretty, but I think most've us would prefer plastic 30k scale versions...
Nah, I'm good, 30k makes much more sense at Epic scale for me.
And it's not like making a 32mm scale model is equivalent to doing it 8mm scale, the resources required for the former dwarf the latter.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
SamusDrake wrote:The support box looks great, and probably that and a box of Knights will fill out the launch set just nicely.
As long as you want to rawdog it and flootslog with everything
133367
Post by: MrHobbles
H.B.M.C. wrote:They're very pretty, but I think most've us would prefer plastic 30k scale versions...
Eh? What thread are you in?! Absolutely not. War is best enacted at Epic scale.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Wonder if we’ll see Drop Pods done the old way?
Take your Drop Pod Counters you nominated to arrive that turn. Put them on a blaster marker.
Hold Blast marker 30cm above the board. Tip it.
Where the tokens land, the Drop Pods land…
129530
Post by: ProfSrlojohn
 Nils wrote:I would be OK with a price around £30 for a box like that. Of course I'm hoping for a lower price but I don't think it's very likely.
It'll need to be a lot lower if they want it to pick up in the US. A 30£ (38.62$) aeronautica box, is 50$ over here, which is nearly 40£s. Titanicus is even worse. The knight castigator/acheron box (since that's the ony one lest on the US site) is 75, which is 58£. The difference in US and British prices are getting wider every time, and I can't foresee epic picking up over here well without it. Aeronautica certainly didn't, and most people I know who play titanicus mainly bought the starter set, maybe an extra warhound or reaver. Necromunda boxes being 60$ has been an issue I've seen some mention as well. Necromunda luckily was already entrentched and you only really need a single box+books.
86045
Post by: leopard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Wonder if we’ll see Drop Pods done the old way?
Take your Drop Pod Counters you nominated to arrive that turn. Put them on a blaster marker.
Hold Blast marker 30cm above the board. Tip it.
Where the tokens land, the Drop Pods land…
I seriously hope so, there was significant skill to develop in learning when not to sneeze
81283
Post by: stonehorse
I don't think I can resist.
Now I have to sell a boat load of 40k stuff to make way for this, because I can see myself going in big and hard for Epic.
Loved it back in the 90's, so glad to see it return with, what looks to be a good plastic range.
86045
Post by: leopard
If they don't fluff the rules for this, and don't price themselves out v 3d printed proxies this has the potential for a huge nostalgia boost
they need to ride the wave though
26519
Post by: xttz
vadersson wrote:I did a bit of calculation work. Based on the potentially fake data posted on paste bin and the contents of the starter and the support box I calculated the following points.
Starter Box: 1737.5 points.
Support box: 276 points.
A couple comments. I think that this shows that weapons for things like Titans and potentially tanks likely impact points. I would expect at least the starter to have a nice round number like 2000 points.
The contents of starter boxes like this are generally decided well before the rules are finalised, possibly before they're even started. Therefore I wouldn't expect any nice round numbers.
However they are generally (as posted earlier in this thread) targeted to be around 50-60% of a typical full-size army, which lines up with your calculation if Epic is normally played at 3000pts like 28mm HH.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
I love it when you talk dirty!
132388
Post by: Tsagualsa
xttz wrote: vadersson wrote:I did a bit of calculation work. Based on the potentially fake data posted on paste bin and the contents of the starter and the support box I calculated the following points.
Starter Box: 1737.5 points.
Support box: 276 points.
A couple comments. I think that this shows that weapons for things like Titans and potentially tanks likely impact points. I would expect at least the starter to have a nice round number like 2000 points.
The contents of starter boxes like this are generally decided well before the rules are finalised, possibly before they're even started. Therefore I wouldn't expect any nice round numbers.
However they are generally (as posted earlier in this thread) targeted to be around 50-60% of a typical full-size army, which lines up with your calculation if Epic is normally played at 3000pts like 28mm HH.
We also have them saying that a typical battle has above 100 playing pieces per side; the starting box has 58, which would also track your estimat of between 50-60% quite well.
1464
Post by: Breotan
People in this thread are suggesting some seriously low prices for this.
I set my expectations based on similar sized releases that GW has done previously; the Aeronautica boxed sets. Using that as a guide, this box set should be priced at £60/$100.
The wildcard is how much of that price was due to the Aeronautica bases. In theory these thinner bases could shave a bit off the price.
86045
Post by: leopard
should start to see the pre-order prices for retailers reasonably soon
49827
Post by: MajorWesJanson
H.B.M.C. wrote:They're very pretty, but I think most've us would prefer plastic 30k scale versions...
I'll go with both. The Deredeo is coming in the next HH box set with the Mk III armor, just the Rapier and potentially Tarantula to go for full size, but assault and command squads will be coming first.
124786
Post by: tauist
The fire support kit looks aight, but show us the Rhinos and Land Raiders already!
I wonder if these dreads offer any poseability..
86045
Post by: leopard
dreads look like the arms are separate, with luck the legs and body are as well
111101
Post by: No One Important
Glad to see 3 different dreads available so quickly. Hopefully extra weapons come out eventually, even if just for aesthetic purposes.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 Breotan wrote:I set my expectations based on similar sized releases that GW has done previously; the Aeronautica boxed sets. Using that as a guide, this box set should be priced at £60/$100.
Not sure how you get to that price using AI as a guide, they were all £30-37.5 squadrons.
Unless you're talking about the starter set being £60, which sounds way too low to me given the Warhounds alone are £45 separately.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
https://spikeybits.com/2023/07/sorry-gw-legions-imperialis-is-a-hard-pass-for-us.html
Spikey bits brings up some good points. Hopefully GW has learned from AT how not to release a game. Games like AT and Necromunda where you are always fishing and paying for rules seriously drags down a games accessibility.
The new models look great and I'd say getting that kind of detail from a 3d printer would be difficult, not so much from a printing stand point, but finding someone do design the sculpts as nice and detailed at that scale. A lot of (but not all) the Epic scale STLs you can find on line are about as detailed as the old second edition stuff. There are some really well detailed vehicle STLs, but Im not sure I've seen dreadnoughts that detailed. Plus small fiddely bits like dreadnought arms can be a pain to remove from supports. So it could certainly be worth buying these instead of printing them depending on the price.
Im still not understanding the numbers though. Is a support attachment just two models/stands now? It looks more like epic 40k where you makes small armies, not just have a bunch of independent companies/detachments. Which I guess is fine, just not what I was thinking when they say 2nd ed was a huge influence. Looks like the only stuff coming from 2nd ed is the orders tokens (happy) and no blast markers (sad).
I think in most versions of Epic you got "Dreadnaught" one version, no options. Here it looks like you have multiple versions of dreadnaughts so thats pretty nice. Does make we wonder how granular they got with the rules. The nice thing about 2nd ed was it was pretty rules light, you basically got one version of a vehicle, it kept the games quick so you could have these huge armies. These look more like epic 4Ok or Armageddon armies which tended to have more options but the armies were smaller.
I guess we will just have to wait and see, but hopefully not too long.
26519
Post by: xttz
Breotan wrote:People in this thread are suggesting some seriously low prices for this.
I set my expectations based on similar sized releases that GW has done previously; the Aeronautica boxed sets. Using that as a guide, this box set should be priced at £60/$100.
The wildcard is how much of that price was due to the Aeronautica bases. In theory these thinner bases could shave a bit off the price.
That's because a significant factor in GW product pricing is the expected future sales*. A mid-sized model kit might cost them something like (for example) £20,000 to develop and produce, but the actual raw plastic material costs almost nothing. Literally pennies per kit. If during the lifetime of a mold it sells 5,000 units it will be substantially less profitable than another kit of the same size selling 30,000 units.
The situations for Epic & AI are quite different. AI is much like Necromunda and other skirmish games, where a customer grabs 1-2 boxes of models and has everything they need to play that game. There's little reason for anyone to pick up 4+ boxes of Goliath gangers unless they're doing some very niche conversions for a 40k army. GW expected to sell fairly low volumes of skirmish models like Aeronautica, so they sell them at a premium.
Epic is a very different scenario. Firstly you have the 'heresy effect' where all players can potentially buy most of the same models. Starting out my collection with space marines doesn't lock me out of using solar auxillia or mechanicum kits at the same time. That massively increases the potential that GW will sell more copies of each kit, and that the investment in that kit becomes more profitable.
Epic is also pretty open-ended in terms of sales. Players need much more than 1-2 boxes of models to complete an army, so there's an incentive for GW (slightly) reduce the cost of entry. They did that with 28mm HH by changing the existing core troops from a £30 box of ten to a £50 box of twenty. This Epic fire support box seems to be a similar idea of selling in 'bulk'.
Thank you for attending my Plastic Space Man Economics ted talk.
*There's been plenty of examples of this in action, with the most clearly obvious being the 28mm Rhino variants.Not long ago the classic space marine rhino was selling for £30. The Sisters Rhino with shared sprues and the same overall amount of plastic released at £35, partly because it's a newer kit and partly because they will definitely expect to sell fewer Sisters rhinos that space marine ones.
However when the HH deimos rhino showed up last year, it bucked the trend and released at £28. That's partly because between the 'heresy effect' above, plus the kit having shared sprues with other HH vehicles.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Wonder if we’ll see Drop Pods done the old way?
Take your Drop Pod Counters you nominated to arrive that turn. Put them on a blaster marker.
Hold Blast marker 30cm above the board. Tip it.
Where the tokens land, the Drop Pods land…
That's the only proper way to do it, in my mind.
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
If stating the bleeding obvious in a hastily written, even more hastily proofread few paragraphs is 'make some good points' then, yeah, I suppose. Every time I click on a link to that place I'm disappointed. In them, and myself.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Albertorius wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Wonder if we’ll see Drop Pods done the old way?
Take your Drop Pod Counters you nominated to arrive that turn. Put them on a blaster marker.
Hold Blast marker 30cm above the board. Tip it.
Where the tokens land, the Drop Pods land…
That's the only proper way to do it, in my mind.
GW doesn't do fun stuff like that anymore, its going to be pick a point roll scatter place marker, all drop pods have to be within X cm of the marker. Its just like the titan aiming template, must replace it with something boring. Dropping the drop pod markers was such a thrilling mechanic "YES...none of them landed on each other or dangerous terrain, except for the one that landed on and killed the Skullsmasha!" Automatically Appended Next Post: MarkNorfolk wrote:
If stating the bleeding obvious in a hastily written, even more hastily proofread few paragraphs is 'make some good points' then, yeah, I suppose. Every time I click on a link to that place I'm disappointed. In them, and myself.
Well I thought it brought up some good points about why AT might not be getting played at the levels some people expected.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Andrew1975 wrote:
MarkNorfolk wrote:
If stating the bleeding obvious in a hastily written, even more hastily proofread few paragraphs is 'make some good points' then, yeah, I suppose. Every time I click on a link to that place I'm disappointed. In them, and myself.
Well I thought it brought up some good points about why AT might not be getting played at the levels some people expected.
To tl;dr the entire "post":
- I don't like paying for rules
- I didn't get many games
- It's not for everyone
Saves some people getting cookie herpes.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Andrew1975 wrote:The new models look great and I'd say getting that kind of detail from a 3d printer would be difficult, not so much from a printing stand point, but finding someone do design the sculpts as nice and detailed at that scale. A lot of (but not all) the Epic scale STLs you can find on line are about as detailed as the old second edition stuff. There are some really well detailed vehicle STLs, but Im not sure I've seen dreadnoughts that detailed. Plus small fiddely bits like dreadnought arms can be a pain to remove from supports. So it could certainly be worth buying these instead of printing them depending on the price.
I've got not-Contemptors that I'd rate as equal to those, and with a few minutes of extra effort I put Chapter markings on my not-Contemptors before printing them. Not sure if there's good Epic scale Leviathans and Deredeos though.
I reckon the Galactic Crusader models match up pretty well with the new plastics.
Most of the vehicles I have are similar level of detail, but the GW plastics have rivet detail which adds an extra level.... that said, many of my tanks I manually added a bunch of rivets myself before printing them. The tracks on most of my 3D prints are actually more detailed than the GW models, but printing/voxel lines are hard to avoid on tanks where there's lots of flat surfaces that have different alignments.
34906
Post by: Pacific
I think so much of the success of this game, at least amongst people who post on forums, FB groups and know where to get 3d printed minis and proxies, rests on the RRP.
The problem is, if my initial reaction is "oh piss off" to the price, then I'll just continue to get stuff from elsewhere. And the problem is then, that if enough people do that (and if the most commited fans are scared off, then casual fans will be even more so) then the game will not be a commercial success. And that will be on GW.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Dudeface wrote: Andrew1975 wrote:
MarkNorfolk wrote:
If stating the bleeding obvious in a hastily written, even more hastily proofread few paragraphs is 'make some good points' then, yeah, I suppose. Every time I click on a link to that place I'm disappointed. In them, and myself.
Well I thought it brought up some good points about why AT might not be getting played at the levels some people expected.
To tl;dr the entire "post":
- I don't like paying for rules
- I didn't get many games
- It's not for everyone
Saves some people getting cookie herpes.
Doesn't get many games, they guy literally said he went in hard on AT and HH only to become frustrated by GW policy. I feel they did a passing (not great) job with HH, which some people would believe is quite generous, AT though I have to completely agree with him. AT botched the started sets, they all came with strange loadouts and the price was eye watering. Should have been one of each titan some knights and some terrain at a reasonable release price to get the game rolling. Who wants a AT starter box without a warlord? Who wants two warlords with little support?
Its not that people don't like paying for rules. They don't like to pay for a trickle of rules that come out multiple times a quarter, adding cost and confusion to what the rules actually are. It one of the reasons I'm looking forward to 10th edition where supposedly the rules will be democratized and easily available (not holding breath on that) Who could keep up with all the rules for 9th just for their own army/armies much less everyone elses. "Oh well this rule and this stratagem came out last week in the special $200 siege of fuctavious box that had nothing to do with your faction, but you still should know about it!" WTFGW!
Many people are willing to follow that strategy with 40K because they are already invested in it, its a terrible tactic in the first place and a death note for a new game. Make all rules available to everyone through a free app
like other companies or at least because its GW make the app affordable. This huge pay wall for an incomplete rule set is ridiculous.
If LI gets the same treatment as AT and AI, its going to do about as well, which will not bring it up to 3rd game status which Epic deserves to be and it will die out as quickly as all the other versions of Epic since 2nd.
|
|
