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.
Well, I guess the counterargument there is that LI boxes are also likely not going to sell like 40K, AoS, etc kits. Some folks are praising GW for being cautious and conservative with LI, but that conservatism may also mean higher pricing. Pricing is kind of an art form, but you're probably going to keep prices on the higher side if you're being conservative about how many units you're going to produce and sell.
Let's also consider the target customers are almost certainly a more veteran group. GW certainly isn't shying away from the nostalgia angle. And they're marketing it during a 40K edition launch, which suggests they don't see LI as some kind of near-core game, nor something that will directly compete with 40K for customers' hard-earned dollars.
I dunno....GW could surprise me, but when I add this all up it suggests premium pricing rather than price breaks.
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.
Well, I guess the counterargument there is that LI boxes are also likely not going to sell like 40K, AoS, etc kits. Some folks are praising GW for being cautious and conservative with LI, but that conservatism may also mean higher pricing. Pricing is kind of an art form, but you're probably going to keep prices on the higher side if you're being conservative about how many units you're going to produce and sell.
Let's also consider the target customers are almost certainly a more veteran group. GW certainly isn't shying away from the nostalgia angle. And they're marketing it during a 40K edition launch, which suggests they don't see LI as some kind of near-core game, nor something that will directly compete with 40K for customers' hard-earned dollars.
I dunno....GW could surprise me, but when I add this all up it suggests premium pricing rather than price breaks.
When I made my £60/$100 price projection, I was referring to the Legiones Astartes Support box, not boxed sets of individual units. For those I'd expect to see pricing around or slightly less than similar AI boxes. An argument can be made that AI players didn't need that many units so I suppose a higher price point was warranted. We'll have to wait for the stock lists to be posted before we'll know for sure.
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.
Those new walkers look sufficiently big that you just scale a 32mm scale STL and print teeny versions of those. those particular dreads have limited fiddly bits anyway, so should scale down well.
Fair point on the support fiddliness, but you could print an awful lot of them on a single build plate, and just accept some wastage. Any mist-prints can then just become basing fodder for the Titans
Estimated Price:
16 units in the box. When you roughly count two models to be equivalent to a single 40K model you have eight minis. So I would guess the price range will be around 40 Euros.
Lack of Land Raiders:
A normal GW blunder. Reminds me a lot of Bookromunda.
CAF discrepancy:
CAF values of 2nd Space Marine were:
So the value is too low for the Terminators. If I remember correctly even Ogryns had a score of +6 back in the day.
Titans damage tables:
I don´t expect them to be present in the game. Such a feature is most likely to be sacrificed on the unholy altar of "streamlined gaming".
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.
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.
GW launch/starter sets are for X amount of money worth at certain discount. Points don't matter much and in case of 2 armies the armies aren't even nearly same points like ever. AOS3 box had something like 1300 sigmarines vs 1000 and odd kruleboyz, leviathan was about 1000 vs 800 etc.
Nice round numbers is not GW's priority for these.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: should start to see the pre-order prices for retailers reasonably soon
Leak or actual data? Actual official price comes monday after preorders are announced in whatever sunday. That's still not happened. Until that happens retailers are in just as big mystery as you and me.
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.
Yeah spikybits have zero value to offer. They are just clickbaits for cash. Trash in, hoping people are silly enough to click for ad profits.
At least if you click post text so others don't make mistake of clicking clickbait link
H.B.M.C. wrote: They're very pretty, but I think most've us would prefer plastic 30k scale versions...
I would hope that this is indicative of what will be coming in plastic for 30k scale.
lord_blackfang wrote: 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
I believe thats also the same price point as a Necromunda gang and a blood bowl team. It seems to be the standard price point for the "average" sized specialist games product boxes. I think it used to be ~$42 USD, possibly gone up to $50USD now? I believe Warhound titans (but not Reavers or any of the other AT kits) are at the same price point as well.
lord_blackfang wrote: Looking good.
I would guess the price of the regular 6 plane AI box.
Which may or may not be prohibitive depending on game size, I dunno
This. I concur.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: True, true.
I can foresee Element getting a significant slice of my August pay all the same 😂😂
So far I can see myself buying 2 boxes of each release they've announced for the game, minimum. And thats just to start. If my community follows through on their pledges to actually play the game, I can see myself investing much more heavily into it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They're very pretty, but I think most've us would prefer plastic 30k scale versions...
Nah, I'm good, 30k makes much more sense at Epic scale for me.
And it's not like making a 32mm scale model is equivalent to doing it 8mm scale, the resources required for the former dwarf the latter.
Agreed. For me, this also solves a crucial problem - what legion should I play. Collecting a bunch of different legions in epic scale is way more affordable than 30k.
Nils wrote: I would be OK with a price around £30 for a box like that. Of course I'm hoping for a lower price but I don't think it's very likely.
It'll need to be a lot lower if they want it to pick up in the US. A 30£ (38.62$) 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.
The pound has been recovering against the dollar for the past year or so, forecasting expects it to return to its pre-covid high which would put a 30GBP box at about $42+ USD. You have to remember the US prices build in the cost of transatlantic logistics and overhead, so our prices will never exactly match the UK prices.
Personally, I think the price point is fine for the US market, especially with inflation being what it is, it will come across as a steal.
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.
If I may. The reason for that is GWs sculptors and engineers know exactly what their design tolerances and capabilities are, and can design down to that minimum specification. 3D sculptors don't, because 3D printing is a good bit more finicky and tolerances vary between XY and Z axes and are also impacted by how the designs are plated for print (i.e. the angle of the sculpt relative to the XY and Z axes). On top of that, tolerances vary from printer to printer. A Phrozen Mighty 12k and an Anycubic Photon Mono will give you two different results in output. Point is, its not so much that you can't do this with STLs and 3D printing, its just that the nature of the technology and the "industry" behind it makes it less likely to happen anytime soon. There will probably be a "3D printing singularity" point where common consumer grade printers have reached a point of accuracy and resolution that you can no longer see improvement in quality with the naked eye, I.E. like 16K or 32k printers or something, where the next step up looks no different from the step before it, and sculptors can basically design to that standard with the realistic expectation that 98% of their customers will be able to print to that level. But today is not that day.
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.
OMG.
Thats so dumb. I love it and I'm sad that it probably won't be done that way because it goes against the principles of modern game design and the expectations of the majority of their likely audience.
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!
I think its less about cost and more about just the bulk of it. I don't want to carry a small library with me to my local store to get a game in. GW has been a bit better about it as of late as they have been fairly regularly releasing compilation books to reduce your book count, but then the cost frustration sets in because inevitably they have edited the rules of the compliation books for balance, etc. which means the individual books you've purchased as they were released are out of date and you *need* to replace them with the compilation. Either way, I agree that they need to cut it out and either find a better format to release physical rules or do something consumer friendly and move to a digital rules platform.
This game will thrive or fail based almost solely on price. I expect most will grab the starter for the rules but after that.... Well I litterally have hundreds of free stl files. So easy to get and at that scale dosent matter if they look slightly different. Once painted you won't be able to tell easily.
If the price is right I would like to support the game if not then I'll print proxys and play with friends.
If they get the pricing right I think this could be big.
Pacific wrote: Breotan - you really think £60/$100 for that support box? If so, the game will be DOA.
I could easily be wrong for using Aeronautica as my basis for comparison, but these models are a lot larger than you think, and they're multi-part as well. I would be shocked if this box were less than £40 because that would mean they waaaaaaaaay overcharged for Aeronautica stuff.
The Warlord is a poor choice for those of us who prefer skirmish-level games. The largest titan in our collection is a Warbringer and only too happy to leave it there.
GW is gonna charge whatever they think the market can bare, thats about how much thought they put into it. There is no math to it. They will either be wrong or right. The three factors are, will it be good, will it be supported and will they price it right.
The rules so far are an unknown, but historically epic hasn't been great since 2nd. Although I did like aspects of some of the later verions
Supported, again unkown, I would say looks sort of promising, but I don't have high hope looking at the past of most non 40k games.
Price, I apparently can't judge that at all, I thought GW priced themselves out of existence long ago, but they constantly prove me wrong as far as some games go ( I thought Leviathan and HH box were expensive but a pretty decent deal considering it was a GW product.....luckily I have tons of Amazon points to cash in), but I think AT and IA were seriously hampered by pricing. When Epic 40k came out pricing skyrocketed, average Vehicles went from like 3 for $8 to 3 for $24, Falcons went from plastic to metal and cost about 1000% more combined with what I considered an inferior game....I was out.
These vehicles do look much bigger though than old epic. Those dreadys Absolutly dwarf the old ones and are much better looking. Really those almost have the detail of a full HH dready.
The Warlord is a poor choice for those of us who prefer skirmish-level games. The largest titan in our collection is a Warbringer and only too happy to leave it there.
I agree that two Warlords is too much, but one should be a minimum if the game is designed properly, its pretty much the poster boy of the game.
Price-wise, I'm predicting around the cost of a Necromunda box or Blood Bowl team. Similar numbers of figures (slightly more for LI), but the same "one sprue x2" setup.
Pacific wrote: Breotan - you really think £60/$100 for that support box? If so, the game will be DOA.
I could easily be wrong for using Aeronautica as my basis for comparison, but these models are a lot larger than you think, and they're multi-part as well. I would be shocked if this box were less than £40 because that would mean they waaaaaaaaay overcharged for Aeronautica stuff.
Well, they did overcharge for Aeronautica, but not in the normal way. We have to remember that Aeronautica only required 4-8 planes for a normal game. You didn't need dozens of miniatures. So the price per box was slightly elevated to account for the fact that you'd only really need to buy a couple of boxes.
Epic is different. You need more units. They could reduce the price per box compared to Aeronautica on the basis that you'd probably need a few boxes of stuff to get a X thousand point army.
Again it’s all gonna tie into how many points we’re talking.
If the game “works best” at 3,000 points, and each of those boxes is £45 for around 500 points? That’s a different consideration for 4,000 point games where each box is £45 for around 300 points.
No I’m not presenting either as Good Pricing nor trying to say what that might look like. It’s just an example.
Andrew1975 wrote: GW is gonna charge whatever they think the market can bare, thats about how much thought they put into it. There is no math to it. They will either be wrong or right.
It's this kind of take that makes price speculation in these forums so pointless.
Yes, what the market can *bear* is part of the calculus involved, but there are actually many other factors. It is indeed someone's job to not just figure out what they can charge for a product, but also what they need to charge for a product to make it worth producing in the first place.
If you want to learn more about how to price a product there are plenty of resources out there. With a little effort you could educate yourself and come to more accurate conclusions and engage in productive discussion.
If you just want to make wild guesses about what the price will be, and then get mad about it, I guess that's what the Internet is for.
I know GW doesn't really seem to convey understanding of this, but if aggressively priced, I know a good number of players would go very hard at a game where, aesthetically it looks like you've got a bunch of new stuff for your collection with every box purchased. To the post above mine, buyer psychology and "perceived value" is a huge factor, albeit hard to quantify.
My "wish" price for the above Dreads box, would be $40. I would impulse buy random LI boxes at that price.
I expect they'll be $50, and while I wouldn't hate that, I would be more measured.
I worry they'll be $60+ which will price this game right out of my local community.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For clarity? When people are mentioning their price brackets, are those before or after online discount?
In my case, MSRP, because as we have witnessed, GW will gladly murder 3rd party seller margins to a degree where who knows how long meaningful discounts will even exist!
I will be visiting England in September from the US. Should I wait to buy stuff in England at a store or buy it here in America? I am not sure how prices differ from the currency exchange rate.
I will be visiting England in September from the US. Should I wait to buy stuff in England at a store or buy it here in America? I am not sure how prices differ from the currency exchange rate.
It is generally cheaper to buy in the UK that way, but you might have trouble getting exactly what you want if initial stocks are low.
Andrew1975 wrote: GW is gonna charge whatever they think the market can bare, thats about how much thought they put into it. There is no math to it. They will either be wrong or right.
It's this kind of take that makes price speculation in these forums so pointless.
Yes, what the market can *bear* is part of the calculus involved, but there are actually many other factors. It is indeed someone's job to not just figure out what they can charge for a product, but also what they need to charge for a product to make it worth producing in the first place.
If you want to learn more about how to price a product there are plenty of resources out there. With a little effort you could educate yourself and come to more accurate conclusions and engage in productive discussion.
If you just want to make wild guesses about what the price will be, and then get mad about it, I guess that's what the Internet is for.
Not really, you can do whatever calculus you want. GWs pricing on things makes little rhyme or reason beyond they charge the most they think they can. You can compare dissimilar boxes from dissimilar games all you want, base it on points base it on models, base it on popularity of certain models. GW of course takes these things into account to figure out what they think is the maximum they can charge and sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong and sometimes I swear they throw all the research out the window and just go for it! But please don't act like they have a scientist who gets it right every time. GW is going to charge as much as they think they can charge! Speculating on price like much of the information we dont have about the game is like rocking a chair back and forth, a lot of movement but it don't get you anywhere.
Generally, we in the UK enjoy more favourable pricing because we aren’t subject to odd currency conversion rates.
However, whilst we have Warhammer Stores aplenty, we don’t have anything like the number of FLGS. So if you’re hoping to score a double saving and buy at a discount? It’ll depend exactly where you’re visiting, for how long and what on-shelf stock is going to be like.
I will be visiting England in September from the US. Should I wait to buy stuff in England at a store or buy it here in America? I am not sure how prices differ from the currency exchange rate.
Without wanting to go off topic, if you happen to be visiting London, the Warhammer store on Tottenham Court Road is specifically set up for this. You can order in store using UK prices, get it delivered to a US address from the Memphis warehouse, with free shipping and without paying tax. It can work out much cheaper.
I've done this a few times and they've told me they're the only store set up to do this kind of order. It's a bit of a manual process for them (involving emailing warehouses), but they are well versed in the process.
I will be visiting England in September from the US. Should I wait to buy stuff in England at a store or buy it here in America? I am not sure how prices differ from the currency exchange rate.
Without wanting to go off topic, if you happen to be visiting London, the Warhammer store on Tottenham Court Road is specifically set up for this. You can order in store using UK prices, get it delivered to a US address from the Memphis warehouse, with free shipping and without paying tax. It works out much cheaper. I've saved over 1/3rd on US prices, pre-tax too.
I've done this a few times and they've told me they're the only store set up to do this kind of order. It's a bit of a manual process for them (involving emailing warehouses), but they are well versed in the process.
A good opportunity to go crazy for LI.
Yeah, don't lug too much of that stuff in your travel baggage, if you're not careful with your travel allowances you might be hit with all sorts of import taxes and fines. Check up with your customs authority or other government sources on how that works, and how high your personal exemptions are, if you do not go the way described above.
Now we have a clearer idea of what a given purchase will offer (multiple units on a single sprue), it does make me encouraged we may well see this expanded to cover Xenos forces. Because it’s suggestive of each force not needing many SKU’s, reducing development cost and time.
You could even do “eras” boxed sets. For instance, when introducing Orks? Rejig the Imperial Forces for “historical accuracy” and do it as War of the Beast. Tyranids? Hive Fleet Behemoth. Necrons? Pariah Nexus. Eldar? Look just do them OK.
Lots of ways that Xenos can be drip fed. Definitely start with Orks though. Orks rule, have some gorgeous, extant big units, and who wouldnt want to play out Ullanor?
Now we have a clearer idea of what a given purchase will offer (multiple units on a single sprue), it does make me encouraged we may well see this expanded to cover Xenos forces. Because it’s suggestive of each force not needing many SKU’s, reducing development cost and time.
So far we have only seen how the plastic side of things works out -.it will be interesting to see how the resin units come into the picture, and what is relegated to resin. It seems like we'll get a good stock of basic units in plastic before anything else, which is a big plus.
MDG, I hope you are wrong about the miniature count and the army being that small (thus warranting a very high box price), because that .. well, that won't be Epic.
Also, they have said explicitly that this game is Heresy-era only. They might well expand to the GC if Legions Imperialis sells well but you have to think that would be years away. So for now, if you want to do that, you'd need to take off the water wings and go for either NetEpic or NetArmageddon.
Pacific wrote: MDG, I hope you are wrong about the miniature count and the army being that small (thus warranting a very high box price), because that .. well, that won't be Epic.
Also, they have said explicitly that this game is Heresy-era only. They might well expand to the GC if Legions Imperialis sells well but you have to think that would be years away. So for now, if you want to do that, you'd need to take off the water wings and go for either NetEpic or NetArmageddon.
Oh that’s pure numbers out my bum for illustrative purposes only.
Looking at the contents of the boxed sets and assuming the pastebin info is accurate, it seems reasonable to assume a standard game of LI is going to be comparable to some of the early 90's Space Marine battle reports.
These 4000pt WD games all fielded a similar number of equivalent units to what we'd see with a 3000pt LI army:
Pacific wrote: Breotan - you really think £60/$100 for that support box? If so, the game will be DOA.
I could easily be wrong for using Aeronautica as my basis for comparison, but these models are a lot larger than you think, and they're multi-part as well. I would be shocked if this box were less than £40 because that would mean they waaaaaaaaay overcharged for Aeronautica stuff.
The value of AI sets was all over the place, if I was using AI as a guide I wouldn't have come to that price.
Most of the AI sets are 2 medium sized sprues, a couple of the worser-value ones are 1 medium sprue and 1 small sprue, the worst value ones are only 1 sprue (Phoenix bombers are single sprue kits with only 3 models). Then the bases are those 2" things which were not only cast but required assembly at the factory (maybe was outsourced to China?).
And planes are big, I expect those dreads to be half the size/bulk/plastic/sprue of a typical AI fighter, much less than half if the base is included. Number of options will make a difference though. I imagine they can fit 2 Leviathans, 2 Deredeos, 2 Rapiers and 2 Support Platforms on a single AI-fighter-sized sprue.
I think it will somewhat depend on how many models they can fit onto a sprue, I wouldn't be guessing £60 for a 2 medium sprue kit unless GW are intentionally trying to make the game unpopular, haha.
I'm sticking with my guesses of £105-110 for the new core box, and £30-35 for the support box.
With most AT and AI kits now vanishing from the website for reboxing, I'm curious to see how they reappear again.
With the info from today I'm increasingly doubtful that they'll all return in the same format as before. GW will definitely want to cut down on individual SKUs and I reckon the first things to go will be the separate titan weapon frames, instead being packed into the main kit.
With Knights & aircraft they may well take the HH route and rebox things with a 'discount', for example:
Six Questoris knights & and an upgrade sprue sold together for £40-50 (old kit was £27.50 for three knights)
Six Cerastus knights (2 of each type) packed together, sold at around £50-55.
I will be visiting England in September from the US. Should I wait to buy stuff in England at a store or buy it here in America? I am not sure how prices differ from the currency exchange rate.
It is generally cheaper to buy in the UK that way, but you might have trouble getting exactly what you want if initial stocks are low.
Keep in mind that the uk price usually has tax included and so is even more of a mark down then it seems since the us price is around 10 percent higher then tag says depending on what state your in and its sales tax rate. I was in England this last fall and saved a lot of money buying forgworld stuff at the gwhq store.
I will be visiting England in September from the US. Should I wait to buy stuff in England at a store or buy it here in America? I am not sure how prices differ from the currency exchange rate.
Without wanting to go off topic, if you happen to be visiting London, the Warhammer store on Tottenham Court Road is specifically set up for this. You can order in store using UK prices, get it delivered to a US address from the Memphis warehouse, with free shipping and without paying tax. It can work out much cheaper.
I've done this a few times and they've told me they're the only store set up to do this kind of order. It's a bit of a manual process for them (involving emailing warehouses), but they are well versed in the process.
A good opportunity to go crazy for LI.
As a warning, it can depend on stock levels in the US. I did a forgeworld order this way when I was over there in May and am still waiting for it to be shipped thanks to a couple of out of stock items.
Most boxed games are either dead, dying, or limping along. I.E. AI, AT, CC, BF, and then the IV Drip games - BB, HH, Necro, KT
KT, Underworlds, and Warcry are only surviving off of big box FOMO (or terrain) releases with "seasons" to FOMO the purchase.
All evidence points to this release following the same pattern, therefore GW eating their wang on release, and history tells us the follow on boxes will be overpriced.
Most boxed games are either dead, dying, or limping along. I.E. AI, AT, CC, BF, and then the IV Drip games - BB, HH, Necro, KT
KT, Underworlds, and Warcry are only surviving off of big box FOMO (or terrain) releases with "seasons" to FOMO the purchase.
All evidence points to this release following the same pattern, therefore GW eating their wang on release, and history tells us the follow on boxes will be overpriced.
All of these "Dead games", even AI are going since years (4 years for AI), so your idea this game would be dead within 18 months is nonsense, especially since epic has a larger existing community already than AI ever did.
Necromunda, HH, lotr, BB are all going strong and get continous releases, moreso than games from some other companies. Yes, it's not on the level of Aos or 40K, but that's not necessarily bad for a game.
FOMO is a thing, yes, but unlike with many other companies you can actually get kits that were released 15 years ago from GW still, their FOMO mostly revolves about getting Minis cheaper, not about getting them at all.
it is not about getting models cheaper but also to get the models at all because there is no guarantee that a model exclusive to a box will see a stand alone release
just because some leftovers from a very different marketing and sales strategy are still available does not mean the new ones will be as well (so LotR is a bad example here as it does not follow the typical GW strategy, because they learned their lesson with that game the hard way)
and yes, if HorusHeresy Epic will get a similar release as the other new specialist games, it will have a hard time
it won't be the price of the boxes that might kill it but if those are limited releases or if the rules are fractured like with Necromunda
and yes, a lot of the newer niche games struggle in some areas to get players because after the pre-release hype you have the people playing that have played it before and hardly any new ones
TalonZahn wrote: $250-$299 for the main box and $125 for the Dread box.
95% chance of DoA and FoMo scalper instant sellout.
There is *ZERO* chance GW eats their own dick on this launch.
Game will be gone in 18 months max.
Those prices would be complete and absolutely unsustainable IMHO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: and yes, if HorusHeresy Epic will get a similar release as the other new specialist games, it will have a hard time
it won't be the price of the boxes that might kill it but if those are limited releases or if the rules are fractured like with Necromunda
Another point, yeah. I gave up on Newcromunda rules specifically due to their practices.
Andrew1975 wrote: 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 fact that most of the units will be available in the main rule book would seem to indicate that they're doing things differently than AT18.
That said, I look forward to supplements that add to the base sometime in the future. I don't begrudge GW expansions as the game develops/expands.
kodos wrote: it is not about getting models cheaper but also to get the models at all because there is no guarantee that a model exclusive to a box will see a stand alone release
There's like 1 or 2 units you can't get anymore(cultists heavy weapons are one I think).
That fear is pretty darn unfounded. GW has habit of putting out because you know what? Selling kits at full price gives them better profit than at discount box
But yeah. You think GW hates money and doesnt' want it. Right. I get it. Rest of us know they want money and thus are only losing out on discount.
I kind of agree Schoon if it's to add a new faction or significant area of units. If we get something like an 'Istvaan V' book though which has a bunch of special rules, then I go for a pick-up game at my local club (which really, for me, is the big benefit of this game coming back officially) and my opponent says.. "uhhhh, are your guys sons of Horus? If so, the new book says my guys you've charged here get +2 CAF and re-rolls on my saving throws, cause we are playing our game after 6pm" then I'm going to cry
tneva82 wrote: But yeah. You think GW hates money and doesnt' want it. Right. I get it. Rest of us know they want money and thus are only losing out on discount.
or you could stop making up stuff no one said and just write nothing if you don't have anything to say
kodos wrote: it won't be the price of the boxes that might kill it but if those are limited releases or if the rules are fractured like with Necromunda
I wonder if they'll do what Aeronautica did and publish campaign books every six months, adding new unit rules that way. I also wonder how much and which stuff will be put out by FW as resin models (you know they're going to do it).
kodos wrote: it is not about getting models cheaper but also to get the models at all because there is no guarantee that a model exclusive to a box will see a stand alone release
There's like 1 or 2 units you can't get anymore(cultists heavy weapons are one I think).
That fear is pretty darn unfounded. GW has habit of putting out because you know what? Selling kits at full price gives them better profit than at discount box
But yeah. You think GW hates money and doesnt' want it. Right. I get it. Rest of us know they want money and thus are only losing out on discount.
In the past 2-3 years GW made... like 7 sprues of catacomb terrain, 7 sprues of foundry terrain and 10 sprues of meat trees for Warcry... probably a bigger investment than all tooling done for Epic so far and definitely bigger than all of AI put together... exactly zero of those are available to buy now except a few copies of the last Warcry box in non-english langauges.
So apparently GW are totally fine with dumping massive resources into an underprinted FOMO box, selling less than what they would if they printed enough, and then just throwing those tools out the window with zero chance they paid for themselves.
tneva82 wrote: But yeah. You think GW hates money and doesnt' want it. Right. I get it. Rest of us know they want money and thus are only losing out on discount.
or you could stop making up stuff no one said and just write nothing if you don't have anything to say
In return, it would be nice if certain posters would stop proclaiming everything GW does DOA before it’s even released, especially based on prices they made up to offend themselves.
Most boxed games are either dead, dying, or limping along. I.E. AI, AT, CC, BF, and then the IV Drip games - BB, HH, Necro, KT
KT, Underworlds, and Warcry are only surviving off of big box FOMO (or terrain) releases with "seasons" to FOMO the purchase.
All evidence points to this release following the same pattern, therefore GW eating their wang on release, and history tells us the follow on boxes will be overpriced.
What a comical argument. Boxed games are simultaneously dying but also popular enough to completely sell out? Very much looking forward to Schrodinger's Epic.
Almost every game listed above has a totally different purpose and release strategy to mainline Epic. Most are skirmish or one-off boardgames with little repeat sales potential. To be a success they all have to sell small quantities to a wide audience. GW can't plausibly sell most people several copies of the same Necromunda gang, AI planes, or Warcry warband. BF and CC are self-contained boardgames, and the vast majority of sales occur in the first month. KT is also used as a way to complement the main 40k model range.
For Epic they can certainly try to build up a wide audience, but that's not critical as Epic scale is not restricted in anywhere near the same way as skirmish games. Players getting muliple copies of the same kits is actively encouraged. Players using the same kits as each other is designed for.
All evidence points to this release being an attempt to build up a new game system in a similar way to Adeptus Titanicus or last year's 28mm HH. There are multiple distinct ranges of models being expanded on or built from scratch. There is new terrain coming. Everything announced so far is plastic, including an unprecedented replacement for a resin kit released only 12 months ago. This all screams 'longterm investment', and says it much louder than for AT in 2018.
Now if that new game system sticks around indefinitely or not depends entirely on how well it sells. I honestly hope that the core box is completely sold out on release day, because that only helps to cement further content for us in future.
But excuse me for being jaded when stuff happens like 15 months into the Ash Wastes two core gangs still don't have a bespoke vehicle (but we got a dozen one-shot-and-immediately-OOP sprues of Warcry terrain in the same timeframe)
xttz wrote: Boxed games are simultaneously dying but also popular enough to completely sell out?
It's only a contradiction if you assume GW is producing large numbers of them rather than cutting production and using FOMO to guarantee the limited production run sells. If GW produces 10 boxes of Epic and all of them sell out instantly that is a sign of low production volume not popularity. And it certainly won't have much life with those sales numbers.
This all screams 'longterm investment'
So did AI 2.0 with multiple kits for multiple factions, all plastic, terrain, special bases, and a nice pace of new releases. And then it flipped to "no more investment" followed by everything but the Epic-related stuff going OOP and the game being dropped.
Don't forget the Warcry warbands of dudes with cages on their heads, that classic fantasy trope that all of us had been crying out for for decades.
Agree with xttz on this one, I think there is a potential for it to become another 'main' game alongside 40k and AoS, just because it is another 'big battle' game. Also, because it is God's own scale, and it is unacceptable that it hasn't been available officially for so long!
ThePaintingOwl wrote: So did AI 2.0 with multiple kits for multiple factions, all plastic, terrain, special bases, and a nice pace of new releases. And then it flipped to "no more investment" followed by everything but the Epic-related stuff going OOP and the game being dropped.
I do wonder if it's because the game faltered in some way, sales wise. The rules were certainly worse than the 1st edition. Things point to it being initially popular with more and more resin releases over time and tailing off. They never did release a Chaos airforce...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: Don't forget the Warcry warbands of dudes with cages on their heads, that classic fantasy trope that all of us had been crying out for for decades.
Agree with xttz on this one, I think there is a potential for it to become another 'main' game alongside 40k and AoS, just because it is another 'big battle' game. Also, because it is God's own scale, and it is unacceptable that it hasn't been available officially for so long!
Epic returing to the mainline games stable? It's like the 90's again
Warcry is also used as complement to AoS, so there's a point to get multiple warbands. The game itself is sadly not marketed as anything else than an entry to AoS, IMHO - which would explain why there's no longstanding starter so far.
Legion Imperialis is clearly different. It is indeed intended to be sold in multiples simply because of the scale of the battles. And since it is Horus Heresy - meaning a civil war background -, the factions involved are mostly the same for either side. So you can use the same miniatures for each with ease...and the scale also means details like painting the Legion's heraldry doesn't matter as much as a 32mm scale miniature (I guess you could do that for every LI 10mm space marine, but except for the mad painters, there's not much point to paint something that won't be readable on a normal tabletop game).
So it means they can focus on a certain amount of details for unit types (different kinds of vehicles and such) while still selling them to a wide audience, because they can be used by all players in the end.
It's not the same as a Warcry warband that appeals only to that warband's playerbase. It's not like you can use flesh-eaters miniatures if you tend to play Order factions.
FOMO can happen for "deal bundles" and such, but so far it seems that they're talking about core boxes. I'm pretty sure we will be able to buy separate compononts with their own individual boxes in case of the "starters" being limited.
What may happen is the AT case when it launched ; being too popular and selling like crazy beyong GW's expectations, leading to a "temporary unavailable" for a while. It's sadly the norm nowadays. Waiting a bit has its own virtue.
There certainly can be some "exclusive / limited miniatures" like some Emperor's children special terminator squads and such, but at LI's scale, I suspect they won't choose a "different profile" approach. I believe it's more a "gimmick" rule and the effect is mostly an aesthetic one (like different miniatures from "normal" terminators). So they will matter much more for a collection purpose than anything else.
As for the prices...better just wait when they're officially released (or when the leaks from retailers begin to appear). There's absolutely no point to talk about "DOA".
AI, like Adeptus Titanicus, is so focussed on a single type of warfare it’s going to have a more limited appeal than Epic, which is a game of combined arms and the resultant strategies involved.
Add in both only require very modest forces, and don’t necessarily scale upwards that well, and you have a different consideration entirely to Epic Scale.
2nd Ed itself did scale quite nicely, with the only drag being someone overly dithering with choosing their orders (which to be honest, is nothing a clock based time limit couldn’t fix. Say 5 minutes basic, with extra time per X points over nominal base of Y points). But the actual meat and bones? Movement was straight forward. Shooting was nice and simple (if I hit, you make or fail your save) and HTH was likewise far from complex).
And scaling well upwards means more and more sales, because whilst I won’t necessarily play Really Big Games regularly? Adding units to change up my base army is always more appealing when I know that, should I wish, it’s just time and organisation needed to field the whole Bally lot.
And the more we experiment with our lists by swapping new units in and out, the more likely we are to find something which performed above our initial expectation, and send us down another list rabbit hole, leading to more sales.
zedmeister wrote: I do wonder if it's because the game faltered in some way, sales wise. The rules were certainly worse than the 1st edition. Things point to it being initially popular with more and more resin releases over time and tailing off. They never did release a Chaos airforce...
I suspect that's what it was. The models were cool but the game was a dysfunctional mess and once people tried it they didn't stick around. So once GW finished off the plastic releases that had already been paid for they put the game into a holding pattern and eventually decided to just dump it.
Epic 2.0 does at least have the advantage of starting with more existing demand than a niche game like AI 1.0 but if the rules aren't good it has the potential to crash hard, especially given the abundant third-party options for both models and rules. And if sales don't back up the hype GW has shown they're perfectly willing to kill off an all-plastic "major investment game". Epic 2.0 having a bunch of plastic content doesn't guarantee anything beyond the launch wave and maybe 1-2 more releases that are already in the queue.
"No more investment" doesn't mean they can't use what was produced so far. If we have a good basis like most of Horus Heresy SM released in LI scale, we can basically play forever.
But it's good to remember that in this capitalistic world, nothing is meant to be produced for all eternity. It's natural to see things go after a while...and mostly replaced by something else, like new miniatures and new games.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: AI, like Adeptus Titanicus, is so focussed on a single type of warfare it’s going to have a more limited appeal than Epic, which is a game of combined arms and the resultant strategies involved.
I don't think that's at all true. X-Wing was equally focused on a single type of warfare and was a spectacular success for several years, only really failing when FFG/AMG fell into the GW trap of major edition changes. AI 2.0 failed because it was a bad game, a dumbed-down "meet in the middle and roll dice" version of the far superior first edition that had minimal strategy and minimal replay value. And that threat remains for Epic: no matter how cool the concept is if GW botches the gameplay it will be dead within a year or two.
I'm not entirely convinced it was the rules which sealed the fate of Aeronautica. At the end of the day it was yet another GW skirmish game released in an era of so many other GW skirmish games. Market saturation was probably a bigger deal.
However Warcry, Kill Team, and in some cases Necromunda products all had the advantage of crossover potential with the AOS & 40k ranges. Xenos AI models had no such avenue into Heresy-era Titanicus. Asking players to learn a new ruleset and paint a bunch of new models in isolation makes it difficult to grow a community for a game system.
Personally I picked up Wings of Vengeance solely because I had a chance to get it for half price, and assumed the models would eventually be useful for Epic in future (and I'm actually painting the Imperial planes this week). I even bought a Thunderhawk just to paint & use as terrain in games of Titanicus. Never played AI once.
xttz wrote: Looking at the contents of the boxed sets and assuming the pastebin info is accurate, it seems reasonable to assume a standard game of LI is going to be comparable to some of the early 90's Space Marine battle reports.
These 4000pt WD games all fielded a similar number of equivalent units to what we'd see with a 3000pt LI army:
Spoiler:
Just a gut feeling, but i would not rule out the possibility of GW planning something for once, and deliberately releasing a version of the game that's oriented more towards smaller forces (and thus modelled after Space Marine) at first to get people to buy into the scale, and then, later on, doing a hypothetical second edition of LI that's more geared towards Epic 40k or whatever, with more models, to somewhat soften sticker shock for people deliberating to get into a new scale at first. Basically doing a two-step towards 'real Epic'.
X-Wing sold a lot early on, sure. But I and more than a few others found it a near impenetrable game system because the learning curve was steep.
Without someone willing to coach you through your first few flights? You’d take such a comprehensive thrashing you never really learned how your opponent did it.
Rules entirely aside, what killed it for me was the big old price jump. When I first got started (around the time the TIE Defender was released) I could get a single fighter for around £10. Now it’s £18. And when they decided to patch ships with more cards, but lock those cards behind purchase of an Epic Ship? I bailed.
Now the rules side wouldn’t be a universal experience. If you had folks willing to coach you and provide hints and tips without actually backseat gaming, that largely goes away. Sadly I lacked that.
And a lot later on. TBH even with X-Wing in its current post-AMG state it's still probably bigger than AI 2.0 at its peak. Whatever you or I liked or disliked about the game it was clearly a big seller, up at the top of the best seller lists for independent stores and sustaining both strong local communities and high-level tournament play.
I personally went all in on AI and then realized it was GW's experiment on what is the absolute minimum effort pile of dreck ruleset they can get away with and still sell. No offense to anyone who enjoyed it. It is the fact AI failed that gives me hope for other games. If AI had succeeded, everything that came later would be just as bad.
xttz wrote: Looking at the contents of the boxed sets and assuming the pastebin info is accurate, it seems reasonable to assume a standard game of LI is going to be comparable to some of the early 90's Space Marine battle reports.
These 4000pt WD games all fielded a similar number of equivalent units to what we'd see with a 3000pt LI army:
Spoiler:
Just a gut feeling, but i would not rule out the possibility of GW planning something for once, and deliberately releasing a version of the game that's oriented more towards smaller forces (and thus modelled after Space Marine) at first to get people to buy into the scale, and then, later on, doing a hypothetical second edition of LI that's more geared towards Epic 40k or whatever, with more models, to somewhat soften sticker shock for people deliberating to get into a new scale at first. Basically doing a two-step towards 'real Epic'.
Oh I absolutely agree. That was their plan for Titanicus too; the game was deliberately designed around being viable with just 1-2 titans per player while also scaling to 5+ as people grew their collections.
Also a lot of people forget that old Epic was hugely distorted by the release of Titan Legions. It went from being a game you'd commonly play at around 4000pts with just 1-2 ~500pt titans in your army, to suddenly having rules for 1500-2000pt single models that forced game sizes up dramatically. What's more the same release also added Titan & Gargant battlegroup cards, giving you three war engines for the same points cost as two.
This of course all happened after Epic had enjoyed several years to grow the model range and players built up their armies. 6000pt+ games of Titan Legions would not have worked from day one.
lord_blackfang wrote: I personally went all in on AI and then realized it was GW's experiment on what is the absolute minimum effort pile of dreck ruleset they can get away with and still sell. No offense to anyone who enjoyed it. It is the fact AI failed that gives me hope for other games. If AI had succeeded, everything that came later would be just as bad.
If you haven't already find a copy of the AI 1.0 books and give that game try. It's not a game that will blow you away with its brilliance but it's a solid enough example of the air combat genre and amazingly concise for a GW game. And there's no sense in letting all the models you bought go to waste.
xttz wrote: I'm not entirely convinced it was the rules which sealed the fate of Aeronautica. At the end of the day it was yet another GW skirmish game released in an era of so many other GW skirmish games. Market saturation was probably a bigger deal.
However Warcry, Kill Team, and in some cases Necromunda products all had the advantage of crossover potential with the AOS & 40k ranges. Xenos AI models had no such avenue into Heresy-era Titanicus. Asking players to learn a new ruleset and paint a bunch of new models in isolation makes it difficult to grow a community for a game system.
Personally I picked up Wings of Vengeance solely because I had a chance to get it for half price, and assumed the models would eventually be useful for Epic in future (and I'm actually painting the Imperial planes this week). I even bought a Thunderhawk just to paint & use as terrain in games of Titanicus. Never played AI once.
I can tell you that it was absolutely the reason here. There's a very sizable XWing community here still, most of which also play GW games... and the game flopped like a wet towel. It was universally derided as "crap". Some used the AI planes to play XWing, though.
X-Wing sold a lot early on, sure. But I and more than a few others found it a near impenetrable game system because the learning curve was steep.
Without someone willing to coach you through your first few flights? You’d take such a comprehensive thrashing you never really learned how your opponent did it.
Rules entirely aside, what killed it for me was the big old price jump. When I first got started (around the time the TIE Defender was released) I could get a single fighter for around £10. Now it’s £18. And when they decided to patch ships with more cards, but lock those cards behind purchase of an Epic Ship? I bailed.
Now the rules side wouldn’t be a universal experience. If you had folks willing to coach you and provide hints and tips without actually backseat gaming, that largely goes away. Sadly I lacked that.
My local evidence (by "local" here I mean "Spain", as I work with the company that produces it for the spanish market) is that XWing was HUGE, and still is pretty big. Dozens to hundreds of tournaments, all the products always OOS waiting for reprints... they literally couldn't get enough of it to meet the demand.
And not early on during the whole life of the game, up to second edition which snagged a bit.
I know a lot of the community got the AI aircraft for use in Epic, as either units or terrain, I was one of them! Love the Valkyrie miniatures, and the Ork bombers are brilliantly characterful miniatures.
xttz wrote: I'm not entirely convinced it was the rules which sealed the fate of Aeronautica. At the end of the day it was yet another GW skirmish game released in an era of so many other GW skirmish games. Market saturation was probably a bigger deal.
However Warcry, Kill Team, and in some cases Necromunda products all had the advantage of crossover potential with the AOS & 40k ranges. Xenos AI models had no such avenue into Heresy-era Titanicus. Asking players to learn a new ruleset and paint a bunch of new models in isolation makes it difficult to grow a community for a game system.
Personally I picked up Wings of Vengeance solely because I had a chance to get it for half price, and assumed the models would eventually be useful for Epic in future (and I'm actually painting the Imperial planes this week). I even bought a Thunderhawk just to paint & use as terrain in games of Titanicus. Never played AI once.
I absolutely blame the rules. If the rules are solid, the game will have a broad audience. If the rules suck, it will be limited to people like me who just love the tiny planes to the point where I'll write my own damned rules to justify buying them
I wanted AI to be the game where I could suggest to friends they buy a couple of boxes and a book so we can have some fun games... instead I really struggled to recommend the game to friends because I myself wasn't struggling to enjoy the game.
AI1.0 was a great game (with some flaws) for squadron-level aerial combat that was hampered by people not knowing it existed and the entire range being Forge World. AI2.0 had awesome models but was hampered by not being a solid game.
If a game has good rules, it makes less difference if it's a skirmish game or a ship game or an aircraft game, people will enjoy playing it and then want to get their friends into it.
It didn't help that they broke up the rules releases like they did. If Epic breaks up the rules like AI did then I reckon there's a good chance it'll turn people off.
For whatever reason, 40k seems to be immune to failing due to bad rules, people just buy it anyway But most other games struggle if their rules suck.
For whatever reason, 40k seems to be immune to failing due to bad rules, people just buy it anyway But most other games struggle if their rules suck.
They struggle even if they don't suck. The Suck Coefficient of a game does depend a lot on personal taste, for sure, but my locality can't be the only one that saw a lot of Star Wars Legion purchases last year due to the generous deals, only for almost none of that transpose to games played as everyone just sticks to the familiar and keeps going with 40k.
tneva82 wrote: But yeah. You think GW hates money and doesnt' want it. Right. I get it. Rest of us know they want money and thus are only losing out on discount.
or you could stop making up stuff no one said and just write nothing if you don't have anything to say
In return, it would be nice if certain posters would stop proclaiming everything GW does DOA before it’s even released, especially based on prices they made up to offend themselves.
Because it’s terribly tiresome.
as this reads as you mean me and not just a general statement, show me were I have written that (as I never made up a price or said it is DAO)
if this is a general statement I have some trouble to follow the wording (as non native speaker)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It was in reference to TalonZahn. Who’s post is just Pearl Clutching caused by their own fevered imaginings on prices.
The prices will be higher than you think after the release box "deal" as usual.
As far as xttz and his "Schrodinger" comment... almost everything that's NOT 40k is FOMO and sells out on launch, then put on IV drip of crap for 12-18 months. So yes, it *can* sell out because of FOMO then slowly die a drip fed death. Just look at the items I listed and you see the pattern.
Blame whatever you want; COVID, Shipping, bad rules, print delays, manufacturing queue, there's always an excuse.
The launch will be a bargain of some type, sell out, get parted out, and then over-priced follow up boxes will be released. Then players will find that they need/want X or Y unit that may come 6-12 months down the road, and then drip feed into oblivion.
HH: AoD is a great example. Awesome deal, lots of dual use (expensive kits) right off the bat. Then, months of heads and shoulder pads, a couple 1 off models, and then... oh those dual use kits all no good for 40k anymore so people are dumping them. The players wanted more Troops, still no new troops, but on the horizon? Another big FOMO bargain box.
Epic may be unique in the fact that there's a fairly decent sized following, which is why GW wants to get their nickels, but in the end that community will be disappointed in the long run (12-18 months) by GW's offerings and prices and go right back to doing what they are/have been.
3D printing what they want for cheaper and faster as well as adding in rules for all the other stuff, specifically Xenos.
No. You presented figures absolutely nobody else got anywhere near, and declared a game we don’t even know the rules yet DOA on the basis of those wild figures.
Hence you’ve been upset by your own imagination, for reasons entirely best known unto yourself.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: No. You presented figures absolutely nobody else got anywhere near, and declared a game we don’t even know the rules yet DOA on the basis of those wild figures.
Hence you’ve been upset by your own imagination, for reasons entirely best known unto yourself.
Oh, I see where you're getting this from..... you didn't read any of the follow on posts, and if you did.... well reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
There are a lot of factors that will help decide whether the game will be a success. It's almost a tick-box list, and the more that GW hit will decide if this thread gets to 100 pages plus, or if in three years time it's just a few of us back down in the Specialist Games section basement. Think you can apply this to any new wargame:
I am sure there are other factors to consider but these were the ones that sprang to mind. I would say LI has the first three items confirmed there. Where it falls on the other four items will determine the level of success.
AI had another issue that I haven't seen mentioned - market saturation. X-Wing has been mentioned repeatedly, but X-Wing wasn't the only game. There was a Star Trek version (Attack Wing). There was a D&D version. And of course there was the original Wings of Glory that X-Wing is clearly modeled after. I don't know what things were like elsewhere, but at my FLGS Attack Wing had risen for a bit, and then vanished. I never saw the D&D game get played. Wings of Glory got played occasionally, but only sporadically (and historicals have their own attractions separate from sci-fi/fantasy games).
By the time AI arrived, multiple games all seemingly covering the same ground had come and gone, with only the massively dominant X-Wing lasting. GW games are popular at that store. Even AT product moved despite the fact that there were no consistent game nights for it at the store. But the store owner (who was a good friend of mine) told me that not one person had asked about AI when it launched. There was apparently zero interest in what appeared to be a new dogfighting game, even if it had a 40K skin.
TalonZahn wrote: If the setting is HH only, which it seems so far, I would'nt count on #2 or #1 too much.
A large portion of the current community/customer base isn't HH focused, or even Imperium focused.
No offense, but any real data for that?
Yea, I'd have to tell you to join just about *any* of the Epic communities.
Hell the 3 I belong to on Facebook alone are constantly swamped with Tau, Eldar, Orks, actual Chaos, and Tyranids.
Then of course, God forbid, you get into any of the 3D printing (specifically for Epic or just anything GW) and people aren't pumping out Marines or AM.
Those can easily be bought or proxied from 1 of a dozen other companies.
Pacific wrote: There are a lot of factors that will help decide whether the game will be a success. It's almost a tick-box list, and the more that GW hit will decide if this thread gets to 100 pages plus, or if in three years time it's just a few of us back down in the Specialist Games section basement. Think you can apply this to any new wargame:
I am sure there are other factors to consider but these were the ones that sprang to mind. I would say LI has the first three items confirmed there. Where it falls on the other four items will determine the level of success.
Love this list.
I would just add Community Engagement to this list. If people are actively discussing it online and posting their models/games, and reviewers/influencers take it up, that also helps a great deal.
Now we have a clearer idea of what a given purchase will offer (multiple units on a single sprue), it does make me encouraged we may well see this expanded to cover Xenos forces. Because it’s suggestive of each force not needing many SKU’s, reducing development cost and time.
You could even do “eras” boxed sets. For instance, when introducing Orks? Rejig the Imperial Forces for “historical accuracy” and do it as War of the Beast. Tyranids? Hive Fleet Behemoth. Necrons? Pariah Nexus. Eldar? Look just do them OK.
Lots of ways that Xenos can be drip fed. Definitely start with Orks though. Orks rule, have some gorgeous, extant big units, and who wouldnt want to play out Ullanor?
This might be a niche analogy, but if anyone remembers Firestorm: Planetfall, it was a similarly scaled game sold essentially in those sort of formations/cards of mixed units. In practice it is pretty fun as a buyer, but also nice for retail, as say six SKUs can represent a whole diverse, interesting, and complete army.
Now we have a clearer idea of what a given purchase will offer (multiple units on a single sprue), it does make me encouraged we may well see this expanded to cover Xenos forces. Because it’s suggestive of each force not needing many SKU’s, reducing development cost and time.
You could even do “eras” boxed sets. For instance, when introducing Orks? Rejig the Imperial Forces for “historical accuracy” and do it as War of the Beast. Tyranids? Hive Fleet Behemoth. Necrons? Pariah Nexus. Eldar? Look just do them OK.
Lots of ways that Xenos can be drip fed. Definitely start with Orks though. Orks rule, have some gorgeous, extant big units, and who wouldnt want to play out Ullanor?
Yeah, with the capabilities of CAD software and how much stuff they can cram onto a single sprue, having a boxed set that includes lots of different things under a single SKU is much easier to manage than a bunch of individual boxes.
It's also more annoying as a consumer if you only want part of the box rather than doubling/tripling/etc up on everything, but I fully expect that we'll see the individual components split out and sold separately by eBay resellers at the very least.
Fingers crossed you're right and it does encourage GW to branch out- but I won't hold my breath.
Now we have a clearer idea of what a given purchase will offer (multiple units on a single sprue), it does make me encouraged we may well see this expanded to cover Xenos forces. Because it’s suggestive of each force not needing many SKU’s, reducing development cost and time.
You could even do “eras” boxed sets. For instance, when introducing Orks? Rejig the Imperial Forces for “historical accuracy” and do it as War of the Beast. Tyranids? Hive Fleet Behemoth. Necrons? Pariah Nexus. Eldar? Look just do them OK.
Lots of ways that Xenos can be drip fed. Definitely start with Orks though. Orks rule, have some gorgeous, extant big units, and who wouldnt want to play out Ullanor?
Yeah, with the capabilities of CAD software and how much stuff they can cram onto a single sprue, having a boxed set that includes lots of different things under a single SKU is much easier to manage than a bunch of individual boxes.
It's also more annoying as a consumer if you only want part of the box rather than doubling/tripling/etc up on everything, but I fully expect that we'll see the individual components split out and sold separately by eBay resellers at the very least.
Fingers crossed you're right and it does encourage GW to branch out- but I won't hold my breath.
Shame that the age of dirt-cheap blister packs is over at GW, Epic really profited from that as it was pretty much the perfect format to roll out a handful of tanks or a brace of flyers or whatever.
This. This is what I want from Epic when playing Imperial Guard or Solar Auxilia. Around turn three or four, when I’ve made a bother of myself in the early game, ideally at least frustrated your Objective grabs, and got you and your units lined just about nice….and the my entire army is assigned First Fire….
Pacific wrote: There are a lot of factors that will help decide whether the game will be a success. It's almost a tick-box list, and the more that GW hit will decide if this thread gets to 100 pages plus, or if in three years time it's just a few of us back down in the Specialist Games section basement. Think you can apply this to any new wargame:
I am sure there are other factors to consider but these were the ones that sprang to mind. I would say LI has the first three items confirmed there. Where it falls on the other four items will determine the level of success.
Love this list.
I would just add Community Engagement to this list. If people are actively discussing it online and posting their models/games, and reviewers/influencers take it up, that also helps a great deal.
+ there is absolutely ZERO competitors that offer minis+rules, for games of massive battles and small minis.
SU-152 wrote: + there is absolutely ZERO competitors that offer minis+rules, for games of massive battles and small minis.
Nope. Fan-made/supported versions of Epic exist and there are abundant third-party miniatures.
Yep, none of those make minis+rules
Certainly none of them offer 'all out of one hand' as a convenient package like GW does, don't underestimate the importance of convenience and a neat presentation. It's like comparing Linux to Apple: yes, one is overpriced and mostly profitable because of a cult-like following, and the other might even be vastly superior from a technical point of view, but the convenience of going to the high-street store beats having to build your machine yourself and studying the operating system for months for a lot of customers.
Tsagualsa wrote: Certainly none of them offer 'all out of one hand' as a convenient package like GW does, don't underestimate the importance of convenience and a neat presentation. It's like comparing Linux to Apple: yes, one is overpriced and mostly profitable because of a cult-like following, and the other might even be vastly superior from a technical point of view, but the convenience of going to the high-street store beats having to build your machine yourself and studying the operating system for months for a lot of customers.
That's a good analogy but the original claim was that GW has no competition, not that they are an easier package than the competition. If GW botches the rules to not-Epic like they did with AI 2.0 people will deal with the inconvenience of getting forces from multiple 3d printing shops.
SU-152 wrote: + there is absolutely ZERO competitors that offer minis+rules, for games of massive battles and small minis.
...you're saying this with a straight face? Because the only way I can see this being anything near to true is saying "there is absolutely ZERO competitors that offer minis+rules, for games of massive battles and small minis in the Warhammer 30k universe"
For starters, Battletech/Alpha Strike says "hi". Right after Warlord Games and their "Epic" games lines, or Distopian Wars...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tsagualsa wrote: Certainly none of them offer 'all out of one hand' as a convenient package like GW does, don't underestimate the importance of convenience and a neat presentation. It's like comparing Linux to Apple: yes, one is overpriced and mostly profitable because of a cult-like following, and the other might even be vastly superior from a technical point of view, but the convenience of going to the high-street store beats having to build your machine yourself and studying the operating system for months for a lot of customers.
Flinty wrote: The Hardwar chaps picked up Horizon Wars and have an associated set of factions at about that scale.
Bit of an oversimplication, Hardwar licensed the Horizon Wars ruleset and commissioned Robey to adapt it to suit Hardwar's range of minis (Because Horizon Wars is minis-agnostic, whereas Hardwar has stats for particular models and rules for some things that Horizon Wars does not)
but yes, Hardwar has both rules and minis in the same place. Actually so does Horizon Wars since Precinct Omega became a reseller for Strato Minis, so they both kind of cross-pollinate
Pacific wrote: There are a lot of factors that will help decide whether the game will be a success. It's almost a tick-box list, and the more that GW hit will decide if this thread gets to 100 pages plus, or if in three years time it's just a few of us back down in the Specialist Games section basement. Think you can apply this to any new wargame:
I am sure there are other factors to consider but these were the ones that sprang to mind. I would say LI has the first three items confirmed there. Where it falls on the other four items will determine the level of success.
Love this list.
I would just add Community Engagement to this list. If people are actively discussing it online and posting their models/games, and reviewers/influencers take it up, that also helps a great deal.
+ there is absolutely ZERO competitors that offer minis+rules, for games of massive battles and small minis.
You are kidding right, Flames of war, Team Yankee, Dropzone Commander, There are tons of games that offer minis + rules from massive battles of small minis, pick your era, Historical, modern, Sci Fi, Fantasy...you can find a game. Now granted my favorite out of all of these is probably 2nd ed Epic, but there are options.
SU-152 wrote: + there is absolutely ZERO competitors that offer minis+rules, for games of massive battles and small minis.
Nope. Fan-made/supported versions of Epic exist and there are abundant third-party miniatures.
Yep, none of those make minis+rules
Certainly none of them offer 'all out of one hand' as a convenient package like GW does, don't underestimate the importance of convenience and a neat presentation. It's like comparing Linux to Apple: yes, one is overpriced and mostly profitable because of a cult-like following, and the other might even be vastly superior from a technical point of view, but the convenience of going to the high-street store beats having to build your machine yourself and studying the operating system for months for a lot of customers.
My original comment was too cranky so I edited it Actually having a linux pc is very similar to having a windows one in anything but gaming since a long ago. In the same way getting an epic group when it was an undead game, no official support but plenty of third party miniatures, may not have been much harder that it will be with a new official release. My view may be skewed for not living in a big city but I think that meeting someone that plays 40k or AoS is much easier than meeting players of other GW games, with the exception of blood bowl by being so accesible as you only need one team to play. So I expect that after the first rush it will be hard to find other players. It will be easier to find the GW kits but if the price is similar to the other lines people will have too much sticker shock to take any advantage of that acessibility. I may be projecting from my own experience but I was used to the prices until two years ago or a bit less and after that I have had a very serious case of sticker shock. Having acess to single issues of the partworks hasnt helped as it gives a negative anchoring to the normal prices.
No competition to GW? What about Full Spectrum Dominance by The Lazy Forger? But if you wanna stay in the 40k universe there’s fanmade stuff such as NetEpic, Centurion, and others.
If you want to stay directly within the 30k universe, there are already two community-made systems with rulesets, heavily playtested and ready to go:
- HeresyAu (based on the Armageddon system)
- Imperialis Dominatus (based on 2nd edition/TL)
Downloads for the rules PDFs for these games will go through the roof if the new GW-written game is crap (although with it reportedly based on 2nd edition, I wouldn't be surprised if it's very similar to Imperialis)
Now we have a clearer idea of what a given purchase will offer (multiple units on a single sprue), it does make me encouraged we may well see this expanded to cover Xenos forces. Because it’s suggestive of each force not needing many SKU’s, reducing development cost and time.
You could even do “eras” boxed sets. For instance, when introducing Orks? Rejig the Imperial Forces for “historical accuracy” and do it as War of the Beast. Tyranids? Hive Fleet Behemoth. Necrons? Pariah Nexus. Eldar? Look just do them OK.
Lots of ways that Xenos can be drip fed. Definitely start with Orks though. Orks rule, have some gorgeous, extant big units, and who wouldnt want to play out Ullanor?
Yeah, with the capabilities of CAD software and how much stuff they can cram onto a single sprue, having a boxed set that includes lots of different things under a single SKU is much easier to manage than a bunch of individual boxes.
It's also more annoying as a consumer if you only want part of the box rather than doubling/tripling/etc up on everything, but I fully expect that we'll see the individual components split out and sold separately by eBay resellers at the very least.
Fingers crossed you're right and it does encourage GW to branch out- but I won't hold my breath.
Assuming individual matters and not you add to list content of that box as is. Want more leviathan's to list? Add 2nd formation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Malika2 wrote: No competition to GW? What about Full Spectrum Dominance by The Lazy Forger? But if you wanna stay in the 40k universe there’s fanmade stuff such as NetEpic, Centurion, and others.
Netepic produces their own miniatures?
Claim was rules +miniatures. Aka both.
Still inaccurate but any only rule or only miniature suggestion misses pint so hard to be on diffrerent galaxy managing to prove not actually have read what he posted to begin with.
I would have said the other way around, because there are popular games in that scale, GW is investing into Epic before the competition gets too popular
That it is human vs human would also mean Battletech is their main competition were human vs alien is Dropzone Commander
Battletech becomes popular again, GW brings Titanicus back
Battletech Alpha Strike gets starter set and launch a vehicle KS, GW brings Epic 30k
There is a reason why terrain in that scale is already available, because there are other games using it
And the concept that the company making the rules must be the one making the minis for easy access is not true specially with GW as it is often easier to get 3rd party stuff rather than the original in some places
For other games, Frostgrave or SAGA, have a different company doing rules and miniatures and you still get starter sets
There is a difference between no dedicated miniatures available for that game, or the dedicated miniatures are made by a different company, because guess what GW is the only one with its own company, even Catalyst does not make the models for BT but a different company
Now we have a clearer idea of what a given purchase will offer (multiple units on a single sprue), it does make me encouraged we may well see this expanded to cover Xenos forces. Because it’s suggestive of each force not needing many SKU’s, reducing development cost and time.
You could even do “eras” boxed sets. For instance, when introducing Orks? Rejig the Imperial Forces for “historical accuracy” and do it as War of the Beast. Tyranids? Hive Fleet Behemoth. Necrons? Pariah Nexus. Eldar? Look just do them OK.
Lots of ways that Xenos can be drip fed. Definitely start with Orks though. Orks rule, have some gorgeous, extant big units, and who wouldnt want to play out Ullanor?
With us having seen the Legion Support box contents, and assuming the launch box contains a 'Legion Battleline' or some such, then there's only really a 'Legion Assault' box to go to round out the infantry.
That battleline, support, assault approach could be repeated, so just 3 SKUs of infantry per faction, plus at least two SKUs of vehicles and you've got a viable force that can be expanded upon later. That seems quite manageable for a gradual expansion of the game.
Pacific wrote: If you want to stay directly within the 30k universe, there are already two community-made systems with rulesets, heavily playtested and ready to go:
- HeresyAu (based on the Armageddon system)
- Imperialis Dominatus (based on 2nd edition/TL)
Downloads for the rules PDFs for these games will go through the roof if the new GW-written game is crap (although with it reportedly based on 2nd edition, I wouldn't be surprised if it's very similar to Imperialis)
I'm actually a wee bit concerned about the future of Imperialis Dominatus. Epic Imperialis might turn out to be so similar to it, that GW will send CND's and Imperialis Dominatus will be forced to live on under the roof of Internet Archive's mirrors..
I remember there was also Defeat in the Detail as attempt to sell rules with epic-sized miniatures. It's just that it wasn't the same availability that GW is only able to offer (with their stores and such).
It's more a matter of network than anything else. Let's face it : no "competitor" of GW has the reach and the dedicated stores that GW has. GW spent years and invested ton of money in establishing them. No competitor did the same. That's why they're still the most popular and resilient on the market.
I think the IP advantage is also massive here as it's hard to relate to Epic scaled miniatures, any new game with a new setting that doesn't have factions with a pre existing massively invested following has a big drawback there.
lord_blackfang wrote: I think the IP advantage is also massive here as it's hard to relate to Epic scaled miniatures, any new game with a new setting that doesn't have factions with a pre existing massively invested following has a big drawback there.
Well that's why we have people selling "proxies" for Epic 40k and assimilated. They know there's a market for that and for a long time, since GW has left that field, they simply filled the void. That market is mostly made of fans nostalgic of old Epic game systems and still use them, so of course they're not that interested in a "new game in a new setting".
That's also why historical games are still a constant thing after all this time. There's no better no richer background or setting for wargames than the ones our own history has to offer.
Building a new setting / universe takes time and investment. You can't build that in the blink of an eye. And unfortunately, the current miniature market is so bloated with new games that there's barely enough space for something original. Because our time is finite and we simply can't play everything, we as customers must make choices...and we will tend to take the safest one. There's no bitter end than investing a lot of your time and money in a game that end up "dead" because the company gave up / stopped support /went bankrupt and there's no one else to play with.
Pacific wrote: If you want to stay directly within the 30k universe, there are already two community-made systems with rulesets, heavily playtested and ready to go:
- HeresyAu (based on the Armageddon system)
- Imperialis Dominatus (based on 2nd edition/TL)
Downloads for the rules PDFs for these games will go through the roof if the new GW-written game is crap (although with it reportedly based on 2nd edition, I wouldn't be surprised if it's very similar to Imperialis)
I'm actually a wee bit concerned about the future of Imperialis Dominatus. Epic Imperialis might turn out to be so similar to it, that GW will send CND's and Imperialis Dominatus will be forced to live on under the roof of Internet Archive's mirrors..
I really hope not, I know that game was years of work and a real labour of love for the guys that did it.
From what I have read they were very careful not to infringe on IP, have not used any GW stock artwork (they even did their own designs of the silhouettes of each unit) so hopefully won't fall foul in the same way as the Warhammer Armies project did.
There is also a possibility that they are small enough to fly under the radar, as I think even within the Epic community it has a smaller player base than either NetEpic or NetArmaggedon.
On a separate note there is also an... unsavoury element (I'm not sure if that is the right way to put it, just something that feels "wrong") to go after the people that kept the system alive over the past 20 years, in different communities with the constant rule updates, community curated rules, organised tournaments etc. and in all cases (that I know of) didn't make any money at all from doing so. They just did it because they loved the game. So I hope GW will keep the gun holstered.
With regard to price, I hope that GW is aware of the competition of 3D printing for miniatures at this scale and keeps the prices to a reasonable level.
For the launch box, reasonable prices for me would be:
Warhound Titans 60€
unit (2-4 models) of tanks 20€/each (5-10€ per tank)
everything on a 25mm base 2.50€/base
rulebook and game accessories 50€
So a total of 310€.
With the usual discount of 30-50% for starter bundles, I expect 150€ to 200€ for the launch box.
For the support box, a reasonable price for me would be 40-50€, which translates to
an average of 2.50€ to 3€ per base.
Of course cheaper would be better, not only for anybody interested in the miniatures but also to get the game off to a good start.
The setting (most releases target all players) and bundles (e.g. the support box) gives hope that GW targets a lower price point.
However, these advantages could be neutralized by a relatively low player base.
Seelenhaendler wrote: With regard to price, I hope that GW is aware of the competition of 3D printing for miniatures at this scale and keeps the prices to a reasonable level.
I think the concern here is less what GW is aware of, and more what GW expects the average HHHobbyist to know about 3d printing and the average cost of 6mm figures.
I genuinely question the overall impact of 3d printing on GW.
For stuff like Epic? For now it’s the most reliable way to furnish oneself with an army. No dispute there. Indeed given the vagaries of 2nd hand models (pricing can be wonky, if you can even find what you’re wanting) 3d printing has a strong appeal.
But once this game is released? They’re right there, man. Right there. On the shelf. Properly scaled, seemingly packaged as Entire Units. Provided of course we don’t have a Sky Hunter Jetbike issue where they’re released and then don’t come back in stock.
That’s an entirely different proposition, no?
And again with the pricing of pearl clutching. Price brackets only you are throwing out there, for reasons bests know to yourself.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But once this game is released? They’re right there, man. Right there. On the shelf. Properly scaled, seemingly packaged as Entire Units. Provided of course we don’t have a Sky Hunter Jetbike issue where they’re released and then don’t come back in stock.
That’s an entirely different proposition, no?
If you compare buying official minis to printing it yourself, yeah. Really it's people who are into 3D printing as its own hobby that are going to print their own armies.
But, print services are a thing. Looking on Battletech minis on Etsy, a printed battlemech goes for $6-8 and a tank for $4-6. 30x infantry runs about $10. Overall, pretty comparable to the official minis, but that's CGL, not GW.
Or if you have a buddy who owns even a $200 basic printer, they can print an Epic army in a weekend at quality indistinguishable to or better than plastic for a few bucks in resin and whatever they charge you for their time and machine use.
I think the popularity of printed alternatives will depend entirely on what the official pricing looks like.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But once this game is released? They’re right there, man. Right there. On the shelf. Properly scaled, seemingly packaged as Entire Units. Provided of course we don’t have a Sky Hunter Jetbike issue where they’re released and then don’t come back in stock.
That’s an entirely different proposition, no?
If you compare buying official minis to printing it yourself, yeah. Really it's people who are into 3D printing as its own hobby that are going to print their own armies.
But, print services are a thing. Looking on Battletech minis on Etsy, a printed battlemech goes for $6-8 and a tank for $4-6. 30x infantry runs about $10. Overall, pretty comparable to the official minis, but that's CGL, not GW.
Or if you have a buddy who owns even a $200 basic printer, they can print an Epic army in a weekend at quality indistinguishable to or better than plastic for a few bucks in resin and whatever they charge you for their time and machine use.
I think the popularity of printed alternatives will depend entirely on what the official pricing looks like.
Expensive minis create 3D hobbyists though. Seriously 3d printing is a thing, people might balk at the price of a good resin 3d printer....but your first army should easily pay for that printer. Now 3d printing with resin isn't the easiest thing in the world, but its far from the hardest, and its keeps getting easier and more affordable. Printing high end 40k models is one thing, but still very doable pretty much without layer lines anymore. Printing Epic scale stuff is even easier by comparison, no only that, the time and the amount of resin used is so reduced with Epic scale miniatures. GW is doing a great job making these super detailed with lots of fiddly bits (looking at you dreadnought plasma cables) that will make them more difficult to print, Ill buy the release box just to support the game (also to help me figure out what scale to print), but that support box better have a tempting price or I'm just going to print them. pretty much for free.
The friends I have who own 3D printers aren’t printing GW proxies, but other stuff for painting only, or other games.
3d Printing has been around a while now, yet GW’s takings have been trending solidly upwards regardless.
Will folk be 3d printing proxies and/or knock offs (those being two different things)? Sure. But will it be the majority? Frankly, that’s looking doubtful.
We see this in other areas of luxury goods, with knock-offs and fakes being quite widely available, but not being the go-to option for those that can afford The Real McCoy.
Net result? It seems officialdom is still something many folk are willing to pay for.
Even is the box is $60, it's still cheaper to buy a couple bottles of resin and print entire armies at the same resolution or better.
Or toss that $60 to someone and still get more from literally anyone that can 3D print.
And considering the massive amount of problems GW seems to have keeping anything remotely popular on the shelf, no... it's not *right* there on the shelf.
Not to mention GW love to put things on Direct Order, and there's more DO than there is available for most of the systems (including HH) than just sitting on a FLGS shelf.
Dig I hang my pearls low enough for YOU to clutch now?
TalonZahn wrote: Even is the box is $60, it's still cheaper to buy a couple bottles of resin and print entire armies at the same resolution or better.
Or toss that $60 to someone and still get more from literally anyone that can 3D print.
And considering the massive amount of problems GW seems to have keeping anything remotely popular on the shelf, no... it's not *right* there on the shelf.
Not to mention GW love to put things on Direct Order, and there's more DO than there is available for most of the systems (including HH) than just sitting on a FLGS shelf.
Dig I hang my pearls low enough for YOU to clutch now?
Well, 60$ of resin doesn't get you far without stls and a printer, which also cost money.
You're right that you can buy 3d prints elsewhere, £9 for 3 sicarans, so if we assume the 3 preds, 2 sicarans and 4 dreads are a box/sprue at ~£35 then the gw option isn't actually much more expensive if at all.
The best question in all of this is why so aggressive?
Ps - my main hope for this release is that they have commissioned Paul Bonner to do loads of the B&W artwork of hundreds of tiny marines fighting each other, and the rulebook is full of it
Pacific wrote: Sneak peek of the forthcoming Legion box!
Ps - my main hope for this release is that they have commissioned Paul Bonner to do loads of the B&W artwork of hundreds of tiny marines fighting each other, and the rulebook is full of it
You had me for a moment there because hovering my mouse over the thread came up with "Sneak peek of the forthcoming Legion box!" and no picture, lol.
For some reason I can’t imagine GW to go back to that old artwork that showed the truly insane scale of some battles. It’ll probably be artwork as how we are used to seeing in the existing HH books.
Malika2 wrote: For some reason I can’t imagine GW to go back to that old artwork that showed the truly insane scale of some battles. It’ll probably be artwork as how we are used to seeing in the existing HH books.
That's funny, I always thought HH artwork so far was actually focused more on insane scale of battles more suited to Epic scale games than anything else.
Yeah, I mean, there are like 20-30 marines in the foreground, and one Reaver in the background.. that's like 4 to 6 infantry stands and a midsize titan, hardly anything Epic
Sorry AllSeeingSkink! I thought the thread was in need of a bit of levity.
While we are at it then, Xenos confirmed
On artwork, judging from the HH 2.0 rulebook release, I'll just settle for any artwork at all! I don't think I had ever seen a book from GW that has ever had less in it, an absolutely soul-less book.
Yes that would be cool! I think in all of my games the first turn would see a bikers/Eldar windrider host/squat bikers/Ork bikers melee battle in the middle of the table, the winner of which would then be free to be annoying for their opponent by going for artillery or last turn objective grabs.
Perhaps then if they did something like this (last posting of old box images I promise!) I love that for this they seemingly must have commissioned some art for just this boxset, of Orks Vs Marines and then some Chaos Androids turning up to the party too
Malika2 wrote: For some reason I can’t imagine GW to go back to that old artwork that showed the truly insane scale of some battles. It’ll probably be artwork as how we are used to seeing in the existing HH books.
That's funny, I always thought HH artwork so far was actually focused more on insane scale of battles more suited to Epic scale games than anything else.
I think the 'artwork' from the HH and Necromunda books really show what you can do with objective driven narrative photography, but it still doesn't convey the scale of those battles.
Just realised that today is the first Sunday we could get confirmation of the preorder date, personally I think it’s going to be in the Sunday Preview on 6th August.
I reckon that late August is more likely to switch back to 40k/Tyranid hype. Preorders on Aug 29th would still fit the 'Autumn' release date and hit payday well.
Today is probably either the plastic Cerastus or AOS Sigmar launch box as they were shown off first. Betting July 30th or Aug 6th for Epic.
We’ve got all sorts of wonderful articles for you next week on Warhammer Community. There’s another reveal for Cities of Sigmar and Necromunda, more miniatures for Legions Imperialis, alongside an interview with the Warhammer studio about designing tiny tanks for this new scale of battle, and plenty of excellent articles all about the best hobby in the world.
Looks to be a Rhino in one of the pics, Iron Hands (I think), with a marine in the cupola. Obviously not a surprise that they're coming, but think this is the first time we've seen one.
And an interesting looking flying stand on the Thunderhawk, looks like part of the stem is moulded into the base?
So as I expected the Contemptors are on the infantry sprue but the Sicarans and Predators actually have their own sprues
Kind of strange how they used the sprues as the article image but then don't show them in the actual article.
At this point there shouldn't be any more secrets we would learn if we saw them fully?
Tavis75 wrote: Looks to be a Rhino in one of the pics, Iron Hands (I think), with a marine in the cupola. Obviously not a surprise that they're coming, but think this is the first time we've seen one.
Tavis75 wrote: Looks to be a Rhino in one of the pics, Iron Hands (I think), with a marine in the cupola. Obviously not a surprise that they're coming, but think this is the first time we've seen one.
Much nicer. However, I reckon the thunderhawk is a bit of an odd one as it comes with that extension part in the kit. Shame they don't make longer clear stems...
I can count 11 sprues on that pile.
SM has 2 Infantry and 1 each for the tanks for four
SA has at least 2 for Sentinels/Ogryns and Malcadors with very likely also 2 for Infantry and another for the Leman Russes unless they are on the same sprue as the Malcadors which is unlikely as the Predators/Sicarans are also on different sprues. So 5 sprues in total
The Warhound had two body sprues and one weapon sprue.
Total would be 12 sprues in total. As there is probably one sprue hidden under that pile that makes sense but its unlikely there is another you cant see on the image so the box very likely doesn't include the old Warhound weapon sprue
zedmeister wrote: Much nicer. However, I reckon the thunderhawk is a bit of an odd one as it comes with that extension part in the kit. Shame they don't make longer clear stems...
As an experiment, I've just ordered some cheap 4mm clear acrylic rods to rebase my Epic aircraft like my 40k Harridan. They're long enough to keep flyers away from any buildings or titans.
lord_blackfang wrote: Wow, those sprues look like they were intentionally trying to fit the least amount of minis on them as possible.
I was going to say something similar
By comparison to the older sprues, that provided perfectly adequate detail on even smaller infantry models, there is an awful lot of sprue frame going on here.
lord_blackfang wrote: Wow, those sprues look like they were intentionally trying to fit the least amount of minis on them as possible.
I was going to say something similar
By comparison to the older sprues, that provided perfectly adequate detail on even smaller infantry models, there is an awful lot of sprue frame going on here.
It might be my imagination and poor eyesight, but it looks like the infantry sprues are very wide, but also noticeably flatter than the tank sprues. If so, that might be down to some technicalities of the casting process.
Seems they decided they want to give you no more than (example) 60 infantry per box, and decided that two sprues of 30 will make them look less greedy than one sprue of 60.
So what are the odds that the first (and possibly only) option to get hold of rhinos early on is going to be a box with two of those infantry sprues plus 4-8 transports?
lord_blackfang wrote: Wow, those sprues look like they were intentionally trying to fit the least amount of minis on them as possible.
I was going to say something similar
By comparison to the older sprues, that provided perfectly adequate detail on even smaller infantry models, there is an awful lot of sprue frame going on here.
It might be my imagination and poor eyesight, but it looks like the infantry sprues are very wide, but also noticeably flatter than the tank sprues. If so, that might be down to some technicalities of the casting process.
That seems likely. If you look at most recent kits they do a similar thing with the sprue frame for all but the tiniest of components. I'd guess it's a way to ensure there's always an easy channel for liquid plastic to flow through, and avoid miscasts.
lord_blackfang wrote: Wow, those sprues look like they were intentionally trying to fit the least amount of minis on them as possible.
Haha, kind of my first thought too ^^ (mine was more in the line of "wow that looks like a lot of of sprue in that sprue").
My first thought was "with only 3 predators on a sprue this is going to be a mighty expensive game"
I kind of already thought it was a given, with what we knew of the launch box's contents. Only question is if they'll sell boxes with one or two sprues ^^
xttz wrote: So what are the odds that the first (and possibly only) option to get hold of rhinos early on is going to be a box with two of those infantry sprues plus 4-8 transports?
If we're lucky-ish they may set it up as some sort of 'motor pool' box with a variety of transports, but without the infantry. That's probably the smarter way to do it, seeing that they more or less stated that legion-specific stuff and such is going to come in resin. There needs to be some way to add transports to that. A box that can build Rhinos or Razorbacks, for example, would be quite nice, while Land Raiders and variants are probably better off as their own box. I feel like barebone Rhinos, as well as barebones Tac Squads, being available for relatively cheap is one of the things that are going to make or break this system, and i hope GW does understand this.
Nah, down the left hand side. Clearly the shark missile launchers, but they attach to the sprue by the top of the magazine, and I’m not seeing a marine on them?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Nah, down the left hand side. Clearly the shark missile launchers, but they attach to the sprue by the top of the magazine, and I’m not seeing a marine on them?
I think you're right. Probably because the ML would stand practically orthogonal to the main body of the marine, can't be easy to cast that in one piece without getting blobby.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: That may slightly complicate my plan to spray and paint on the sprue.
Hopefully there’ll be enough space around the wielder for me to attach the mission launchers first.
Could be, may well be difficult to cast them without undercuts whilst giving a decent level of detail otherwise, due to them being at 90 degrees to the direction the body would probably need to be cast at.
I can’t put into words just how enthused I am for this! I’ve craved Epic returning for years now. Whilst we should be careful what we wish for, I’m glad this seems to be an exception to that rule.
xttz wrote: So what are the odds that the first (and possibly only) option to get hold of rhinos early on is going to be a box with two of those infantry sprues plus 4-8 transports?
lord_blackfang wrote: Wow, those sprues look like they were intentionally trying to fit the least amount of minis on them as possible.
I was going to say something similar
By comparison to the older sprues, that provided perfectly adequate detail on even smaller infantry models, there is an awful lot of sprue frame going on here.
It might be my imagination and poor eyesight, but it looks like the infantry sprues are very wide, but also noticeably flatter than the tank sprues. If so, that might be down to some technicalities of the casting process.
That seems likely. If you look at most recent kits they do a similar thing with the sprue frame for all but the tiniest of components. I'd guess it's a way to ensure there's always an easy channel for liquid plastic to flow through, and avoid miscasts.
Spoiler:
I imagine that's the technical reason, but I think its interesting that the difference from your example sprue is that the infantry all seems to just have a single connection point to the sprue, rather than multiple contact points, making a rigid sprue on all 4 sides more important.
However, I'm no expert in injection moulding, just a mook reacting to the visual of the end condition
Seeing the price for the new Warcry starter set, I've no longer got my hopes up for a sensible price for Legions. I wouldn't be surprised if we're looking at £150 for the launch box.
SamusDrake wrote: Seeing the price for the new Warcry starter set, I've no longer got my hopes up for a sensible price for Legions. I wouldn't be surprised if we're looking at £150 for the launch box.
Unfortunately you are almost certainly right.
A better price would be the 105 price point , although less would be nice,but probably unrealistic.
SamusDrake wrote: Seeing the price for the new Warcry starter set, I've no longer got my hopes up for a sensible price for Legions. I wouldn't be surprised if we're looking at £150 for the launch box.
In terms of plastic sprues and printed material, the LI box is fairly comparable to the Titanicus & Necromunda starters (£105) and Warcry Nightmare Quest (£110).
In terms of plastic sprues and printed material, the LI box is fairly comparable to the Titanicus & Necromunda starters (£105) and Warcry Nightmare Quest (£110).
So I'm betting £110.
Well, we took a similar bet on the Warcry starter set that has half the content of the Kill Team starter. Both £65.
lord_blackfang wrote: Wow, those sprues look like they were intentionally trying to fit the least amount of minis on them as possible.
I was going to say something similar
By comparison to the older sprues, that provided perfectly adequate detail on even smaller infantry models, there is an awful lot of sprue frame going on here.
On the older frames, you didn't have the vertical spars (?) going between the individual infantrymen, that appear on these sprues. It might be a strength thing as these models are bigger but thinner and (I guess) proportionally weaker.
Some of the early Epic models which were rows of 10-20 models joined top and bottom had a tendency to snap in half as you (or at least teenaged me) tried to remove them or their neighbours from the frames, which ruined the model. These vertical spars might be there to make that less likely.
Patriarch wrote: Some of the early Epic models which were rows of 10-20 models joined top and bottom had a tendency to snap in half as you (or at least teenaged me) tried to remove them or their neighbours from the frames, which ruined the model. These vertical spars might be there to make that less likely.
Gripping the base and twisting usually worked. Unless it involved removing very thin models. Broke a few Banshee's doing that and that was a big deal as you had to buy more boxes of Eldar, more than you'd ever need, to make a full unit
Really hope they get the price right I would like see this game get adopted by a large number of people. Seems like this would be way more fun than 40k.
Patriarch wrote: Some of the early Epic models which were rows of 10-20 models joined top and bottom had a tendency to snap in half as you (or at least teenaged me) tried to remove them or their neighbours from the frames, which ruined the model. These vertical spars might be there to make that less likely.
Gripping the base and twisting usually worked. Unless it involved removing very thin models. Broke a few Banshee's doing that and that was a big deal as you had to buy more boxes of Eldar, more than you'd ever need, to make a full unit
Whilst feasible that its there to assist de-sprue-ing (is that a word?), GW now also has a full range of sprue clippers and bodgers and worriers to sell to you that they didn't have last time Epic was widespread (I don't think) so I would imagine this being even less of a worry.
I guess it just looks strange because what people "know" from small scale games are the old epic frames or other 6-10mm plastics and those look very different:
The smaller the miniature, the less you need for connection points. It's the same in 3D printing.
And it's honestly for the best. The last thing you want to have is a ruined miniature because a connection point was right in a delicate / detailed part of it (like the face or the tip of the weapon).
SamusDrake wrote: Seeing the price for the new Warcry starter set, I've no longer got my hopes up for a sensible price for Legions. I wouldn't be surprised if we're looking at £150 for the launch box.
In terms of plastic sprues and printed material, the LI box is fairly comparable to the Titanicus & Necromunda starters (£105) and Warcry Nightmare Quest (£110).
So I'm betting £110.
This feels about right and I have my fingers crossed that it's close. That would hopefully be a price-point that would have gamers, even more casual ones, willing to give the game and scale a go I think.
I am also seriously looking forward to this , good memories from my youth!
I have already gone out and bought a couple of warhounds , a reaver and a pair of knights. In preparation.
Billicus wrote: Sure they do. Warcry broke new price ground when it launched. Pretty sure the original Titanicus launch set did too.
Grandmaster edition was pretty sensible for what it contained, as there was an absolute mountain of terrain sprues included in the box. You basically got a Warlord for free if you wanted everything in it. The problem with the set was that the units it contained were highly unrepresentative of what the game is and the sticker shock of 230 € to try things out was quite unwelcoming for many. This was later fixed with the superb deal that was the current starter box.
Billicus wrote: Sure they do. Warcry broke new price ground when it launched. Pretty sure the original Titanicus launch set did too.
Grandmaster edition was pretty sensible for what it contained, as there was an absolute mountain of terrain sprues included in the box. You basically got a Warlord for free if you wanted everything in it. The problem with the set was that the units it contained were highly unrepresentative of what the game is and the sticker shock of 230 € to try things out was quite unwelcoming for many. This was later fixed with the superb deal that was the current starter box.
That 'mountain' of terrain sprues in the Grandmaster box was about 1/4 of the amount you'd need to fill a table properly and provide adequate cover. It was really a waste from a value standpoint. But it did get people buying more Civitas terrain, so mission accomplished for GW.
I can’t put into words just how enthused I am for this! I’ve craved Epic returning for years now. Whilst we should be careful what we wish for, I’m glad this seems to be an exception to that rule.
The best part is it's releasing next month. I was worried they were going to pull another "Old World" by announcing it like 5 years in advance.
Here’s a crazy thought. What if, outside of the main rulebook, HH 28mm and 8mm shared the same expansions/campaign books?
So you get big hardback volume with tonnes of lore and imagery, as well as rules and unit profiles for both games, and scenarios/missions for both games?
MrHobbles wrote: Here’s a crazy thought. What if, outside of the main rulebook, HH 28mm and 8mm shared the same expansions/campaign books?
So you get big hardback volume with tonnes of lore and imagery, as well as rules and unit profiles for both games, and scenarios/missions for both games?
What would stop you from using the current books and doing the same thing?
MrHobbles wrote: Here’s a crazy thought. What if, outside of the main rulebook, HH 28mm and 8mm shared the same expansions/campaign books?
So you get big hardback volume with tonnes of lore and imagery, as well as rules and unit profiles for both games, and scenarios/missions for both games?
What would stop you from using the current books and doing the same thing?
What do you mean? There are no rules for Legions Imperialis units in the current main Horus Heresy books.
MrHobbles wrote: Here’s a crazy thought. What if, outside of the main rulebook, HH 28mm and 8mm shared the same expansions/campaign books?
So you get big hardback volume with tonnes of lore and imagery, as well as rules and unit profiles for both games, and scenarios/missions for both games?
What would stop you from using the current books and doing the same thing?
What do you mean? There are no rules for Legions Imperialis units in the current main Horus Heresy books.
I mean, you already have the cool HH hardbacks you wanted, the scenarios in the same books, and either force lists or points limits.
All you need from there is the Imperialis points ( or use 1 of 3 already out there ) and you have what you want.
How are they not already shared?
Only Siege of Cthonia has come out and it only had a couple of named characters (which in previous Epic didn't matter) and a couple Legion Specific units ( which didn't really play a part in older versions of Epic and are already accounted for in rules out there).
TalonZahn wrote: I mean, you already have the cool HH hardbacks you wanted, the scenarios in the same books, and either force lists or points limits.
All you need from there is the Imperialis points ( or use 1 of 3 already out there ) and you have what you want.
How are they not already shared?
Only Siege of Cthonia has come out and it only had a couple of named characters (which in previous Epic didn't matter) and a couple Legion Specific units ( which didn't really play a part in older versions of Epic and are already accounted for in rules out there).
My point is, I'm almost certain at some point in the future GW will come out with another book for LI. Perhaps it has more units, perhaps it covers a specific campaign like the Aeronautica expansions. I'm proposing it's possible that instead of releasing separate books for HH 28mm and 8mm, they combine them into one and the same.
Of course I can do whatever I want with whatever books I have and house rule whatever. But that's a different discussion. I'm speculating as to GW's release plan, or at least, imagining how future releases can go.
TalonZahn wrote: I mean, you already have the cool HH hardbacks you wanted, the scenarios in the same books, and either force lists or points limits.
All you need from there is the Imperialis points ( or use 1 of 3 already out there ) and you have what you want.
How are they not already shared?
Only Siege of Cthonia has come out and it only had a couple of named characters (which in previous Epic didn't matter) and a couple Legion Specific units ( which didn't really play a part in older versions of Epic and are already accounted for in rules out there).
My point is, I'm almost certain at some point in the future GW will come out with another book for LI. Perhaps it has more units, perhaps it covers a specific campaign like the Aeronautica expansions. I'm proposing it's possible that instead of releasing separate books for HH 28mm and 8mm, they combine them into one and the same.
Of course I can do whatever I want with whatever books I have and house rule whatever. But that's a different discussion. I'm speculating as to GW's release plan, or at least, imagining how future releases can go.
What they need to do is bring Battle fleet gothic back and make a combined campaign system for all of HH.
MrHobbles wrote: Here’s a crazy thought. What if, outside of the main rulebook, HH 28mm and 8mm shared the same expansions/campaign books?
So you get big hardback volume with tonnes of lore and imagery, as well as rules and unit profiles for both games, and scenarios/missions for both games?
Well, I for one would probably riot if GW forced me to buy material from a game I don't want to play another I do.
TalonZahn wrote: I mean, you already have the cool HH hardbacks you wanted, the scenarios in the same books, and either force lists or points limits.
All you need from there is the Imperialis points ( or use 1 of 3 already out there ) and you have what you want.
How are they not already shared?
Only Siege of Cthonia has come out and it only had a couple of named characters (which in previous Epic didn't matter) and a couple Legion Specific units ( which didn't really play a part in older versions of Epic and are already accounted for in rules out there).
My point is, I'm almost certain at some point in the future GW will come out with another book for LI. Perhaps it has more units, perhaps it covers a specific campaign like the Aeronautica expansions. I'm proposing it's possible that instead of releasing separate books for HH 28mm and 8mm, they combine them into one and the same.
Of course I can do whatever I want with whatever books I have and house rule whatever. But that's a different discussion. I'm speculating as to GW's release plan, or at least, imagining how future releases can go.
They did that with Imperial Armour Volume 3 back in the day. It had rules for Tau in 40k, Epic and BFG in one book. Imperial Armour 9 had an expanded BFG Space Marine fleet list as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they do that now as it'd allow them to push both games through an expanded campaign system in a single book.
The sprues involved are pretty modest, and nowhere near the number involved for Leviathan, each being a “half sized” sprue.
I'm really hoping you're right on this Mad Doc.
However, I'm not convinced GW beancounters won't just look at the 'mini count', or even expect lower sales so have to up the price to make enough profit.
I also worry, I'm going to have to be pressing 'refresh' a lot at bang on 10am and hope I get a copy. Do we trust GW to make enough? They couldn't even manage it for the Necromunda rulebook.
I also worry, I'm going to have to be pressing 'refresh' a lot at bang on 10am and hope I get a copy. Do we trust GW to make enough? They couldn't even manage it for the Necromunda rulebook.
I recommend going to your FLGS now and registering an 'expression of interest', to get your name down on a set. They will also know the Monday before 'preorder day' what the cost is going to be.
My personal hope (as a store owner) is that this game is not 'soft locked' to traders (like the Necromunda revised rule book) to 2 per store, or some such rubbish.
xttz wrote: Has anyone seen clear confirmation from GW yet on if this box is limited, or a longterm product like Age of Darkness?
It's the kind of question they'd normally answer via Twitter / Instagram etc, but I don't have accounts for any of them.
Yesterday's article said (in the video) that this is not a one-box game, that they plan to keep it available for long time, that it will get expansions and that they see this as 'the start of a new hobby'. While that does not outright say that this is not a limited launch box, it strongly implies that.
xttz wrote: Has anyone seen clear confirmation from GW yet on if this box is limited, or a longterm product like Age of Darkness?
It's the kind of question they'd normally answer via Twitter / Instagram etc, but I don't have accounts for any of them.
Yesterday's article said (in the video) that this is not a one-box game, that they plan to keep it available for long time, that it will get expansions and that they see this as 'the start of a new hobby'. While that does not outright say that this is not a limited launch box, it strongly implies that.
Nothing of this is talking about the box itself? The game will of course stay and get expansions but they didn't talk about the launch box in this part of the video as far as I understood
I'm hyped for this. I remember playing many games of space marine against my brother. The game just feels right at this scale.
It is a pity GW have not made the sprue itself look like barricades, rubble, building parts... I'm sure it's something to do with ensuring a consistent flow in the molding process but still. There is going to be a lot of sprue left over.
xttz wrote: Has anyone seen clear confirmation from GW yet on if this box is limited, or a longterm product like Age of Darkness?
It's the kind of question they'd normally answer via Twitter / Instagram etc, but I don't have accounts for any of them.
Yesterday's article said (in the video) that this is not a one-box game, that they plan to keep it available for long time, that it will get expansions and that they see this as 'the start of a new hobby'. While that does not outright say that this is not a limited launch box, it strongly implies that.
Nothing of this is talking about the box itself? The game will of course stay and get expansions but they didn't talk about the launch box in this part of the video as far as I understood
It's been referred to as both a "launch box" and a "core set". Normally they use those terms fairly exclusively.
As it includes dice & templates etc that aren't typically found in boxes like Leviathan or Dominion, I'm leaning slightly more towards it being a long term item like Age of Darkness. But there's always a chance of being surprised!
Yeah, I'm interested in the rules (not as much the minis, given I'm on a 40k binge more than HH), but if the box is a good deal I might just get one. Even two, if it's a very good deal.
But that will probably mean 100 euros or less, for me.
And yeah, the Warhounds are actually a deterrent for me buying it. Had they been *Blades (Fell, Blade, whatever) I'd have been all over it.
leopard wrote: may well be like AT when launched, they may well do a cheaper box later
I think that if the launch box is a limited run, the 'cheaper boxes' will just be the 'fire support', 'rapid strike force', and what have you, and you just get the rulebook separately.
leopard wrote: may well be like AT when launched, they may well do a cheaper box later
I feel like this is the bare minimum number of models you'd want in a starter box for Epic. Anything less and it'd almost be a joke, lol.
Perhaps could drop the Warhounds, but then the box would feel very slim unless they were replaced with something else.
That said, if it's limited, I may skip it and wait for a more permanent box as I don't particularly want 2x more Warhounds.
The contents of the box are also a statement in how you can assemble your force. Whilst yes this can be two sides of a scrap, they’ve been clear the rules are such that it can also be a single force, representing three different elements of the multiple forces which comprised The Great Crusade.
That’s kind of cool if you ask me. Because whilst the lazy argument is “oh joy, more Maureen on Maureen violence”, the reality is armies will seemingly have little preventing them being a mix of whatever your taste and point limits allow. Which is lore accurate of course. Now I don’t for a second believe it will be an entirely free choice, but I suspect it may be akin to 2nd Ed, where Guard and Marines could be freely allied, but you couldn’t take say, a Space Marine Company Card and attach Imperial Guard detachment cards to that company. So the minimum presence for allied/mixed forces is likely Company Level.
leopard wrote: may well be like AT when launched, they may well do a cheaper box later
I feel like this is the bare minimum number of models you'd want in a starter box for Epic. Anything less and it'd almost be a joke, lol.
Perhaps could drop the Warhounds, but then the box would feel very slim unless they were replaced with something else.
That said, if it's limited, I may skip it and wait for a more permanent box as I don't particularly want 2x more Warhounds.
The contents of the box are also a statement in how you can assemble your force. Whilst yes this can be two sides of a scrap, they’ve been clear the rules are such that it can also be a single force, representing three different elements of the multiple forces which comprised The Great Crusade.
That’s kind of cool if you ask me. Because whilst the lazy argument is “oh joy, more Maureen on Maureen violence”, the reality is armies will seemingly have little preventing them being a mix of whatever your taste and point limits allow. Which is lore accurate of course. Now I don’t for a second believe it will be an entirely free choice, but I suspect it may be akin to 2nd Ed, where Guard and Marines could be freely allied, but you couldn’t take say, a Space Marine Company Card and attach Imperial Guard detachment cards to that company. So the minimum presence for allied/mixed forces is likely Company Level.
On 3rd Edition the Imperium is a big faction from which you can take detachments. Your Strategy Rating will go up if you choose to only field marines, but that's about it.
Albertorius wrote: Yeah, I'm interested in the rules (not as much the minis, given I'm on a 40k binge more than HH), but if the box is a good deal I might just get one. Even two, if it's a very good deal.
Well, if Epic: LI is mostly based on 2nd edition as they said, it will presumably have nothing in common with 3rd (or 4th) edition.
That means slower games, almost no morale is represented, etc... They will probably (I hope they do not go that way) speed up gameplay by having a extremely high lethality (removing minis by the bucket each round).
I have no hopes whatsoever regarding good rules. But at least Epic will be a commercial + readily available + popular game once again.
Billicus wrote: Sure they do. Warcry broke new price ground when it launched. Pretty sure the original Titanicus launch set did too.
Grandmaster edition was pretty sensible for what it contained, as there was an absolute mountain of terrain sprues included in the box. You basically got a Warlord for free if you wanted everything in it. The problem with the set was that the units it contained were highly unrepresentative of what the game is and the sticker shock of 230 € to try things out was quite unwelcoming for many. This was later fixed with the superb deal that was the current starter box.
That 'mountain' of terrain sprues in the Grandmaster box was about 1/4 of the amount you'd need to fill a table properly and provide adequate cover. It was really a waste from a value standpoint. But it did get people buying more Civitas terrain, so mission accomplished for GW.
Those are different things, though. "The box had a lot of plastic at a discount" is a different statement than "the box gets you a full table". If you wanted everything, including the terrain and rules kits, it was of value as a starting point (at the time, buying the pieces individually would have been around 350 €). If anyone seriously sets their standards for a normal launch box at "has two fully playable forces and 4' x 4' table's worth of quality plastic terrain for a terrain heavy game" that's simply unrealistic.
SU-152 wrote: I have no hopes whatsoever regarding good rules. But at least Epic will be a commercial + readily available + popular game once again.
Remains to be seen...
If they make it expensive with mediocre rules then I have little hope in it becoming popular.
I have always believed Epic as a concept and game should be a 'core' GW product. It's a wonderful way of representing the scale of warfare in 40k, with fantastical titans and vehicles destroying each other. There is a reason it came along so soon after the 28mm scale game originally, and could do so many things that the larger scale could not.
There was a miss-step with 3ed edition, where GW seemingly alienated much of the existing player base while not attracting new players. Then 4th edition wasn't given the opportunity to be anything other than a specialist game and niche system. But, I firmly believe those are not due to the concept itself and a solid set of rules, quality miniatures (that bit already seems assured) and reasonable prices, this could become a 'main' system again. I think it could even push AoS back behind it in 3-4 years time.
Sherrypie wrote: If anyone seriously sets their standards for a normal launch box at "has two fully playable forces and 4' x 4' table's worth of quality plastic terrain for a terrain heavy game" that's simply unrealistic.
the only unrealistic part is the table worth of terrain as the "standard" for non-GW things is to get 2 full forces and the a minimum of necessary terrain in the core/starter box with an additional terrain box (if you don't want to make your own) being the only thing you need in addition to play
at least if we talk about the price point as 50€ 2 player starter set is something different than a 200€ set
"the standard" is something different in that scale for games
This announcement got me to fire up my 3D printer and pump out a few models to round out my 1E Marine army (preds & whirlwinds and terminators for my 28+ 1E land raiders) - as well as a small IG army since I love tanks so much.
I agree that a couple of superheavy tanks would have been a much better than a couple of Warhounds. If the base set isn't too expensive, I'm strongly considering picking up a copy just for the "neat" factor. I do wonder, if a few months down the road they'll repack the "base" kit like they did for AT with more infantry-level (i.e., a baneblade squad or fellblade or two) to replace the warhounds.
I'm really hoping we'll see a stand alone rulesbook. I've got more than enough old minis for use, I just feel like I need a modern ruleset to go along with what I have (I think I have the 1E & 2E space marine rules - and the couple-year-old Armageddon rules, but I'm not really sure which direction they're going to go with the rules for this version).
Billicus wrote: Sure they do. Warcry broke new price ground when it launched. Pretty sure the original Titanicus launch set did too.
Grandmaster edition was pretty sensible for what it contained, as there was an absolute mountain of terrain sprues included in the box. You basically got a Warlord for free if you wanted everything in it. The problem with the set was that the units it contained were highly unrepresentative of what the game is and the sticker shock of 230 € to try things out was quite unwelcoming for many. This was later fixed with the superb deal that was the current starter box.
That 'mountain' of terrain sprues in the Grandmaster box was about 1/4 of the amount you'd need to fill a table properly and provide adequate cover. It was really a waste from a value standpoint. But it did get people buying more Civitas terrain, so mission accomplished for GW.
Those are different things, though. "The box had a lot of plastic at a discount" is a different statement than "the box gets you a full table". If you wanted everything, including the terrain and rules kits, it was of value as a starting point (at the time, buying the pieces individually would have been around 350 €). If anyone seriously sets their standards for a normal launch box at "has two fully playable forces and 4' x 4' table's worth of quality plastic terrain for a terrain heavy game" that's simply unrealistic.
I'm not sure that we're discussing the same thing. My point is that something can be discounted but not represent a good value to the customer. The only way those terrain sprues became valuable is if the customer bought a lot more of them. (Or potentially sold them off to others.)
IMO, the GM box would have been a better value without terrain sprues inflating its price. As I said, it did get people buying more of it (myself included, although I would never do that again), so it was a successful marketing tactic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: This announcement got me to fire up my 3D printer and pump out a few models to round out my 1E Marine army (preds & whirlwinds and terminators for my 28+ 1E land raiders) - as well as a small IG army since I love tanks so much.
I agree that a couple of superheavy tanks would have been a much better than a couple of Warhounds. If the base set isn't too expensive, I'm strongly considering picking up a copy just for the "neat" factor. I do wonder, if a few months down the road they'll repack the "base" kit like they did for AT with more infantry-level (i.e., a baneblade squad or fellblade or two) to replace the warhounds.
I'm really hoping we'll see a stand alone rulesbook. I've got more than enough old minis for use, I just feel like I need a modern ruleset to go along with what I have (I think I have the 1E & 2E space marine rules - and the couple-year-old Armageddon rules, but I'm not really sure which direction they're going to go with the rules for this version).
If folks don't want their Warhounds...come talk to me after the launch.
Point was just that GW have priors for pushing the envelope upward with launches and to temper price hopes accordingly, I didn't mean to light the touchpaper on whether grandmaster edition was a good deal or not, apologies
I think any real starter box should have Titans. I can kind of see not having aircraft in the starter, but I think having Titans is critical. Noting really show a the scale range as having little inf, some vehicles, and then towering Titans.
My biggest fear is that GW puts the price so high as to drive me away. I started Bolt Action about a year ago an reallyed enjoyed getting a full army for about $100.
BTW Stormonu, I thought they indicated that the full rulebook would be available separately in tye first preview. I might be wrong, but I would expect them to release it separately at some point.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or it’s simply measured in a different way whilst largely working the same?
Honestly? Not sure there is a better way of doing it. Blast markers are cool looking (at least when you upgrade them ^^) and really provide a great visual cue to what's happening to a unit.
Mr_Rose wrote: If the combat rules are built around second ed, but with morale/disruption like Armageddon, it might be close to a perfect game.
I agree, but as seen in the contents of the box, there are NO blast markers.
So I bet there won't be any kind of suppression/morale degradation/disruption.
Yeah, I think the rules are going to be too cloase to 2nd ed. While I love 2nd and it is by far the best complete version, blast markers, suppression, firefights and a lot of those kind of rules would make the game much better....Just don't bring back the stupid chart.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or it’s simply measured in a different way whilst largely working the same?
Honestly? Not sure there is a better way of doing it. Blast markers are cool looking (at least when you upgrade them ^^) and really provide a great visual cue to what's happening to a unit.
They're also fiddly, prone to dispute/difference of opinion whether a base is just clipped or not, and they incentivize faffing about in movement to optimize placement rather than just go for good enough and be done with it. I'll gladly take a system that *doesn't* require blast templates over one that does.
(...Flame templates, now there's a "whoooosh" of satisfaction I can appreciate. Still the same issues ofc, in the end.)
Mr_Rose wrote: If the combat rules are built around second ed, but with morale/disruption like Armageddon, it might be close to a perfect game.
I agree, but as seen in the contents of the box, there are NO blast markers.
So I bet there won't be any kind of suppression/morale degradation/disruption.
Yeah, I think the rules are going to be too cloase to 2nd ed. While I love 2nd and it is by far the best complete version, blast markers, suppression, firefights and a lot of those kind of rules would make the game much better....Just don't bring back the stupid chart.
You could do pretty much the same without the chart, if you so wanted
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or it’s simply measured in a different way whilst largely working the same?
Honestly? Not sure there is a better way of doing it. Blast markers are cool looking (at least when you upgrade them ^^) and really provide a great visual cue to what's happening to a unit.
They're also fiddly, prone to dispute/difference of opinion whether a base is just clipped or not, and they incentivize faffing about in movement to optimize placement rather than just go for good enough and be done with it. I'll gladly take a system that *doesn't* require blast templates over one that does.
(...Flame templates, now there's a "whoooosh" of satisfaction I can appreciate. Still the same issues ofc, in the end.)
Blast markers, not blast templates.
You know, the chits you put on a detachment to show that's under fire, and under how much fire, that then degrades it's effectiveness. Completely different from a blast template, and completely unrelated with clipping or any such concern.
Mr_Rose wrote: If the combat rules are built around second ed, but with morale/disruption like Armageddon, it might be close to a perfect game.
I agree, but as seen in the contents of the box, there are NO blast markers.
So I bet there won't be any kind of suppression/morale degradation/disruption.
Yeah, I think the rules are going to be too cloase to 2nd ed. While I love 2nd and it is by far the best complete version, blast markers, suppression, firefights and a lot of those kind of rules would make the game much better....Just don't bring back the stupid chart.
You could do pretty much the same without the chart, if you so wanted
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or it’s simply measured in a different way whilst largely working the same?
Honestly? Not sure there is a better way of doing it. Blast markers are cool looking (at least when you upgrade them ^^) and really provide a great visual cue to what's happening to a unit.
They're also fiddly, prone to dispute/difference of opinion whether a base is just clipped or not, and they incentivize faffing about in movement to optimize placement rather than just go for good enough and be done with it. I'll gladly take a system that *doesn't* require blast templates over one that does.
(...Flame templates, now there's a "whoooosh" of satisfaction I can appreciate. Still the same issues ofc, in the end.)
Blast markers, not blast templates.
You know, the chits you put on a detachment to show that's under fire, and under how much fire, that then degrades it's effectiveness. Completely different from a blast template, and completely unrelated with clipping or any such concern.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: 2nd Ed had Warhounds fielded in pairs, either as a Special Card, or latterly with Titan Legions (I think!) a detachment card.
The Net Rules out there do allow for singles to be taken, and if taken in pairs losing 1 often results in the other bugging out or having a mental breakdown.
I do like being able to take 1, but pairs is also cool.
Sort of a 6 one way, half dozen another type of thing for me.
I still see this game being more of a mass Troops and Tanks game though.
Titans aren't that scary, or important, when large tanks/tank destroyers and aircraft are around.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: 2nd Ed had Warhounds fielded in pairs, either as a Special Card, or latterly with Titan Legions (I think!) a detachment card.
The Net Rules out there do allow for singles to be taken, and if taken in pairs losing 1 often results in the other bugging out or having a mental breakdown.
I do like being able to take 1, but pairs is also cool.
Sort of a 6 one way, half dozen another type of thing for me.
I still see this game being more of a mass Troops and Tanks game though.
Titans aren't that scary, or important, when large tanks/tank destroyers and aircraft are around.
As it should be. Unfortunately lately GW seems to portray Titans as the be all and end all of ground warfare systems in the fiction, and not needing to realistically fear anything other than other Titans or Knights.
In 2nd edition Epic or Titan Legions, any Titan that just advanced as if it were invulnerable against a non-Titan force, would soon be destroyed by sheer volume of fire if nothing else. The one exception was the Imperator, which was part of the critique against it, but even then it still had some potential weaknesses that could result in a quick kill.
In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
To not have the Warhounds would put new players at the mercy of veteran Titanicus players. Much like that time when Mitch Kramer got caught by his seniors...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
SamusDrake wrote: To not have the Warhounds would put new players at the mercy of veteran Titanicus players. Much like that time when Mitch Kramer got caught by his seniors...
...why? I'm assuming there will be points and the like, and that the warhounds would have been swapped for super heavies.
Most of it will come down to 2 things; 1) points cost and 2) Organization/Ally rules
A Legion can take several options at X points with no Ally/Org Rules where adding a Titan may require those.
Then, what are those X points for the unit?
Net stuff, sorry it's the only real current baseline, show you can take stuff like; a Fellblade, a Falchion, a Sabre tank squad (4 tanks), a Thunderhawk, etc... all for the price of a single Warhound. Reavers are double, Warlords are triple the cost.
So if the points do end up being comparable to the above examples, I'd be hard pressed to pick a Titan over some of those choices.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
Sorry to keep bringing up 2nd Ed, but it is the frame of reference which sticks in my mind.
If this is as encouraging of nabbing objectives and doing moderate damage to the foe? That adds to the complexity of using Titans. Sure they can whack holes in my units, maybe even wiping out one or two and bagging the associated victory points. But if I’ve been able to scuttle off detachment to seize 6 Objectives across the whole board, bagging a neat 30VP? What has your Titan truly achieved?
There’d a better thought about the joys of 2nd Ed but I can’t be bothered to dredge them up right now.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
[Krytos]Shame if something should you know...just happen to that building[/Krytos]
I think that's a thing that's been brought over from Titanicus to some degree from what the preview articles have said.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
[Krytos]Shame if something should you know...just happen to that building[/Krytos]
I think that's a thing that's been brought over from Titanicus to some degree from what the preview articles have said.
Oh god I sound like Uncle Albert! But….during 2nd Ed?
Buildings could be destroyed. Not by just any old weapon, and even if you had the right weapon it wasn’t terribly easy.
Of course, in 2nd Ed side or rear shots brought benefits, especially against Titans, as their armour was somewhat weaker (though side shots had a slightly hard time with the aiming dice). Even with a “shields ignore 0 Sv Mod”, you just ordered your shots accordingly, and then let even your dinky weapons have their wicked way.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
[Krytos]Shame if something should you know...just happen to that building[/Krytos]
I think that's a thing that's been brought over from Titanicus to some degree from what the preview articles have said.
Oh god I sound like Uncle Albert! But….during 2nd Ed?
Buildings could be destroyed. Not by just any old weapon, and even if you had the right weapon it wasn’t terribly easy.
Of course, in 2nd Ed side or rear shots brought benefits, especially against Titans, as their armour was somewhat weaker (though side shots had a slightly hard time with the aiming dice). Even with a “shields ignore 0 Sv Mod”, you just ordered your shots accordingly, and then let even your dinky weapons have their wicked way.
That's why we're packing Quake to the eyeballs.
What's the big draw of 2nd ed over Epic40K and Armageddon? I joined for Epic40K (unintentionally winning the starter set in a painting competition at a FLGS) so I've not played the earliest set of rules, but it is hard to imagine Epic without the suppression and manoeuvre elements of the later games. As I understand it, it doesn't even have Warmaster's command focus?
What makes it Epic rather than 40K with lots of squads grouped together? The flow of 3rd and 4th with suppression/fall back/regroup and counter attacks from both sides definitely captured that sweeping feeling, with the Firefight and Assault mechanics producing dramatic effects over just shooting but being generally more highly telegraphed and short ranged. A big game of Armageddon did feel like you were controlling a front, weathering artillery and long range firepower whilst you gathered your forces and reserves to either assault to push through or counter assault and hold the line.
I also consider the E:A tournament scenario close to a master piece is mission design when it comes to asymmetric factions and keeping the whole board open to scoring across a game. You can certainly focus on one type of victory, but there's a corresponding objective that keeps you vaguely honest in playing the same game the opponent is even for those focused on thunderhawk's full of space marines.
...all for the price of a single Warhound. Reavers are double, Warlords are triple the cost.
Sorry, which game are you referencing? For Titanicus its about 220 points for a hound, 330 for a reaver and 480 for a lord.
The updated rules used and maintained by the various communities supporting Epic in the various forms.
They are 275, 575, and 725. So nearly double then triple.
If GW uses Titanicus points, which they won't, then the costs of superheavies will reflect that and go down as well. Cheaper Titans in Titanicus are to sell you more Titans.
The point, is that there will be, and are, other options to compete with Titans that tend to do more (or have more bang for buck) than a Titan.
Titans are also clearly not the focus of Legions Imperialis.
vadersson wrote: I think any real starter box should have Titans. I can kind of see not having aircraft in the starter, but I think having Titans is critical. Noting really show a the scale range as having little inf, some vehicles, and then towering Titans.
My biggest fear is that GW puts the price so high as to drive me away. I started Bolt Action about a year ago an reallyed enjoyed getting a full army for about $100.
BTW Stormonu, I thought they indicated that the full rulebook would be available separately in tye first preview. I might be wrong, but I would expect them to release it separately at some point.
I think the problem with including Titans in the starter set is that they're such a large investment in a force that they're probably not great to have in the small starter games that the starter set is trying to recreate, and it's also not great to "force" people into a specific Titan. Like, maybe the person doesn't want 2x Warhounds, maybe they want a Reaver, or a Warlord, or no Titans at all.
The extra bad thing in this case is that the Warhounds aren't even new models, they're models that most AT fans will already have.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In 2nd Ed Titans could absolutely wreck stuff, but as said a reckless player could easily find their prized assets downed with quite alarming speed. Indeed requiring shots to have at least -1 Sv to drop Void Shields felt like a necessary change at the time, as it meant I couldn’t just swamp VSG’s with piddling fire, like Lasguns.
But, for Titans being rock? We have Adeptus Titanicus. For Titans being surprisingly vulnerable? We should have this, and of course loads of background explaining Titans without infantry support are at risk of being downed.
Titans desperately needed to stay away from buildings full of decent infantry, buildings gave infantry pretty decent protection, also unless armed specifically for it titans were not great in close combat. I saw plenty of titans get taken down by masses of nids.
[Krytos]Shame if something should you know...just happen to that building[/Krytos]
I think that's a thing that's been brought over from Titanicus to some degree from what the preview articles have said.
Oh god I sound like Uncle Albert! But….during 2nd Ed?
Buildings could be destroyed. Not by just any old weapon, and even if you had the right weapon it wasn’t terribly easy.
Of course, in 2nd Ed side or rear shots brought benefits, especially against Titans, as their armour was somewhat weaker (though side shots had a slightly hard time with the aiming dice). Even with a “shields ignore 0 Sv Mod”, you just ordered your shots accordingly, and then let even your dinky weapons have their wicked way.
That's why we're packing Quake to the eyeballs.
What's the big draw of 2nd ed over Epic40K and Armageddon? I joined for Epic40K (unintentionally winning the starter set in a painting competition at a FLGS) so I've not played the earliest set of rules, but it is hard to imagine Epic without the suppression and manoeuvre elements of the later games. As I understand it, it doesn't even have Warmaster's command focus?
What makes it Epic rather than 40K with lots of squads grouped together? The flow of 3rd and 4th with suppression/fall back/regroup and counter attacks from both sides definitely captured that sweeping feeling, with the Firefight and Assault mechanics producing dramatic effects over just shooting but being generally more highly telegraphed and short ranged. A big game of Armageddon did feel like you were controlling a front, weathering artillery and long range firepower whilst you gathered your forces and reserves to either assault to push through or counter assault and hold the line.
I also consider the E:A tournament scenario close to a master piece is mission design when it comes to asymmetric factions and keeping the whole board open to scoring across a game. You can certainly focus on one type of victory, but there's a corresponding objective that keeps you vaguely honest in playing the same game the opponent is even for those focused on thunderhawk's full of space marines.
Of course quake cannons if you are going to fight in a city, the buildings were still difficult to destroy even with quake cannons though.
Thats why I said second with those rules additions. I played just about every version of epic. 2nd ed was the biggest, and represented whole companies with attachments on the field it truly was grand. You had multiple companies of marines, companies of landraiders, Reaver battle groups consisting of three reavers, whole companies dropping down in drop pods! At the time I didn't have a problem with the morale system...because there was nothing different, but it was seriously lacking, what second also had going for it was the order counters which made it very strategic, but simple, you had to plan your actions in advance, not just react to what the other player was doing. Also the titans were just so much better in second, I don't mean they were more powerful, or game impactful, they were just more fun to play, they had way more option as far as weapons went, and the targeting grid was awesome, really didn't take any extra time or rolls, but added so much flavor.
Epic 40k was more like assembled strike forces, built almost just like 40k armies are just on a smaller scale. Armageddon was a step in the right direction, but it also was pretty small, detachments being about the average size, and they both ditched the orders counter which in my opinion made epic very strategic. The later versions of epic were just so reactionary, you moved this group there, so I'm going to move this group there to kill it, so then you will move this group there to kill that one....etc. However the blast markers, suppression and morale system of the later versions were the highlights of those games.
They all had their merits, I know a lot of 2nd ed people that hated the changes, and I get that, but they were not bad games.
I wish they took the best of second and combined it with the best of the rest.....but I think they are just leaning towards mostly second, but the unit sizes make me think more if the later versions more attachment size than full companies...I could be wrong.
vadersson wrote: I think any real starter box should have Titans. I can kind of see not having aircraft in the starter, but I think having Titans is critical. Noting really show a the scale range as having little inf, some vehicles, and then towering Titans.
My biggest fear is that GW puts the price so high as to drive me away. I started Bolt Action about a year ago an reallyed enjoyed getting a full army for about $100.
BTW Stormonu, I thought they indicated that the full rulebook would be available separately in tye first preview. I might be wrong, but I would expect them to release it separately at some point.
I think the problem with including Titans in the starter set is that they're such a large investment in a force that they're probably not great to have in the small starter games that the starter set is trying to recreate, and it's also not great to "force" people into a specific Titan. Like, maybe the person doesn't want 2x Warhounds, maybe they want a Reaver, or a Warlord, or no Titans at all.
The extra bad thing in this case is that the Warhounds aren't even new models, they're models that most AT fans will already have.
I was just poking around the GW website, and there are no Titans for sale. There are a few sprues of weapon options (mostly out of stock), and the AT starter box (out of stock), but that's it. They are not even listed. Presumably, they are being repackaged to fit in with LI, but who knows.
Good post there Andrew1975, I agree wholeheartedly.
I actually played a game last night. My Reaver took a Gargant belly-gun round to the face (just about stayed on its feet), the shot cannoned off into a nearby building and flattened it - bad news for the Devastator detachment hiding in it. I love that element of events associated with titans and their weaponry, it wasn't a massive amount of extra dice rolling or record keeping, and I hope it has some equivalent in the new game.
I'd fully expect - and the articles tend to support this - that this will be a combined arms rock-paper-scissors game.
Meaning that different elements will have strengths and weaknesses in relation to others. So (for example), while a Titan might be great at flattening vehicles, it may be vulnerable to infantry and/or air strikes.
Likewise, other units will be good against some, but weak against others.
schoon wrote: I'd fully expect - and the articles tend to support this - that this will be a combined arms rock-paper-scissors game.
Meaning that different elements will have strengths and weaknesses in relation to others. So (for example), while a Titan might be great at flattening vehicles, it may be vulnerable to infantry and/or air strikes.
Likewise, other units will be good against some, but weak against others.
It'll be interesting to see if the currently cosmetic options for mortars and anti-air systems on the Warbringer & Warmaster kits see in-game rules under Epic.
Perhaps in future we also see things like AA carapace weapon options for Reavers & Warlords too.
Andrew1975 wrote: Epic 40k was more like assembled strike forces, built almost just like 40k armies are just on a smaller scale.
Epic 40k just gave you heaps of flexibility in how the detachments were assembled... and some people used that to create mini-40k armies as their detachments. But generally it was better to have focused detachments and pick units that were either a group of the same unit or units that synergised well together.
I feel like Epic40k is the most misunderstood edition, that said I liked it so I'm probably biased, lol.
I'm not going to be surprised if new-Epic is more open in the detachment building aspect, though maybe not as open as Epic40k and maybe not in a similar way to Epic40k at all.
I used to love Space Marine, so I would be well up for this. However, I've already bought into 30k in full-size version, so not sure I can justify doing both
Billicus wrote: Sure they do. Warcry broke new price ground when it launched. Pretty sure the original Titanicus launch set did too.
Grandmaster edition was pretty sensible for what it contained, as there was an absolute mountain of terrain sprues included in the box. You basically got a Warlord for free if you wanted everything in it. The problem with the set was that the units it contained were highly unrepresentative of what the game is and the sticker shock of 230 € to try things out was quite unwelcoming for many. This was later fixed with the superb deal that was the current starter box.
That 'mountain' of terrain sprues in the Grandmaster box was about 1/4 of the amount you'd need to fill a table properly and provide adequate cover. It was really a waste from a value standpoint. But it did get people buying more Civitas terrain, so mission accomplished for GW.
Those are different things, though. "The box had a lot of plastic at a discount" is a different statement than "the box gets you a full table". If you wanted everything, including the terrain and rules kits, it was of value as a starting point (at the time, buying the pieces individually would have been around 350 €). If anyone seriously sets their standards for a normal launch box at "has two fully playable forces and 4' x 4' table's worth of quality plastic terrain for a terrain heavy game" that's simply unrealistic.
I'm not sure that we're discussing the same thing. My point is that something can be discounted but not represent a good value to the customer. The only way those terrain sprues became valuable is if the customer bought a lot more of them. (Or potentially sold them off to others.)
IMO, the GM box would have been a better value without terrain sprues inflating its price. As I said, it did get people buying more of it (myself included, although I would never do that again), so it was a successful marketing tactic.
From that viewpoint, sure. Getting only discounted titans like we got in the maniple boxes down the line would've of course been the best value for customers who only wanted the titans, no problem with that line of thinking. I still have to disagree on the terrain only being valuable if you bought more, though, as nothing forces the customers to only use those kits. This is a hobby where we create plenty of beautiful things that can be used across multiple systems, especially when it comes to terrain. Combining even a small number of buildings with your existing collection of hills, water features, woods and other appropriate pieces or embedding them into such makes for amazing tables that give the titans a nice sense of scale. This is why I started by saying "if you wanted everything in the box", as I can't say I would've been dissatisfied with mine as a customer since I did want it all. I do agree that it wasn't a stellar opening box by any means, unlike the later starter kit which is excellent for just getting rules and models.
Slinky wrote: I used to love Space Marine, so I would be well up for this. However, I've already bought into 30k in full-size version, so not sure I can justify doing both
At the risk of getting overly philosophical- who do you need to justify it to?
Slinky wrote: I used to love Space Marine, so I would be well up for this. However, I've already bought into 30k in full-size version, so not sure I can justify doing both
At the risk of getting overly philosophical- who do you need to justify it to?
Time and banks accounts usually, I've the same issues, I need to pick one or the other for my next venture.
Slinky wrote: I used to love Space Marine, so I would be well up for this. However, I've already bought into 30k in full-size version, so not sure I can justify doing both
At the risk of getting overly philosophical- who do you need to justify it to?
My cupboard space, my bank account, my existing pile of shame, my limited free time, my potential opponents....
...and if I had a significant other they'd probably crack it for a mention
Slinky wrote: I used to love Space Marine, so I would be well up for this. However, I've already bought into 30k in full-size version, so not sure I can justify doing both
At the risk of getting overly philosophical- who do you need to justify it to?
My cupboard space, my bank account, my existing pile of shame, my limited free time, my potential opponents....
...and if I had a significant other they'd probably crack it for a mention
Of course judging from Necromunda the tiles have a good chance of coming significantly warped. So much for a safe flat surface. And you get 6 square feet... more than Munda tiles, but you'll still need 4 boxes for a table. For something that's barely textured more than two layer mdf.
How much of a price hike are we expecting on the buildings and industrial tanks since we last saw them? +50%?
Slinky wrote: I used to love Space Marine, so I would be well up for this. However, I've already bought into 30k in full-size version, so not sure I can justify doing both
At the risk of getting overly philosophical- who do you need to justify it to?
My cupboard space, my bank account, my existing pile of shame, my limited free time, my potential opponents....
...and if I had a significant other they'd probably crack it for a mention
All the above
Fair enough, that's what I get for being a smartarse
Slinky wrote: I used to love Space Marine, so I would be well up for this. However, I've already bought into 30k in full-size version, so not sure I can justify doing both
At the risk of getting overly philosophical- who do you need to justify it to?
My cupboard space, my bank account, my existing pile of shame, my limited free time, my potential opponents....
...and if I had a significant other they'd probably crack it for a mention
Cupboard space is *the* one thing that you can never use as an excuse to not collect Epic!
I think I've got about 11,000 points of marines in a small carry case (minus the titans), think equivalent of a couple of Saga or Necromunda warbands/gangs.
Don't need any tiles myself, but GW making products like that alongside new ruins is a great sign for future support of this game system. In comparison, Titanicus on release was a single plastic terrain kit followed by resin Forgeworld tiles that cost around £500 for an empty table.
Baneblade & friends as Thursday's reveal article seems likely too.
Ruins are nice, tiles will typically be a product quickly going to "unavailable online" for a while. They'll certainly be packaged the same than Necromunda, a nice flat box, so no danger of being warped and easy to put away.
