Sarouan wrote:
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.

Except that Munda tiles come pre-warped, of course

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
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.

Except that Munda tiles come pre-warped, of course

Guess you didn't have luck, mine weren't. And I bought 4 boxes at that time.

Same, I got several packs and they're all perfectly flat

Eh, I dunno, I find plastic tiles to be a bit of a letdown in actual use.

those tiles look, well they look like a flat tile with a road painted on and minimal texture. the 'cromunda tiles are nice and I want more, I seriously do not see any purpose for those tiles that I could not do myself from thin plywood or MDF and a bit of paint

Baneblade looks nice though

leopard wrote:
those tiles look, well they look like a flat tile with a road painted on and minimal texture. the 'cromunda tiles are nice and I want more, I seriously do not see any purpose for those tiles that I could not do myself from thin plywood or MDF and a bit of paint

They're not completely flat, as you can see on the video. The gutters are a bit lower, the sidewalks a bit higher and there are also sculpted delimitations on the roads. Sure, you can do it yourself, but if you want to same result, it's not as simple as painting everything on a flat surface.

Like previous tiles for Necromunda, the point here is having a product ready to use directly and having a bit of relief still.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Local dollar tree has a whole bunch of these and they're perfect for AT or the new epic.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Posted from another thread. Epic scenery can be had pretty cheap it if you keep your eyes open

Glad to see terrain, but that is where having a 3D printer comes in really handy. I just need to figure out how to rescale my terrain files to look right. Plus I do really need to get a good FAT mat or something besides my fleece table covers.

Anyone know a place that talks about 3D files the correct size for epic proxies? I never really looked at epic stuff for printing, only Bolt Action minis and terrain.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Local dollar tree has a whole bunch of these and they're perfect for AT or the new epic.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Posted from another thread. Epic scenery can be had pretty cheap it if you keep your eyes open

With a little paint that road network would look great!

Multi purpose city tiles are great, actually prefer them as less 40K themed as I can use them for a lot of games.

Felt under terrain and felt rolling mat after a varnish should be enough to keep the sound down.

It’s why I keen for them even if the game ends up dead on arrival here.

So there's no terrain in the box set?
At least I've still got all my OG terrain from Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marines.

 vadersson wrote:
Glad to see terrain, but that is where having a 3D printer comes in really handy. I just need to figure out how to rescale my terrain files to look right. Plus I do really need to get a good FAT mat or something besides my fleece table covers.

Anyone know a place that talks about 3D files the correct size for epic proxies? I never really looked at epic stuff for printing, only Bolt Action minis and terrain.

GrimDark Terrain are bang on for this, they produce STLs for use with Adeptus Titanicus and their range is sizable: https://grimdarkterrain.com/

This is going to obliterate my bank account.

Even if the rules aren't great, I'll happily use the stuff in Epic 40,000.

Sarouan wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
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.

Except that Munda tiles come pre-warped, of course

Guess you didn't have luck, mine weren't. And I bought 4 boxes at that time.

Yea



I got two about a year ago and most were like this

I'm really excited about those tiles. I've been planning to make my own, but these will be so much faster to prepare and the final result will be better than I could scratchbuild. The buildings look nice too!

I'm hoping that the DropZone Commander Cityscape I already have is close enough in scale to start with (the buildings are OK for AT).

beast_gts wrote:
I'm hoping that the DropZone Commander Cityscape I already have is close enough in scale to start with (the buildings are OK for AT).

Yep, this looks great.

Can confirm

Can also confirm. The cardboard tiles are a little fiddly and the way the fold up buildings are designed with little roof lips is bad and the buildings are hard to get square, but for the price it's still a lot of useful stuff.

Y'know, the two hounds in that launch set will really shine with that new terrain, strutting their stuff like its a saturday night.

It would be just another tuesday morning had it been super heavies...

But being serious, I'd guess one pack of tiles would just enough to get away with a very small game. Very interested in the ruins...

At first glance, I thought the tiles would be able to pull double duty as massive cities for epic and cramped alleyways for 40k, but I think there's just too much detail.
Which is good.
But also not what I thought - and now that the idea is in my head, I'm considering making something on my own that can work for multiple scales.

Terrain is looking lovely.

I’ve built some of the stuff from AT in the past. And whilst easy enough to work with? You get a lot of bits and bobs, so it’s quite time consuming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, any stabs in the dark as to what we might be seeing tomorrow models wise?

I’m gonna bet…..Rhinos and Landraiders.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Also, any stabs in the dark as to what we might be seeing tomorrow models wise?

I’m gonna bet…..Rhinos and Landraiders.

Pretty sure they said this week is Solar Auxillia, so given today's article I'm going with Baneblade & friends.

SamusDrake wrote:
But being serious, I'd guess one pack of tiles would just enough to get away with a very small game. Very interested in the ruins...

I went from being interested in the tiles to "meh" pretty quickly, in part because of the size. 6 tiles only gets a 36x24 board.

Epic traditionally is played on the same sized board that you'd play a full game of 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. So either their rules rewrite is going to mean the game is more appropriate on a small board, or it's going to feel very cramped.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
But being serious, I'd guess one pack of tiles would just enough to get away with a very small game. Very interested in the ruins...

I went from being interested in the tiles to "meh" pretty quickly, in part because of the size. 6 tiles only gets a 36x24 board.

Epic traditionally is played on the same sized board that you'd play a full game of 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. So either their rules rewrite is going to mean the game is more appropriate on a small board, or it's going to feel very cramped.

Or the game will play at 3x2, 4x3, and 6x4 boards at different point levels.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
But being serious, I'd guess one pack of tiles would just enough to get away with a very small game. Very interested in the ruins...

I went from being interested in the tiles to "meh" pretty quickly, in part because of the size. 6 tiles only gets a 36x24 board.

Epic traditionally is played on the same sized board that you'd play a full game of 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. So either their rules rewrite is going to mean the game is more appropriate on a small board, or it's going to feel very cramped.

I plan to just buy four sets of the tiles so I can cover a 6'X4' table.

 xttz wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
But being serious, I'd guess one pack of tiles would just enough to get away with a very small game. Very interested in the ruins...

I went from being interested in the tiles to "meh" pretty quickly, in part because of the size. 6 tiles only gets a 36x24 board.

Epic traditionally is played on the same sized board that you'd play a full game of 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. So either their rules rewrite is going to mean the game is more appropriate on a small board, or it's going to feel very cramped.

Or the game will play at 3x2, 4x3, and 6x4 boards at different point levels.

Honestly? I’m doubtful. We may see 40k’s recommended 5x3, but as Epic really relies on clever movement and manoeuvres, I think I’d only want to play on a 6x4. Yes that does mean I’m potentially on the hook for four of these.

Given that the launch set contains only a small army, then split into two micro armies for a two player game, then 2"x3" sounds about right.

 Pariah Press wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
But being serious, I'd guess one pack of tiles would just enough to get away with a very small game. Very interested in the ruins...

I went from being interested in the tiles to "meh" pretty quickly, in part because of the size. 6 tiles only gets a 36x24 board.

Epic traditionally is played on the same sized board that you'd play a full game of 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. So either their rules rewrite is going to mean the game is more appropriate on a small board, or it's going to feel very cramped.

I plan to just buy four sets of the tiles so I can cover a 6'X4' table.

Here's hoping that doesn't wind up being a $200 investment.

I have zero interest in AT and even less in nuEpic... but man that terrain is nice.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Pariah Press wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
But being serious, I'd guess one pack of tiles would just enough to get away with a very small game. Very interested in the ruins...

I went from being interested in the tiles to "meh" pretty quickly, in part because of the size. 6 tiles only gets a 36x24 board.

Epic traditionally is played on the same sized board that you'd play a full game of 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. So either their rules rewrite is going to mean the game is more appropriate on a small board, or it's going to feel very cramped.

I plan to just buy four sets of the tiles so I can cover a 6'X4' table.

Here's hoping that doesn't wind up being a $200 investment.

It could be a lot more than that. A set of four 12"X12" Zone Mortalis tiles costs $80 on GW's website.

 Pariah Press wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Pariah Press wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
But being serious, I'd guess one pack of tiles would just enough to get away with a very small game. Very interested in the ruins...

I went from being interested in the tiles to "meh" pretty quickly, in part because of the size. 6 tiles only gets a 36x24 board.

Epic traditionally is played on the same sized board that you'd play a full game of 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. So either their rules rewrite is going to mean the game is more appropriate on a small board, or it's going to feel very cramped.

I plan to just buy four sets of the tiles so I can cover a 6'X4' table.

Here's hoping that doesn't wind up being a $200 investment.

It could be a lot more than that. A set of four 12"X12" Zone Mortalis tiles costs $80 on GW's website.

Oh yeah. Well, that's not good. Maybe these will be cheaper? ...god, I hope they are cheaper.

Well there's 6 tiles per box, rather than 4, so "cheaper" isn't the word I'd use.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I have zero interest in AT and even less in nuEpic... but man that terrain is nice.

It certainly is. I'm a sucker for nice terrain, although WH40k terrain takes up a hell of a lot of storage space. There is a lot of attraction to being able to recreate a sizable city. I have been kind of lukewarm about nu-Epic, but these terrain photos are luring me in. As is that Baneblade model - like the Epic Leman Russ, the design is quite different (and superior) to the WH40k version.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well there's 6 tiles per box, rather than 4, so "cheaper" isn't the word I'd use.

This is true, but they also appear to be much thinner and far less detailed. I suppose you get what you pay for. I'll be buying a neoprene mat this time around. The rest of you have fun missing out on the 30 second pre-order window.

 Breotan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well there's 6 tiles per box, rather than 4, so "cheaper" isn't the word I'd use.

This is true, but they also appear to be much thinner and far less detailed. I suppose you get what you pay for. I'll be buying a neoprene mat this time around. The rest of you have fun missing out on the 30 second pre-order window.

No doubt with a limit of 1 per customer. Then a 6 month wait (and some praying) for them to come back in stock so you can play a larger game.

Will definitely be picking up a couple of sets of the ruins, got plenty of the regular buildings (two Grandmaster sets plus the large bundle box they did on release of AT and a couple of sets of spires). Also tempted by the tiles, kind of hoping they release after the starter set though, just to get an idea of how many would be needed, though maybe the recommended table size will leak before the release.

Looking at the scenery boxes, looks like we get, one with the ruins, one small box of regular buildings, one small box of buildings plus spires, and a large box which is basically a bundle of 4 of the smaller boxes in some combination.

...and while I know we've already seen one example of an LI Rhino, they feature prominantly in the new terrain video.

Yeah, I'm going to be a sucker for the new tiles. A little creativity and you can make sump rivers or elevation out of them.

Quite surprised at some of the reactions to the tiles and that having to make a 6 x 4 board using only those would put you off playing the New Epic.

You don't have to do anything like that. In fact, I think the battlefield looks better at this scale having a mix of natural surfaces and built up areas. That way you can have distinct city zones, industrial areas, but also forests, rivers, outposts and things of that nature.

Extreme example on a massive 12 x 4 board, but this is to give an idea. I got a cheap 3x4 gaming mat (very thin one) with cityscape design, cut out into block or road shapes, and then mounted on some cork backing. It was a very cheap way to do and didn't take very much time, and I think looks fine at this scale.

 Pacific wrote:

Extreme example

That board looks great!

Perhaps I'll get a set of tiles in the future. That kind of table layout is a good solution to get tiles to work with my martian-style game mat and Titan basing. Plus city tiles seem like a solid way to mount some of my unused industrial sector scatter terrain.

Same. All terrain is just more funky bits to throw into the merry mix of ideas, no need to be tied down into one set. A handful of 12" squares is excellent for Epic purposes with a smattering of roads and buildings and can fit nicely into deserts, grassy fields or even coastal features.

Like this air control tower turned artillery park.



Or these facilities getting stomped by a lot of titans.

 xttz wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
But being serious, I'd guess one pack of tiles would just enough to get away with a very small game. Very interested in the ruins...

I went from being interested in the tiles to "meh" pretty quickly, in part because of the size. 6 tiles only gets a 36x24 board.

Epic traditionally is played on the same sized board that you'd play a full game of 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. So either their rules rewrite is going to mean the game is more appropriate on a small board, or it's going to feel very cramped.

Or the game will play at 3x2, 4x3, and 6x4 boards at different point levels.

3x2 seems too small to me for any sort of game. 3' across the front would mean armies start only 2' apart, which seems absurdly close. 2' across the front would mean, well, only 2' to "flank" enemies.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
Quite surprised at some of the reactions to the tiles and that having to make a 6 x 4 board using only those would put you off playing the New Epic.

It hasn't put me off playing new Epic so much as not terribly interested in buying the boards... though I do wonder if they've butchered the rules to make it playable on tiny boards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pariah Press wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
But being serious, I'd guess one pack of tiles would just enough to get away with a very small game. Very interested in the ruins...

I went from being interested in the tiles to "meh" pretty quickly, in part because of the size. 6 tiles only gets a 36x24 board.

Epic traditionally is played on the same sized board that you'd play a full game of 40k or Warhammer Fantasy. So either their rules rewrite is going to mean the game is more appropriate on a small board, or it's going to feel very cramped.

I plan to just buy four sets of the tiles so I can cover a 6'X4' table.

Even ignoring the likely insane price of such an endeavour, that's going to be a lot of duplication. From the picture it looks like there's only 3 unique tiles duplicated to make a set of 6. So buying 4 sets means you'll have 8 of each tile.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Even ignoring the likely insane price of such an endeavour, that's going to be a lot of duplication. From the picture it looks like there's only 3 unique tiles duplicated to make a set of 6. So buying 4 sets means you'll have 8 of each tile.

Between the L-shaped tile shown in the video, plus the box having a very specific "city road tiles" description I suspect that there will be more versions released in future. Anyone planning to fill a full 6x4 board on day one might want to think about holding on a few weeks.

 xttz wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Even ignoring the likely insane price of such an endeavour, that's going to be a lot of duplication. From the picture it looks like there's only 3 unique tiles duplicated to make a set of 6. So buying 4 sets means you'll have 8 of each tile.

Between the L-shaped tile shown in the video, plus the box having a very specific "city road tiles" description I suspect that there will be more versions released in future. Anyone planning to fill a full 6x4 board on day one might want to think about holding on a few weeks.

Yeah, makes sense. I watched the video again and it does look like there's more than 3 unique tiles (seems there's 2 different crossroads), so perhaps the image on WarCom was just hacked together rather than an actual representation of what's in the box, or maybe we'll get more sets down the road.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah, makes sense. I watched the video again and it does look like there's more than 3 unique tiles (seems there's 2 different crossroads), so perhaps the image on WarCom was just hacked together rather than an actual representation of what's in the box, or maybe we'll get more sets down the road.

Although the article also lists the contents as two straight roads, two T-junctions, and two crossroads, so if there are other designs coming then I guess they will be a separate later release. Kind of think if they were going to do a second set that they would go for something a bit different, but potentially I guess it could be an L-section, a section with no roads and something else, dead end, roundabout or something.

I have zero interest in Legions but I've been waiting for the Civitas buildings to be re-released so I can go crazy and build a 6 ft tall hive tower

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/27/heresy-thursday-teasing-a-trio-of-tiny-tanks/







Confirms that Rhinos come as a box of 10. Presumably the super-heavies are sold two at a time.

We now have the exact units from the stat leak so it could very well be true.

Will be interesting for next weeks reveal as if that is another SA/SM kit that leak is fake but if its more plastic titanicus stuff that would make the leak pretty trustworthy

Also, I notice it says that the Rhino's come in packs of 10, which maybe suggests that they won't be too pricey.

edit - Oh, I see that was already mentioned. But guess maybe it's going to be Transports in 10's, battle tanks in 3's and Heavies\Superheavies in 2's, at I would imagine probably a similar price each.

If Rhinos are 10 to a box, that presumes 5 per sprue plus options. Predators are 3 to a sprue since turrets and sponsons take up space. Sicarans are 2 to a sprue with turret options and sponsons. Kratos is 1 per sprue?

Id guess from there There will be a Spartan that is 1 per sprue, with extra space to convert it to Cerberus/Typhon, and Land Raiders as 2 per sprue, since they are bigger than sicarans but lack turrets. Felblade/Glaive would also be logical as another 1 per sprue kit.

On SA side, the Russ is 3 per sprue, and Malcador in 2 per sprue, with the baneblade as 1 per sprue presumably.

Aurox would be the rhino equivalent so kit of 10, sprues of 5. Dracosian would be the heavy transport, so 2 per sprue. There is also the Carnodon and Basilisk which both ought to be 3 per sprue. And if the Felblade comes out, I could see SA getting the Stormhammer as an equivalent.

Beautiful tiny tanks!

I hope I was not only one to notice Arvus?

 Sotahullu wrote:


I hope I was not only one to notice Arvus?

Sadly looks identical to the resin version to me

All excellent!

 Matrindur wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:


I hope I was not only one to notice Arvus?

Sadly looks identical to the resin version to me

It probably is the resin version. Not everything is going to plastic right away. I believe most is just repackaged for now. The good thing is that there is no odd looking flight stand extension.

10 Rhinos to a box is a good sign.

Now waiting for the Forge World resin legion door sets for the Tiny Rhino because who doesn’t want to assemble models with toothpicks and tweezers?

Those tanks look lovely.

2 super heavies indicates a departure from the SM/2nd rules, as they were always deployed in companies of 3.

I wonder if this means it will have a 'bolt on' detachment style force chart, as with Epic 40k and Epic Armageddon.

What they've shown of this looks pretty good so far, those tiny Baneblades look great. Just makes me more disappointed its Horus Heresy only and not 40k though.

 Pacific wrote:
Those tanks look lovely.

2 super heavies indicates a departure from the SM/2nd rules, as they were always deployed in companies of 3.

I wonder if this means it will have a 'bolt on' detachment style force chart, as with Epic 40k and Epic Armageddon.

Companies were 3, but could also be Detachments of 1?

Super happy with sight of these. But wouldn’t have said no to a box count for the Kratos and Baneblades. Yes I think it probably is going to be. 2 per box. But only because “pictures are two and nice even number”. Which we should balance against the Rhinos coming in 10’s (a very nice count, for me).

Basically I’m like Johnny 5, craving all the input.

 Pacific wrote:
2 super heavies indicates a departure from the SM/2nd rules, as they were always deployed in companies of 3.

The article says they "come in detachments of up to six", so it looks like there's some flexibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matrindur wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
I hope I was not only one to notice Arvus?

Sadly looks identical to the resin version to me

Yeah, I'm hopeful they're plastic but I'm not holding my breath...

Will we see chimeras for Solar Aux or will they likely use rhinos as well?

All the detachment data was listed as “up to”. I wonder if that means detachments are expandable, like you can have 2, 4, or 6 of a unit in a detachment.

Almost certainly neither. In 28mm they have the Dracosan

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Solar-Auxilia-Dracosan-Armoured-Transport

 Stormonu wrote:
Will we see chimeras for Solar Aux or will they likely use rhinos as well?

They have the Aurox transport. And as Mad Doc Grotsnik pointed out, the Dracosan.

No Shadowswords or Stormblades yet - I guess they'll roll those out when to repackaged titans start to appear.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
No Shadowswords or Stormblades yet - I guess they'll roll those out when to repackaged titans start to appear.

Quite possibly another launch weekend offering,

Forget about Baneblades, Shadowswords, Stormblades, and Hellhammers, where the hell is the Stormhammer - you know, the only Baneblade chassis vehicle that seems to explicity be a Heresy-only era variant?

Almost certainly on its way. And for my money, if I do field Solar Auxilia? There’ll be no such thing as Too Many Stormhammers.

 vadersson wrote:
All the detachment data was listed as “up to”. I wonder if that means detachments are expandable, like you can have 2, 4, or 6 of a unit in a detachment.

Or maybb 3 and 6? Gw seems to be fond of 2 boxes=max lately.

Probably not but one can hope.

The bigger AI planes were two to a box from a sprue each. Wouldn't be surprised if Baneblades were similar.

As long as they don't do what they did with Old Epic which was make detachments of 3 and sell them in packs of 2..

That was enough to make teenage me stamp his feet and head off to discover Gurls.

One box, one detachment is the minimum I’d be happy with. And outside of FW, that’s how Epic had traditionally done it. For the most part.

There were (very) odd exceptions, such as the Stompas set coming with 12 Terminators, which was two and a bit stands, for a unit which I think was four stands, but everything else was One Blister = One Unit, with the plastic boxed sets of course providing a good deal more.

And this should ideally extend to fielding larger units. So Super Heavies? Ideally 2, 4, 6 with two to a box, or 3, 6 with three to a box. Basically no models left gathering dust until I buy another box.

 Arbitrator wrote:
The bigger AI planes were two to a box from a sprue each. Wouldn't be surprised if Baneblades were similar.

Though air planes usually pretty big.

But yeah 2 likely. But one can hope for more

 Skinflint Games wrote:
As long as they don't do what they did with Old Epic which was make detachments of 3 and sell them in packs of 2..

That was enough to make teenage me stamp his feet and head off to discover Gurls.

True story. I recall picking up some of the original 'sensor dome on a stick' Manticores, only to realize I didn't have enough for a support card. The only rational answer was to buy 6 of the things. Honestly, what was the function of anything below Company level with Imperial Guard (barring Deathstrikes which only came as frankly abusive support cards)?

This probably explains why I had 20,000 pts each of Guard, Eldar and Squats, and discovered dating...a bit later.

Needlessly hyped about Legions, I dearly hope we can deploy large Solar Auxilia companies and ideally a three-Reaver battlegroup in support. The best part is that I can introduce my son to it, and rely on his superior vision to paint the tricky bits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum to the above. There's penty of material out there to cover in model releases, but I would love a return to Gorgon, Mole and Hellbore companies; as assault with all three was a sight to behold.

Though possibly now Ordinatus Aktaeus is nearer to Mole size and the Terrax Assault drill is for everyone.

the artillery that came two in a pack used to deploy in pairs, IIRC 2nd edition moved them to threes

Am I misremembering some of the blister packs then? I mean, it’s been thick end of 30 years, so the answer is quite likely yes!

Yes, the mistake I made was buying old stock in a 'Titans' branded blister rather then than 'Epic' branded ones for SM2 (they changed them again at Titan Legions with the litttle painted model insert - good in theory but meant you couldn'y easily see which metal variants you were getting).
On the plus side I'm pretty certain that when they were packed in Blisters you could get 2 Warhounds for £3.99. This would have been very early 90s. Grumble, grumble, cost of living crisis, inflation...

I'm not really interested in the game itself but my little 6mm Praetorian Guard project may end up equipped with some Superheavies.

 alphaecho wrote:


I'm not really interested in the game itself but my little 6mm Praetorian Guard project may end up equipped with some Superheavies.

Pretty nice! Wakes Emporium? I'll be doing some not Vostroyans myself, from Ankylo

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Am I misremembering some of the blister packs then? I mean, it’s been thick end of 30 years, so the answer is quite likely yes!

Very (very) hazy memory here, but weren't the super-heavies initially one per blister pack?

Later on I remember a box-set of the fourth, newer SH they released (one with missiles on it - Storm Blade?) that was three in a pack.

Incidentally, don't forget the free little Commissar you got with each IG
For our 30K/Great Crusade games, we subbed in a 'counts as Commissar' Field Police unit (which fit the setting more than a Commissar)

 Sotahullu wrote:


I hope I was not only one to notice Arvus?

Notice the cover/missing of the Tabs.

 Pacific wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Am I misremembering some of the blister packs then? I mean, it’s been thick end of 30 years, so the answer is quite likely yes!

Very (very) hazy memory here, but weren't the super-heavies initially one per blister pack?

Later on I remember a box-set of the fourth, newer SH they released (one with missiles on it - Storm Blade?) that was three in a pack.

Incidentally, don't forget the free little Commissar you got with each IG
For our 30K/Great Crusade games, we subbed in a 'counts as Commissar' Field Police unit (which fit the setting more than a Commissar)

Super Heavies definitely were, but you could also field single Super Heavies as Detachment Cards. Certainly that was true of the Imperial ones. I think Eldar Tempests were two to a card, and may have come two to a blister?

 xttz wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/27/heresy-thursday-teasing-a-trio-of-tiny-tanks/







Confirms that Rhinos come as a box of 10. Presumably the super-heavies are sold two at a time.

Fantastic! However the city itself will be ordered from Dropzone Commander as it will be bargain compared to GW prices.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Am I misremembering some of the blister packs then? I mean, it’s been thick end of 30 years, so the answer is quite likely yes!

Very (very) hazy memory here, but weren't the super-heavies initially one per blister pack?

Later on I remember a box-set of the fourth, newer SH they released (one with missiles on it - Storm Blade?) that was three in a pack.

Incidentally, don't forget the free little Commissar you got with each IG
For our 30K/Great Crusade games, we subbed in a 'counts as Commissar' Field Police unit (which fit the setting more than a Commissar)

Super Heavies definitely were, but you could also field single Super Heavies as Detachment Cards. Certainly that was true of the Imperial ones. I think Eldar Tempests were two to a card, and may have come two to a blister?

Just checked army cards (thank you Epic Facebook Group) and they were three per squadron or you could take a Host of 6.

Incidentally, I have PDFs of the old 2nd ed cards & books so if anyone wants copies PM me

 Pacific wrote:
Quite surprised at some of the reactions to the tiles and that having to make a 6 x 4 board using only those would put you off playing the New Epic.

You don't have to do anything like that. In fact, I think the battlefield looks better at this scale having a mix of natural surfaces and built up areas. That way you can have distinct city zones, industrial areas, but also forests, rivers, outposts and things of that nature.

I agree with this. I quite frequently think about Carl Woodrows Epic scale Realm of Battle board, which utilised the Epic Forge World range to great effect, including the roads. Shows that you don't need to entirely cover your board with one type of terrain.

I've attached a picture of his board.

 Skinflint Games wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Am I misremembering some of the blister packs then? I mean, it’s been thick end of 30 years, so the answer is quite likely yes!

Very (very) hazy memory here, but weren't the super-heavies initially one per blister pack?

Later on I remember a box-set of the fourth, newer SH they released (one with missiles on it - Storm Blade?) that was three in a pack.

Incidentally, don't forget the free little Commissar you got with each IG
For our 30K/Great Crusade games, we subbed in a 'counts as Commissar' Field Police unit (which fit the setting more than a Commissar)

Super Heavies definitely were, but you could also field single Super Heavies as Detachment Cards. Certainly that was true of the Imperial ones. I think Eldar Tempests were two to a card, and may have come two to a blister?

Just checked army cards (thank you Epic Facebook Group) and they were three per squadron or you could take a Host of 6.

Incidentally, I have PDFs of the old 2nd ed cards & books so if anyone wants copies PM me

Because this is doing my head in due to a family history of dementia, I’m gonna to have to check my cards when I get in. I swear Super Heavies (outside of Titan Legions, which I don’t currently own) were Detachments of 1, Companies of 3. And I want to rule out the cards you sourced aren’t fan created, making us both right!

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Now waiting for the Forge World resin legion door sets for the Tiny Rhino because who doesn’t want to assemble models with toothpicks and tweezers?

Anyone else remember the tiny multi-part Epic-scale Space Marines Forge World sold for 2 quid (each) at events only? Magnifying glass optional.

(Honestly, I'd totally buy resin Legion doors for tanks at Epic scale)

MrHobbles wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Now waiting for the Forge World resin legion door sets for the Tiny Rhino because who doesn’t want to assemble models with toothpicks and tweezers?

Anyone else remember the tiny multi-part Epic-scale Space Marines Forge World sold for 2 quid (each) at events only? Magnifying glass optional.

(Honestly, I'd totally buy resin Legion doors for tanks at Epic scale)

Fun fact: Around Imperial Armour 4, Forgeworld had a full lineup of Epic Scale Tactical, Assault and Devastator Resin Space Marines ready for production until they had a colossal moulding mishap that trashed their Epic Scale master sculpts of the Tyranids for Epic. Only the harridan survived. There's a few pictures floating around of the Resins. Evil and Chaos on the Tactical Command forums used to have several painted units years ago...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Skinflint Games wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Am I misremembering some of the blister packs then? I mean, it’s been thick end of 30 years, so the answer is quite likely yes!

Very (very) hazy memory here, but weren't the super-heavies initially one per blister pack?

Later on I remember a box-set of the fourth, newer SH they released (one with missiles on it - Storm Blade?) that was three in a pack.

Incidentally, don't forget the free little Commissar you got with each IG
For our 30K/Great Crusade games, we subbed in a 'counts as Commissar' Field Police unit (which fit the setting more than a Commissar)

Super Heavies definitely were, but you could also field single Super Heavies as Detachment Cards. Certainly that was true of the Imperial ones. I think Eldar Tempests were two to a card, and may have come two to a blister?

Just checked army cards (thank you Epic Facebook Group) and they were three per squadron or you could take a Host of 6.

Incidentally, I have PDFs of the old 2nd ed cards & books so if anyone wants copies PM me

Because this is doing my head in due to a family history of dementia, I’m gonna to have to check my cards when I get in. I swear Super Heavies (outside of Titan Legions, which I don’t currently own) were Detachments of 1, Companies of 3. And I want to rule out the cards you sourced aren’t fan created, making us both right!

Was about to whizz the PDF over to you on a PM but Dakka won't let me attach things The Imperial superheavy stuff was definitely companies of 3, detachments of 1 (I'm scratchbuilding my way through the Barbarius Prime army... slowly...)

Here's the current community stuff, if you're interested in looking at numbers.

I'm betting it won't be far from this, unless GW throws the baby out with the bathwater.

http://adam77.github.io/snapfire/war/index.html

 vadersson wrote:
All the detachment data was listed as “up to”. I wonder if that means detachments are expandable, like you can have 2, 4, or 6 of a unit in a detachment.

I'm betting they have learned a thing or two from Titanicus Knight banners - you buy a minimum and then can add on additional units.

...and I'm also waiting for the set(s) of Army Builder cards, especially given the card sets we're seeing for 40K right now.

Army Builder cards, oh goody, more stuff for them to print incorrectly or just invalidate a week after launch with errata.

what would be ideal is GW doing something like Catalyst have done with Battletech Alpha Strike where you can get the cards for anything from their site to download in printer friendly format

Thanks to all who posted lovely pictures of Epic terrain! You've talked me down from buying four sets of tiles to cover the entire table with them.

leopard wrote:
...what would be ideal is GW doing something like Catalyst have done with Battletech Alpha Strike where you can get the cards for anything from their site to download in printer friendly format

GW did do this with Titanicus after the Command Terminals (needed for the game) started going out of print.

We'll just have to see how they treat LI...

MrHobbles wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Quite surprised at some of the reactions to the tiles and that having to make a 6 x 4 board using only those would put you off playing the New Epic.

You don't have to do anything like that. In fact, I think the battlefield looks better at this scale having a mix of natural surfaces and built up areas. That way you can have distinct city zones, industrial areas, but also forests, rivers, outposts and things of that nature.

I agree with this. I quite frequently think about Carl Woodrows Epic scale Realm of Battle board, which utilised the Epic Forge World range to great effect, including the roads. Shows that you don't need to entirely cover your board with one type of terrain.

I've attached a picture of his board.

These have transition pieces. New tiles presumably don't.

I would posit that to anyone with the hobby skill and supplies required to actually nicely transition the plastic road tiles into a more natural foundation the plastic tiles would be unnecessary.

 lord_blackfang wrote:


These have transition pieces. New tiles presumably don't.

I would posit that to anyone with the hobby skill and supplies required to actually nicely transition the plastic road tiles into a more natural foundation the plastic tiles would be unnecessary.

Of course it's an exceptionally well made and beautiful gaming board, and not all of us have the skills to make something like that with these tiles, but regardless, the point remains as an example. The whole board does not need to be an urban built up area.

"Exceptionally well made", good lord.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Because this is doing my head in due to a family history of dementia, I’m gonna to have to check my cards when I get in. I swear Super Heavies (outside of Titan Legions, which I don’t currently own) were Detachments of 1, Companies of 3. And I want to rule out the cards you sourced aren’t fan created, making us both right!

You are entirely correct, can still picture buying the Armies of the Imperium card box from Wonderworld hobbies in Bournemouth.

https://www.picclickimg.com/ivQAAOSwDF1kfIpT/Epic-40k-Space-Marine-Imperial-Guard-Army-Cards.webp" border="0" />

Terrain-wise, historically in the GW books themselves and the WD battle reports it was almost always a mix of grassland and city areas. You could then end up with a bit of a better tactical description of land speeders skirting woods or units claiming an objective on a hill top.

Obviously now though GW has those tiles to sell, and so I suspect all of the battlefield studio shots we see will be of a city fight-type battlefield.

 Pacific wrote:

Obviously now though GW has those tiles to sell, and so I suspect all of the battlefield studio shots we see will be of a city fight-type battlefield.

It has more to do with selling their city terrain boxes. Sure, you can mix them with grassland terrain, but let's be honest : modern cities don't just have roads ending in wilderland, not even talking about futuristic ones meant to be huge megalopolises spreading on whole continents.

Also makes sense that cities are more strategic points to capture in a war rather than wilderlands with a few buildings here and there. Especially for Epic scale armies.

 Laemos wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:


I hope I was not only one to notice Arvus?

Sadly looks identical to the resin version to me

It probably is the resin version. Not everything is going to plastic right away. I believe most is just repackaged for now. The good thing is that there is no odd looking flight stand extension.

I’m pretty sure the flight stand extension is specifically part of the Thunderhawk kit to allow other planes to stand near it because it’s so big.

MrHobbles wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Quite surprised at some of the reactions to the tiles and that having to make a 6 x 4 board using only those would put you off playing the New Epic.

You don't have to do anything like that. In fact, I think the battlefield looks better at this scale having a mix of natural surfaces and built up areas. That way you can have distinct city zones, industrial areas, but also forests, rivers, outposts and things of that nature.

I agree with this. I quite frequently think about Carl Woodrows Epic scale Realm of Battle board, which utilised the Epic Forge World range to great effect, including the roads. Shows that you don't need to entirely cover your board with one type of terrain.

I've attached a picture of his board.

Yeah, this looks a bit like what I have in mind for my terrain.. RoB + scatter terrain in the form of buildings etc. I do want some of those modular buildings though, since they can be "destroyed", always dreamed about having something like that in ye olde days..

Size comparisons from WarCom.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Size comparisons from WarCom.

Spoiler:

Sigh... time to mute this thread for the next couple pages of scale discussion, i guess...

IMHO it's not too bad, the tanks are a lot more massive in side-by-side comparison, but i think it will not be too apparent on the actual tabletop unless you put them literally next to each other. The titans are another affair, but then the old metal ones have been universally panned for being wildly out of scale and much too small even if you take the lower-end estimates from the background as their canon size, so the new ones are more suitable in my opinion.

Nice to see the lineage of the line. I see they've found some of those ancient models in storage and dug them out for a nice photo. I remember seeing those appearing in books and articles back in the day...

Edit: The old metal Leman Russ they pictured is an unreleased piece that had stowage sculpted on. The two Leman Russ's they said are in plastic are actually resin FW pieces...

For vehicles it only really seems to get very noticeable at the super-heavy category, and even then mounting them on a base to increase the footprint and the height could solve that.

 zedmeister wrote:
The two Leman Russ's they said are in plastic are actually resin FW pieces...

Well they did say they think they are plastic

I'd play against anyone using the old models, but on the condition that they have to declare their forces as Space Hobbits!

Mismatched forces are going to look pretty awkward.

For vehicles and titans the upscale is definitely worth it but new infantry looks worse to me than the little ancient blobs, it's lanky and weirdly posed (just look at the frontmost Cataphractii in the classic "I need to pee" anime pose). Strips of five also look waaay better than round bases here.

So infantry wise I think it's fair to say the new game is, in fact, 8mm and not 6mm. Unless I missed a lore snippet about the height/size of solar auxilia, they should be the height of the average human, and they appear about 2mm taller than what should be 6mm troops from the old game. The non superheavy vehicles are also scaling out about 30% larger than the originals which fits the pattern.

I have no dog in the race, up until now I've been in the 6mm camp as the rationale that an 8mm tall space marine meant 6mm scale made sense, but everything is clearly larger, so either old epic wasn't really 6mm or this is at a larger scale. Those space marines are also almost assuredly taller than 8mm themselves, which makes me wonder if titans a d such aren't actually slightly off scale.

I'm sure there's some folks really invested in the game continuing to be 6mm for whatever reason that want to continue the debate, share me - I don't care abd you won't change my mind unless you get your hands on a mini and run it through some calipers that show solar auxilia standing 6mm tall.

 Matrindur wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
The two Leman Russ's they said are in plastic are actually resin FW pieces...

Well they did say they think they are plastic

They also called the Stormblade a Shadowsword.

Ignoring the scale thing: are those Charonite Ogryns entirely new? Or is this just the first time we’ve seen them zoomed in lie that?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
The two Leman Russ's they said are in plastic are actually resin FW pieces...

Well they did say they think they are plastic

They also called the Stormblade a Shadowsword.

Nah, that’s just what the shadow sword looked like back then, I’m pretty sure. It’s got the same elongated barrel in the fixed mount with the midpoint support/stabiliser.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Ignoring the scale thing: are those Charonite Ogryns entirely new? Or is this just the first time we’ve seen them zoomed in lie that?

Nope, they were in the big army picture, in the back by the sentinels.

Nathinho wrote:
I'd play against anyone using the old models, but on the condition that they have to declare their forces as Space Hobbits!

Nice. That's not passive aggressive at all

Personally I don't really see a problem with anything but the titans, which always were entirely too small.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
The two Leman Russ's they said are in plastic are actually resin FW pieces...

Well they did say they think they are plastic

They also called the Stormblade a Shadowsword.

It's a sloppy article all around

Mr_Rose wrote:Ignoring the scale thing: are those Charonite Ogryns entirely new? Or is this just the first time we’ve seen them zoomed in lie that?

The Charonites are in the starter box and have been shown several times before. Also, the comparison with 'normal' Ogryns is a bit disingenious, the FW charonites are huge and much larger than 28mm-scale Ogryns:

 Albertorius wrote:

Nathinho wrote:
I'd play against anyone using the old models, but on the condition that they have to declare their forces as Space Hobbits!

Nice. That's not passive aggressive at all

Personally I don't really see a problem with anything but the titans, which always were entirely too small.

The only problem I see that will occur will be hiding vehicles in cover. Smaller vehicles will be easier to hide. Apart from that, there shouldn't be too many other problems, though I do think the size difference will be very noticeable (a lot more than people think). But if the game allows people to use their old models then that's good for everyone, as those of starting from scratch will have ready made opponents.

Ok yeah those guys are huge. No wonder they make the previous gen of epics look like they weren’t trying. That said, aren’t they ‘borged and ‘roided out the wazoo?

Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Ignoring the scale thing: are those Charonite Ogryns entirely new? Or is this just the first time we’ve seen them zoomed in lie that?

Nope, they were in the big army picture, in the back by the sentinels.

GW using older resin and/or 3d printed for pictures is hardly a new thing

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Ok yeah those guys are huge. No wonder they make the previous gen of epics look like they weren’t trying. That said, aren’t they ‘borged and ‘roided out the wazoo?

Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

The Charonite ogryn is standing on some rubble, and wearing a bulky pressure suit as well, so is not really that much bigger than the plastic ogryn.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Size comparisons from WarCom.

Spoiler:

Sigh... time to mute this thread for the next couple pages of scale discussion, i guess...

IMHO it's not too bad, the tanks are a lot more massive in side-by-side comparison, but i think it will not be too apparent on the actual tabletop unless you put them literally next to each other. The titans are another affair, but then the old metal ones have been universally panned for being wildly out of scale and much too small even if you take the lower-end estimates from the background as their canon size, so the new ones are more suitable in my opinion.

Yes me too, lol.

I'll just say, as someone that uses GW originals, Vanguard proxies and newer/bigger 3D prints, when they are at arms length on the tabletop, and not in front of a macro lense, for the infantry and tanks at least it is not that noticeable. This is something any historical gamer has been doing for decades, which is having disparate miniature ranges in one army from different manufacturers, and it's very rare that they all line up exactly. I wouldn't mount these new guys on the same base as the classics, and indeed for the titans it is very noticeable, but otherwise I can not sympathise at all with some of the (thankfully very few) people in the FB groups talking about dumping their existing armies and replacing it all with new.

huh the most surprising to me is the leman russ. the bane blade seems like it got a lot bigger but that's because they only showed it next to original space marine era baneblades. here is on of those next to a forgeworld bane blade from the Armageddon era from my personal collection.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Size comparisons from WarCom.

Spoiler:

Sigh... time to mute this thread for the next couple pages of scale discussion, i guess...

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a twist discussing a scale in a thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale Hell, GW themselves have now done 2 articles dedicated to the scale (aside from it being mentioned casually in basically every article).

We have to put up with Tyranid news discussion broken up across 2 threads, and page upon page of wishlisting/speculation/"I like that"/"I don't like that"/off topic discussion on every other N&R thread, but god forbid we discuss scale for a game that's interesting almost entirely because of its scale




Automatically Appended Next Post:

lurch wrote:
huh the most surprising to me is the leman russ. the bane blade seems like it got a lot bigger but that's because they only showed it next to original space marine era baneblades. here is on of those next to a forgeworld bane blade from the Armageddon era from my personal collection.

Is the green one in the bottom of the Warcom image the same one as in your pic?

I was fully expecting everything to grow a lot compared to even the FW stuff (which itself was bigger than the old Space Marine / Epic 40k era stuff).

Aeronautica Imperialis stuff grew about 25-35% relative to its FW incarnation. I have a FW Warhound and it's tiny next to the new plastic AT Warhound, probably comes up to roughly its waist and I think the feet are about half the size.

This article has cemented me in as buying into this in a big way. I don't really think there is a huge difference in size compared to my old collection. My classic marine army isn't exactly the biggest force in my entire collection, so I could replace almost all of it with these and not really loose much of an investment.

The biggest factor for me was if the models were much bigger than say vanguard skinners & ad mech, for which I have huge forces of.

The new bases are thicker than the ones I use/intend to keep using (By a good 1mm by the looks of it) so that will also help even the collection out overall.

I think the only thing that will be noticeable different that I might have issue with is my 1997 leman russes, compared to these new ones. But I will still stick to my plan of keeping things like that as 'planetary defence forces', and use the new ones as my 'proper' imperial force. The new super-heavies are huge, but again I'm not going to loose much sleep if the handful I have are retired from gaming. I've already got some 10/15mm tank I use for my space skaven force- I really can't wait to replace these with suped-up version made from these new kits!

I'm pleased to see the rhino is in a 10 pack (shocked even) and even more pleased to see that it is about equal to the vanagurd ones (Which again, I have waaaaay to many to want to replace) but the rhino is always one of my fav Epic models to paint. The new kit is likely to be the one to bankrupt me (I've already been discussing about getting 100-200 of them back onto a table top )

As far as I'm concerned, these are all just the super soldiers of the fluff, but its still 6mm enough. I do expect to end up with way to many of the rulebooks though, that is if GW can actually get the starter set in stock 🤣

Is it just me, or are the titan bases all quite thin? I worry they'll be prone to warping being such a large planform with such a small thickness.

I wish they'd remake this guy in the new scale:



That and the Great Gargant from the Epic40k era are some of my favourite models, but they're tiny compared to what we have now.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Is it just me, or are the titan bases all quite thin? I worry they'll be prone to warping being such a large planform with such a small thickness.

I wish they'd remake this guy in the new scale:



That and the Great Gargant from the Epic40k era are some of my favourite models, but they're tiny compared to what we have now.

Yeah those new bases and the tiles are going to be prone to be curved out of the box! I will be sticking with the strip bases + 2mm plastic card (and a couple of GW 40k round bases) than risk use the new wobble bases.

I'd love to see the old chunky guy remade as well, he's very iconic for epic! This is the biggest let down with it being the HH- no great gargant kit, or new stompa. I can build my own (and intend to put together a gorkanaut with a belly full of dismounting troops/trucks. But I'd love a proper plastic gargant kit)

 Mr_Rose wrote:


Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

I wouldn't expect the 5th as we still don't know anything about how it actually plays but the 12th is possible

5th will probably be the Cerastus knight with that article yesterday together with some smaller stuff,
12th for LI launch box and other stuff
19th could be the AoS Cities launch box
26th the rest of the LI stuff
with the 2nd of September for SM/Tyranid codex
at least that's my prediction

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Ignoring the scale thing: are those Charonite Ogryns entirely new? Or is this just the first time we’ve seen them zoomed in lie that?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
The two Leman Russ's they said are in plastic are actually resin FW pieces...

Well they did say they think they are plastic

They also called the Stormblade a Shadowsword.

Nah, that’s just what the shadow sword looked like back then, I’m pretty sure. It’s got the same elongated barrel in the fixed mount with the midpoint support/stabiliser.

Nope that's a Mk 1 Stormblade (it later lost all the missiles to become, basically, a Shadowsword with a plasma blastgun). It arrived on the scene during late-stage second edition. For third and fourth edition epic it was relegated to 'counts as' a Shadowsword. So they were sort of right, but really they were wrong.

The classic Shadowsword has changed little from its original model as a space marine 'falchion' (or was it 'glaive') at the tail end of first edition before becoming an Imperial Guard super heavy tank (which were named after something Elric might carry, rather than an historical weapon).

But what's with "the older warhounds were not available?" They've photographed them before, I'm sure. Did they drop them while setting up the photoshoot?

 Pacific wrote:

Yes me too, lol.

I'll just say, as someone that uses GW originals, Vanguard proxies and newer/bigger 3D prints, when they are at arms length on the tabletop, and not in front of a macro lense, for the infantry and tanks at least it is not that noticeable. This is something any historical gamer has been doing for decades, which is having disparate miniature ranges in one army from different manufacturers, and it's very rare that they all line up exactly. I wouldn't mount these new guys on the same base as the classics, and indeed for the titans it is very noticeable, but otherwise I can not sympathise at all with some of the (thankfully very few) people in the FB groups talking about dumping their existing armies and replacing it all with new.

Definitely - I play Napoleonics and mix 15s and 18s in all of my games. As long as they aren't based together you never notice.

MarkNorfolk wrote:

Nope that's a Mk 1 Stormblade (it later lost all the missiles to become, basically, a Shadowsword with a plasma blastgun). It arrived on the scene during late-stage second edition. For third and fourth edition epic it was relegated to 'counts as' a Shadowsword. So they were sort of right, but really they were wrong.

The classic Shadowsword has changed little from its original model as a space marine 'falchion' (or was it 'glaive') at the tail end of first edition before becoming an Imperial Guard super heavy tank (which were named after something Elric might carry, rather than an historical weapon).

But what's with "the older warhounds were not available?" They've photographed them before, I'm sure. Did they drop them while setting up the photoshoot?

I assume the Warhounds belonged to someone in the studio, who wasn't around when this latest article was done. Probably a lot of the early warhammer studio range has 'wandered off' for various reasons over the years.

Regarding stormblades:

 Matrindur wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:


Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

I wouldn't expect the 5th as we still don't know anything about how it actually plays but the 12th is possible

5th will probably be the Cerastus knight with that article yesterday together with some smaller stuff,
12th for LI launch box and other stuff
19th could be the AoS Cities launch box
26th the rest of the LI stuff
with the 2nd of September for SM/Tyranid codex
at least that's my prediction

They might show the book at GenCon form 08/03 to 08/06, fill the rest of the week with rules articles and stuff, and do a preorder on the 12th.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
But what's with "the older warhounds were not available?" They've photographed them before, I'm sure. Did they drop them while setting up the photoshoot?

The studio actually sold them on in some capacity or were given to staff members who later sold them on. Currently, they're owned by Carl Woodrow (Lost Exodite, formerly Dropship Studios):

You can see some photos of them here:
https://lostexodite.com/2023/07/02/epic-is-back-and-bigger-than-ever/

chaos0xomega wrote:
So infantry wise I think it's fair to say the new game is, in fact, 8mm and not 6mm. Unless I missed a lore snippet about the height/size of solar auxilia, they should be the height of the average human, and they appear about 2mm taller than what should be 6mm troops from the old game. The non superheavy vehicles are also scaling out about 30% larger than the originals which fits the pattern.

I have no dog in the race, up until now I've been in the 6mm camp as the rationale that an 8mm tall space marine meant 6mm scale made sense, but everything is clearly larger, so either old epic wasn't really 6mm or this is at a larger scale. Those space marines are also almost assuredly taller than 8mm themselves, which makes me wonder if titans a d such aren't actually slightly off scale.

I'm sure there's some folks really invested in the game continuing to be 6mm for whatever reason that want to continue the debate, share me - I don't care abd you won't change my mind unless you get your hands on a mini and run it through some calipers that show solar auxilia standing 6mm tall.

Frankly, none of this comes as surprise to anyone being capable of dividing by four. Normal humans in 40K are about 32mm. 32/4=8.

That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Please, for the love of Christ, let the Warhammer Community post something else quickly

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk.

Titans are the same size in relation to the infantry as they are in 40K, so if that ratio is "wrong" it was already "wrong" in the 40K. Personally I wouldn't pay much attention to the titan sizes given in the background material as they've been all over the place over the years.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a twist discussing a scale in a thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale Hell, GW themselves have now done 2 articles dedicated to the scale (aside from it being mentioned casually in basically every article).

Because arguing about the numerical scale (which GW have never mentioned) has absolutely no real world applications apart from satiating a deep need to sound clever on the internet.

Nathinho wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Nathinho wrote:
I'd play against anyone using the old models, but on the condition that they have to declare their forces as Space Hobbits!

Nice. That's not passive aggressive at all

Personally I don't really see a problem with anything but the titans, which always were entirely too small.

The only problem I see that will occur will be hiding vehicles in cover. Smaller vehicles will be easier to hide. Apart from that, there shouldn't be too many other problems, though I do think the size difference will be very noticeable (a lot more than people think). But if the game allows people to use their old models then that's good for everyone, as those of starting from scratch will have ready made opponents.

Don't think I've had that problem with anything other than titans. Which, yes, are a totally different scale. But it's not usually that much of a problem even there, as long as people are not being donkey-caves.

Other than that, yeah, not disallowing people to play with the stuff they already have is a positive for everyone.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a twist discussing a scale in a thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale Hell, GW themselves have now done 2 articles dedicated to the scale (aside from it being mentioned casually in basically every article).

Because arguing about the numerical scale (which GW have never mentioned) has absolutely no real world applications

Terrain size, compatibility with existing collections, compatibility with proxies, appropriate size for 3D printing, et cetera.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a twist discussing a scale in a thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale Hell, GW themselves have now done 2 articles dedicated to the scale (aside from it being mentioned casually in basically every article).

Because arguing about the numerical scale (which GW have never mentioned) has absolutely no real world applications apart from satiating a deep need to sound clever on the internet.

GW have said that it's 1/4 40k scale, 4 is a number, therefore 1/4 40k scale is a numerical scale

As for real world application, err, people have been comparing scale of Epic models since forever and on 3D printing forums there's always discussion of how tall things should be printed, how tall actual models are, how tall these new models will be relative to old prints, people printing new models to match the new scale. Seems more relevant than most N&R threads that amount to pages upon pages of stuff tangentially or barely or not at all related to news and rumours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Humans are only significantly smaller than marines in the fluff, in the miniatures they've never (at least by my memory) been far off the height of each other.

It seems like (just as people have discussed in the past) that Epic is based on 40k scale, not fluff scale.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a twist discussing a scale in a thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale Hell, GW themselves have now done 2 articles dedicated to the scale (aside from it being mentioned casually in basically every article).

Because arguing about the numerical scale (which GW have never mentioned) has absolutely no real world applications apart from satiating a deep need to sound clever on the internet.

GW have said that it's 1/4 40k scale, 4 is a number, therefore 1/4 40k scale is a numerical scale

As for real world application, err, people have been comparing scale of Epic models since forever and on 3D printing forums there's always discussion of how tall things should be printed, how tall actual models are, how tall these new models will be relative to old prints, people printing new models to match the new scale. Seems more relevant than most N&R threads that amount to pages upon pages of stuff tangentially or barely or not at all related to news and rumours.

Actual, measured size of models has a real world application, scale (a model's relation to the real world object it represents, of which Epic has... Guardsmen I guess) is meaningless unless your digital sculpts are somehow starting at life size. By all means, measure the new models and size your prints to match. But statements such as "new Marines are Xmm tall therefore the game scale is Ymm" are utterly insane.

 Matrindur wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:


Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

I wouldn't expect the 5th as we still don't know anything about how it actually plays but the 12th is possible

5th will probably be the Cerastus knight with that article yesterday together with some smaller stuff,
12th for LI launch box and other stuff
19th could be the AoS Cities launch box
26th the rest of the LI stuff
with the 2nd of September for SM/Tyranid codex
at least that's my prediction

That’s what I meant; rules articles next week, preorder on the fifth, delivery on the twelfth. The Cerastus doesn’t need that bull-up because its rules are already available for both systems, so it could go on preorder tomorrow to arrive on the fifth.

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Makes you wonder how many 8mm tall humans would fit inside a Titan model's head...

 Malika2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Makes you wonder how many 8mm tall humans would fit inside a Titan model's head...

Chopped or mashed?

 Malika2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Makes you wonder how many 8mm tall humans would fit inside a Titan model's head...

Just as many as in the 40K version.

 Crimson wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Makes you wonder how many 8mm tall humans would fit inside a Titan model's head...

Just as many as in the 40K version.

You would think that...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I wish they'd remake this guy in the new scale:

I really wish they would make the “Armageddon” titans again. I like the chunky look. But given this is HH timeline that seems unlikely. Maybe is Epic 40K returns. Of course they look a bit Battletech-y so maybe not.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:


Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

I wouldn't expect the 5th as we still don't know anything about how it actually plays but the 12th is possible

5th will probably be the Cerastus knight with that article yesterday together with some smaller stuff,
12th for LI launch box and other stuff
19th could be the AoS Cities launch box
26th the rest of the LI stuff
with the 2nd of September for SM/Tyranid codex
at least that's my prediction

They might show the book at GenCon form 08/03 to 08/06, fill the rest of the week with rules articles and stuff, and do a preorder on the 12th.

If GW is smart they will actually run demos of LI at GenCon. Almost tempted to drive over and hit the dealer hall Sunday. I have friends going at the least. Maybe they can scope it out for me. I’ll let folks know if I hear anything from GenCon.

Interior of that Warhound model is not sculpted for purposes of containing the crew.

 Crimson wrote:
Interior of that Warhound model is not sculpted for purposes of containing the crew.

Sure, but look at the sizes still makes it a tricky one.

 Malika2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Interior of that Warhound model is not sculpted for purposes of containing the crew.

Sure, but look at the sizes still makes it a tricky one.

The picture with 3 pilots abreast is the Reaver, the Warhound seats 2 side by side with not a lot of spare room, once you account for the proportionally thicker cockpit walls on the Epic scale one, I think it'd fit some 8mm humans in roughly the same layout as the 40k one.

Where the princeps sits there isn't enough room for someone to walk around his chair.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Interior of that Warhound model is not sculpted for purposes of containing the crew.

Sure, but look at the sizes still makes it a tricky one.

The picture with 3 pilots abreast is the Reaver, the Warhound seats 2 side by side with not a lot of spare room, once you account for the proportionally thicker cockpit walls on the Epic scale one, I think it'd fit some 8mm humans in roughly the same layout as the 40k one.

Where the princeps sits there isn't enough room for someone to walk around his chair.

People would have to squeeze and contort past, but that is pretty realistic for the cockpit of a multi-crew combat vehicle.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Interior of that Warhound model is not sculpted for purposes of containing the crew.

Sure, but look at the sizes still makes it a tricky one.

The picture with 3 pilots abreast is the Reaver, the Warhound seats 2 side by side with not a lot of spare room, once you account for the proportionally thicker cockpit walls on the Epic scale one, I think it'd fit some 8mm humans in roughly the same layout as the 40k one.

Where the princeps sits there isn't enough room for someone to walk around his chair.

People would have to squeeze and contort past, but that is pretty realistic for the cockpit of a multi-crew combat vehicle.

Yeah, look at modern-day fighter jets or tanks, there's not exactly a ballroom and a tea kitchen in there, you're in luck if you can pour yourself into your seat without going around 90-degree bends in a specific way. And that's before you 40k-ify things, for the mechanicum lopping of the extremities of any given body to fit it into some sort of sacred niche is a completely viable solution to a space problem.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Ignoring the scale thing: are those Charonite Ogryns entirely new? Or is this just the first time we’ve seen them zoomed in lie that?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
The two Leman Russ's they said are in plastic are actually resin FW pieces...

Well they did say they think they are plastic

They also called the Stormblade a Shadowsword.

Nah, that’s just what the shadow sword looked like back then, I’m pretty sure. It’s got the same elongated barrel in the fixed mount with the midpoint support/stabiliser.

Nope Mad Doc is right. I have all those tanks, The Stormblade is the Plasma Blast gun version of a Shadowsword, with extra missles for when it had to recharge.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Interior of that Warhound model is not sculpted for purposes of containing the crew.

Sure, but look at the sizes still makes it a tricky one.

The picture with 3 pilots abreast is the Reaver, the Warhound seats 2 side by side with not a lot of spare room, once you account for the proportionally thicker cockpit walls on the Epic scale one, I think it'd fit some 8mm humans in roughly the same layout as the 40k one.

Where the princeps sits there isn't enough room for someone to walk around his chair.

People would have to squeeze and contort past, but that is pretty realistic for the cockpit of a multi-crew combat vehicle.

Yeah, look at modern-day fighter jets or tanks, there's not exactly a ballroom and a tea kitchen in there, you're in luck if you can pour yourself into your seat without going around 90-degree bends in a specific way. And that's before you 40k-ify things, for the mechanicum lopping of the extremities of any given body to fit it into some sort of sacred niche is a completely viable solution to a space problem.

Uh huh. Skitarii have detachable legs for a reason. There’s probably a sign by the hatch “please remember to leave your feet by the door.”

Tsagualsa wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Interior of that Warhound model is not sculpted for purposes of containing the crew.

Sure, but look at the sizes still makes it a tricky one.

The picture with 3 pilots abreast is the Reaver, the Warhound seats 2 side by side with not a lot of spare room, once you account for the proportionally thicker cockpit walls on the Epic scale one, I think it'd fit some 8mm humans in roughly the same layout as the 40k one.

Where the princeps sits there isn't enough room for someone to walk around his chair.

People would have to squeeze and contort past, but that is pretty realistic for the cockpit of a multi-crew combat vehicle.

Yeah, look at modern-day fighter jets or tanks, there's not exactly a ballroom and a tea kitchen in there, you're in luck if you can pour yourself into your seat without going around 90-degree bends in a specific way. And that's before you 40k-ify things, for the mechanicum lopping of the extremities of any given body to fit it into some sort of sacred niche is a completely viable solution to a space problem.

Just watch some of the Chieftain videos of him trying to squeeze into tanks.....its not the easiest thing.

Perhaps so, but do note that it’s very likely that the new LI scaled crew would probably be 1 or 2 millimetres taller than the fellow Ive posted

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Where the princeps sits there isn't enough room for someone to walk around his chair.

Spoiler:

I imagine the Princeps' throne slots in like something out of Thunderbirds.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Where the princeps sits there isn't enough room for someone to walk around his chair.

Spoiler:

I imagine the Princeps' throne slots in like something out of Thunderbirds.

Something like that pompous would actually make sense for the Imperium.

 Breotan wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Where the princeps sits there isn't enough room for someone to walk around his chair.

Spoiler:

I imagine the Princeps' throne slots in like something out of Thunderbirds.

Something like that pompous would actually make sense for the Imperium.

Well, we know that inserting the "throne" is done for knights (from the Codexes), would make sense to do similar for the titans, especially since the heads can also act as ejection pods.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:


Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

I wouldn't expect the 5th as we still don't know anything about how it actually plays but the 12th is possible

5th will probably be the Cerastus knight with that article yesterday together with some smaller stuff,
12th for LI launch box and other stuff
19th could be the AoS Cities launch box
26th the rest of the LI stuff
with the 2nd of September for SM/Tyranid codex
at least that's my prediction

That’s what I meant; rules articles next week, preorder on the fifth, delivery on the twelfth. The Cerastus doesn’t need that bull-up because its rules are already available for both systems, so it could go on preorder tomorrow to arrive on the fifth.

I meant preorder on the 12th. I meant the dates as preorder dates not release dates
The Cerastus cant go on preorder tomorrow as they show the preorders for the coming week on Sunday so we know tomorrow will be Warcry stuff

Tsagualsa wrote:
Yeah, look at modern-day fighter jets or tanks, there's not exactly a ballroom and a tea kitchen in there, you're in luck if you can pour yourself into your seat without going around 90-degree bends in a specific way. And that's before you 40k-ify things, for the mechanicum lopping of the extremities of any given body to fit it into some sort of sacred niche is a completely viable solution to a space problem.

Yep. Combat vehicles aren't civilian luxury cars, and even civilian aircraft often require you to do a human pretzel act to crawl into the seat. The 28mm Warhound might be very slightly too narrow around the commander's seat but not by more than 1-2mm. The real scale issue is that the floor underneath the seats for the other two crew isn't quite deep enough to hold the legs (the figures are sculpted as torso only) but again, not by very much and it's probably more a case of sculptor error than the model not being to-scale with the crew.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Shakalooloo wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Where the princeps sits there isn't enough room for someone to walk around his chair.

Spoiler:

I imagine the Princeps' throne slots in like something out of Thunderbirds.

Something like that pompous would actually make sense for the Imperium.

Well, we know that inserting the "throne" is done for knights (from the Codexes), would make sense to do similar for the titans, especially since the heads can also act as ejection pods.

Oh yeah, I was rereading the description for Knights and they really do go full Tracey Island on them, don’t they?

And yeah, I don’t see why the Warhound cockpit couldn’t be entered from the top; just imagine that Titan hangars have a specialised crane that lifts the upper armour, which separates much like the actual model does, and there’s a crew gantry that swings out, kind of like the boarding tube for a plane.

For the figure scale to cockpit size debate keep in mind that as the scale gets smaller human miniatures get dis-proportionately thicker then they would be in "real life", as in their height is correct but the diameter of there limbs and torso and such is to big, limitation of material and style choice to an extent

lurch wrote:
For the figure scale to cockpit size debate keep in mind that as the scale gets smaller human miniatures get dis-proportionately thicker then they would be in "real life", as in their height is correct but the diameter of there limbs and torso and such is to big, limitation of material and style choice to an extent

Also the features on the vehicle get deeper so that they are more prominent, meaning crew space gets lost. For example, on the Warhound, the ear-grate-thingos are set deeper in to the model and the grooves in the vent are deeper... that cuts into the crew space.

The August in-store coin popped up on ebay and its Legions Imperialis. That by itself isn't a surprise as we knew its coming in August from the beginning but it reminded me that the monthly free miniature might also be from LI. Maybe a solo Contemptor? And if thats the case they should soon reveal when we can get the mini which in turn tells us when LI will release

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
Yeah, look at modern-day fighter jets or tanks, there's not exactly a ballroom and a tea kitchen in there, you're in luck if you can pour yourself into your seat without going around 90-degree bends in a specific way. And that's before you 40k-ify things, for the mechanicum lopping of the extremities of any given body to fit it into some sort of sacred niche is a completely viable solution to a space problem.

Yep. Combat vehicles aren't civilian luxury cars, and even civilian aircraft often require you to do a human pretzel act to crawl into the seat. The 28mm Warhound might be very slightly too narrow around the commander's seat but not by more than 1-2mm. The real scale issue is that the floor underneath the seats for the other two crew isn't quite deep enough to hold the legs (the figures are sculpted as torso only) but again, not by very much and it's probably more a case of sculptor error than the model not being to-scale with the crew.

I'll just leave this here ^^

 Matrindur wrote:
The August in-store coin popped up on ebay and its Legions Imperialis. That by itself isn't a surprise as we knew its coming in August from the beginning but it reminded me that the monthly free miniature might also be from LI. Maybe a solo Contemptor? And if thats the case they should soon reveal when we can get the mini which in turn tells us when LI will release

Spoiler:

Model and coin aren't always tied together. I would expect it to be a Cities of Sigmar model if I'm being honest.

I'd expect a free Cities of Sigmar model to wait until the full release in Sept/Oct, they're normally linked to a codex or battletome.

A free LI model is most likely to be a rhino, as the store can just split up the boxes of ten similar models and hand them out.

 xttz wrote:
I'd expect a free Cities of Sigmar model to wait until the full release in Sept/Oct, they're normally linked to a codex or battletome.

A free LI model is most likely to be a rhino, as the store can just split up the boxes of ten similar models and hand them out.

I will have a warlord titan thanks.

 xttz wrote:
I'd expect a free Cities of Sigmar model to wait until the full release in Sept/Oct, they're normally linked to a codex or battletome.

A free LI model is most likely to be a rhino, as the store can just split up the boxes of ten similar models and hand them out.

The free models come on specific character sized sprues, not an existing kit parted out. If it is LI, I expect a predator or lemon russ on an individual sprue with a fixed weapon loadout.

If it is a free LI model, I will again be impressed that SG/FW have found the resources to make yet another new sprue for such a niche/time limited purpose. It already seems like the resources they’re pumping into this game at launch is greater than other SG games in recent history.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 xttz wrote:
I'd expect a free Cities of Sigmar model to wait until the full release in Sept/Oct, they're normally linked to a codex or battletome.

A free LI model is most likely to be a rhino, as the store can just split up the boxes of ten similar models and hand them out.

The free models come on specific character sized sprues, not an existing kit parted out. If it is LI, I expect a predator or lemon russ on an individual sprue with a fixed weapon loadout.

Not always, the assault intercessor of March for example was parted out form the full kit.
As far as I saw until now its 50/50 whether it gets a new sprue or is just an existing kit parted out

Looks like I am likely going to GenCon for just the Sunday. But assuming GW is there, I will see if they are demoing LI. I really hope so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WTF? GW does not appear to even have a booth at GenCon this year. Wow, what a let down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Never mind, it is under Warhammer not Games Workshop. At it is pretty big. Hoping for LI demos!

 vadersson wrote:

Never mind, it is under Warhammer not Games Workshop. At it is pretty big. Hoping for LI demos!

Sadly there is no way we are getting demos before they actually tell us anything about the rules

 Matrindur wrote:

 vadersson wrote:

Never mind, it is under Warhammer not Games Workshop. At it is pretty big. Hoping for LI demos!

Sadly there is no way we are getting demos before they actually tell us anything about the rules

We could get rules articles this coming week with an announcement of demos or something at GenCon.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
The August in-store coin popped up on ebay and its Legions Imperialis. That by itself isn't a surprise as we knew its coming in August from the beginning but it reminded me that the monthly free miniature might also be from LI. Maybe a solo Contemptor? And if thats the case they should soon reveal when we can get the mini which in turn tells us when LI will release

Spoiler:

Model and coin aren't always tied together. I would expect it to be a Cities of Sigmar model if I'm being honest.

Or WarCry, or some 30k HH Space Marine, or pretty much anything. Having it be a vehicle (even an Epic scale one) would be a dramatic change for them.

I wonder what:

Having the dozer blades on the Kratos does for it? That thing is huge!

Having mixed varrients in the same unit does?

 Matrindur wrote:

 vadersson wrote:

Never mind, it is under Warhammer not Games Workshop. At it is pretty big. Hoping for LI demos!

Sadly there is no way we are getting demos before they actually tell us anything about the rules

Sadly, we won't get any full looks at the rules till after the fomo buying period is over. Pig in a poke and fomo is GW's way.

Did we not have the full ruleset available for free for the new 40k edition before it was released?

After a week or so of articles previewing all the different rules?

But this was after the pdf was already leaked and I doubt there will be a free pdf for LI

There will very likely not be a free pdf of rules for LI but there will be articles on WarCom showing at least the general game structure and some general rules. Stuff like how does a turn work and how does the shotting phase work. More detailed stuff like the rules for a specific keyword or unit will likely be shown for some of them but not for all. That will take until we actually have the rulebook in our hands.
For example they will very likely show us how rhinos will work to transport our troops around the battlefield, after all they want to sell them to us. But don't expect detailed statlines.

Normally most of that would only happen in the week before preorder date but since this isn't just a single book but a whole gamesystem we'll very likely see it starting earlier.

For now, to be honest I would be happy with some ideas on the basic structure of the rules and how they operate. We know they have told us 2nd edition space marine was a template, but how much exactly, for example?

As for 40k, well we know each new edition is only going to be a max 5% departure from the structure of the previous game's mechanics, so the leak doesn't matter so much. There hasn't been a new edition of Epic in 20 years, and they have a lot more games to choose from when designing, so the final result has the potential to be a lot more variable.

I imagine that as well as articles we’ll get a W+ Battle Report. How informative that might turn out, who knows.

The first official rules article or two should at least confirm or deny the pastebin leaks. Then we may have a clearer understanding of how each unit operates.

 Pacific wrote:
For now, to be honest I would be happy with some ideas on the basic structure of the rules and how they operate. We know they have told us 2nd edition space marine was a template, but how much exactly, for example?

As for 40k, well we know each new edition is only going to be a max 5% departure from the structure of the previous game's mechanics, so the leak doesn't matter so much. There hasn't been a new edition of Epic in 20 years, and they have a lot more games to choose from when designing, so the final result has the potential to be a lot more variable.

Back in the day WD would include a battle report. Nowadays influencers on youtube have a wider reach.

I guess the demo idea depends on how hard they really want to push LI. If it really is intended to be a new long term product line, it would be worth it for them to do Demos at GenCon where 10s of thousands of people might see the tiny tank dwarfed by massive titans. That is some really good exposure, and often to people outside the Warhammer family. They are positioned very strategically in exhibitor hall and should get a lot of traffic.

Similarly if they want to try and grow LI to be a core line, they should really consider free PDF basic rules. That would also potentially gain more players. Of course, given the existing Epic base, that might backfire as people already have models and could just use the free rules.

Either way, I will be there and report back with anything I can.

Next Week…article on WarCom confirms Legion Imperialis rules previews next week.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Next Week…article on WarCom confirms Legion Imperialis rules previews next week.

Woooooooo!

will have to get back to printing off more infantry and get the six vindicators I have painted up as well

For those for whom WarCom is TLDR:

"Next week on Warhammer Community we are going to start taking a look at the rules of the different forces in Legions Imperialis, alongside a variety of great articles focusing on new reveals and a range of painting content."

 schoon wrote:
For those for whom WarCom is TLDR:

"Next week on Warhammer Community we are going to start taking a look at the rules of the different forces in Legions Imperialis, alongside a variety of great articles focusing on new reveals and a range of painting content."

Interesting that they seem to start with the faction rules instead of the game itself?

Giving game rules would provide context.

We don't want that.

 Matrindur wrote:

 schoon wrote:
For those for whom WarCom is TLDR:

"Next week on Warhammer Community we are going to start taking a look at the rules of the different forces in Legions Imperialis, alongside a variety of great articles focusing on new reveals and a range of painting content."

Interesting that they seem to start with the faction rules instead of the game itself?

I assume that means they're starting with the army building rules; how to select formations & detachments and how marines / guard / titans / etc fit into a list together.

Then they'll move onto unit profiles and game rules.

I am going to assume that you can't simply just take just Marine dreadnoughts for Auxilia list or neither just tanks for Marines.

They said in a previous artical that you can take an force of nothing but aircraft, if you wanted.

 Sotahullu wrote:
I am going to assume that you can't simply just take just Marine dreadnoughts for Auxilia list or neither just tanks for Marines.

One would expect those to be separate detachments at least. Depending on the old edition you use, it's very doable.

 Sotahullu wrote:
I am going to assume that you can't simply just take just Marine dreadnoughts for Auxilia list or neither just tanks for Marines.

Me, on the side of Chaos, thinking I can take any combination of any minis I choose if you live in the wilds of community supported rulesets

Preparing my 12th Legion Valkyrie transports, supporting World Eater Fulmentarus Terminators on the ground

I guess I will have to stay following this 'army list' concept and 'allowed units' thing now when the new game launches!

 Sotahullu wrote:
I am going to assume that you can't simply just take just Marine dreadnoughts for Auxilia list or neither just tanks for Marines.

In 2nd Ed, you could quite freely mix Imperial Assets, but had to start with a Company Card.

So you couldn’t take a Space Marine Battle Company, and give it detachment cards of Leman Russ Battle Tanks. But you could take a Space Marine Battle Company and a Leman Russ Tank Company etc. Each could only take Detachments from their own force.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
I am going to assume that you can't simply just take just Marine dreadnoughts for Auxilia list or neither just tanks for Marines.

In 2nd Ed, you could quite freely mix Imperial Assets, but had to start with a Company Card.

So you couldn’t take a Space Marine Battle Company, and give it detachment cards of Leman Russ Battle Tanks. But you could take a Space Marine Battle Company and a Leman Russ Tank Company etc. Each could only take Detachments from their own force.

In Epic 40k everything was detachments, and all Imperial detachments were fair game for any Imperial army. Only limitation was that you could only field a supreme commander (and the limitations of the detachments themselves, of course)

I could see a mashup for this.

As in, Space Marines can be taken as detachment card equivalents for any force, representing literal detachments to other wings of the Imperial Army, assigned by Primarch or what have you.

But for Space Marines to take Solar Auxilia, that would need a Company Sized thing to start, as that’s closer to how they fought.

I’m just spit balling here!

Core concepts article:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/31/legions-imperialis-core-concepts-this-is-how-the-new-game-plays/

"Orders affect how your Detachments can behave during both phases. Advance is the most flexible, allowing both regular movement and shooting, while March lets a Detachment move double its Movement characteristic – treble if it’s an entirely infantry Detachment – but not shoot. Charge allows either for a single movement, or a double "

So how do you get Bass?

Still, looks solid enough.

 Matrindur wrote:
Core concepts article:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/31/legions-imperialis-core-concepts-this-is-how-the-new-game-plays/

Well that looks quite good I have to say, force building isn't a free for all but has structure, the turn sequence is interesting, especially the interlacing of player actions - has a bit of the Lord of the Rings feel to it, melee being before shooting is interesting and new, but I like the idea of - will see how that works

Weapons.. well hopefully say a predator has the turret and sponson weapons and isn't a single combined profile - which is I think what the article implies so thats a good thing as well

yes this looks quite good

I'm getting a 2nd/4th hybrid feeling. Looking good

Hm... weapons look... fiddly, basically 40k rules. Coupled with targets having to roll for armor save... dunno. Feels like a lot of rolls to me, if everything has the weapons they usually do in 40k.

Assaults seem to be similar in that regard? As if they were individual 40k models and fought off against another model from the other unit (that "pairing" thing)

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
"Orders affect how your Detachments can behave during both phases. Advance is the most flexible, allowing both regular movement and shooting, while March lets a Detachment move double its Movement characteristic – treble if it’s an entirely infantry Detachment – but not shoot. Charge allows either for a single movement, or a double "

So how do you get Bass?

Still, looks solid enough.

Emperor's Children Legion specific, obviously.

assaults will I suspect be somewhat time consuming with it being a 2d6 roll

though one on one is 2d6 + CAF on each side, and guessing most stuff has one wound so the loser is dead

seems like if say one stand charges two the first goes as above, then there is a second fight with the defender getting +1 as the attacker has already fought

sounds detailed but also sounds like its leaving options open for lower grade troops to try and swap higher grade ones (presumably only so many can get into a fight though)

to be honest I'll take detailed over "abstracted", if I want an abstract system I'll go play DBA, or if I feel suicidal DBMM

at least a 2d6 system gives a probability curve to deal with and means a +/-1 is good but not massive so some scope to have a few modifiers

key will be what sort of ratings the various units actually have

Albertorius wrote:Hm... weapons look... fiddly, basically 40k rules. Coupled with targets having to roll for armor save... dunno. Feels like a lot of rolls to me, if everything has the weapons they usually do in 40k.

Assaults seem to be similar in that regard? As if they were individual 40k models and fought off against another model from the other unit (that "pairing" thing)

Tanks will probably have stats for their main gun and a combined stat for all the other stuff (pintle, sponsons, hunter-killers, havoc launchers and so on) to streamline things a bit, outside of superheavies that is.

Assault will be a bit slower on the outset, but also very deadly, so that should come out in a wash.

leopard wrote:assaults will I suspect be somewhat time consuming with it being a 2d6 roll

though one on one is 2d6 + CAF on each side, and guessing most stuff has one wound so the loser is dead

seems like if say one stand charges two the first goes as above, then there is a second fight with the defender getting +1 as the attacker has already fought

sounds detailed but also sounds like its leaving options open for lower grade troops to try and swap higher grade ones (presumably only so many can get into a fight though)

to be honest I'll take detailed over "abstracted", if I want an abstract system I'll go play DBA, or if I feel suicidal DBMM

at least a 2d6 system gives a probability curve to deal with and means a +/-1 is good but not massive so some scope to have a few modifiers

key will be what sort of ratings the various units actually have

It's not +1, it's + one dice - assuming the pastebin is real, which it looks like, infantry-style units will get CAF bonuses ranging up to +4, while Dreadaughts have +5 or +6, Knights range from +8 to +12 and dedicated close combat Titans get up to the twenties. So basically you can say that crack cc infantry has even chances to win fights were they're outnumbered 2:1 agains baseline infantry and get drowned if they're outnumbered further, Dreads can maybe pull off a win against 3:1 baseline infantry, knights have a ~50% chance to do so (and win by attrition if the fight goes on) and even titans have to fear getting swamped by regular dudes.

I’m happy with that. Definitely a hybrid of 2nd and 4th.

Pretty sure we can now ignore the rumours from earlier about stats.

"played on a 5’ x 4’ battlefield." Why, GW? WHY?!?!?!?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m happy with that. Definitely a hybrid of 2nd and 4th.

Pretty sure we can now ignore the rumours from earlier about stats.

Why? The Pastebin pretty much fits into what we've been shown so far, it has move-save-CAF-morale-wounds stats, a detachment size, unit type and points. Nothing in there contradicts what we've seen, unless i missed something; it did not show weapon stats at all. The points costs seem to be in the right range for 3000pts games if we assume that some weapons, notably on Titans, cost extra.

beast_gts wrote:
"played on a 5’ x 4’ battlefield." Why, GW? WHY?!?!?!?

3 x road tile things - board.

beast_gts wrote:
"played on a 5’ x 4’ battlefield." Why, GW? WHY?!?!?!?

Maybe they keep that 1' space on the side for cards and record keeping? Probably nothing stopping you going to 6x4

beast_gts wrote:
"played on a 5’ x 4’ battlefield." Why, GW? WHY?!?!?!?

Gives a foot spare for rulebooks and dead stuff, I’m all for it !


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sounds good. I’m not concerned about the combat 2D6 thing, it’s a single opposed roll, most modifiers will be similar across the board of a combat, so you work that out, start at one end and both players fire out the 2D6s. No to wound rolls, saving throws, wound allocation decisions. Loser picks up their model and keep going unless big stuff is involved.

Reserves and aircraft may also need to enter / leave the board during the game too. Makes sense to leave some room for that.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m happy with that. Definitely a hybrid of 2nd and 4th.

Pretty sure we can now ignore the rumours from earlier about stats.

Why? The Pastebin pretty much fits into what we've been shown so far, it has move-save-CAF-morale-wounds stats, a detachment size, unit type and points. Nothing in there contradicts what we've seen, unless i missed something; it did not show weapon stats at all. The points costs seem to be in the right range for 3000pts games if we assume that some weapons, notably on Titans, cost extra.

Can’t find it in the thread right now, but I don’t recall it listing “Tactical Strength” as a stat, despite that being mentioned here.



Hence, lends credence to it being bollocks.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m happy with that. Definitely a hybrid of 2nd and 4th.

Pretty sure we can now ignore the rumours from earlier about stats.

Why? The Pastebin pretty much fits into what we've been shown so far, it has move-save-CAF-morale-wounds stats, a detachment size, unit type and points. Nothing in there contradicts what we've seen, unless i missed something; it did not show weapon stats at all. The points costs seem to be in the right range for 3000pts games if we assume that some weapons, notably on Titans, cost extra.

Can’t find it in the thread right now, but I don’t recall it listing “Tactical Strength” as a stat, despite that being mentioned here.



Hence, lends credence to it being bollocks.

Yeah okay, i missed that But 'Tactical Strength' might just be something derived from other stats, for example simply being wounds remaining. I guess we'll see shortly either way.

its interesting that the core requirements are command, 2x troops then a support unit

I’m guessing it’s just OC from 40K, where you tot up each side’s total to decide who controls it.

But as I said, I could find the pastebin thing, so open to being proven wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also very interested to see other Formations.

Icons there suggest the Arquitor and Sabre will get kits as well. Solar Auxilla equivalents would be Basilisk and maybe Hellhounds?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I’m guessing it’s just OC from 40K, where you tot up each side’s total to decide who controls it.

But as I said, I could find the pastebin thing, so open to being proven wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also very interested to see other Formations.

Here's the pastebin: https://pastebin.com/GJfHMNzY?fbclid=IwAR1-xnFW9yzJmCdyrXbRO74ySC6Cua3GwXX9Rnc5eQeBrANjFfwrEzfJZxo

MajorWesJanson wrote:Icons there suggest the Arquitor and Sabre will get kits as well. Solar Auxilla equivalents would be Basilisk and maybe Hellhounds?

Also 'Bastion' as a type of unit/detachment probably means that there'll be at least some sort of bunker/tower/firebase/macro-cannon whatever that you can purchase as part of your forces, possibly with new kits.

also, "Tactical Strength" sounds remarkably like "Objective Control" as a stat

it does look a nice way to build forces, very close to the cards of 2nd edition except with what the extras and special stuff more restricted and listed, its actually close to how Battlefront has it for Team Yankee and Flames of War 4th edition - systems with issues but the force building side is spot on

basically "pick a card, that card tells you want you can pick to go under it"

what is perhaps interesting is then looking at the starter box contents, one of the following applies

1. a tactical detachment is 4x stands & 1x command stand - and then the box lacks the HQ

2. a tactical detachment is 4x stands & command is 1x stand - and then the box has a command stand spare

also interesting to note they have gone back to the 1st edition idea that some formations have a "transport pool" option - IIRC marines have always had Rhinos included, it was one of their advantages, but Imperial Guard had companies that could only have two units mechanised

suspect that force building will be quite an interesting little activity all on its own

Positive, but it’s still a little light on everything for me at this point.

My group isn’t particularly keen on setting so far. So the game needs to be great to sell it here at the moment.

leopard wrote:
also, "Tactical Strength" sounds remarkably like "Objective Control" as a stat

it does look a nice way to build forces, very close to the cards of 2nd edition except with what the extras and special stuff more restricted and listed, its actually close to how Battlefront has it for Team Yankee and Flames of War 4th edition - systems with issues but the force building side is spot on

basically "pick a card, that card tells you want you can pick to go under it"

what is perhaps interesting is then looking at the starter box contents, one of the following applies

1. a tactical detachment is 4x stands & 1x command stand - and then the box lacks the HQ

2. a tactical detachment is 4x stands & command is 1x stand - and then the box has a command stand spare

also interesting to note they have gone back to the 1st edition idea that some formations have a "transport pool" option - IIRC marines have always had Rhinos included, it was one of their advantages, but Imperial Guard had companies that could only have two units mechanised

suspect that force building will be quite an interesting little activity all on its own

It seems like the SM infantry is two times (1x Command, 4x tactical stands, 2x2 support stands) so it's probably just a slightly different detachment/formation. 2x HQ Core Support Support.

OK, my first few takes:

- 5 x 4 board - lol?
- game turn structure is basically NetEpic (same as SM 2nd, but with alternating movement added). My experience of playing both of these games is that this will slow down the game a bit, but it means you get a less swingy game (moving first or second is *massive* in 2nd edition).
- Shooting is same as Net/Epic TSM, but they have added Armageddon elements (weapon traits). Weapon ranges are reduced dramatically from these examples: Bolters are down from 50cm in SM to 8" and Predators down from 75cm to 18". Effectively they have halved the weapon range banding, which will make it a much more close range/melee orientated game, especially considering infantry can triple move (although we do need to know what infantry movement ranges are).

So we have already seen some additional concepts and terminology in just this one area. I hope they haven't gone OTT with the rules and concepts, and overbloated things, as one of the strengths of 2nd was just how simple and streamlined the game was. Close assault was just about OK before for example rolling 2D6, if we are now factoring in who has charged (who is in cover? who has high ground? who knows?) I can see that becoming more unweildy. But, perhaps this game is designed to be played at a smaller miniature count, as with Armageddon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the extra complexity with capturing an objective.. "tactical strength".

Why not just keep it simple? That is all extra calculations on the board. This feels like trying to work out the old Weirdboy Tower psychic power when you had to count surrounding infantry and was a bit of a PITA; now if you need to do that for each objective, it's a needless complexity.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Can’t find it in the thread right now, but I don’t recall it listing “Tactical Strength” as a stat, despite that being mentioned here.

Hence, lends credence to it being bollocks.

Tactical strength might be the numbers in brackets after the unit type? So Infantry and Walkers would be 1 while Vehicles are 2, Super-heavies are 3, Knights are 4 and Titans are 5

I like what I see so far - nothing indicates the game would be "gotcha" heavy bloated mess, at least not initially. Many of the paradigma I loved about 2nd edition Space Marine seem to be on board. 5'x4' is close enough for 6'x4' so I can still use my Realm of Battle board with this.

With 40K about to squat firstborn, Epic Imperialis is looking like a big part of my boardgaming future. I couldn't presuade anyone in my group to pick up HH2.0, if the price is right for this, some of them might bite

 Pacific wrote:

- Shooting is same as Net/Epic TSM, but they have added Armageddon elements (weapon traits). Weapon ranges are reduced dramatically from these examples: Bolters are down from 50cm in SM to 8" and Predators down from 75cm to 18". Effectively they have halved the weapon range banding, which will make it a much more close range/melee orientated game, especially considering infantry can triple move (although we do need to know what infantry movement ranges are).

So we have already seen some additional concepts and terminology in just this one area. I hope they haven't gone OTT with the rules and concepts, and overbloated things, as one of the strengths of 2nd was just how simple and streamlined the game was. Close assault was just about OK before for example rolling 2D6, if we are now factoring in who has charged (who is in cover? who has high ground? who knows?) I can see that becoming more unweildy. But, perhaps this game is designed to be played at a smaller miniature count, as with Armageddon.

I think the shorter ranges are sensible since they seem to have eliminated/ not used firefight/support fire in this edition, they're probably aiming for some sort of 'knife fight' situation around objectives to get the right feeling for the game. Also, considering that it looks like it will be mostly marines, a lot of deep-striking by various means is going to happen anyway, so the short-ish ranges might not be that big of a factor overall. Together with triple-move, plenty of transports and generally smaller tables, this will probably be very intense and assault-oriented, with less focus on artillery duels and manoeuvering. It remains to be seen if this becomes overbearing, or if stuff like morale, suppression, cover and so on are enough to make the games interesting, with tactics beyond rushing into the big melee in the middle of the field.

Ranges may be to prevent early wipe outs. And it’ll depend on how deployment is done.

Hopefully artillery will have suitable range at least.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m guessing it’s just OC from 40K, where you tot up each side’s total to decide who controls it.

But as I said, I could find the pastebin thing, so open to being proven wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also very interested to see other Formations.

Tactical strength is mentioned in the other pastebin that details the Legion special rules:

https://pastebin.com/BbJzuE06

It also specifically includes 'Legion Tactical Detachment', references 1500pt / 3000pt limits for commanders in line with formation rules, and the rules mentioned for orders match today's article.

So it does!

beast_gts wrote:
"played on a 5’ x 4’ battlefield." Why, GW? WHY?!?!?!?

Well, you're all being very reasonable about it I was expecting either 4x4 like AT, or 6x4 like 40k (should be!).

I too am a bit worried about weapon ranges and movement. From Pastebin, squads had like 5” movement. If you can charge double, you can ignore bolsters with an 8” range. I really prefer a more shorty game. This could negatively impact my interest in the game.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So it does!

It also gives a value for tactical strength: 5, for a Iron Warriors Tactical Detachment model , without taking their special rule into account. That seems pretty high for something like OC, although of course without anything to compare it to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vadersson wrote:
I too am a bit worried about weapon ranges and movement. From Pastebin, squads had like 5” movement. If you can charge double, you can ignore bolsters with an 8” range. I really prefer a more shorty game. This could negatively impact my interest in the game.

In theory you could, but with hidden orders and random initiative ignoring threats is a risky proposition - there's no guarantee that you win the initiative before the enemy can fire, and if the enemy picks a shrewd order your charge may falter and leave you stranded in the open, and in-range to the enemy army. And if the order is Fire First, the bolters get to shoot you at least once even if you make it to close combat. Overwatch also seems to exist, and will be detailed later on.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m happy with that. Definitely a hybrid of 2nd and 4th.

Pretty sure we can now ignore the rumours from earlier about stats.

 zedmeister wrote:
I'm getting a 2nd/4th hybrid feeling. Looking good

Where exactly do you see any resemblance to 4th (Epic: Armageddon)?

There is absolutely nothing from 3rd or 4th edition in this game so far. It is basically a fusion of 1st and 2nd editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vadersson wrote:
I too am a bit worried about weapon ranges and movement. From Pastebin, squads had like 5” movement. If you can charge double, you can ignore bolsters with an 8” range. I really prefer a more shorty game. This could negatively impact my interest in the game.

If the units with bolters have first fire orders, they can fire before close combat. So there's that, not fully ignored.


Also, all the rumours of pastebin seem accurate.

SU-152 wrote:
Where exactly do you see any resemblance to 4th (Epic: Armageddon)?

There is absolutely nothing from 3rd or 4th edition in this game so far. It is basically a fusion of 1st and 2nd editions.

Detachment building feels somewhat 4th and references to AT and Engine Killer in the weapon rules are 4th esque.

 zedmeister wrote:

SU-152 wrote:
Where exactly do you see any resemblance to 4th (Epic: Armageddon)?

There is absolutely nothing from 3rd or 4th edition in this game so far. It is basically a fusion of 1st and 2nd editions.

Detachment building feels somewhat 4th and references to AT and Engine Killer in the weapon rules are 4th esque.

In practice the traits like 'Light Anti Tank' etc. might also work out to something similar to the E:A system of AT/AP/AA values.

I'm thinking there will be weapons with considerable range, but these will be limited to tanks, artillery and titans, as it should be.

First Fire granting the ability to overwatch, no doubt, so chargers better have good saves and some numerical/CAF superiority if they want to reliably wipe units

I was thinking about the "Bastion" detachment types, they could also mean things like Tarantulas and weapon emplacements, not only bunkers as such?

 tauist wrote:
I'm thinking there will be weapons with considerable range, but these will be limited to tanks, artillery and titans, as it should be.

First Fire granting the ability to overwatch, no doubt, so chargers better have good saves and some numerical/CAF superiority if they want to reliably wipe units

Also, if you're in range to charge you're usually also in range to get charged, which again is risky due to contested initiative and blind orders. Alternatively, your enemy might also Advance&Fire. With Fire First, there's the possibility (depending on when and how exactly casualties are removed) that enough stands get shot away that you fail to make it into close combat at all, if you were just barely in range or your assault gets hampered by e.g. terrain or enemy action. If you want to do head-on charges accross open terrain you'll probably have to rely on dedicated assault transports like Land Raiders, Spartans or even Mastodons if you want to be sure to pull them off.

The most interesting thing to me is that Advance Fire happens after close combat, so baiting units into crossfire traps is a possibility. Especially if there’s an actual crossfire rule they just forgot to mention.