Sarouan wrote:
Technically just one. It's a civil war, both sides have more or less the same ressources at their disposal. There are "allied" factions within, but since everything can be taken in the same army, I'd tend to consider it as a whole.

There's two full lists you can take, astartes and auxilia. That'd be two armies, even if they were of the same faction.

Same for Adeptus Titanicus. In the end, it's a game with just one faction including all the titans and knights. I didn't hear their players say "feth off" when it was first released. That's simply how the game is designed.

Kind of a false equivalency, there, when the only thing that existed at the time that wasn't on the book were the Imperator titans, which had a good reason for not being there (being too fething big).

Thing is, that "there's not everything in the rulebook" is a fallacy of the mind. It's just the knowledge we have that there are further miniatures whose rules will be in an expansion that creates it. When Epic 2nd edition launched, all of these expansion armies weren't announced at all. Did players say "feth off" because not all these armies / extra units weren't in the starter box at release ? No. Mostly because they didn't know there would be that many.

But in the end, having an expansion with rules for drops pods / motojets doesn't invalidate the "core" game at all. It's just...an expansion. In a wargame like LI, you don't have to take everything to make a game / army, that's the thing.

After all, people who didn't want to play drop pods or motojets in their army will just shrug and say "don't care".

And the people that want to will say "well... feth", and maybe shrug and just don't.

It is cute how yo try to rationalize the fact that this game is going to give you a lot less bang for your buck than older editions, with smaller rulebooks, did manage to.

Real thing that feth it up is that information / previews come way too fast and in too big numbers. It's just ridiculous, people can't even project themselves with simply the "core set" and build their army gradually. No, now everyone must have everything at once (how will they build / paint everything at the same speed is still a mystery to behold).

Yeah, the fault is of the previews.

Sure.

 xttz wrote:
From the new WarCom WD article:

"A few of their units - jetbike squadrons and drop pods - can be found in the first supplement for the game: The Great Slaughter"

Guessing we'll find out more on that book in this Thursday's HH article.

Great to see something other than Death Guard! Those Blood Angels look really nice, the contrast between the red and the grey bases really make the infantry stand out. Perhaps the smaller scale just lends it self better to brighter colours?

 Albertorius wrote:

There's two full lists you can take, astartes and auxilia. That'd be two armies, even if they were of the same faction.

That's why I say it's a fallacy of the mind. If I wanted, I could take the titans / knights as a third army because they're also a faction on their own. Maybe 4 if you consider titans and knights separately...

In the end, both sides will have the same lists to use as base. That's why my own mind can see it as just one big army list both sides use (a bit like chess using exactly the same pieces, just with a different color). The main difference is loyalist / traitor faction rules, but the base profiles will stay mostly the same.

Kind of a false equivalency, there, when the only thing that existed at the time that wasn't on the book were the Imperator titans, which had a good reason for not being there (being too fething big).

See, that's actually a good example. At the time of the core set of AT, you didn't know which new titan / knight could appear (well...not exactly true, we had some ideas, especially for knights). Surprise surprise, the expansion books of AT did release rules for other miniatures of said titans / knights. Following your logic, I should be offended the same, because it's exactly the same situation ; I don't have "everything" in my core rulebook, in the end.

LI is not really different here. We just know it "early".

And the people that want to will say "well... feth", and maybe shrug and just don't.

Yes, that's the point. In the end, you look at the game as it is when it's released (which is funny, since it's not yet) and decide if it's worth buying it and investing time to build an army or not.

It is cute how yo try to rationalize the fact that this game is going to give you a lot less bang for your buck than older editions, with smaller rulebooks, did manage to.

I'm just an old player having seen countless editions of miniature games with the same pattern - and not just by GW. Rationalization comes from experience.

You can find it cute, but I find it funny you try to build an outrage out of the most natural thing in miniature game industry : they never release everything all at once. Because it's a nightmare in logistics first and also because players crave for new content : if everything is at their disposal right from the beginning, what new can be added ? That's why we have all these old games called "dead" : that's when nothing more is added to them. They are truly "complete". But the reason they are is because all these years of expansions, miniatures and rules being added during that journey 'till they stopped being supported. It's really a fascinating and ironic cycle, really ; most of their player base tend to leave when support ends (and thus "everything" is there), because they see it as meaningless to keep playing and investing in what they call "a dead game with no new stuff to come".

Of course this game at release will have "less content" than older editions. Because that's what all new games face in comparison to old, established games with years of existence and experience behind them. But all of these "old games"...when they were "new" at their time, they were in the exact same situation. You decide which game you play and invest your time into, that's the only difference.



In the end, I believe that a miniature wargame involving building and painting an army is more about the journey that the end. It takes time to do that : nothing like a video game when you just buy "the rules" and play instantly. Here, you have to build your miniature, paint them, find someone to play (and a place too), carry / prepare the table and only then you begin to play. Sure, you can appreciate to build your army depending of "the full army list with drop pods and jetbikes", but will you be able to build that big bad army you have in your mind in a snap of fingers just the day the expansion book will be available ? I believe not. And that's the point it's useless to be making a fuss about it.

It's not a "day-one DLC". It's not a video game, it's a hobby. That's why there are still people building armies out of these "old editions" for so long ; because it's also the journey, not just the end.

In the end, both sides will have the same lists to use as base.

?

There are two distinct armies available for each side to use. Both armies are fully comprised of models that are unique to that army. The divide between the armies isn't loyalist vs. traitor. You can apparently add allies from the other army in small numbers (as well as titans and knights). But arguing that this makes them one army strikes me as similar to arguing that the ability to take Space Marine allies in a 40K Astra Militum list makes them both the same army.

Eumerin wrote:

In the end, both sides will have the same lists to use as base.

?

There are two distinct armies available for each side to use. Both armies are fully comprised of models that are unique to that army. The divide between the armies isn't loyalist vs. traitor. You can apparently add allies from the other army in small numbers (as well as titans and knights). But arguing that this makes them one army strikes me as similar to arguing that the ability to take Space Marine allies in a 40K Astra Militum list makes them both the same army.

It's all about how the game is designed. Horus Heresy (and LI in specifics) isn't like 40k, where you have a lot of varied factions outside of the Imperium : it's a civil war, and the tools at the disposal of both sides are essentially the same. Sure, you have a lot of variety still and you can have 2 lists not looking the same, but it's not the same like an aeldari player will have access to the same tools of a t'au army if they play as aeldari faction. In Horus Heresy, traitors and loyalists use the same profiles as base. That's why it feels "more balanced" and it's also easier to balance, because if you give the same tools to both sides, and if that tool is "slightly overpowered"...well, they do tend to neutralize each other, because both sides can take it.

From what I see we are going to have a lot of choices in units to start with. 70% of your force must be Legion or Auxilia and you can mix specific legions in that 70%. (I wonder if there will be specific Auxilia…). Then the other 30% is anything goes. More base force, the other base force, knights, and titans. Of course to make it more interesting you will have to use the formations provided in the books and I expect those to be heavily expanded via scenario books as the game grows. (I believe AT was similar with Maniples.)

So while there are two army lists, you really can us just about everything to start. (And hopefully we will get a Mechanicum expansion at some point.).

I don’t like them putting specific model rules like drop pods and such in huge expansion books, but I think the base game will have lots of options. And I remain hopeful that if there are just a few units in each expansion there will be alternative ways to get the official info.

Based on just the shear amount of miniatures shown and previewed, it seems like GW plans to have a lot of support to LI going forward. And as much as I hate spreading unit stats out, that is one way to keep a game fresh.

Sarouan wrote:

See, that's actually a good example. At the time of the core set of AT, you didn't know which new titan / knight could appear (well...not exactly true, we had some ideas, especially for knights). Surprise surprise, the expansion books of AT did release rules for other miniatures of said titans / knights. Following your logic, I should be offended the same, because it's exactly the same situation ; I don't have "everything" in my core rulebook, in the end.

It's not the same situation at all. AT had all the titans that existed in the lore at the time, barring Imperator. So it was a full product at the time of release. New stuff was added later.

That's not the same as leaving units that are known to exist in the lore and have had models previewed out of one book to sell a second book. This is DLC and is exactly what happened to Necromunda, where a product was cut up into, what was it, 5 or 6 books in the first year.

Sarouan wrote:

That's why I say it's a fallacy of the mind. If I wanted, I could take the titans / knights as a third army because they're also a faction on their own. Maybe 4 if you consider titans and knights separately...

Not with the rules on the box.

See, that's actually a good example. At the time of the core set of AT, you didn't know which new titan / knight could appear (well...not exactly true, we had some ideas, especially for knights). Surprise surprise, the expansion books of AT did release rules for other miniatures of said titans / knights. Following your logic, I should be offended the same, because it's exactly the same situation ; I don't have "everything" in my core rulebook, in the end.

Which is not the case for drop pods or jetbikes. The drop are a core tenets of space marines since last century, and the jetbikes are probably the main example of "thing that's eveywhere during the Crusade and HH but almost extinct in regular 40k". Meaning both have verygood reasons for being there.

The new titans? well, there's also a reason why I haven't even bothered to get any of them but I have multiples of the core ones .

Sarouan wrote:


It wasn't. All former editions had expansions, nothing was "everything in a single book".

Difference is that there was a significantly longer amount of time between them being announced at the time. There was no Warhammer Community too...

I've trimmed your quote to save space and hope you don't mind.

I did use a poor choice of words about "everything", and yes, GW usually sells an ongoing product range to expand on a game and its models. But the thing is that Legions Imperialis will at least contain enough in the core rule book to get started with the game(even the tokens!). Quite a few of us will be coming into it with models from both Titanicus and Aeronautica, so we've at least got a 30% head start on getting an army together for what is a new(ish) game.

Not bad from just a core rule book.

SamusDrake wrote:

Sarouan wrote:


It wasn't. All former editions had expansions, nothing was "everything in a single book".

Difference is that there was a significantly longer amount of time between them being announced at the time. There was no Warhammer Community too...

I've trimmed your quote to save space and hope you don't mind.

I did use a poor choice of words about "everything", and yes, GW usually sells an ongoing product range to expand on a game and its models. But the thing is that Legions Imperialis will at least contain enough in the core rule book to get started with the game(even the tokens!). Quite a few of us will be coming into it with models from both Titanicus and Aeronautica, so we've at least got a 30% head start on getting an army together for what is a new(ish) game.

Not bad from just a core rule book.

Also, Epic 40k WAS "everything in the box"

LOL, the models were certainly small enough!

Epic had a lot of overlapping product but I remember one sprue had like 40 dudes, 3 Rhinos and 2 Land Raiders... and was costed so you could get it with a week's pocket money.

Can anyone imagine a kid collecting Epic with today's prices?

I'll be honest, it makes no bones to me. If this game comes and goes in three years I will still have collections of miniatures and I assume NetEpic and the like will still be available

But I want this game to succeed, think Epic is a wonderful scale to experience the 30k/40k universe, and for that it needs people to buy and play the game. Announcing that there is effectively a day-one DLC is way too much 'Electronic Arts' for my liking, and despite what GW think people can detect greed and it will switch them off purchasing. I am not taking about people posting on forums, who would often gladly sacrifice their own grand mothers just to get their hands on a box of minis, but the wider and more casual gaming community who will start seeing the game as too high a buy-in price. I don't think comparisons to 2nd are fair, from memory that core game was around for a while before the expansions came along.

I have read rumours that it will also include Land Raiders, which I surely cannot believe because that would just be too hilarious.

Comparing Electronic Arts to Games Workshop is like comparing a man to an ape : they look alike, but they're not alike.

And sure, invest in what you want. It's your money, your choice. So far we're still waiting for the actual prices to come out because, you know, game is delayed and still not released yet.

I simply remember when I bought epic models at the time the game was still well supported by GW (and I didn't know at that time what was coming after them !), and I can't help but reflect that a player of Legion Imperialis will be in the same condition than me at that time : building a collection piece by piece, expansions and books included, and certainly not having everything all at once from day one. Oh yes, those who start Epic 2nd edition today can enjoy all the rules and expansions released at that time preserved with care on fan community sites and can have the rules "for free"...but they still have to build their own collection nonetheless.

It's not a video game, will never be and rules are just the cherry on top to use our miniatures, don't forget that. And with time, one day, LI will be a "dead game" like the others, and maybe preserved the same way than Mordheim and Epic by their own fan communities. That's the fate of all games, in the end : we play dead games "for free" thanks to the sacrifice of all those players who bought all those expansions "full price" in the past .

I didn't see anyone advocate for GW to dump the entire product line on us in one go and be done with the game. But you can't have the game to go through the exact same paces than in the 90s or even slower (like Necromunda is). You can't retread the same 30 years of development of the lore and setting and model range. You need to figure out how to keep the game interesting with new stuff that is actually new stuff, not by cutting stuff we already have and then drip feeding it back. It's not even hard - plastic Mechanicum would do nicely as an "expansion". Not freakin core units.

Something tells me that this expansion (and its models) wouldn't've been out for months after the initial release, but this game has been pushed back so much that the main release and this expansion are going to crash right into one another. So, it feels more like Day1 DLC than an actual expansion even though I doubt that's what was originally intended.

That said, holding off speeders and bikes for an expansion? That's taking the piss, GW.

 Pacific wrote:
I love how there are a bunch of people here coming back to GW are exclaiming "what on earth is this?!" Meanwhile the guys that came back with Necromunda, horribly scarred, their backs bowed from carrying 9 hardbacks to play a game, respond gruffly as they emerge from a trapdoor "this is how we exist now" : D

I swear the box I own that holds all the gang tactics cards might be the heaviest thing I own outside of my TV and my car.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Epic had a lot of overlapping product but I remember one sprue had like 40 dudes, 3 Rhinos and 2 Land Raiders... and was costed so you could get it with a week's pocket money.

Now we have a box with 4 drop pods. It's priced at a month's wages.

Sarouan wrote:
Comparing Electronic Arts to Games Workshop is like comparing a man to an ape : they look alike, but they're not alike.

EA are professional evil. GW are wannabe evil. Far better to compare them Warner Brothers Interactive.

Boy, I really hope when LI comes out there are some other people here that are excited. This tread is really turning into a downer. :(

Keep in mind that GW is clearly supporting LI strongly. But no matter what they would not be able to have every unit ready when the core set releases. So some units were just going to have to wait until production time or budget was ready. For all we know drop pods and jet bike rules were not ready for when the core was ready to release (or so they thought).

Compare it to X-wing. There are tons of known Star Wars ships but when the core came out there were just something like 8 or 10 IIRC. They knew tons of other ships but did not include all the rules for them. (Larger ships, turrets, mines, etc.). GW only had so much budget for stuff at each release point so they had to pick and choose. Sure Drop Pods are iconic, but they are effectively a unit that does not move. I would rather have Predators in the core set if choices have to be made.

 vadersson wrote:
Boy, I really hope when LI comes out there are some other people here that are excited. This tread is really turning into a downer. :(

Welcome to Dakkadakka. If it can be complained about, you can bet you'll find a complaint about it here.

Let's be real, the release for Epic has been fethed up big time. Whether it was a printing issue or whatever doesn't matter, the fact is they've tried to keep hype up by showing us stuff that wasn't even planned for the original release. We're already seeing the expansion, adding more units. If the choice is 'get everything in one book and then get no support for the game for another decade' or 'get steady flow of expansions that cost more money but show the company supporting the game regularly', I'll take the latter. Releases show interest. Interest gets the company to invest more in their product. More investment means more models, gameplay modes, factions, etc.

This stuff doesn't grow on trees. Frankly, GW's already taking a risk with Epic, thanks to the HEAVY 3rd party and 3d printing market. If you don't like it, then go play net-Epic, you won't miss out and you won't be missed.

Has anyone seen confirmation that the rules for units will or won’t be in the kit boxes?

I had assumed that it would be like Aeronautica and the last page of the instructions would have the detachment card printed on it, and the expansion book would just be a compilation of those.

drbored wrote:
This stuff doesn't grow on trees. Frankly, GW's already taking a risk with Epic, thanks to the HEAVY 3rd party and 3d printing market. If you don't like it, then go play net-Epic, you won't miss out and you won't be missed.

But they will be missed.
If enough people 'don't like it' and choose to stick with net-Epic and 3d printing instead of investing in Legions Imperialis and GW's models, then the game will die off and not get any longer term support.

GW trying to nickel and dime (potential) players for things like Drop Pods, regardless of whether the expansion was intended to release several months after the initial game release or not, will ultimately harm even those who are enthusiasticly willing to to be gouged.

buy the game in sympathy in hope that enough people do it so GW realise by the good sales numbers that they did something wrong and change their releases in future
I don't think that this is going to work
and the only reason it won't work this time is that they are missing the already invested people advertising the game and dragging others in
a sales models based on impulse buying and not thinking too much about that the release being a rip off, only works if people don't get the chance to think about it

PS: and GW somehow already confirmed that they are doing the same with TOW, but I guess that the release there will be without delay, people are going to praise it for how much GW cares about the fans

 kodos wrote:


or people still think that this is just Epic in everything but the name?

It follows exactly the same path as old AT and Space marine (Titans in the HH, then infantry and vehicles, then the rest...), so yes, it is clearly Epic (and it is Epic scale too for God's sake).

 vadersson wrote:
Boy, I really hope when LI comes out there are some other people here that are excited. This tread is really turning into a downer. :(

Keep in mind that GW is clearly supporting LI strongly. But no matter what they would not be able to have every unit ready when the core set releases. So some units were just going to have to wait until production time or budget was ready. For all we know drop pods and jet bike rules were not ready for when the core was ready to release (or so they thought).

Compare it to X-wing. There are tons of known Star Wars ships but when the core came out there were just something like 8 or 10 IIRC. They knew tons of other ships but did not include all the rules for them. (Larger ships, turrets, mines, etc.). GW only had so much budget for stuff at each release point so they had to pick and choose. Sure Drop Pods are iconic, but they are effectively a unit that does not move. I would rather have Predators in the core set if choices have to be made.

Given that the whole product is completely different, it kind of feels like a false equivalency, here (For one thing, X-Wing doesn't need you to buy anything except the core and the mini, because all the rules are there). But to each their own.

 Albertorius wrote:

 vadersson wrote:
Boy, I really hope when LI comes out there are some other people here that are excited. This tread is really turning into a downer. :(

Keep in mind that GW is clearly supporting LI strongly. But no matter what they would not be able to have every unit ready when the core set releases. So some units were just going to have to wait until production time or budget was ready. For all we know drop pods and jet bike rules were not ready for when the core was ready to release (or so they thought).

Compare it to X-wing. There are tons of known Star Wars ships but when the core came out there were just something like 8 or 10 IIRC. They knew tons of other ships but did not include all the rules for them. (Larger ships, turrets, mines, etc.). GW only had so much budget for stuff at each release point so they had to pick and choose. Sure Drop Pods are iconic, but they are effectively a unit that does not move. I would rather have Predators in the core set if choices have to be made.

Given that the whole product is completely different, it kind of feels like a false equivalency, here (For one thing, X-Wing doesn't need you to buy anything except the core and the mini, because all the rules are there). But to each their own.

Yeah, the big difference with X-wing is that the new mechanisms were not locked in additional expensive rule books you had to get, they were provided on handy reference cards included in with the ships they were relevant to.

Necromunda has been a painful experience of endless book releases that gradually invalidate certain parts of older books. The lack of clarity enhanced by the fact that they are incapable of properly proof reading their text so are some of the new books actually replacing old stuff, or is it just more and more new stuff with similar names?

Having a meta-game of "guess the rules today" is not that fun.

necromunda also suffers from it not being made clear which books override which other books

Any indication of a release date/month yet?

Was hoping it to be well before XMAS but I have zero info.

VAYASEN wrote:
Any indication of a release date/month yet?

Was hoping it to be well before XMAS but I have zero info.

Gonna go along the lines of end of October/start of November for pre-orders myself. Don't think GW do big releases around Christmas time as that impacts Christmas Battleforces. That being said, GW do wild things with their delayed products.

To be completely honest, X-wing first edition absolutely had a predatory sales model that forced people to buy ships they didn't need because they came with cards clearly designed for other ships. I'd say the first season of Underworlds tried this too but I have mostly not felt pressured into buying other warbands just for cards since then.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
To be completely honest, X-wing first edition absolutely had a predatory sales model that forced people to buy ships they didn't need because they came with cards clearly designed for other ships. I'd say the first season of Underworlds tried this too but I have mostly not felt pressured into buying other warbands just for cards since then.

net result of that locally was people playing it and not caring if you had the actual bit of car, just that what you had written down was correct

 Lord Damocles wrote:

drbored wrote:
This stuff doesn't grow on trees. Frankly, GW's already taking a risk with Epic, thanks to the HEAVY 3rd party and 3d printing market. If you don't like it, then go play net-Epic, you won't miss out and you won't be missed.

But they will be missed.
If enough people 'don't like it' and choose to stick with net-Epic and 3d printing instead of investing in Legions Imperialis and GW's models, then the game will die off and not get any longer term support.

GW trying to nickel and dime (potential) players for things like Drop Pods, regardless of whether the expansion was intended to release several months after the initial game release or not, will ultimately harm even those who are enthusiasticly willing to to be gouged.

Bet you 100 to 1 that people will play this far more than net epic, just like people play new necromunda way more than old necro, or new BB than old BB.

stratigo wrote:
Bet you 100 to 1 that people will play this far more than net epic, just like people play new necromunda way more than old necro, or new BB than old BB.

I'd like to see a side proof with that assertment, please. Because over here it's very much false. I've seen some people, not many, playing Nucromunda, but no one whatsoever playing new BB. And here in Madrid there's at least a BB tournament each month, for 50 participants.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter much if you only play with friends.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
To be completely honest, X-wing first edition absolutely had a predatory sales model that forced people to buy ships they didn't need because they came with cards clearly designed for other ships. I'd say the first season of Underworlds tried this too but I have mostly not felt pressured into buying other warbands just for cards since then.

Honestly, in X-Wing's case that was really only an issue for the tournament players. For us casuals, we just bought all the ships anyways . Or you'd get a needed card off e-bay if you didn't want the ship it came with for some reason.

What really hurt X-Wing was when 2.0 rolled around and rather than buying that cardboard over time in small blocks, you had to buy it in one big, expensive lump. That stung. Though honestly, it was cheaper than buying one of GW's Codexes...

vadersson wrote:Boy, I really hope when LI comes out there are some other people here that are excited. This tread is really turning into a downer. :(

Don't worry, the Hype will come back once it is finally previewed on one Sunday to be on pre-order next week. The delay frustrates a lot of people so far, that's all.

stratigo wrote:
Bet you 100 to 1 that people will play this far more than net epic, just like people play new necromunda way more than old necro, or new BB than old BB.

Easy bet. You forgot AI in your list, by the way.

Sarouan wrote:


You can find it cute, but I find it funny you try to build an outrage out of the most natural thing in miniature game industry : they never release everything all at once. Because it's a nightmare in logistics first and also because players crave for new content : if everything is at their disposal right from the beginning, what new can be added ? That's why we have all these old games called "dead" : that's when nothing more is added to them. They are truly "complete". But the reason they are is because all these years of expansions, miniatures and rules being added during that journey 'till they stopped being supported. It's really a fascinating and ironic cycle, really ; most of their player base tend to leave when support ends (and thus "everything" is there), because they see it as meaningless to keep playing and investing in what they call "a dead game with no new stuff to come".

But we are wargamers - wargames are characterised by having complete lists in supplements or rulebooks. Even for Epic we got complete lists with each iteration. It is an aberration for GW not too.

than GW does not make wargames for a very long time now

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Sarouan wrote:


You can find it cute, but I find it funny you try to build an outrage out of the most natural thing in miniature game industry : they never release everything all at once. Because it's a nightmare in logistics first and also because players crave for new content : if everything is at their disposal right from the beginning, what new can be added ? That's why we have all these old games called "dead" : that's when nothing more is added to them. They are truly "complete". But the reason they are is because all these years of expansions, miniatures and rules being added during that journey 'till they stopped being supported. It's really a fascinating and ironic cycle, really ; most of their player base tend to leave when support ends (and thus "everything" is there), because they see it as meaningless to keep playing and investing in what they call "a dead game with no new stuff to come".

But we are wargamers - wargames are characterised by having complete lists in supplements or rulebooks. Even for Epic we got complete lists with each iteration. It is an aberration for GW not too.

Thats not even remotely true. Some wargames have that, many do not.

It actually depends of what you consider "complete", but that's a way bigger debate than just LI or even GW.

Basically, you play the game with what you have at the time you play, not what you may have in the future. Would have it been great to have all units GW intended to release for LI from beginning to end ? Yes, sure. But that has a double edged sword : first people would not be happy to have all these miniatures at release (there's no miracle, here, GW is unable to do that even if they wanted to unless they do nothing but produce LI only for a while - and 40k and AoS players would then complain on their own) and second people would know there would be no more new miniature outside of that and once they released everything, players would complain the game is "dead" or has "no love from GW" (yeah, that's what happened with Specialist Games where they were in that weird limbo "still sold but nothing new to come ever"). Unless they release something that sparks interest for these games with...you guessed it, expansions.

Also, remember that time with Warhammer Battle releasing "complete army books" but with miniatures never released for some profiles ? It turned out so good for GW, with people simply having to use other miniatures to play them (and at that time, 3D sculpting / printing wasn't that advanced as today, with 3D sculptors litterally able to release a faithful miniature to the artwork in a matter of mere days).

It's a snake eating its own tail, with always someone complaining in the end no matter what is done.

 Albertorius wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Bet you 100 to 1 that people will play this far more than net epic, just like people play new necromunda way more than old necro, or new BB than old BB.

I'd like to see a side proof with that assertment, please. Because over here it's very much false. I've seen some people, not many, playing Nucromunda, but no one whatsoever playing new BB. And here in Madrid there's at least a BB tournament each month, for 50 participants.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter much if you only play with friends.

Yes I agree. I'm going to give the new game a go, hopefully the local club will get a load more players in giving Epic a go. If GW continue to go OTT with too many books and rules which start to resemble the Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm sure NetEpic or Armageddon will be appealing to them, especially with the prospect of alien races.

As for Blood Bowl, you can write down the meaningful differences between old and new versions on the back of a cigarette packet, so it doesn't really matter which version people are playing!

Pacific wrote: As for Blood Bowl, you can write down the meaningful differences between old and new versions on the back of a cigarette packet, so it doesn't really matter which version people are playing!

*Hugs his Star Players and Compendium book*

Hush children, hush. The man on the Internet can’t hurt you with his words!

But I agree with stratigo that whilst I don’t doubt having shiny models readily available on shelf, and presumably an influx of new blood will see more folks pick up NetEpic (particularly for Xenos), it’s still going to be niche once the game is out.

Simply because that’s Consumer Nature. When the “Real McCoy” is still on shelves, why would most want to play an unofficial version?

I can only advocate for Live And Let Live. Anyone especially invested in either take on the game achieves nothing by being all weird and puritan about their preference.

I could even make the argument that the NetEpic crowd may have a vested interest in buying Imperialis models, if only because the better it sells, the greater the chance we’ll see the ruleset expanded to what Epic once was, providing models and players for fans of older editions.

Remember Folks, gatekeeping* achieves nothing other than making you look like an Internet Weirdo!

*Not considering anyone in this thread to be gatekeeping, or even coming close.

Played a 40k Epic (Space Marine 2nd ed) game vs a friend who had never played it before at the weekend (still got Space Marine, IG and Eldar Armies) just to give him a taster and to see if he might like the idea of getting into IL.

He won...so he might get it haha.

Sarouan wrote:
You can find it cute, but I find it funny you try to build an outrage out of the most natural thing in miniature game industry : they never release everything all at once.

But the rules for everything?

It's not as if the upcoming Space Marine Codex is just missing the Assault Terminator entry because the new models aren't ready yet. It's still in the book.

Leaving parts of a single army out is different to staggered releases.

Primaris marines weren't in my 4th through 7th edition Space Marine codecies, ergo GW did not release the rules for everything at once. You can look at it on a smaller scale too, Space Marine Hunter/Stalkers were added when, 7th edition? They weren't in the codex the edition prior - again, GW did not release the rules for everything all at once.

The idea that thats a requirement or how wargames traditionally operate is myth.

"Things that did not exist yet weren't included in earlier rule!" is about as bad an argument as one can get. Seriously: What were you even attempting to argue there?

This isn't GW inventing new units for Marines and releasing rules for them later down the line. This is GW taking the Marine army list and splitting up into different books. How do you not get that?

Imagine if Hive War, the Tyranid expansion for Epic, had come out, but it had left out things that did exist (say, Carnifexes and Genestealers Broods), and then released their rules in a later supplement.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

drbored wrote:
This stuff doesn't grow on trees. Frankly, GW's already taking a risk with Epic, thanks to the HEAVY 3rd party and 3d printing market. If you don't like it, then go play net-Epic, you won't miss out and you won't be missed.

But they will be missed.
If enough people 'don't like it' and choose to stick with net-Epic and 3d printing instead of investing in Legions Imperialis and GW's models, then the game will die off and not get any longer term support.

GW trying to nickel and dime (potential) players for things like Drop Pods, regardless of whether the expansion was intended to release several months after the initial game release or not, will ultimately harm even those who are enthusiasticly willing to to be gouged.

Thing is, those that know about and can source net-epic, and the older players that remember old epic, are MUCH FEWER in number than those that would see the game for the first time via warcom and give it a try.

I think there's a tendency to think that because the current fans don't like something, it shows GW being stupid... GW doesn't market things to older players. They market them to new players, because the cycle of recruiting new players keeps the company in business. Do they make games that cater to a niche audience? Yep. But what do you think happened with Warhammer 30k when it got it's 2nd edition? The market was flooded with new players and new interest, so much so that older players started trying to 'gatekeep' and all those dumb-as-feth arguments started popping up. Same thing will happen with Epic. The older players that have already decided not to buy into the new game aren't who GW is making this game for.

I guess there will always be consumers that were fine with companies like BMW that were planning to charge a subscription model for the heating systems in the car to work, just as there will be those who find that practice abhorrent and instead go to a competitor - not saying what GW is doing is even 1% as bad as that, but there is a sliding scale of how much milking of the cow/greed companies partake in, and to which we find unacceptable and tap out.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Pacific wrote: As for Blood Bowl, you can write down the meaningful differences between old and new versions on the back of a cigarette packet, so it doesn't really matter which version people are playing!

*Hugs his Star Players and Compendium book*

Hush children, hush. The man on the Internet can’t hurt you with his words!
Simply because that’s Consumer Nature. When the “Real McCoy” is still on shelves, why would most want to play an unofficial version?

Remember Folks, gatekeeping* achieves nothing other than making you look like an Internet Weirdo!
.

I don't view previous versions of the game as unofficial, but almost as previously released albums that you might still want to listen to, or a different flavour of the same thing. There will be players who love 2nd edition/NetEpic, Armageddon, Epic 40k or soon Legions, because they each offer a different flavour and gaming experience. And the great thing is you can have the same collection of minis and use them for all of them.

We ran a mega battle designed as an intro game using the 2nd edition rules, because the game is so simple to learn, uncluttered and fast to play, it was the right system to use. Armageddon is super popular in tournaments because of the strategic agency it gives to the player and the balance has been fine-tunes to a razor edge by the tournament community over the past decade. I am sure Legions will offer something else again, it's looking like a detailed replication of the Heresy setting, and something similar to 1st edition, where players can really get drawn into the detail. And of course the massive draw here is going to be the ubiquity of the new system, availability of the new miniatures and popularity of the system.
100% agree on the gatekeeping aspect, ultimately I just think 'Epic' is such a great scale for wargaming, it has given me such enjoyment over the years and I want as many people as possible to experience that - I've gone to some effort in maintaining the new player guide to Epic, participating in the community and organising events to get people playing, and I'll continue to do that when LI is released.

PS - on BB, I should have clarified that I was referring to the basic mechanics/structure of the game. I know a lot of bells and whistles have been added in the new edition, but the base structure of the rules would be immediately apparent to anyone who had only played Jervis Johnson's game back in the 90s. Contrast with something like Necromunda, which has some significant structural changes (with areas like turn order and close combat etc)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
You can find it cute, but I find it funny you try to build an outrage out of the most natural thing in miniature game industry : they never release everything all at once.

But the rules for everything?

It's not as if the upcoming Space Marine Codex is just missing the Assault Terminator entry because the new models aren't ready yet. It's still in the book.

Leaving parts of a single army out is different to staggered releases.

Yeah, I mean... drop pods are a bit egregious. For starters, you don't really need minis for them, but it's also the fact that it's a very, VERY iconic thing for Warhammer Space Marines, you know? Hell, it was "their special thing" in Epic, the fact that they could all get in reserves and deploy via drop pod even if the scenario specifically didn't allow it...

Kinda like having a Halo ODST army and not having drop rules, you know?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
I don't view previous versions of the game as unofficial, but almost as previously released albums that you might still want to listen to, or a different flavour of the same thing. There will be players who love 2nd edition/NetEpic, Armageddon, Epic 40k or soon Legions, because they each offer a different flavour and gaming experience. And the great thing is you can have the same collection of minis and use them for all of them.

Yeah, I might prefer one or the other, but I have no problem playing any other, as long as I have the minis xD.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Primaris marines weren't in my 4th through 7th edition Space Marine codecies, ergo GW did not release the rules for everything at once. You can look at it on a smaller scale too, Space Marine Hunter/Stalkers were added when, 7th edition? They weren't in the codex the edition prior - again, GW did not release the rules for everything all at once.

The idea that thats a requirement or how wargames traditionally operate is myth.

There is a huge difference to having a game add new units as it naturally progresses, to what they have done here which is to leave out the basic rules for an iconic space marine unit that they knew would be released only weeks after the rulebook (should have been) released.

Drop pods were one of the first units shown in the trailer for the game.

There is no issue in releasing book spam if the content is quality. Its not like there isn't a huge universe and a million ideas that could be turned into a new exciting campaign book to keep the game going. Taking simple unit profiles and forcing players to buy a 2nd book mere weeks after the intended release shows they didn't have enough quality to put into a new book so soon, so are using these piecemeal tactics to force more sales.

I doubt very are very few people here that would be hesitant to buy new books to support the game, if the content was actually worth it.

I suspect we will very quickly see a fan made compendium of rules and army lists just days after the actual release.

 Albertorius wrote:
I'd like to see a side proof with that assertment, please.

You won't get one, but the assumption that more people play systems with widespread, and I do mean widespread availability of miniatures and rules over a niche rules only system that requires you to source physical components yourself isn't exactly unreasonable.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
I'd like to see a side proof with that assertment, please.

You won't get one, but the assumption that more people play systems with widespread, and I do mean widespread availability of miniatures and rules over a niche rules only system that requires you to source physical components yourself isn't exactly unreasonable.

And still, the local empiric evidence and tournament scene is that people use the minis, but not the games.

Of course, it helps that GW did an even worse job with the translations, doing a very, very minimal translation and adding it to the main box as a handout... people simply decided that it that was the level at what the localized support was gonna be, they might as well keep doing what they already were.

I don't expect LI to get very popular here if they do the same.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Things that did not exist yet weren't included in earlier rule!" is about as bad an argument as one can get. Seriously: What were you even attempting to argue there?

This isn't GW inventing new units for Marines and releasing rules for them later down the line. This is GW taking the Marine army list and splitting up into different books. How do you not get that?

Imagine if Hive War, the Tyranid expansion for Epic, had come out, but it had left out things that did exist (say, Carnifexes and Genestealers Broods), and then released their rules in a later supplement.

Scroll back to one of my previous comments where I explain that things are often cut in development and moved to expansions as a result of page count limitations or it not fitting within the context of a minimum viable product, etc. In this case, it would seem that the launch set comes with a single rulebook which contains all the core rules + basic army lists for the Astartes and Solar Auxilia. Its not unreasonable to assume that they opted to go with a 2-faction launch over having just astartes in the box with a more comprehensive and better developed army list, and chose to move the cut content to a separate book as an expansion. I'm sure there was also a good amount of page count chewed up by the need to include the necessary rules for all the stuff that already exists via Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronatuica Imperialis, which is the type of content that would usually feature in an expansion rather than in a core game. Before you go on about how they could just make the book bigger, let me pre-empt you to say that they are releasing a product, not a ruleset. Page count goes hand-in-hand with the price point of the box set and the size of the box it comes in. GW knows the audiene for the product and how much money they can reasonably extort out of them for said product, that becomes the primary constraint in the design of the product and what you get in it.

As for "not existing yet" - we know from various insider statements that the design studio works years ahead of the production and release schedule and that when they are working on an update for any given faction or game many things are concepted and developed to some extent before being cut and shelved to be picked back up again in the future. Some of the Primaris marines we are getting now are things that they likely started working on ~3 editions ago. IE - They existed, you just didn't know it, but GW knew it and they had a choice to make as to whether or not they would include rules for them or not.

Also on the same vein, while drop pods and jetbikes exist in 28mm scale, nothing yet existed in epic scale outside of titans and flyers, so to say its rules for something which already exists which is owed to you isn't really accurate. Acting like you are owed rules for something because it exists in another game at another scale is childish. Your perspective on this is also pretty off - they are giving you rules for flyers, titans, knights, space marines, and solar auxilia on launch, which is actually quite a bit. Would you still be reacting this way if they had only given you rules for astartes in the book, and then sold you the rest as expansions? I'm inclined to think no - I don't see you complaining about the absence of mechanicum or custodes rules, for example, even though the mechanicum and custodes army list is something that "exists" in 28mm scale and which we all know will no doubt be released for LI in future expansions.

In fact, the whole damned thing is silly and just forced controversy and outrage. We had a pretty solid leak of what units were contained in the launch book for a few months now - we knew there were no drop pods or jetbikes in it, likewise we know that there are no stormhammers or what-have-you in the solar auxilia list. This wasn't a secret, there were a couple pages of discussion where almost every single one of you guys commented about the absence of certain units. You knew. It was obvious that these things would all come in a future expansion, it was even suggested and discussed as well. You knew. Now that you have confirmation that the expansion you all knew and expected to be coming is actually comign you're all clutching at your pearls and throwing a tantrum.

Please.

chaos0xomega wrote:
In fact, the whole damned thing is silly and just forced controversy and outrage. We had a pretty solid leak of what units were contained in the launch book for a few months now - we knew there were no drop pods or jetbikes in it, likewise we know that there are no stormhammers or what-have-you in the solar auxilia list. This wasn't a secret, there were a couple pages of discussion where almost every single one of you guys commented about the absence of certain units. You knew. It was obvious that these things would all come in a future expansion, it was even suggested and discussed as well. You knew. Now that you have confirmation that the expansion you all knew and expected to be coming is actually comign you're all clutching at your pearls and throwing a tantrum.

Please.

I don't think people expected to have to buy a campaign book to use staple units. They expected that there could be an expansion book for a new army, not that every time they release a few new marine models they likely have to buy a campaign book to field it.

Yes the contents was out in the wild, no that doesn't excuse deliberately excluding units rules that would have been greenlit for production from being included and charged for independently.

Now it's possible the rules do also get a free distribution, but that sort of thinking leads to "forced controversy" when it's proven wrong.

We've now reached the point where knowing about a problem apparently should preclude complaining about said problem. Noice.

Dudeface wrote:

I don't think people expected to have to buy a campaign book to use staple units.

so people expected GW to make things different "this time" because of what?

they did not even promise to make it different "this time" unlike with 40k, so why are people expecting this old SG game re-released being different to Necromunda?
because Necromunda does not sell well so GW needs a different business model?

 Albertorius wrote:

And still, the local empiric evidence and tournament scene is that people use the minis, but not the games.

"Local evidence" is nice and all, but only apply to local. Of course a local strong fan community pushing for old edition games and being very active will be inspiring more people to join them. But that's just a drop in the ocean in comparison to GW shops / affiliated clubs making demo games for the new release worldwide.

People play the last official game edition because it's the one that's sold and easily available everywhere, and moreover they have greater chances to find fellow players to play with them. That's how we all started, after all. And that's how an undeterminate number of new players will start as well with LI.

This is an assumption, sure, but a very logical one based on past experiences with GW (and also other companies) 's neverending cycle of new editions. Exceptions will always exist, obviously, but never forget they are exceptions.

I don't expect LI to get very popular here if they do the same.

It doesn't have to be popular in your area, just sold according to GW expectations worldwide. People enjoy what they want to enjoy, in the end.

I don't think people expected to have to buy a campaign book to use staple units. They expected that there could be an expansion book for a new army, not that every time they release a few new marine models they likely have to buy a campaign book to field it.

First : we don't know the full content of said expansion book. Maybe there's more than just "a few new marines models"
Second : we don't know when it will be available (nor when the said units will be, for that matter - some seem to assume everything will be released at the same time, but there's absolutely no guarantee nor GW confirmation that will be the case)
Third : just look at what GW did in the past. They exactly did that. Look at their "end of edition" campaign books for 40k and AoS. They also did it with Warhammer Battle (End Times did release new units that you could only play by buying the "campaign books" - and woe on you because they were limited and plenty of people weren't even able to get them ). Hell, even with old editions of Epic they did that by releasing profiles for new units in the White Dwarf (it wasn't free in the past, mind you).

So sure, you can always expect a full new army with every expansion book. But acting like it's a "new thing" ? Now you're not believable.


Would it have been better to have these poor drop pods and jetbikes in the core rule ? Yes. Is it worth to build an outrage out of it ? Not really.

Otherwise, just wait for LI to be a dead game and have some angel fan player to upload all the rules ever edited "for free" on the internet to have your complete edition. Just need to wait for an unknown number of years for that to happen, but hey we are already waiting so far so why not "a bit more" ?

It’s not about outrage. It’s about trying to communicate to GW that their customers don’t like this approach because it feels underhanded, and is detrimental to people actually being able to play the game efficiently.

 Flinty wrote:
It’s not about outrage. It’s about trying to communicate to GW that their customers don’t like this approach because it feels underhanded, and is detrimental to people actually being able to play the game efficiently.

Ha, "efficiently" ! As if people were using these big books to efficiently build their list.

It's just a niche game, it's not even meant for tournaments that one. I'll tell you, when the expansion book will be out, I'm very sure actual players of LI will find a very efficient way to build their army list.

It's called "the internet".

Let's be honest, these rules will be uploaded there in no time and it will be just a matter of using a smartphone / a printer and you'll have your "efficient way to play the game". If an army builder app doesn't exist / is made by fans meanwhile...or plainly just having the rules in the miniature boxes themselves. Hell, for what I know, it could even be on Warhammer Community as download like they did recently for AoS.

That's why I believe it's not worth it to build an outrage out of that right now, when the core game is (still !!) not released yet, not even talking about expansion material. You're just using a tiny sentence in previewed pages of the White Dwarf as source for all of this !

Horus Heresy fans did fine for the first 15 years of that games existence, what with everything coming out slowly over the course of about 15 books (including red books) over the course of a decade. Hell, you had to wait years before you had the ability to really be able to play certain legions, and heres a short list of things that "existed" which didn't have rules until well after the first book dropped:

Mortis Dreadnoughts (both castaferrum and contemptor)
Tarantual Sentry Guns
Lightning Strike Fighters
Deathstorm Drop Pods
Dreadnought Drop Pods
Avenger Strike Fighters
Storm Eagles
Arvus Lighters
Vindicators
Quad Launchers

Didn't see a lot of complaints back then. Y'all are entitled.

My dude, when Dudeface thinks a grievance against GW is valid, it's time to stop defending them

 lord_blackfang wrote:
My dude, when Dudeface thinks a grievance against GW is valid, it's time to stop defending them

I know right!

To those taking issue, it's almost like GW pumped out cheaper/easy access rules for other smaller games like kill team, warcry and horus heresy, then compiled them into a book after a year. Can't be expecting that now can we! That would almost make sense and be consumer friendly.

Given the Epic community's large variety of 3rd party and printable files for various units, it seems like GW is holding back rules until plastic kits are ready to release in the hopes that people will get the new rules and the new kits when they release instead of getting all the rules up front, printer goes brr, and not bother to buy the kits when they come out.

Please see my earlier post about how this is nothing new, especially for Epic Scale.

I do get why folks don’t like it. But it does remain par for the course.

As I said when Necromunda got its redo? I genuinely don’t mind unit rules being tucked/locked away in different books if those books contain other, worthwhile content.

And I’m still not going to offer my opinion on what was or wasn’t to my taste in that regard, lest The Sad Git Brigade try to claim my thoughts as some kind of declared benchmark, and pick a fight because they’ve sod all better to do in their lives.

Would I prefer it all be in a single volume? Yes.

Am I surprised it’s not? Not especially.

Will I begrudge having to but multiple books? That depends on the overall content, and indeed entirely remains to be seen.

But I do understand any game put out needs to make its own money, or sink without trace. And that’s not unique to GW. This is GW’s approach to solve a few quandaries at the same time. And it always has been. So please, at least stop acting like it’s a surprise, yeah?

Think we have done this tangent to death now, can we please move on before things start getting heated.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Scroll back to one of my previous comments where I explain that things are often cut in development and moved to expansions as a result of page count limitations or it not fitting within the context of a minimum viable product, etc. In this case, it would seem that the launch set comes with a single rulebook which contains all the core rules + basic army lists for the Astartes and Solar Auxilia. Its not unreasonable to assume that they opted to go with a 2-faction launch over having just astartes in the box with a more comprehensive and better developed army list, and chose to move the cut content to a separate book as an expansion. I'm sure there was also a good amount of page count chewed up by the need to include the necessary rules for all the stuff that already exists via Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronatuica Imperialis, which is the type of content that would usually feature in an expansion rather than in a core game. Before you go on about how they could just make the book bigger, let me pre-empt you to say that they are releasing a product, not a ruleset. Page count goes hand-in-hand with the price point of the box set and the size of the box it comes in. GW knows the audiene for the product and how much money they can reasonably extort out of them for said product, that becomes the primary constraint in the design of the product and what you get in it.

Splitting the Marine list up is something they never should have done. Waffling on about page count and minimum viable products doesn't change that.

If you buy a Codex, you should get your whole army. You shouldn't have core units split out into supplements.

chaos0xomega wrote:
As for "not existing yet" - we know from various insider statements that the design studio works years ahead of the production and release schedule and that when they are working on an update for any given faction or game many things are concepted and developed to some extent before being cut and shelved to be picked back up again in the future. Some of the Primaris marines we are getting now are things that they likely started working on ~3 editions ago. IE - They existed, you just didn't know it, but GW knew it and they had a choice to make as to whether or not they would include rules for them or not.

This is doubling down on a terrible argument.

"Primaris marines weren't in my 4th through 7th edition Space Marine codecies, ergo GW did not release the rules for everything at once."

That's what you said. This has nothing to do with production schedules or when they started working on something.

Primaris Marines simply weren't part of 40k prior to their reveal in 8th. They did not exist. Bikes, Speeders and Drop Pods, on the other hand, are intrinsic parts of the Marines, and leaving them out of the core Marine list for an expansion is bad.

Your attempt at a comparison with Primaris Marines is laughable.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Acting like you are owed rules for something because it exists in another game at another scale is childish.

But they do exist. We've seen them. They've previewed them.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Your perspective on this is also pretty off - they are giving you rules for flyers, titans, knights, space marines, and solar auxilia on launch, which is actually quite a bit.

"Giving". Like they're doing us a favour.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Would you still be reacting this way if they had only given you rules for astartes in the book, and then sold you the rest as expansions?

I'd expect them to have the Marine list as the complete Marine list. What about that don't you get?

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm inclined to think no - I don't see you complaining about the absence of mechanicum or custodes rules...

What... what are you blithering about? This is about them splitting the Marine list between different books. That's the issue: turning core Marine units into Day1 DLC. Like putting Tactical Squads and Captains in the Codex, but putting Devastator Squads and Chaplains in a supplement.

chaos0xomega wrote:
for example, even though the mechanicum and custodes army list is something that "exists" in 28mm scale and which we all know will no doubt be released for LI in future expansions.

None of this has anything to do with things existing in 28mm. There are no Custodes/Mechanicum Epic 30k minis yet. When they eventually come out, I'd expect their respective lists to be complete and not split over multiple books.

chaos0xomega wrote:
In fact, the whole damned thing is silly and just forced controversy and outrage.

No it's not. Expecting Marines to have the rules for their units in one location isn't an unreasonable expectation.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Given the Epic community's large variety of 3rd party and printable files for various units, it seems like GW is holding back rules until plastic kits are ready to release in the hopes that people will get the new rules and the new kits when they release instead of getting all the rules up front, printer goes brr, and not bother to buy the kits when they come out.

This is the main reason. The aim here isn't specifically to sell supplement books, if that was true then there wouldn't be any free digital downloads for games like KT, or no unit rules included in boxes for AT & Aeronautica kits.

With very few exceptions, GW's entire marketing approach since the Chapterhouse drama is to only reveal details if they have products ready to sell. Their goal here is to obfuscate the release schedule until a time that GW are ready to start unveiling each new Epic kit. If units such as Land Raiders or Stormbirds aren't due until say Summer 2024, there's very little incentive for GW to publish those rules now and encourage players to spend 9 months arranging their own proxies. The same applies to drop pods, which may have originally been intended to land(!) 3-6 months after the main game launch in August.

The big question is if the supplement books will be the only way to get these unit rules. We don't have any confirmation on that yet, and given recent GW actions it's literally a coin flip.

HBMC, my guy, you are not owed a complete list in a single place. You are not "buying a codex", you're buying a core rulebook for a game, there is no expectation for it to contain a full army list, the fact that it contains any army list at all is a small miracle, most of the time you have to buy a second book to get those.

Like all specialist games to date, this will be a game largely driven by narrative supplements, same as Horus Heresy, same as Adeptus Titanicus, same as Necromunda, same as Aeronautica Imperialis, etc. None of them give you your full army list in one place either, at least not up front. You should have know what to expect, if you didn't that's on you.

I don't need to see drop pods, jetbikes, landspeeders or whatever to know they exist and will eventually be added to the game (and hell drop pods were only added to 40k proper in 5th edition despite them existing in lore for decades prior so calling them "intrinsic" parts of the marine army list is a real laugh riot, gw really screwed us over those first 25 years or so by giving us incomplete codexes I guess, huh?). The fact that these things may exist at some point in the future does not mean that they are owed to me now. The fact that they are shown to exist this close to release likewise does not mean that they are owed to me now i can tell you that there are minis and rules for things that wont release for another year sitting on someones desk in nottingham *right now*, and guess what? Youre not owed them either. It was clear from the get go that gw was only giving us a fraction of the possible units that exist on release, hell it's also clear that GW is open to creating whole new units we've never seen or heard of before (Heavy sentinel, anyone?) and adding them to the game. That was never going to happen all at once and every sensible reasonable person understood that from the word go and knew that they would be getting a slow drip of rules for years to come, as is the case with literally every other specialist game. There was always going to be supplements and expansions for this game, you knew it as well as I do, and you have no credibility with the sad git brigade routine here acting like you've been personally slighted by some evil charlatan peddling snake oil.

The rules for all armies are going to be released as they release models for them. That's how it's been for years consistently across every other GW product line, and that's how it will continue to be for the forseeable future - it is an unreasonable expectation to expect something different in this one specific circumstance. This is a specialist game. It does not get a new edition every 3 years for them to reissue you a new army list with a handful of new units in it each time. They will still be continuing to expand that army list with new releases 3 years from now, probably 5 years from now, maybe even 10 years from now. Get used to it, it's not going to change. We all know no models, no rules is a thing, and that's the case here as it is with every other GW game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xttz wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Given the Epic community's large variety of 3rd party and printable files for various units, it seems like GW is holding back rules until plastic kits are ready to release in the hopes that people will get the new rules and the new kits when they release instead of getting all the rules up front, printer goes brr, and not bother to buy the kits when they come out.

This is the main reason. The aim here isn't specifically to sell supplement books, if that was true then there wouldn't be any free digital downloads for games like KT, or no unit rules included in boxes for AT & Aeronautica kits.

With very few exceptions, GW's entire marketing approach since the Chapterhouse drama is to only reveal details if they have products ready to sell. Their goal here is to obfuscate the release schedule until a time that GW are ready to start unveiling each new Epic kit. If units such as Land Raiders or Stormbirds aren't due until say Summer 2024, there's very little incentive for GW to publish those rules now and encourage players to spend 9 months arranging their own proxies. The same applies to drop pods, which may have originally been intended to land(!) 3-6 months after the main game launch in August.

The big question is if the supplement books will be the only way to get these unit rules. We don't have any confirmation on that yet, and given recent GW actions it's literally a coin flip.

The trend with every other specialist game is to release a compilation book with a sort of rules update/errata every couple of years. Not a formal new edition per se, more like an incremental update.

You keep using the word "owe". In fact, you're the only person using it. Stop attempting to counter arguments no one has made.

Anyway, after I made my post I saw ingtaer had made his, so I'll leave it.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
My dude, when Dudeface thinks a grievance against GW is valid, it's time to stop defending them

it is not about defending GW, but why are the people grumbling with GW doing the same as always
nothing changed, everything the same, yet people are angry because they did not expect GW being GW

or maybe just because now they know they need to spend a lot more than "teased" to play the full game, while weeks ago the arguments was that "technically" all those things are optional with GW games and should not be accounted for the cost to start

people don't like what GW is doing, welcome to the club
but don't act like this is something new

Hey guys,

While I haven't read the entirety of this thread, when will Eldar and possibly Tau get released for Legions Imperialis you think?

Given that the game is just about to release in the coming months, would it be safe to think we might get Eldar (or additional races) by next summer?

Never
this is HorusHeresy 8mm, not Epic 40k there won't be any Xenos

Never before has this thread needed some N&R so much

Thursday so maybe something today, is it usually the day new items come through the Warhammer community page?

LordBlunt wrote:
Hey guys,

While I haven't read the entirety of this thread, when will Eldar and possibly Tau get released for Legions Imperialis you think?

Given that the game is just about to release in the coming months, would it be safe to think we might get Eldar (or additional races) by next summer?

Check out one of the existing rulesets. My personal favourite is 2nd edition/NetEpic as the rules for Eldar are quite a lot of fun; some of the Eldar tank weapons in particular and Eldar Titans, which have the most annoying (for your opponent) shield rules in the game

I have perversely (as LI is about to arrive) just started on an Eldar Epic army, these are Guardians from Vanguard miniatures (from their Eloi range) and some classic grav tanks, which are ten a penny on eBay

 Pacific wrote:

Thursday so maybe something today, is it usually the day new items come through the Warhammer community page?

Yes Thursdays are Heresy Thursdays with reveals for either Legions Imperialis or Horus Heresy but last week they already said today would be LI.
But its likely to be just the teased expansion book instead of a new model reveal

 Matrindur wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

Thursday so maybe something today, is it usually the day new items come through the Warhammer community page?

Yes Thursdays are Heresy Thursdays with reveals for either Legions Imperialis or Horus Heresy but last week they already said today would be LI.
But its likely to be just the teased expansion book instead of a new model reveal

Last week's article said:

Join us again next week for another Heresy Thursday, which the Warhammer Community reconnaissance squad tells us is more miniatures for the hotly awaited Legions Imperialis.

So we should definitely see another model at least, although they could reveal the expansion book too.

I'm hoping it's something more mundane like plastic Arvus or Shadowswords, to help fill a few gaps in the Solar range.

 kodos wrote:
it is not about defending GW, but why are the people grumbling with GW doing the same as always
nothing changed, everything the same, yet people are angry because they did not expect GW being GW

GW sales models vary wildly game to game. They're not trying to sell you half a faction in Underworlds, BB, Warcy, Kill Team, HH... so let us just have our regret over Legions apparently going in the worst DLC treadmill tier along with Necromunda.

Initial release is Guard and Marines with titan legions support.
They have hinted there are some more factions that will be released. These could be different varietys of guard and marines, they could be custodes, mechanicus and daemons.
I also see an argument for Orks and Aeldari in the long term, particularly the latter as they took part in the Heresy a bit. It would make sense to me as I imagine the other 40K factions are not going to be big sellers in epic scale, whereas Orks and Aeldari have always been the classic other epic armies.
And Votaan could be a thing...

I am imagining an Ork faction with the granularity we have seen thus far for LI: an Ork battlewagon with a unit profile stretching to 3 pages with different weapon options, all named things like 'big gun' 'very big gun' 'very big shooty gun with extra dakka' and they all have different special rules

And everyone just goes back to playing the NetEpic Ork rules, which are probably one of the most fun to play faction-specific rules that GW has ever written!

LordBlunt wrote:
Hey guys,

While I haven't read the entirety of this thread, when will Eldar and possibly Tau get released for Legions Imperialis you think?

Given that the game is just about to release in the coming months, would it be safe to think we might get Eldar (or additional races) by next summer?

Not for Legions Imperialis as it's set in the 30K era and not even released yet, but Titanicus is looking very stale these days with it's limited(shared) Imperial range. While there are still 30K era options left to explore, they're not enough to keep the game going in the long term and especially with Legions offering the same units.

And there is also the possibility of Aeronautica returning for a new edition. Even more so than Titanicus, Aeronautica had quickly exhausted it's 30K options. While Epic 40K is not likely to happen for a while yet, Aeronautica is still a good option for GW in the meantime. There is a player base out there between both previous editions, with many models still going to be available in the Legions range. If they look back to the original edition, and remove those bloody hexmaps, there's no reason 40K Aeronautica can't keep us entertained in the meantime...

Xenos are possible, but don't hold your breath

I expect western civilization to fall before we get xenos in Legions. We didn't even get chaos bits in 5 years of Titanicus.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I expect western civilization to fall before we get xenos in Legions. We didn't even get chaos bits in 5 years of Titanicus.

The way things are going, I don't think that is as long as you think it is.

MarkNorfolk wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I expect western civilization to fall before we get xenos in Legions. We didn't even get chaos bits in 5 years of Titanicus.

The way things are going, I don't think that is as long as you think it is.

a week Tuesday, heck could even be before the game is released

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I expect western civilization to fall before we get xenos in Legions. We didn't even get chaos bits in 5 years of Titanicus.

Slightly off topic, and not aimed directly at you, certainly more of a general question: When DID traitor legions start getting all chaos-y though?

I'm working through the HH books but so far it all seems to have been a few weeks/months since Horus and co went off script and did the Istvaan operations. We've seen the Emperor's Children Noise marines get a dose of the Warp (with help of Bile), and Fulgrim and Angron are now Daemon princes but nothing suggests their legions are outwardly Chaos in the traditional sense.

 Tabletop_Magpie wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I expect western civilization to fall before we get xenos in Legions. We didn't even get chaos bits in 5 years of Titanicus.

Slightly off topic, and not aimed directly at you, certainly more of a general question: When DID traitor legions start getting all chaos-y though?

I'm working through the HH books but so far it all seems to have been a few weeks/months since Horus and co went off script and did the Istvaan operations. We've seen the Emperor's Children Noise marines get a dose of the Warp (with help of Bile), and Fulgrim and Angron are now Daemon princes but nothing suggests their legions are outwardly Chaos in the traditional sense.

By Terra many of the legions are pretty mutated.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/10/12/heresy-thursday-deliver-and-destroy-with-a-new-legions-imperialis-tank/

Join us next Thursday for another Heresy Thursday, which will reveal more for Legions Imperialis.

chaos0xomega wrote:
HBMC, my guy, you are not owed a complete list in a single place. You are not "buying a codex", you're buying a core rulebook for a game, there is no expectation for it to contain a full army list, the fact that it contains any army list at all is a small miracle, most of the time you have to buy a second book to get those.

Like all specialist games to date, this will be a game largely driven by narrative supplements, same as Horus Heresy, same as Adeptus Titanicus, same as Necromunda, same as Aeronautica Imperialis, etc. None of them give you your full army list in one place either, at least not up front. You should have know what to expect, if you didn't that's on you.

I don't need to see drop pods, jetbikes, landspeeders or whatever to know they exist and will eventually be added to the game (and hell drop pods were only added to 40k proper in 5th edition despite them existing in lore for decades prior so calling them "intrinsic" parts of the marine army list is a real laugh riot, gw really screwed us over those first 25 years or so by giving us incomplete codexes I guess, huh?).

Funny thing about "need". I don't "need" LI either. What I need is vote with my moneys

I already suffered Newcromunda, and I don't want that. So if LI is going to be like that, wel... the internet will provide enough for me, I'm sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordBlunt wrote:
Hey guys,

While I haven't read the entirety of this thread, when will Eldar and possibly Tau get released for Legions Imperialis you think?

Given that the game is just about to release in the coming months, would it be safe to think we might get Eldar (or additional races) by next summer?

According to GW, never.

Lovely sculpts, but again, 4 to a box is rookie numbers.

 Albertorius wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
HBMC, my guy, you are not owed a complete list in a single place. You are not "buying a codex", you're buying a core rulebook for a game, there is no expectation for it to contain a full army list, the fact that it contains any army list at all is a small miracle, most of the time you have to buy a second book to get those.

Like all specialist games to date, this will be a game largely driven by narrative supplements, same as Horus Heresy, same as Adeptus Titanicus, same as Necromunda, same as Aeronautica Imperialis, etc. None of them give you your full army list in one place either, at least not up front. You should have know what to expect, if you didn't that's on you.

I don't need to see drop pods, jetbikes, landspeeders or whatever to know they exist and will eventually be added to the game (and hell drop pods were only added to 40k proper in 5th edition despite them existing in lore for decades prior so calling them "intrinsic" parts of the marine army list is a real laugh riot, gw really screwed us over those first 25 years or so by giving us incomplete codexes I guess, huh?).

Funny thing about "need". I don't "need" LI either. What I need is vote with my moneys

I already suffered Newcromunda, and I don't want that. So if LI is going to be like that, wel... the internet will provide enough for me, I'm sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordBlunt wrote:
Hey guys,

While I haven't read the entirety of this thread, when will Eldar and possibly Tau get released for Legions Imperialis you think?

Given that the game is just about to release in the coming months, would it be safe to think we might get Eldar (or additional races) by next summer?

According to GW, never.

Gw denies even planning something until they announce it next day. Not most reliable sources for never if you believe their never then gw would never release anything.

tneva82 wrote:
Gw denies even planning something until they announce it next day. Not most reliable sources for never if you believe their never then gw would never release anything.

Well, what I believe is that they've said the same for all the games set in 30k, and so far, no xenos in sight for any of them, so...

AI was specifically not set in 30k and had xenos from the start.

Interesting, they sculpted the Laser Destroyers.

I really wish there was a bit more meat to these previews. No stat line, no points, nothing about transport cap, etc. sigh, just pretty pictures. I want rules people!

 vadersson wrote:
I really wish there was a bit more meat to these previews. No stat line, no points, nothing about transport cap, etc. sigh, just pretty pictures. I want rules people!

They are probably saving those up for when they need to build up hype and interest for the release again. Since they already released all those faction rules articles back with the original release they only have individual units left now

Not previewing the rules eliminates the chance of previewing the wrong (recalled) book.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Lovely sculpts, but again, 4 to a box is rookie numbers.

4 to a box is the number of standard landraiders you got to a box in Epic: Armageddon with the metal updates. Just sayin

 vadersson wrote:
I really wish there was a bit more meat to these previews. No stat line, no points, nothing about transport cap, etc. sigh, just pretty pictures. I want rules people!

At this point one would suspect that means they ain't on the main book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Lovely sculpts, but again, 4 to a box is rookie numbers.

4 to a box is the number of standard landraiders you got to a box in Epic: Armageddon with the metal updates. Just sayin

One of the reasons E:A didn't sell well was because it was insanely expensive. Just sayin.

As a GW employee at the time Epic sold super well for us before they pulled it to a battle bunker only item along with BFG and the other specialist games. Granted this was the US so who knows.

Also EA was a different beast. Those 4 tanks were 400pts which is over 12%ish of a standard game.

Epic EA was actually cheaper than 40k to play even at that time.

 Hulksmash wrote:
As a GW employee at the time Epic sold super well for us before they pulled it to a battle bunker only item along with BFG and the other specialist games. Granted this was the US so who knows.

Also EA was a different beast. Those 4 tanks were 400pts which is over 12%ish of a standard game.

Epic EA was actually cheaper than 40k to play even at that time.

As a GW employee at the time, Epic 40k sold very well here as well. Then came E:A, they moved everything to Specialist Games, stopped selling any plastics whatsoever and went full metal or FW resin, both coming with a hefty markup.

And overnight, it tanked. HARD.

Epic vs. E:A are completely different time frames. One was last big when I was 14 and the other came out when I was 20 or 21.

Also the main factions had recut plastic infantry boxsets. The vehicles went all metal and some specialist infantry but it was still cheaper to play than 40k even at the cheaper cost at the time that was 40k.

Xirix wrote:
Interesting, they sculpted the Laser Destroyers.

Yeah, I like them. Maybe they could do a quick set of full size ones that people can use on the plastic kits if they want to run Laser Destroyer sponsons?

No HB nose though?

 Hulksmash wrote:
Epic vs. E:A are completely different time frames. One was last big when I was 14 and the other came out when I was 20 or 21.

Yeah. And I was talking specifically about E:A, as my post states.

Also the main factions had recut plastic infantry boxsets. The vehicles went all metal and some specialist infantry but it was still cheaper to play than 40k even at the cheaper cost at the time that was 40k.

It was very much not, here in Spain, as you had to order to Specialist Games, which meant ordering directly from UK, as Direct Order Spain had already disbanded.

Over here at least E:A stuff more than doubled price from the E:40k era, plus it came in bigger boxes (full detachments, IIRC), instead of blisters. So all the people that did impulse buys didn't buy anymore, for one, as it wasn't in the stores.

There was almost no new players either as, again, not sold in the store anymore.

A lot of the people that did play stopped doing it because many played in the Battle Bunkers and as, again, it wasn't sold in the stores anymore, we got told they couldn't play.

And well, the prices, which more than doubled from one day to the next, made you direct order it, made you buy more than you wanted (because to qualify for free shipping you had to buy a lot, and because they made bigger boxes)... E:A got killed dead pretty quick, here.

the weird bit was when GW started to put out what were effectively metal recasts of the plastics

leopard wrote:
the weird bit was when GW started to put out what were effectively metal recasts of the plastics

Yeah, the metal infantry were weird that way. Just recast plastic models they'd removed from the plastic sprues (Aspect Warriors, Terminators, Scouts, etc).

 Hulksmash wrote:

leopard wrote:
the weird bit was when GW started to put out what were effectively metal recasts of the plastics

Yeah, the metal infantry were weird that way. Just recast plastic models they'd removed from the plastic sprues (Aspect Warriors, Terminators, Scouts, etc).

and pretty low quality ones, that was I think the era though when GW had yet to bring plastic in house so this way was likely more profitable for them

 xttz wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/10/12/heresy-thursday-deliver-and-destroy-with-a-new-legions-imperialis-tank/

Join us next Thursday for another Heresy Thursday, which will reveal more for Legions Imperialis.

Love these.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 kodos wrote:
it is not about defending GW, but why are the people grumbling with GW doing the same as always
nothing changed, everything the same, yet people are angry because they did not expect GW being GW

GW sales models vary wildly game to game. They're not trying to sell you half a faction in Underworlds, BB, Warcy, Kill Team, HH... so let us just have our regret over Legions apparently going in the worst DLC treadmill tier along with Necromunda.

Underworlds, BB, Warcry, and Kill Team all require you to buy supplement books to keep up with additional wargear options, strategem, and other rules, etc. You don't technically "need" those rules, sure, but if thats the argument you are going to take, I will counter that you don't technically "need" drop pods either.

Including HH in that list though - lolwut? You want to field a Legion Inductii squad or Ducrions in your astartes list? You gotta buy the $60 Siege of Cthonia supplement. You want to field Fulgrim transfigured or corrupted Legiones Hereticus in your Emperors Children army, or Sanctifier squads in your Salamanders army, or Nemesis Destroyers in your Ultramarines, or Dominator Termies in your Iron Warriors, or Atramentars in your Night Lords, or Red Hand Destroyers in your World Eaters? Going to need to buy the Exemplary Battles Volume 1 book for probably another $60 when it launches for pre-order this weekend - and note that those Iron Warriors, Ultamarines, World Eaters, and Night Lords units existed in the previous edition of the game, so they aren't "new". GW has also stated that many of the units in the Legacies pdf's will eventually be revised/updated and published in forthcoming supplements - the Astartes legacy pdf alone contains 70-80 additional units, if I were to guess thats probably as many units as are currently in the supposedly "complete" Legiones Astartes army list published for the game so far - so yeah, they absolutely did sell you "half a faction".

SamusDrake wrote:

LordBlunt wrote:
Hey guys,
While I haven't read the entirety of this thread, when will Eldar and possibly Tau get released for Legions Imperialis you think?
Given that the game is just about to release in the coming months, would it be safe to think we might get Eldar (or additional races) by next summer?

Not for Legions Imperialis as it's set in the 30K era and not even released yet, but Titanicus is looking very stale these days with it's limited(shared) Imperial range. While there are still 30K era options left to explore, they're not enough to keep the game going in the long term and especially with Legions offering the same units.

Realistically they could go for another 2-3 years, at least, in Adeptus Titanicus just sticking to Horus Heresy Traitor/Imperium content before they need to consider xenos. Theres like a half dozen known titan variants (and a handful of known Knight/Armiger types) that can be added to the game, even before you get into variant designs and corrupted versions. They have a lot of tooth left before they would need to get into Xenos. The fact that it will pull double duty with the LI crowd makes it far more appealing to GW from an ROI standpoint than it does to add stompas or eldar titans, etc.

And there is also the possibility of Aeronautica returning for a new edition. Even more so than Titanicus, Aeronautica had quickly exhausted it's 30K options. While Epic 40K is not likely to happen for a while yet, Aeronautica is still a good option for GW in the meantime. There is a player base out there between both previous editions, with many models still going to be available in the Legions range. If they look back to the original edition, and remove those bloody hexmaps, there's no reason 40K Aeronautica can't keep us entertained in the meantime...

Theres still quite a bit of HH content that could be released for AI yet. The decision to discontinue all the xenos stuff at this stage honestly does not bode well for the game in the short/medium term. I think they will eventually relaunch a 2nd edition of AI in a 40k setting, but probably not for 3-5 years at least if I were to guess. When they do so though, I think it might be a good indication that 40k xenos might be getting added to AT or LI within another 3-5 years of that point.

 Albertorius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Gw denies even planning something until they announce it next day. Not most reliable sources for never if you believe their never then gw would never release anything.

Well, what I believe is that they've said the same for all the games set in 30k, and so far, no xenos in sight for any of them, so...

AI was specifically not set in 30k and had xenos from the start.

Indeed, and keep in mind that HH has been going for about 15 years with nary a xenos in sight.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Including HH in that list though - lolwut? You want to field a Legion Inductii squad or Ducrions in your astartes list? You gotta buy the $60 Siege of Cthonia supplement. You want to field Fulgrim transfigured or corrupted Legiones Hereticus in your Emperors Children army, or Sanctifier squads in your Salamanders army, or Nemesis Destroyers in your Ultramarines, or Dominator Termies in your Iron Warriors, or Atramentars in your Night Lords, or Red Hand Destroyers in your World Eaters? Going to need to buy the Exemplary Battles Volume 1 book for probably another $60 when it launches for pre-order this weekend - and note that those Iron Warriors, Ultamarines, World Eaters, and Night Lords units existed in the previous edition of the game, so they aren't "new". GW has also stated that many of the units in the Legacies pdf's will eventually be revised/updated and published in forthcoming supplements - the Astartes legacy pdf alone contains 70-80 additional units, if I were to guess thats probably as many units as are currently in the supposedly "complete" Legiones Astartes army list published for the game so far - so yeah, they absolutely did sell you "half a faction".

I must have missed the part where we were talking about legion-specific units instead of general stuff available to all of them.

The Legacies list includes like 40 or so generic units so, yeah, thats included too.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The Legacies list includes like 40 or so generic units so, yeah, thats included too.

As generic as what, please? I'll admit nothing really jumped at me on the two Astartes books as being out from generic units.

Its literally a free pdf you can download from Warcom, take a look for yourself. Off the top of my head, Legion Medusas and Basilisks, Caestus Assault Ram, Thunderhawk Transporter, Land Raider Achilles and Phobos, etc.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Its literally a free pdf you can download from Warcom, take a look for yourself. Off the top of my head, Legion Medusas and Basilisks, Caestus Assault Ram, Thunderhawk Transporter, Land Raider Achilles and Phobos, etc.

Ah, thanks, I must have forgotten about that file. If they do the same here, it would be kinda nice. Oher than the medusas it seems mostly variants of vehicles already included, right?

Its also off topic so drop it.

White Dwarf leak of the battle report for LI:

Cool, a 3000 points game. Size of armies is relevant to what you fielded on the battlefield in a "regular" old Epic edition game. Without surprise, it uses a lot of boxes. It will be interesting to read.

Sarouan wrote:
Cool, a 3000 points game. Size of armies is relevant to what you fielded on the battlefield in a "regular" old Epic edition game. Without surprise, it uses a lot of boxes. It will be interesting to read.

Makes me wonder what the price of a 3000pt army is.
That BA army has 16 drop pods. Was it 4 in a box? Probably £30+. That's £120 just on tiny drop pods.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Makes me wonder what the price of a 3000pt army is.
That BA army has 16 drop pods. Was it 4 in a box? Probably £30+. That's £120 just on tiny drop pods.

4 in a box according to Warhammer Community preview. As for the price...that is still unknown.

This battle report shows a lot of variety in terms of unit types and rules. It should give a good feeling of what the game offers.

Sarouan wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Makes me wonder what the price of a 3000pt army is.
That BA army has 16 drop pods. Was it 4 in a box? Probably £30+. That's £120 just on tiny drop pods.

4 in a box according to Warhammer Community preview. As for the price...that is still unknown.

Yeah... £30 at this point is, I think, a conservative estimation.

The size of the armies seem properly Epic, particularly for Space Marines. Not sure that the rules leaked so far will be very conductive to play at that size within a feasible time frame...

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
Cool, a 3000 points game. Size of armies is relevant to what you fielded on the battlefield in a "regular" old Epic edition game. Without surprise, it uses a lot of boxes. It will be interesting to read.

Makes me wonder what the price of a 3000pt army is.
That BA army has 16 drop pods. Was it 4 in a box? Probably £30+. That's £120 just on tiny drop pods.

I'm guessing the boxes all have the same price as the aeronautica ones so £30.
For the launch box I'm guessing the Predators/Sicarans and the Malcadors/Leman Russes won't be in dual boxes but individual boxes instead with double the number of models. This way it would be 2 sprues per box which seems in line with Aeronautica. The SM infantry and the Contemptors are on the same sprue doubled up so likely to be the same number in their individual box. Guessing the same to be true for the SA infantry/sentinels/ogryns.

For the Blood Angels that would be:
2-3 boxes of Kratos depending if its true that there are 4 inside, I'll calculate with 4 per box here -- £60
2 boxes of Predators -- £60
3 boxes of Sicarans -- £90
1 box of Xiphons -- £30
2 boxes of SM fast attack -- £60
6 boxes of SM Infantry -- £180 (Mainly because the list has 12 Terminator stands and with the breakdown above there would only be 2 stands per infantry box. If there are double the miniatures inside this price halves)
4 boxes of Drop Pods -- £120
1 box of Fire Raptors -- £30
1 Reaver Titan -- £37.5

Sum -- £667.5

Opposing side:
3 boxes of SM Infantry -- £90 (Depending if those Tactical Detachments are only Tactical Squads or if there are also Missile/Plasma/Assault Marines in there this could be lower)
1 box of SM Support -- £30 (Dreads/Tarantulas/Rapiers)
1 box of Fire Raptors -- £30
1 box of Rhinos -- £30
1 box of Kratos -- £30
1 box of Sicaran -- £30
1 box of Storm Eagles -- £30
1 box of Xiphons -- £30
2 boxes of Predators -- £60
1 box of SA Infantry -- £30
1 box of Leman Russes -- £30
1 box of SA Support -- £30 (Rapiers)
1 Reaver Titan -- £37.5

Sum -- £487.5

The second list is cheaper as it took less models because multiple smaller units = less bulk discounts

So I would guess on average around £500 for 3000pts as the above lists also have a few stands left over (For example Xiphons are 6 per box but both lists only used 3)

Of course, these are just guesses that don't take into account any kind of discount you may have, depending on where you buy or in case of "bundle boxes", and also assuming everything in that battle report will be actually available right at launch (given it involves at least one expansion book for the rules, it's not a given).

Still, we're talking about GW, we know it will be expensive and it is about building a collection over time.

I believe I'll start with 1000 points game first, personnally speaking.

I really hope we don't see £30 as a baseline for boxes. The game will be far too expensive although I think most of this will get sold as formations so may work out cheaper all bundled in?

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I really hope we don't see £30 as a baseline for boxes. The game will be far too expensive although I think most of this will get sold as formations so may work out cheaper all bundled in?

There will be people selling separate parts of the "starter box" second-handed for a bit cheaper than single boxes, as well.

It's not really worth it to worry about that now, when we are only left with guesses that try to use "standard prices" as if they actually meant anything when you really start building your collection once stuff is sold online.

And if everything is way too expensive for you, you still have 3D printing / 3rd party coming to your rescue (assuming you still want to invest in that game, of course).

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I really hope we don't see £30 as a baseline for boxes. The game will be far too expensive although I think most of this will get sold as formations so may work out cheaper all bundled in?

I actually think that it's plausible that it will be more... £30 as a baseline takes ito account AI boxes... but those were released a while ago already, and if GW is consistent on anything, is on "upgrading" price brackets with each new release.

Is it just the angle, or is the vmb on the reaver titan look different from the resin kit?

Boxes might be more than for AI, but you buy with discount and core box content s cheaper so overall the calculation is fine as a first guess

Hopefully be cheaper but might be more as well

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Is it just the angle, or is the vmb on the reaver titan look different from the resin kit?

It looks the same to me. Here is a frontal shot of the resin version:

 kodos wrote:
Boxes might be more than for AI, but you buy with discount and core box content s cheaper so overall the calculation is fine as a first guess

Hopefully be cheaper but might be more as well

I expect discounts will be the same as they always are, so the result would be a net increase (not taking into account the core box...did we have confirmation that it will be an evergreen product, or a limited run?)

On force size, worth bearing in mind that one of the first (possibly the first) battle report for 2nd edition SM was a 6000pt mega battle (marines against Eldar) - a force size way bigger than the 3000/4000 that most people used in regular games. So this might not be entirely indicative.
Also, GW can say "this is the standard games size", because they are trying to shift more boxes, but the community will decide on what a standard game is. Once the tournaments get going, if 3000pts takes 3-4 hours to play then I can tell you now it won't become the 'standard' game size. Especially with the level of granularity, weapons profiles and faction specific special rules we can see, all of which halt the flow of the game when you are looking up rules tables, the 'standard' size game will settle on what people can play in an evening, or the ability to fit 3 games into a day for a tournament.

So.. don't stress too much if you think you need to save £400-500 to play this game, is what I am saying.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I really hope we don't see £30 as a baseline for boxes. The game will be far too expensive although I think most of this will get sold as formations so may work out cheaper all bundled in?

I hope so too. I remember I got into Epic as a kid, rather than 40k, as it was much cheaper to play. My friends and I shared the same starter box set, and an extra box of plastics or so and you were ready to go. It is quite possible this game is now aimed at those kids now 'grown up' (haha) who have £300-400 to splurge on a force for this game, although I am not one of those lol.

Interesting they couldn't even make the inaugural battle report without using expansion book content. Almost like the core book isn't enough to play the full game

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Interesting they couldn't even make the inaugural battle report without using expansion book content. Almost like the core book isn't enough to play the full game

Could also be that since their plans for the game were messed up by the launch delay and they don't want to delay the first expansion by too long in order to regain some inventory space, this is a battle report showcasing the game with the expansion book, and not the launch box, but the launch box is definitely playable by itself as well.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Interesting they couldn't even make the inaugural battle report without using expansion book content. Almost like the core book isn't enough to play the full game

Actually, the White Dwarf nowadays doesn't exactly follows former editorial lines on that matter. "Inaugural" battle report of Warcry 2nd edition was on a custom-made terrain (beautifully converted, I must say) that's not really representative of the content of the box. But it was giving awesome pictures and still very inspiring.

I bet here the point was to make a report showing vastly different tactics / unit types. Both armies are also wildly different approaches based on how they're built and what units they have. That's the focus, I feel, more than just "selling the core box". It is here to show the game is still able to give you enough choice so that the enemy factions involved can be very different even though they basically both have the same tools / profiles / lists at their disposal.

 Pacific wrote:
On force size, worth bearing in mind that one of the first (possibly the first) battle report for 2nd edition SM was a 6000pt mega battle (marines against Eldar) - a force size way bigger than the 3000/4000 that most people used in regular games. So this might not be entirely indicative.
Also, GW can say "this is the standard games size", because they are trying to shift more boxes, but the community will decide on what a standard game is. Once the tournaments get going, if 3000pts takes 3-4 hours to play then I can tell you now it won't become the 'standard' game size. Especially with the level of granularity, weapons profiles and faction specific special rules we can see, all of which halt the flow of the game when you are looking up rules tables, the 'standard' size game will settle on what people can play in an evening, or the ability to fit 3 games into a day for a tournament.

So.. don't stress too much if you think you need to save £400-500 to play this game, is what I am saying.

Gw said 40k default is 2k. Players followed automatically while complaining armies got more expensive to collect. Idea of sticking previous sizes didn't occur.

Never underestimate people's desire to follow gw's decisions even when it's hurting players and only for gw's profit.

Gw says 3k is standard, that's where tournaments go even if half games are talked through in the end.

tneva82 wrote:
Gw said 40k default is 2k. Players followed automatically while complaining armies got more expensive to collect. Idea of sticking previous sizes didn't occur.

Never underestimate people's desire to follow gw's decisions even when it's hurting players and only for gw's profit.

Gw says 3k is standard, that's where tournaments go even if half games are talked through in the end.

Very true, but in large part this is probably based on the assumption that GW balances the game (kek) at their stated default level.

It's more a question of exploiting the tools / list choices at your disposal. Too small in points = not enough units you'd like to include and less combos you can build. In short : you feel too restricted. That's the real reason why "small games" are less popular.

A massive part of wargame list building though is exactly that Sarouan - trying to optimise it, guess the good units to use against your opponent or scenario and having to compromise on what you choose.
That has been part of every GW game for as long as I can remember. Mega battle 'spaff everything onto the table' are also fun, but I don't think thats the general experience people have when playing, especially for pick up games, events or tournaments.

More from White Dwarf:

Man, that just looks fun!

First and foremost it looks insanely crowded. How large is that board?

5x4 is the suggested standard size

It really isn't any more crowded than a game of 40k...

It's a 5x4 based on the mission map, and it looks to be 5x4 based on the images and generally looking at the page.

Yeah, I don't see how's that "crowded". In fact, I find the middle quite empty and lacking of line of sight blocking terrain.

The double page is badly folded on the pictures, so you don't see the full battlefield in the middle.

If you let a blood angel player drop a hundred trash cans all over your deployment zone it's gonna be a bit hard to move around

I would answer to that and say modern 40k games look insanely crowded too

It definitely does look more crowded than any other previous version of Epic (but that stands to reason as both the board size has become smaller and model count increased).

It will obviously take away some tactical agency from the players, for things like flanking attacks, but remember these are just recommended board size and points costs.. and even the most die-hard "GW has told me this so I must do durrrrr..." Is not going to saw a foot of length off their 6x4 gaming boards.

Saw no, cut felt yes. And soon n+1 5x4 felts available and you are looked badly if you don't play on that size.

Happens every time with gw games

 Pacific wrote:


It definitely does look more crowded than any other previous version of Epic (but that stands to reason as both the board size has become smaller and model count increased).

To be fair, previous versions of Epic typically didn't fill that many terrains in their official battle reports.

The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

Yea introducing a third sizing standard is odd af. I guess 5x4 is sort of a middle ground that's just a few inches short of nu40k size and also easy to adapt from 6x4? A compromise to kinda sorta work for both current 40k players and Specialist Games grognards at a cost of not exactly matching for anyone?

Are you not excited to buy not only new armies and terrain but also a new board?

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

Especially since the tiles come in packs of 6. You would need 20 for a 5x4 so you'd have 4 left over. Even better is that the 24 you'd have then would be the correct number for 6x4

Sarouan wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


It definitely does look more crowded than any other previous version of Epic (but that stands to reason as both the board size has become smaller and model count increased).

To be fair, previous versions of Epic typically didn't fill that many terrains in their official battle reports.

I think Lord_Blackfang is referring to the model count over the given space. Previous versions of epic that I played had a lot more space, so that the player had to decide where to commit stuff. This looks like two shoulder to shoulder battle lines that will advance into the middle and grind against each other. Not trying to say there is no skill, but just trying to indicate that manoeuvre and objective control looks different to previous versions.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

Yea introducing a third sizing standard is odd af. I guess 5x4 is sort of a middle ground that's just a few inches short of nu40k size and also easy to adapt from 6x4? A compromise to kinda sorta work for both current 40k players and Specialist Games grognards at a cost of not exactly matching for anyone?

Titanicus was 4x4 iirc so that makes 5x4 confusing again, as they could have stuck with that and a smaller game size.

It does not help that mins are now 8mm vs 6mm. Even if base sizes are similar they look like they take up more room now. Anyone else use 5x4 boars? SW:Armada is 3x6 I think. Bolt Action is still 4x6 IIRC. What is SW Legion using?

 Matrindur wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

Especially since the tiles come in packs of 6. You would need 20 for a 5x4 so you'd have 4 left over. Even better is that the 24 you'd have then would be the correct number for 6x4

Yay! It's like old Epic again, where vehicles were sold in packs of 3 or 4, but units were 5! lol

 Flinty wrote:

I think Lord_Blackfang is referring to the model count over the given space. Previous versions of epic that I played had a lot more space, so that the player had to decide where to commit stuff. This looks like two shoulder to shoulder battle lines that will advance into the middle and grind against each other. Not trying to say there is no skill, but just trying to indicate that manoeuvre and objective control looks different to previous versions.

No, it's the victory conditions of the scenario that push people to do that. In this specific scenario, before the picture was removed, the objective was to hold in the middle and kill a priority target chosen by each player. Having a big board doesn't really do that in itself. I've played enough Warhammer Battle "pitched battle" scenarios to know that it's not the size of the board that matter for moving your units in one particular direction.


Besides, it's just one battle report at 3000 points. If you want to play 2000 points or on a bigger board, feel free to do it. No GW police will stop you from doing so.

Sarouan wrote:

To be fair, previous versions of Epic typically didn't fill that many terrains in their official battle reports.

They also tended to be played on custom 8x4 boards, which many players aren't going to be able to aim for.

Dudeface wrote:

Titanicus was 4x4 iirc so that makes 5x4 confusing again, as they could have stuck with that and a smaller game size.

I liked how the AT table layout gave you plenty of spare room for game accessories with a standard 6x4 table. Epic obviously doesn't need quite as much of that space without the terminal cards, so I wonder if 5x4 was meant to bring Epic closer in line to 40k while still being compatible with tiles measured in full feet.

Dudeface wrote:

Titanicus was 4x4 iirc so that makes 5x4 confusing again, as they could have stuck with that and a smaller game size.

Titanicus was the smaller size to accommodate the terminals. But even still, there's no harm in playing smaller if thats preferred.

 xttz wrote:


They also tended to be played on custom 8x4 boards, which many players aren't going to be able to aim for.

Last version of Epic still played by fan communities tend to be played at 3000 points, true, but most fan battle reports I've seen give an empty feeling when you look at a vast board with scare terrain here and there. A bigger board isn't especially fully exploited on that matter : most of the time, battles focus around objectives and if a part of the battlefield is devoid of one, most units have no real reason to be deployed there. There's no purpose of having more room to manoeuver if there is no reason to manoeuver there at all.

The fact it's a smaller scale actually reinforces that feeling of emptiness in that case. That's why I don't feel like it's crowded in the White Dwarf battle report.

seem to also remember that a lot of the time in 1st and also in 2nd edition infantry spent a lot of time in transports and only disembarked to actually "do" something

leopard wrote:
seem to also remember that a lot of the time in 1st and also in 2nd edition infantry spent a lot of time in transports and only disembarked to actually "do" something

Usually to capture an objective and trying not to die in the process.

Sarouan wrote:

leopard wrote:
seem to also remember that a lot of the time in 1st and also in 2nd edition infantry spent a lot of time in transports and only disembarked to actually "do" something

Usually to capture an objective and trying not to die in the process.

exactly, but the result of that was a lack of infantry walking across the board (except for Eldar aspect warriors because knife & fork them, they can walk)

Well I seem to remember E:A was played with 6 objectives and maneuver was important enough that you sometimes spend your activation doing a triple move. Probably not gonna be a lot of triple moves in Legions.

Actually, the main reason why infantry on foot wasn't that used in previous editions is precisely because of using bigger boards. Infantry on foot is slow, and vulnerable. Having to move through a wasteland under heavy enemy firepower (and the Emperor knows how deadly and long ranged firepower can be at Epic scale) is usually a death sentence.

Playing on smaller boards (and with buildings) is a whole another matter favoring this kind of infantry for sure. At least, that's what I learned from my experience of playing EA, even years after GW stopped official support.

 kodos wrote:
Are you not excited to buy not only new armies and terrain but also a new board?

What a dumb argument that people keep repeating ever since GW made the recommended tables smaller.

Just play with part of your existing board counting as "out of bounds"...

As for armies and terrain, well no gak, its a new game with a new scale....

Sarouan wrote:
Actually, the main reason why infantry on foot wasn't that used in previous editions is precisely because of using bigger boards. Infantry on foot is slow, and vulnerable. Having to move through a wasteland under heavy enemy firepower (and the Emperor knows how deadly and long ranged firepower can be at Epic scale) is usually a death sentence.

Playing on smaller boards (and with buildings) is a whole another matter favoring this kind of infantry for sure. At least, that's what I learned from my experience of playing EA, even years after GW stopped official support.

Agreed. Its easy to forget that many enjoy wargaming on the kitchen table, as well as at the more advanced venue that affords multiple tables pushed together.

 Albertorius wrote:

One of the reasons E:A didn't sell well was because it was insanely expensive. Just sayin.

Sold well compared to what? Sales were 400% of Warmaster, with Warmaster assumed to be the baseline it would sell as.

Somehow these tiny tanks don't evoke such positive response from me as the Epic ones.

They lack the cuteness.

Sarouan wrote:
Cool, a 3000 points game. Size of armies is relevant to what you fielded on the battlefield in a "regular" old Epic edition game. Without surprise, it uses a lot of boxes. It will be interesting to read.

Which edition? Looks a bit smaller than 2nd, with a similar footprint due to model and base size, but significantly larger than E:A (top of my head comparison there would be
6 Kratos - call them Land Raiders 600
11 Preds 600
3 planes 225
11 Sicarans - call them pred annihilators 750
12 speeders 475
6 bikes 250
12 jetbikes (call 'em bikes) 450
1 command 50
22 Tacs 1100
8 Devs 500
12 Terminators 1050
2 Raptors (pretend they are 'Hawks) 400
Reaver 650
So it was roughly 7000, now it is 3000, on a smaller table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:

Last version of Epic still played by fan communities tend to be played at 3000 points, true, but most fan battle reports I've seen give an empty feeling when you look at a vast board with scare terrain here and there. A bigger board isn't especially fully exploited on that matter : most of the time, battles focus around objectives and if a part of the battlefield is devoid of one, most units have no real reason to be deployed there. There's no purpose of having more room to manoeuvre if there is no reason to manoeuvre there at all.

But that is a consequence of decisions made in game. Do you want to concentrate the enemy with objectives in the same place, or make him spread out. That would depend on his army and yours. Also that space allows you to have depth to defences, have vulnerable long range units out of harms way and also to be able to flank and get round the enemy without fighting through. You know, manoeuvre warfare. Its taken to an extreme with a game like Blutcher, but here was a nice balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Are you not excited to buy not only new armies and terrain but also a new board?

What a dumb argument that people keep repeating ever since GW made the recommended tables smaller.

Just play with part of your existing board counting as "out of bounds"...

As for armies and terrain, well no gak, its a new game with a new scale....

Well, if it has been properly playtested, changing the board size will make a big difference to balance.

E:A was tested extensively for playing long edges or corners - playing using the short sides made things go out of balance for some armies too much.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
It really isn't any more crowded than a game of 40k...

...that is not the positive point you think it is. Current 40k looks horribly overcrowded, as if they were fighting on a small parking lot.

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Well, if it has been properly playtested,

Am I only only one that finds this statement funny?

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

Yeah, after seeing that I think I'd go 2000 points and 6x4, that should look less crowded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

One of the reasons E:A didn't sell well was because it was insanely expensive. Just sayin.

Sold well compared to what? Sales were 400% of Warmaster, with Warmaster assumed to be the baseline it would sell as.

Compared to Epic: 40k. Which itself didn't sell so good in comparison with the previous edition.

Sarouan wrote:
Last version of Epic still played by fan communities tend to be played at 3000 points, true, but most fan battle reports I've seen give an empty feeling when you look at a vast board with scare terrain here and there. A bigger board isn't especially fully exploited on that matter : most of the time, battles focus around objectives and if a part of the battlefield is devoid of one, most units have no real reason to be deployed there. There's no purpose of having more room to manoeuver if there is no reason to manoeuver there at all.

The fact it's a smaller scale actually reinforces that feeling of emptiness in that case. That's why I don't feel like it's crowded in the White Dwarf battle report.

E:A is a game so heavily focused on maneuver, mobility, and board control that to suggest the standard board size is too big just because it isn't packed wall-to-wall like a 40K parking lot is frankly baffling.

That empty space gives things like artillery and transports reasons to exist, allows for defense-in-depth and offensive tactics beyond target priority, and permits factions like Marines to be the surgical instruments of force concentration they are in the lore.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

I thought those base tiles they showed a while back were 12" x 12" and you got 6 of them making 6x4?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/26/the-new-legions-imperialis-terrain-is-the-perfect-backdrop-for-an-epic-throwdown/

VAYASEN wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

I thought those base tiles they showed a while back were 12" x 12" and you got 6 of them making 6x4?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/26/the-new-legions-imperialis-terrain-is-the-perfect-backdrop-for-an-epic-throwdown/

Yes to all but the last part. If you have 6 tiles, each one 1'x1', you have 6'x1' with a single pack. You'd need 4 packs for either 5'x4' or 6'x4'

Sarouan wrote:
Actually, the main reason why infantry on foot wasn't that used in previous editions is precisely because of using bigger boards. Infantry on foot is slow, and vulnerable. Having to move through a wasteland under heavy enemy firepower (and the Emperor knows how deadly and long ranged firepower can be at Epic scale) is usually a death sentence.

Playing on smaller boards (and with buildings) is a whole another matter favoring this kind of infantry for sure. At least, that's what I learned from my experience of playing EA, even years after GW stopped official support.

This highlights what is one of the main advantages of marines in previous epic versions. Their stats are not really any better than most other armies (other than morale) but it's their ability to manoeuvre and relocate forces; this is why I used to find their win rate was a lot better than their stats would suggest.

Having massive chunks of infantry and tanks hammer each other within a parking lot board arrangement might make a cool visual appeal, but you're then losing some of the appeal from the previous games; a flank attack, trying to strike undefended artillery, moving units so they can get a cross-fire on approaching enemies. All previous Epic versions had this - actually, I will say all wargames worth their salt generally.

 Albertorius wrote:

VAYASEN wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

I thought those base tiles they showed a while back were 12" x 12" and you got 6 of them making 6x4?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/26/the-new-legions-imperialis-terrain-is-the-perfect-backdrop-for-an-epic-throwdown/

Yes to all but the last part. If you have 6 tiles, each one 1'x1', you have 6'x1' with a single pack. You'd need 4 packs for either 5'x4' or 6'x4'[/quote

Opps of course haha. I was half working while typing and had in my head they were 2x2 each.