Would primarchs be appropriate for a game this scale? I struggle to see their relevance translating to a battle this size without a lot of special rules.
Good to see it on a smaller scale...that it can be played.
Very reminiscent of 2nd Edition...which is aboslutely spot on in my books.
There did seem quite a few special rules been thrown around...like 'this tank has hit the titan and it has XX special rule'.
Also tokens...the Tokens in old Second edition were very clear. they were colour coded and had the order written on. Why do they do it like this modern way...all grey, just with a different symbol on it (something else you have to try remember when you are learning the game)
VAYASEN wrote: Well I did really enjoy the W+ Battle Report.
Good to see it on a smaller scale...that it can be played.
Very reminiscent of 2nd Edition...which is aboslutely spot on in my books.
There did seem quite a few special rules been thrown around...like 'this tank has hit the titan and it has XX special rule'.
Also tokens...the Tokens in old Second edition were very clear. they were colour coded and had the order written on. Why do they do it like this modern way...all grey, just with a different symbol on it (something else you have to try remember when you are learning the game)
A lot of the special rules on weapons were 'anti-light, therefore you get no bonus against tanks' or 'anti-tank, therefore you suffer the full AP of the weapon' which isn't too bad once you get it.
The tokens look not too impressive. Flat card tokens. I'm looking forward to getting some nice acrylic tokens of different symbols and colors.
chaos0xomega wrote: Would primarchs be appropriate for a game this scale? I struggle to see their relevance translating to a battle this size without a lot of special rules.
、
Way more than 32mm scale where they shouldn't appear at all logically.
does not compute. Primarchs fought on front lines often and regularly (even though they probably shouldn't and would be of greater utility in the rear at a command post). The full scale game is appropriate to represent that, as it is best to represent the zoomed in action occurring at key focal points in a battle, the type of place where an individual warrior and battlefield leader as important as a primarch would be most likely to be found.
Oh yea. One of a kind that can alone turn battles is more likely involved in tiny skirmish over guard post than in big battles that have bigger impact in war...
It's the same as how jet aircraft, artillery and titans also don't perfectly "fit" into 32mm scaling. Yes they look freaking cool, yes they balance into the game; but they do mess with the visualisation when your 10 man tactical squad can run the full range of artillery in a turn or two to get into close combat. Those are marines that are sprinting like crazy to do that
Again for those elements formats like LI give a slightly more faithful representation, though even then its still messing with things when you consider most aircraft would still only appear for a turn and then vanish; and most long ranged artillery should still just be a called-in-strike instead of a model on the table.
With how GW is packaging units together, I could totally see them making resin epic-scale Primarchs coupled with the legion-specific squads that would escort them. Angron and the Red Butchers. Ferrus Manus and the Gorgon Terminators. Fulgrim and the Phoenix Terminators. Corvus Corax and the Dark Furies.
Would be a neat way to have a centerpiece unit, add that legion flavor, but then still need the regular guys that you'd logically have to fill out the rest of your force.
Overread wrote: It's the same as how jet aircraft, artillery and titans also don't perfectly "fit" into 32mm scaling. Yes they look freaking cool, yes they balance into the game; but they do mess with the visualisation when your 10 man tactical squad can run the full range of artillery in a turn or two to get into close combat. Those are marines that are sprinting like crazy to do that
Again for those elements formats like LI give a slightly more faithful representation, though even then its still messing with things when you consider most aircraft would still only appear for a turn and then vanish; and most long ranged artillery should still just be a called-in-strike instead of a model on the table.
amusing bit is when you have an anti-tank weapon with an effective range shorter than the length of the tanks its meant to be used against
tneva82 wrote: Oh yea. One of a kind that can alone turn battles is more likely involved in tiny skirmish over guard post than in big battles that have bigger impact in war...
Riiiiiiiiight.
Stop being a gakker. The fluff is clear the Primarchs fought on the front lines, not just rarely but pretty much daily. Not every battle they participated in is going to be a big battle that has a bigger impact on the war, and just because your game appears relatively small and unimportant to you doesn't mean that it actually isn't big or important (or did you think that the battle is confined to an area analogous to a 6x4 table and that absolutely nothing is happening beyond the borders of the game you're playing? Because thats a you problem more than anything else). You can field almost a couple hundred marines in a typical HH game which is (depending on the legion) a few companies worth. Thats larger than many of the battles that are featured in the HH novel series (including many of the ones in which Primarchs took to the field), which often only feature a handful of squads of marines. When I'm putting a primarch on the table, its because I'm imagining my game as the focal point of a big battle, and thats why my primarch is there. Even moreso if my opponent puts his primarch on the field. Again, if you think your game is "a tiny skirmish over a guard post" thats a failure of your imagination and nothing else.
leopard wrote: 40k writers have never really had a sense of scale or the ability to rationalise numbers
its just one of those things
a marine chapter is 1,000 marines eh?
so the actual Germans made more actual Tiger tanks than there are marines in a chapter?
*cough*
its part of the insanity, embrace it as you run over that cliff edge into the blackness and stop worrying about such things
pity the guys who were the primarch's security details
I'd say making a space marine is a little more complicated than making a WW2 tank.
But yes, that's the point. Space Marines are exceptionally rare. In lore, they're mythological, and seeing one is either a good or bad omen depending on who and where you are. Compared to that, the Imperium of mankind churns out millions of tanks and sends billions of lives out to battlefields all over the place to defend their holdings, because the space marines cannot be everywhere.
Author shortcomings aside, yes, that is how it is meant to be in the 41st millenium.
Eumerin wrote: On a galactic scale, even a billion lives should be a drop in the bucket.
But eh .. whatever. It's one of the quirks of the setting.
To be fair once you get beyond a certain number it loses relative meaning to most people. 1 Billion is a vast number to most people so trying to say there were "only 1billion" is hard to put into context for them. Truely the Imperium is mindbogglingly vast to our minds - so much so its hard to fathom just how bit it really is.
The other element is that numbers going beyond trillions always sound odd to most people because they are words and concepts they never encounter. So again it can confuse them or just not be something they can easily envision in their minds eye.
And 40K isn't alone; a lot of sci-fi and fantasy gets the "hard numbers wrong" in stories. There are plenty of fantasy tales where horses can run for vast distances that a real horse could never do; or how in DnD most adventurers are likely wandering around quite literally as rich as kings after one or two quests and being paid in gold and gemstones (and heck the shopkeepers are positively rolling in vast riches).
So the 8 Auxilia Regiments are probably the ones circled in green and Legion Transfers are circled in red. And rest are for the Titans? Must be a dedicated marine-sheet in the marine boxes.
That seems to be correct, the ones to the right of the legion transfers might be numbers to use with everyone and the one to the right of that is titans with the smaller one in the top right being for banners maybe?
Battlereport is also up now but as I don't have a subscription I will need to wait for somebody else here to tell us how it went
The starter set transfer sheet has:
Top row L-R: 8 Solar Auxilia cohorts, Astartes vehicle markings (certainly Death Guard and Iron Hands, probably Imperial Fists and Sons of Horus too)
Bottom row L-R: 4 Legions, numerals, generic Titan markings
leopard wrote: 40k writers have never really had a sense of scale or the ability to rationalise numbers
I've always assumed it's some sort of joke or maybe trying to hearken back to the olden days when decisive major battles were a lot smaller. Because a lot of the silly numbers go right back to the early days of GW, and several of the blokes who were involved with GW in those early days were history buffs. They would have been well aware the scale of battles fought through history.
There's also the 'Light Armor' slot that we haven't seen really anything for. Obvious solutions would be the Sabre for Space Marines and the Carnodon for Solar Auxilia. The Carnodon actually has a model from FW, so here's hoping it gets representation in LI.
I love tanks.
Sabre's are a safe bet give they're the symbol for light armour I believe.
I believe they even coyly suggested we might see this eventually in one of the earlier preview articles.
...and what a fun hobby project those would be!
Oh goody!
I must say that I'm rather pumped at the thought of owning a tiny transfigured Fulgrim. Hoping that his release in HH will mean that he's not too far behind in Legions.
leopard wrote: 40k writers have never really had a sense of scale or the ability to rationalise numbers
I've always assumed it's some sort of joke or maybe trying to hearken back to the olden days when decisive major battles were a lot smaller. Because a lot of the silly numbers go right back to the early days of GW, and several of the blokes who were involved with GW in those early days were history buffs. They would have been well aware the scale of battles fought through history.
perhaps, though now perpetuated by writers who have no idea where such came from
though initially Marines were just Marines, and there were a heck of a lot of them, each chapter little more than a regiment, and I always took the "1,000" figure to be 1,000 front line marines, not including the officers, support staff, drivers, gunners, cooks, medics, tailors, etc
Going to have to wait 23 hours for the full video, but Stahly has a video looking at the LI models and the thumbnail has them side by side with the old Epic plastics...
SamusDrake wrote: Is anyone looking forward to tiny Primarchs? I might give thought to an Emperor's Children / Devine collection...
Oh absolutely! I know they will be resin but it would have been super fun with a plastic hero-box with like 6 Primarchs and some other VIPs and command models.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Going to have to wait 23 hours for the full video, but Stahly has a video looking at the LI models and the thumbnail has them side by side with the old Epic plastics...
There's also the 'Light Armor' slot that we haven't seen really anything for. Obvious solutions would be the Sabre for Space Marines and the Carnodon for Solar Auxilia. The Carnodon actually has a model from FW, so here's hoping it gets representation in LI.
I love tanks.
Sabre's are a safe bet give they're the symbol for light armour I believe.
Also the Arquitor as it is on the artillery symbol
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Going to have to wait 23 hours for the full video, but Stahly has a video looking at the LI models and the thumbnail has them side by side with the old Epic plastics...
Those details are looking very crisp, of course better than the not so good painting video but even the paintjob on the WarCom images makes them look muddier than they seem to be.
You can see individual chain-bayonet teeth here, while the pictures until now had them more as a silver blob on the bottom of the weapon
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Going to have to wait 23 hours for the full video, but Stahly has a video looking at the LI models and the thumbnail has them side by side with the old Epic plastics...
Ah yes those are definitely 8mm and 6mm
I am going to laugh really hard when they show that the scale is <8mm.
Because it is measured for a human, not for an Ogryn/Marine/Whatever.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Going to have to wait 23 hours for the full video, but Stahly has a video looking at the LI models and the thumbnail has them side by side with the old Epic plastics...
Ah yes those are definitely 8mm and 6mm
I am going to laugh really hard when they show that the scale is <8mm.
Because it is measured for a human, not for an Ogryn/Marine/Whatever.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Going to have to wait 23 hours for the full video, but Stahly has a video looking at the LI models and the thumbnail has them side by side with the old Epic plastics...
Ah that might be the best preview of them we've had so far!
Well thats sorted for me then. The bases I use are about 0.5mm lower than the E40k one shown there. The new models can either be filed down another 0.something of a mm and/or glued inside the base recess. I doubt anyone will notice a bit of their feet sinking into the ground on the tabletop. By then, they shouldn't be to indistinguishable between more modern 6mm scale models ie: vanguard.
My biggest issue going by this, is that my chaos forces will be very small (original GW plastics) or very massive (custom 6-10mm space rats). But I'm honestly not that picky about scale. My plan will be that older models will be used as the 'planetary defence forces' and then new stuff is the 'marines proper' coming in from their home worlds.
I'd half hoped all this time the scale was going to be so far off I'd ignore the new game, after all I already have a 60L plastic tote filled with unpainted Epic/vanguard metals (and a few AI kits), plus all the painted/partially painted stuff from across the years.
I am honestly dreading the queue system tomorrow, more than the cost of the game itself.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Going to have to wait 23 hours for the full video, but Stahly has a video looking at the LI models and the thumbnail has them side by side with the old Epic plastics...
Ah that might be the best preview of them we've had so far!
Well thats sorted for me then. The bases I use are about 0.5mm lower than the E40k one shown there. The new models can either be filed down another 0.something of a mm and/or glued inside the base recess. I doubt anyone will notice a bit of their feet sinking into the ground on the tabletop. By then, they shouldn't be to indistinguishable between more modern 6mm scale models ie: vanguard.
My biggest issue going by this, is that my chaos forces will be very small (original GW plastics) or very massive (custom 6-10mm space rats). But I'm honestly not that picky about scale. My plan will be that older models will be used as the 'planetary defence forces' and then new stuff is the 'marines proper' coming in from their home worlds.
I'd half hoped all this time the scale was going to be so far off I'd ignore the new game, after all I already have a 60L plastic tote filled with unpainted Epic/vanguard metals (and a few AI kits), plus all the painted/partially painted stuff from across the years.
I am honestly dreading the queue system tomorrow, more than the cost of the game itself.
plan here is to pre-order with a local shop and avoid contact with GW entirely
Anyone know where the epubs of the rules will be? Thinking more that I want to see the full army building rules before I buy a bunch of stuff. Will those be direct from GW or will things like Play Books and Apple Books have them?
vadersson wrote: Anyone know where the epubs of the rules will be? Thinking more that I want to see the full army building rules before I buy a bunch of stuff. Will those be direct from GW or will things like Play Books and Apple Books have them?
In the past they've listed the epub on their main store and that links you over to warhammer digital where you actually can buy it https://www.warhammerdigital.com/
As far as I know GW don't like selling their epubs through any 3rd parties.
Anybody know how thick those old Epic bases are? I was interested in the new bases for my Titanicus models (thankfully mostly unassembled, so hardly any rebasing required) but the pictures straight from GW still made them look pretty thick, especially on infantry models. I'm trying to decide if it's worth throwing money at GW or go with plain old Renedra bases.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Going to have to wait 23 hours for the full video, but Stahly has a video looking at the LI models and the thumbnail has them side by side with the old Epic plastics...
Ah yes those are definitely 8mm and 6mm
I am going to laugh really hard when they show that the scale is <8mm.
Because it is measured for a human, not for an Ogryn/Marine/Whatever.
It's scale 1/4 full size HH models.
Tell that to the fanatic witnesses of "LI will be 8mm[i][u]"
Geifer wrote: Anybody know how thick those old Epic bases are? I was interested in the new bases for my Titanicus models (thankfully mostly unassembled, so hardly any rebasing required) but the pictures straight from GW still made them look pretty thick, especially on infantry models. I'm trying to decide if it's worth throwing money at GW or go with plain old Renedra bases.
I THINK they're 2mm. I have a base sitting here on my desk that's 2mm.... but I can't remember if it's an original GW one or a Vanguard one. I'd have to dig through my boxes to find one of my old armies to measure one that I 100% know is a GW base and not a Vanguard base to be sure.
Tell that to the fanatic witnesses of "LI will be 8mm[i][u]"
40k = 32mm scale, nuEpic = 1/4 40k scale, 1/4 of 32mm is 8mm
You could argue that 40k is 28mm scale... I don't think it is though.
Based on my measurements of the pics, I think a human will be about 7-7.5mm to the eye and 7.5 to 8mm tall overall, but those have a bit of perspective error. Hopefully Stahly has some good pics in his video that we can tell from.
While we're talking about them being 1/4 the size, I assume they mean 1/4 in length.
If that's the case, then the scaled volume of the models is (1/4)^3 = 1/64th in volume.
So, these wee LI fellas are 1/64th the plastic of the same 30k model.
Are the prices of individual models going to be 1/64th in price compared to each other?
Will we get 64 times as many for the same price?
kodos wrote: 40k and 30k must be 28mm because otherwise all the rant about other companies not keeping up consistent scales would be pointless
also this would make existing 28mm terrain collections obsolete and people would be forced to buy new ones
so 30k is 28mm and therefore LI is 7mm, it is just that Marines are larger than humans
/s
I'm inclined to agree. Admech, Imp Guard, GSC, all are pretty close to 28mm. It's just the majority of the models that end up on the table are things that are supposed to (or at least can) be larger. Notably Marines, but also Orks, Tyranids etc. Its not helped though by GW's habit of also growing things in size based on importance like we are playing Warcraft 3.
leopard wrote: 40k writers have never really had a sense of scale or the ability to rationalise numbers
I've always assumed it's some sort of joke or maybe trying to hearken back to the olden days when decisive major battles were a lot smaller. Because a lot of the silly numbers go right back to the early days of GW, and several of the blokes who were involved with GW in those early days were history buffs. They would have been well aware the scale of battles fought through history.
I dont know that its a joke. I think its more that they needed references for how big a "real" battle would be, and referred back to what they knew to get the answers and ran with it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Going to have to wait 23 hours for the full video, but Stahly has a video looking at the LI models and the thumbnail has them side by side with the old Epic plastics...
Ah yes those are definitely 8mm and 6mm
Yes. Clearly this is what a true scale marine at 8mm looks like.
Geifer wrote: Anybody know how thick those old Epic bases are? I was interested in the new bases for my Titanicus models (thankfully mostly unassembled, so hardly any rebasing required) but the pictures straight from GW still made them look pretty thick, especially on infantry models. I'm trying to decide if it's worth throwing money at GW or go with plain old Renedra bases.
I THINK they're 2mm. I have a base sitting here on my desk that's 2mm.... but I can't remember if it's an original GW one or a Vanguard one. I'd have to dig through my boxes to find one of my old armies to measure one that I 100% know is a GW base and not a Vanguard base to be sure.
Thanks!
It really looks kind of strange to me. I wonder if the old one might be 1.5mm and 2mm on the Legions Imperials base. GW's normal 25mm base is 3mm in height, so if 2mm for the old Epic base is accurate, the new base wouldn't be much less at all. That feels off, right?
Hmm, maybe it's best to assume the Legions bases are twice as thick as I'd like them to be for now.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Going to have to wait 23 hours for the full video, but Stahly has a video looking at the LI models and the thumbnail has them side by side with the old Epic plastics...
Ah yes those are definitely 8mm and 6mm
I am going to laugh really hard when they show that the scale is <8mm.
Because it is measured for a human, not for an Ogryn/Marine/Whatever.
It's scale 1/4 full size HH models.
Tell that to the fanatic witnesses of "LI will be 8mm[i][u]"
Only a few hours...
Bruv, you're in denial. GW doesn't even refer to their own miniatures as 28mm anymore, they haven't in over a decade, becaue they aren't. Everything has been relatively scaled up, even the cadians (most of them are posed with more bend in the legs and back than the old cadians who are otherwise more erect, yet they are the same height - a modern cadian mini at full height stands a few mm taller than an old cadian... because they aren't 28mm anymore). If they are 32mm, which is otherwise fairly consistent scaling for most modern minis in the GW range, then 1/4 of 32mm = 8mm.
The fact that the solar auxilia are also noticeably several mm taller than their old 6mm guard counterparts should also be a huge clue.
Geifer wrote: Anybody know how thick those old Epic bases are? I was interested in the new bases for my Titanicus models (thankfully mostly unassembled, so hardly any rebasing required) but the pictures straight from GW still made them look pretty thick, especially on infantry models. I'm trying to decide if it's worth throwing money at GW or go with plain old Renedra bases.
I THINK they're 2mm. I have a base sitting here on my desk that's 2mm.... but I can't remember if it's an original GW one or a Vanguard one. I'd have to dig through my boxes to find one of my old armies to measure one that I 100% know is a GW base and not a Vanguard base to be sure.
Thanks!
It really looks kind of strange to me. I wonder if the old one might be 1.5mm and 2mm on the Legions Imperials base. GW's normal 25mm base is 3mm in height, so if 2mm for the old Epic base is accurate, the new base wouldn't be much less at all. That feels off, right?
Hmm, maybe it's best to assume the Legions bases are twice as thick as I'd like them to be for now.
I had a flick through my bases, I believe the old GW bases were 2mm, and Vanguard's bases are 1.6mm.
I measured a few bases I have sitting on my desk, it looks like a regular 25mm base is 3.3mm, a 28.5mm base is 3.6mm. So these new ones are maybe 2.5ish?
Yes. Clearly this is what a true scale marine at 8mm looks like.
Too bad now we need true scale titans. Warlord titan is 33m in 6mm, 25m in 8mm scale while fluff describes them at 33m.so if infantry is in 8mm(ie marines 9-10mm) then we need redo of titan line
Geifer wrote: Anybody know how thick those old Epic bases are? I was interested in the new bases for my Titanicus models (thankfully mostly unassembled, so hardly any rebasing required) but the pictures straight from GW still made them look pretty thick, especially on infantry models. I'm trying to decide if it's worth throwing money at GW or go with plain old Renedra bases.
I THINK they're 2mm. I have a base sitting here on my desk that's 2mm.... but I can't remember if it's an original GW one or a Vanguard one. I'd have to dig through my boxes to find one of my old armies to measure one that I 100% know is a GW base and not a Vanguard base to be sure.
Thanks!
It really looks kind of strange to me. I wonder if the old one might be 1.5mm and 2mm on the Legions Imperials base. GW's normal 25mm base is 3mm in height, so if 2mm for the old Epic base is accurate, the new base wouldn't be much less at all. That feels off, right?
Hmm, maybe it's best to assume the Legions bases are twice as thick as I'd like them to be for now.
I had a flick through my bases, I believe the old GW bases were 2mm, and Vanguard's bases are 1.6mm.
I measured a few bases I have sitting on my desk, it looks like a regular 25mm base is 3.3mm, a 28.5mm base is 3.6mm. So these new ones are maybe 2.5ish?
Thank you for going to all the trouble, I appreciate it!
With those numbers in mind I think I'm going to hold off for now. I'm game for a Rapier or Tarantula or two as base decoration for my titans and bound to buy a support weapons box down the line. I'll see how I feel about the bases when I have them in hand. Would have been nice to get this question definitely answered with the first Legions release, but I guess I've waited over half a year already, so what's a little more?
It wouldn't be quite as bothersome if the Marines didn't all step in guano piles. Those things need to be removed or covered up, so that potentially adds height to an already tall base. I'm not a fan of that.
plan here is to pre-order with a local shop and avoid contact with GW entirely
yeah same, except that the tiles and a few other items are direct only.
I assume I'll be able to buy multiple starters from my local without issue, I know GW have been limiting orders on direct but I don't know how well they plan to stock independents.
This isn't kill team or some other sell out kit, but if I'm limited to buying a single set then I'm unlikely to order right away as its not enough stuff to warrant opening it to paint. I'd rather wait till next year when I can bulk buy.
But I do need to get my hands on those tiles. Even if I can't get anything else, they would help greatly in getting a new table up and usable.
I had a flick through my bases, I believe the old GW bases were 2mm, and Vanguard's bases are 1.6mm.
I measured a few bases I have sitting on my desk, it looks like a regular 25mm base is 3.3mm, a 28.5mm base is 3.6mm. So these new ones are maybe 2.5ish?
Yeap the old 1997 ones are about 2mm and have a more matte look about them. Vanguard are about 1.5mm/1.6mm and are a glossier plastic. The new rounds look every so slightly thicker than the E40k ones.
I'll be using mine for things like making new tokens and objectives. Though I could be tempted to do my Nids on round bases.
Yes. Clearly this is what a true scale marine at 8mm looks like.
Too bad now we need true scale titans. Warlord titan is 33m in 6mm, 25m in 8mm scale while fluff describes them at 33m.so if infantry is in 8mm(ie marines 9-10mm) then we need redo of titan line
There are sources that describe warlord titans as being 40m tall, 60m tall, 200m tall, and some that have warlord titans as being several kilometers tall. Your argument is meaningless, because GW can't agree on how tall a warlord titan is themselves.
Breotan wrote: GW has a new painting tutorial up on Youtube that uses LI models. Unfortunately, their production values continue to decline.
Spoiler:
In their defense painting tutorial at this scale can seem a bit like a catch 22, you obviously have to focus on one base at a time but the scale required to show technique is already magnified far beyond anyone's ability to perceive without a loup or some kind of optics. That's not excuse for technically getting worse in terms of production but I understand something that small really pushing the limit compared to showing 28mm models.
Was actually hoping they would fo a terrain painting video with the new ruins, Concerned with the tiles being sorta gw's standard that all we'll see from now on on the terrain/game board front will be unbroken urban landscapes and nothing else.
They`ve also done a solar auxilia painting video, and there they opted for a darker scheme. End result is honestly much better than the marines in the earlier video. Either the technique they`ve chosen for the tutorials doesn`t work too well for brighter colours, or these type of schemes just don`t look too good in such close up on camera. Either way, the marine tutorial really shows them in a bad way.
Breotan wrote: GW has a new painting tutorial up on Youtube that uses LI models. Unfortunately, their production values continue to decline.
Spoiler:
In their defense painting tutorial at this scale can seem a bit like a catch 22, you obviously have to focus on one base at a time but the scale required to show technique is already magnified far beyond anyone's ability to perceive without a loup or some kind of optics. That's not excuse for technically getting worse in terms of production but I understand something that small really pushing the limit compared to showing 28mm models.
Was actually hoping they would fo a terrain painting video with the new ruins, Concerned with the tiles being sorta gw's standard that all we'll see from now on on the terrain/game board front will be unbroken urban landscapes and nothing else.
I’m pretty sure Breotan was just indulging in the irony of claiming the bases work great with dark schemes then sticking Death Guard on them.
Hmm, I know GW occasionally advertises with "achievable results" as the focus, but that screenshot doesn't exactly look like it's going to sell anyone on the models.
Geifer wrote: Hmm, I know GW occasionally advertises with "achievable results" as the focus, but that screenshot doesn't exactly look like it's going to sell anyone on the models.
If those are from the batch painting video it’s fine, but shouldn’t zoom in. Put them down with some tanks and units so can see on the table.
Also those shades suck for that, use a tone paint to bring your paint scheme to neutral before highlighting for batch painting. Looks way nicer…would also fill in the details on such small minis easy.
Kretualdo wrote: They`ve also done a solar auxilia painting video, and there they opted for a darker scheme. End result is honestly much better than the marines in the earlier video. Either the technique they`ve chosen for the tutorials doesn`t work too well for brighter colours, or these type of schemes just don`t look too good in such close up on camera. Either way, the marine tutorial really shows them in a bad way.
True but I still felt it was just too close, but in fairness too technically I don't think they're doing all they can on their end to get deep focus ect but any plan that sees a 25mm base of infantry filling a lot of the screen, just doesn't seem like a good way to go. I did like the solar aux, but it's all in that end effect of seeing them together as opposed to a single base.
I’m pretty sure Breotan was just indulging in the irony of claiming the bases work great with dark schemes then sticking Death Guard on them.
Ya it was more the production comment, which I agree with its got issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Geifer wrote: Hmm, I know GW occasionally advertises with "achievable results" as the focus, but that screenshot doesn't exactly look like it's going to sell anyone on the models.
I think it's fair too to say that focus on the tanks might have been better, the infantry tend to look better in pics where there's loads of bases.
Has anyone heard anything more about the little cyclops remote bombs they previewed a while back with the solar aux rapiers/aa box?
Crablezworth wrote: Has anyone heard anything more about the little cyclops remote bombs they previewed a while back with the solar aux rapiers/aa box?
No new information. The models are too small to be sold by themselves as standalone plastic kits, so they probably be produced in resin or put on a plastic sprue alongside other models.
My apologies if I have missed this already, but /tg/ has posted some photos of the infantry from, shall we say 'less flattering angles'.
Presented without comment.
Geifer wrote: Hmm, I know GW occasionally advertises with "achievable results" as the focus, but that screenshot doesn't exactly look like it's going to sell anyone on the models.
main problem is when they make the point that white bases look better with dark models (and black bases with white models) and than putting the white models on white bases
Mozzamanx wrote: My apologies if I have missed this already, but /tg/ has posted some photos of the infantry from, shall we say 'less flattering angles'.
Presented without comment.
Spoiler:
That to me shows that GW doesn't know how to make single piece minis anymore xD. They'be been spoiled by being able to explode minis into a thousand tiny parts to avoid undercuts... and then you get this xDDDD
Mozzamanx wrote: My apologies if I have missed this already, but /tg/ has posted some photos of the infantry from, shall we say 'less flattering angles'.
Presented without comment.
Just in case you missed some of what the arrows are pointing at.
I will admit that trying to get that much detail at that scale can be a MoFo. Even 3d printing results may vary, but I haven't seen anything as rough as this.
lord_blackfang wrote: Well that is an atrocity and I would be livid right now if I had preordered. Funny how that gak never showed up in 3 months of previews.
might be that the preview models are all the pre-release 3d prints
also, the bad mould lines for the first KT Orcs were also never shown as those things are not part of previews
also, as GW makes the best plastic models out there, people will say that this are the best models possible at that scale for that price
No, 3d prints are totally different in that regard... you'd never get something like that because undercuts are not a thing, you could get support marks or layer lines, but not this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: also, as GW makes the best plastic models out there, people will say that this are the best models possible at that scale for that price
Well, they could have accounted for it on the poses chosen. They didn't
Yikes. I hope those are like, starter box sculpts. With something better coming. We've seen similar before. Would it be that awful to make it two parts? A bolter and a body like... Every other marine in the last 40 years? Just itsy bitsy.
axotl wrote: Yikes. I hope those are like, starter box sculpts. With something better coming. We've seen similar before. Would it be that awful to make it two parts? A bolter and a body like... Every other marine in the last 40 years? Just itsy bitsy.
They have already confirmed that the same sprue from the starter box is in the infantry boxes, so don't get your hopes high, unless you expect a lot of resins... and if it comes to that, why wait. Get printed proxies.
axotl wrote: Yikes. I hope those are like, starter box sculpts. With something better coming. We've seen similar before. Would it be that awful to make it two parts? A bolter and a body like... Every other marine in the last 40 years? Just itsy bitsy.
I had some Missile Lancher marines printed at 8mm with the launcher separate.
I'd rather have the blob weapon than glue those 40 launchers on again.
axotl wrote: Yikes. I hope those are like, starter box sculpts. With something better coming. We've seen similar before. Would it be that awful to make it two parts? A bolter and a body like... Every other marine in the last 40 years? Just itsy bitsy.
I had some Missile Lancher marines printed at 8mm with the launcher separate.
I'd rather have the blob weapon than glue those 40 launchers on again.
Interesting choice... usually you print them in a single piece ^^
I remember seeing in some of the earlier pictures there were bridges between the guns and the legs. But I figured, fine, you rarely look at Epic scale models from below anyway, best to have the ugly stuff on the bottom.
But the ugly stuff on the top, not great. Clearly the no undercuts means bridges will have to be used, but some of those look real bad.
In the beginning of this release I was thinking "those models are roughly equivalent quality to my own 3D prints", but now the 3D prints have taken a strong lead in the quality department
Granted, even 3D prints add some "supports" between different parts of the model (not actually expecting a gap between the bolter and the Marine's chest), but not nearly like that.
Making those marines two piece and avoiding 90% of the problems presented would have been relatively easy, so I have to assume the designers were given a hard sprue limit.
I was already on the fence because I wanted to see the infantry next to some battlemechs to see if I could have them pull double duty in two games. Unless the SA models are better than the marines, I might not bother.
Sprue pics and close-ups:
Also every Titanicus box seems to include the Command Terminal and weapon cards now which wasn't the case for everyone before
Starter box:
Spoiler:
SM infantry:
Spoiler:
SM tanks:
Spoiler:
No sprue pics for Sicarans yet
SA infantry:
Spoiler:
SA tanks:
Spoiler:
New Warhound weapons:
Spoiler:
Baneblade:
Spoiler:
currently bugged
Kratos:
Spoiler:
currently bugged
Rhinos:
Spoiler:
More decal sheets:
Spoiler:
Cards:
Spoiler:
Terrain:
Spoiler:
Rulebook TOC:
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reference cards are kinda strange
The SA ones say there are 32x detachment cards but we only have 24x units currently revealed? Its not the formations as there are 6x more formation cards (also 3x more than we saw from the leaks) so kinda strange? Even counting all the different Rapier/Tarantula weapon options, Flamer Auxiliaries and Baneblade/Hellhammer as its own cards would only give 30x cards
Same for the SM 38x detachment cards and 8x formations but only 29x units revealed. (Already counting the different droppod versions)
If I also count the Rapier/Tarantula options and Sicaran versions thats still only 32x
No One Important wrote: I was already on the fence because I wanted to see the infantry next to some battlemechs to see if I could have them pull double duty in two games. Unless the SA models are better than the marines, I might not bother.
imo they look distinctly too big for BattleTech infantry (but I am looking forward to using some Terminators as Battle Armor).
No One Important wrote: I was already on the fence because I wanted to see the infantry next to some battlemechs to see if I could have them pull double duty in two games. Unless the SA models are better than the marines, I might not bother.
imo they look distinctly too big for BattleTech infantry (but I am looking forward to using some Terminators as Battle Armor).
Definitely looks that way, but I'm still hoping that it'll miraculously work out.
Matrindur wrote: The SA ones say there are 32x detachment cards but we only have 24x units currently revealed? Its not the formations as there are 6x more formation cards (also 3x more than we saw from the leaks) so kinda strange? Even counting all the different Rapier/Tarantula weapon options, Flamer Auxiliaries and Baneblade/Hellhammer as its own cards would only give 30x cards...
Might be a duplicate card or two for common detachments.
Matrindur wrote: The SA ones say there are 32x detachment cards but we only have 24x units currently revealed? Its not the formations as there are 6x more formation cards (also 3x more than we saw from the leaks) so kinda strange? Even counting all the different Rapier/Tarantula weapon options, Flamer Auxiliaries and Baneblade/Hellhammer as its own cards would only give 30x cards...
Might be a duplicate card or two for common detachments.
I forgot that every card is included twice, that way the cards should only have the units that are in the core book, nothing from the expansion.
I'm not seeing the issue with these models - is it the undercuts? It was kind of a given the models would be single piece. If these were multipart, they'd be a nightmare to build.. I think they look awesome?
Are you sure you are not looking these with your 28mil eyes? Zoomed up photos can make this sort of issues look much worse than they actually are IRL
The poses are the same as on the 28mil models. I suppose you could argue that reposing them for Epic scale could have resulted in less visible undercuts on the models, but there's no way to know how much resources the sculptors had and how much more work that would have required
Very much looking forward to Stahlys upcoming video on the models!
tauist wrote: I'm not seeing the issue with these models - is it the undercuts? It was kind of a given the models would be single piece. If these were multipart, they'd be a nightmare to build.. I think they look awesome?
Are you sure you are not looking these with your 28mil eyes? Zoomed up photos can make this sort of issues look much worse than they actually are IRL
The poses are the same as on the 28mil models. I suppose you could argue that reposing them for Epic scale could have resulted in less visible undercuts on the models, but there's no way to know how much resources the sculptors had and how much more work that would have required
Very much looking forward to Stahlys upcoming video on the models!
Most of the stretched blocks are fine for me since they are a single piece.
These two are the only ones I really don't like since half the shoulder pad is inside the stretched part:
Matrindur wrote: Sprue pics and close-ups: Also every Titanicus box seems to include the Command Terminal and weapon cards now which wasn't the case for everyone before
More decal sheets:
Spoiler:
I was going to ask where the new decal sheet came from, but the source has them named 'VehicleTransferSheet' so there should be millions out in the wild.
Good, as I'm going to need thousands of the emperors children ones!
tauist wrote: I'm not seeing the issue with these models - is it the undercuts? It was kind of a given the models would be single piece. If these were multipart, they'd be a nightmare to build.. I think they look awesome?
Are you sure you are not looking these with your 28mil eyes? Zoomed up photos can make this sort of issues look much worse than they actually are IRL
The poses are the same as on the 28mil models. I suppose you could argue that reposing them for Epic scale could have resulted in less visible undercuts on the models, but there's no way to know how much resources the sculptors had and how much more work that would have required
Very much looking forward to Stahlys upcoming video on the models!
Most of the stretched blocks are fine for me since they are a single piece.
These two are the only ones I really don't like since half the shoulder pad is inside the stretched part:
Isnt that the exact same model two times on the base though? If it were, that'd only be one model from the tacs.. need to check the hires sprue picts to see how many different models of tacs there are altogether
PS: Is it just me, or is everyone's queue getting longer and longer the more they wait? Mine was first 15 minutes, then 20, and now its again increased..
Got high-res sprue pics of all models and a video comparing (and measuring) old and new Epic models, hopefully answering the question about the size of the new "Epic scale" once and for all!
Got high-res sprue pics of all models and a video comparing (and measuring) old and new Epic models, hopefully answering the question about the size of the new "Epic scale" once and for all!
Thank you! Going to enjoy this whilst waiting in the stupid queue system at the GW store!
Order in with my local for everything else. Still got a 27 minute queue time for GW.
I won't be doing this again in the future, the queue system is just poor design.
After my summer Tyranids order was delayed due to not having 1 model delivered to EG, this time I've split my order between two sites with free shipping. Hopefully there's that means there's something to open that weekend.
Managed to get the starter box ordered at 10:01 followed by a few other boxes shortly after. The third party sites seem to be holding up better than last weekend, and I haven't seen anywhere with the starter unavailable yet.
Got high-res sprue pics of all models and a video comparing (and measuring) old and new Epic models, hopefully answering the question about the size of the new "Epic scale" once and for all!
The sprue pictures are fantastic, this should be the basics GW put out a week ago (Or let you put this up early so people can view it before pre-order day) (Though saying that, with their queue system I guess it is up before pre-orders )
I'm assuming the photos are of the new book (the reprint) as the book looked dreadful on warcom the other day, so looks like it was a rush photoshop job rather than a faulty product.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reference cards are kinda strange
The SA ones say there are 32x detachment cards but we only have 24x units currently revealed? Its not the formations as there are 6x more formation cards (also 3x more than we saw from the leaks) so kinda strange? Even counting all the different Rapier/Tarantula weapon options, Flamer Auxiliaries and Baneblade/Hellhammer as its own cards would only give 30x cards
Same for the SM 38x detachment cards and 8x formations but only 29x units revealed. (Already counting the different droppod versions)
If I also count the Rapier/Tarantula options and Sicaran versions thats still only 32x
Am I understanding correctly what I`m seeing - that the sprue for predators contains double the amount of turrets? Meaning both turret variants can be made from the same box and easily swapped? That`s nice if true.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reference cards are kinda strange
The SA ones say there are 32x detachment cards but we only have 24x units currently revealed? Its not the formations as there are 6x more formation cards (also 3x more than we saw from the leaks) so kinda strange? Even counting all the different Rapier/Tarantula weapon options, Flamer Auxiliaries and Baneblade/Hellhammer as its own cards would only give 30x cards
Same for the SM 38x detachment cards and 8x formations but only 29x units revealed. (Already counting the different droppod versions)
If I also count the Rapier/Tarantula options and Sicaran versions thats still only 32x
Am I understanding correctly what I`m seeing - that the sprue for predators contains double the amount of turrets? Meaning both turret variants can be made from the same box and easily swapped? That`s nice if true.
Indeed, the sprue has six turrets for three models
Most of the stretched blocks are fine for me since they are a single piece.
These two are the only ones I really don't like since half the shoulder pad is inside the stretched part:
If one cannot make "dynamic" poses without having such bad models, just don't make those poses but just ones that work
I somehow have the feeling that GW was lacy, just took the HH 3D sculpts, scaled them to 1/4th the size and sent that to the mould maker as people will buy it anyway not matter how bad the outcome will be
and for the price GW is asking for the game, I expect great models and not just something "ok-ish" if you don't look close
Chopstick wrote: You don't get double, you get 3 for each option for both main gun and sponson. There're only 1 storm bolter in each sprue.
What I mean is, there are 3 hulls on the spure, but 6 turrets - meaning that each sprue is enough to make 3 hulls, 3 turrets with autocannon AND 3 turrets with twin lascannon, meaning that the turrets can be swapped.
Managed to preorder both card decks. Everything else will have to wait until February, moneys going to be tight during the holidays. I'll squeeze in the epub if I can before that, but there is no fear of it going out of stock so yeh
SamusDrake wrote: Just wondering if anyone can confirm; are the Cerastus and Porphyrion kits direct only?
I believe so. At least my local didn't have anything other than the basic warlord/reaver/knights available.
There was meant to be a titan battleforce for christmas like previously for AT, so I suspect they will be available in that set again. Though they may have cancelled it what with so many new releases this close to xmas for the game anyway.
Got high-res sprue pics of all models and a video comparing (and measuring) old and new Epic models, hopefully answering the question about the size of the new "Epic scale" once and for all!
Thanks for the review! Though I think there is some mistake with the stated number of what infantry bases can be made from each spure? GW photos (and counting from the sprue photos) gives me 1 command base, 4 auxilia lasrifle bases and 2 flamers and 2 veletari (guys with the axes) + 2 ogryns. For a total of 2 command, 8 lasrifle, 4 flames and 4 veletarii, as well as 4 ogryns.
Edit: and of course the aethon walkers - 2 per sprue.
Managed to pick up what I wanted, starter set, 2 sets of ruins and the various new vehicle kits (plus a Thunderhawk which will be passed to my parents to be a Christmas present) from Element and then 3 sets of the tiles and the card packs from GW.
I was unsure whether I was going to go for it as it was a bit pricey but have just seen how much the HH hardbacks go for on eBay...
tauist wrote: I'm not seeing the issue with these models - is it the undercuts? It was kind of a given the models would be single piece. If these were multipart, they'd be a nightmare to build.. I think they look awesome?
Are you sure you are not looking these with your 28mil eyes? Zoomed up photos can make this sort of issues look much worse than they actually are IRL
The poses are the same as on the 28mil models. I suppose you could argue that reposing them for Epic scale could have resulted in less visible undercuts on the models, but there's no way to know how much resources the sculptors had and how much more work that would have required
Very much looking forward to Stahlys upcoming video on the models!
Most of the stretched blocks are fine for me since they are a single piece.
These two are the only ones I really don't like since half the shoulder pad is inside the stretched part:
Isnt that the exact same model two times on the base though? If it were, that'd only be one model from the tacs.. need to check the hires sprue picts to see how many different models of tacs there are altogether
Do we know how many poses there are in a box? If it's only 1 in 10 that looks like that, it's not too bad.
But I also don't like the nubs that join the shoulder pads to the backpacks.
I'm looking at it from the perspective "how is this going to look with a wash/contrast and drybrush", and so "details" that stand proud or have sharp edges are bad because of how they either pick up a drybrush or wash recedes away from them.
I would have preferred they compromise on the poses more to have models that look a bit nicer.... but at the same time, I guess it's to be expected.
Many other Epic models from 3rd parties use metal rather than plastic, I guess it has its advantages! But obviously GW don't use metal any more and people would probably cry if they did release them in metal.
The Tacticals are number 8-12 so only 5 different sculpts for the 20 tacticals per sprue. You also get a unit leader in 6 and 19 and a vexilia bearer in 7 but still 5 sculpts for 17 models. So if only one of the five has that bad stretch part and you use all three special models you would have 2 of those per 4 bases
kodos wrote: yeah, from what it looks on the sprue, every base of 5 models will look the same except for the command base with the Sergeant
which means you get at least 1 of those per base
It might even be two since both 10 and 12 look like they could have that problem but haven't found an unboxing yet that shows them in that orientation so not sure yet
The Tacticals are number 8-12 so only 5 different sculpts for the 20 tacticals per sprue. You also get a unit leader in 6 and 19 and a vexilia bearer in 7 but still 5 sculpts for 17 models. So if only one of the five has that bad stretch part and you use all three special models you would have 2 of those per 4 bases
The sprue on Stahly's review is a bit easier to see, but yeah, looks like 4x of each pose per sprue, so 8x identical poses per box, but maybe can get away with not using it if it's the only bad pose, hard to see if it is the only bad one though.
The Tacticals are number 8-12 so only 5 different sculpts for the 20 tacticals per sprue. You also get a unit leader in 6 and 19 and a vexilia bearer in 7 but still 5 sculpts for 17 models. So if only one of the five has that bad stretch part and you use all three special models you would have 2 of those per 4 bases
It's possible that this is a tooling issue on the mold, and that while the same CAD pose is repeated ~5 times within a sprue only one instance of that pose has an issue.
If 1 in 5 marines had this defect I would have expected it to be far more obvious in the previews we've seen so far.
Looks like even with the queue system, the starter set has sold out already (Ireland/UK)
I assume its partially due to the starter being better value to buy than the individual kits, stock went quick due to people buying up multiple sets. But its a good sign for the game I guess. (Or at least means we will see a lot of impulse buys up for sale in a months time!)
I'd still rather of had Epic 40k returned, I won't hold my breath that this would tell GW to do more Epic scale lines in the future. But a sell out starter set has to be a good start. Interest is there
(or I guess they could have correctly guessed the exact stock to have for today and sold it all! )
tauist wrote: I'm not seeing the issue with these models - is it the undercuts? It was kind of a given the models would be single piece. If these were multipart, they'd be a nightmare to build.. I think they look awesome?
More the issue that the undercuts (and particularly those ones, that big) are basically only there due to the poses they chose. They seem to have forgotten that you need to pose stuff differently for single pieces.
And of course, by the time I got in the marine cards were out of stock (not showing as such yet, but add one to cart and it gives an insufficient stock error).
...Great. Oh well, that's €24 for some card they're not getting out of me. Seems like bad business but WDIK ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Got a party last night, i woke up somewhat early, and every set was gone...i guess i'll have to wait a few weeks / months / years to get my paws on the starter...
if it is only 1 pose because of 1 possible position, this could have been easily avoided and the only reason not to do it is GW thinking that it is not necessary because it won't affect sales at all
The Tacticals are number 8-12 so only 5 different sculpts for the 20 tacticals per sprue. You also get a unit leader in 6 and 19 and a vexilia bearer in 7 but still 5 sculpts for 17 models. So if only one of the five has that bad stretch part and you use all three special models you would have 2 of those per 4 bases
The sprue on Stahly's review is a bit easier to see, but yeah, looks like 4x of each pose per sprue, so 8x identical poses per box, but maybe can get away with not using it if it's the only bad pose, hard to see if it is the only bad one though.
One solution (besides cutting of course) would be to use the two normal bolter marines per command base. You won't need as many command bases as you will probably get when buying more infantry and since the only difference on those as far as I can see is that they have a plume you could just use them as unit leaders for normal squads. You could of course also use the worse sculpts and build 5 bases of tacticals per box instead of the command cases if you don't need those.
I wonder if bitz sellers are going to be selling individual LI models I could see myself buying 8 extra models per detachment if those are the only ones that have been kludged
Seems to have been a successful release. Boxed set, cards, terrain and most of the bases are gone in my location. Local online stores are also starting to run out of stuff.
tauist wrote:I wonder if bitz sellers are going to be selling individual LI models I could see myself buying 8 extra models per detachment if those are the only ones that have been kludged
There is definitely a market for extra assault marines, terminators and individual vehicles. I would be interested in extra terminators.
VAYASEN wrote:Missed out on the Army Cards ;[
Yeah, the cards are gone. Let's hope they reprint them. There will probably be more card-packs for unreleased units like landspeeders, maybe they'll release a complete "mega" card pack in the future?
Watching through tabletop time's video where they paint a few models, and yeah, there's definitely more than 1 ugly duckling when not photographed from the "golden angle". Several of the models have their legs joined, some have big chunky bits between the gun and the leg that are quite noticeable, this dude jumped out at me as the entire area between his backpack and the plume on his head is filled in.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Watching through tabletop time's video where they paint a few models, and yeah, there's definitely more than 1 ugly duckling when not photographed from the "golden angle". Several of the models have their legs joined, some have big chunky bits between the gun and the leg that are quite noticeable, this dude jumped out at me as the entire area between his backpack and the plume on his head is filled in.
...yeah, I'm good with making my own infantry or buying from Vanguard, thanks.
Just finished watching Ash's "How to play" video. Shooting seems super swingy due to things mostly hitting on 5+ or 6+. Close Assault is also bonkers because of the 2D6 base. Kind of feels like lucky dice rolls will be a defining thing for most battles, since even something like a 4+ roll is a rarity.
Movement speeds feel broken. Like, Marines can move up to 15" per turn, yet their bolter range is 8" at most? Laughable
Initial judgement seems to be, I'll take he models, but might prioritize other rulesets tbh
Will be watching more batreps as they appear. Will have formed an informed opinion about the game by the time my cards arrive, so can then decide whether to resell them or to commit to the LI rules
Am I the only one who is surprised at the lack of battlereports? I can only find thesetwo and GMGs how to play video.
Would have expected more to show the new game
Vorian wrote: Why would 5+ or 6+ make things swingy?
Why would 2d6 make things more prone to luck?
Often when the probability of an individual success is small but the number of rolls is high, the distribution of possible results is broader (more "swingy") compared to if an individual success is high but the number of rolls is low.
An example, say you need a 4+ to hit, and you have 10 attacks. We all know the average is 5 hits, but in terms of the distribution, you have a 66% chance of getting a result between 4 and 6 hits. But if you need a 6 to hit, and roll 30 dice, the average is still 5 hits, BUT, now you only have 54% chance of getting between 4 and 6 hits, meaning the distribution is broader and you're more likely to get a result further away from the average, both higher and lower.
So if you want a game that's less luck based but has roughly the same average, favour designing the game to roll less dice but have higher success chance to get the same average number of successes but with a narrower distribution.
Not sure about the 2D6 thing, will need to read the rules or watch a battle report to see what is meant by that.
Matrindur wrote: Am I the only one who is surprised at the lack of battlereports? I can only find thesetwo and GMGs how to play video.
Would have expected more to show the new game
That would require the people GW send the stuff out early too, to actually care about the game or be invested into making battle reports.
When in reality, the people that get the stuff have about 24 hours to throw some paint on some models and shove a 10+ min video up on youtube talking about how great the new game is, before the next hype item arrives and they have to repeat the cycle (usually within days).
This is to GWs advantage though, imagine if more people had time to go over the game thoroughly and put up battle reports and are able to impartially critique the game. There'd be a lot less sales today if we had proper review/gaming content.
That would require the people GW send the stuff out early too, to actually care about the game or be invested into making battle reports.
When in reality, the people that get the stuff have about 24 hours to throw some paint on some models and shove a 10+ min video up on youtube talking about how great the new game is, before the next hype item arrives and they have to repeat the cycle (usually within days).
This is demonstrably false. Review copies of LI stuff were sent out in early July (around a month before the original release date), and we've had several leaks of content from there.
Given the timing, the review copies were very likely how GW discovered whatever quality issues delayed the launch of the game.
"I'll tell you right now: this is an expensive game. I will talk more about it in the review, but this is more expensive than 40k. If you think that you're getting into this as a cheaper alternative to 40k, you're wrong, it's the opposite, and that SHOCKS us. I think that holds the game back by a tremendous amount."
And this is coming from someone that seems pretty positive about it.
Vorian wrote: Why would 5+ or 6+ make things swingy?
Why would 2d6 make things more prone to luck?
If you need 5+ or more to hit, odds are you will miss your to hit rolls most of the time unless you can get bucketfulls of dice. Ask any 40K Ork player And it's swingy because while statistically you will miss most of the time, sometimes you can get super lucky and still succeed spectacularly. This means that vast majority of shooting in the game will be whiffing it = Shooting will be an unreliable way to delete stuff
And doing melee with 2D6 means that regular grunts can still whoop Assault specialists easily, since even a +4 for an assault marine charging means flock all if they roll low on both dice and the opponent rolls 4+ on both of theirs. Basic math hammer should make all this fairly obvious
Infantry being able to move 15" when marching and being able to charge further than their weapon range.. to me this feels like the Meta thing to do will just be to swamp the board with a flockton of basic troopers, marching and charging everything. Unless your opponent has access to at least 4+ hitting weapons, they wont be able to kill enough stands to survive the charges. Add in a board with plenty of buildings between you and the opponent, and your marching + charging basic troopers become even more impossible to whittle down with shooting
Vorian wrote: Why would 5+ or 6+ make things swingy?
Why would 2d6 make things more prone to luck?
Often when the probability of an individual success is small but the number of rolls is high, the distribution of possible results is broader (more "swingy") compared to if an individual success is high but the number of rolls is low.
An example, say you need a 4+ to hit, and you have 10 attacks. We all know the average is 5 hits, but in terms of the distribution, you have a 66% chance of getting a result between 4 and 6 hits. But if you need a 6 to hit, and roll 30 dice, the average is still 5 hits, BUT, now you only have 54% chance of getting between 4 and 6 hits, meaning the distribution is broader and you're more likely to get a result further away from the average, both higher and lower.
So if you want a game that's less luck based but has roughly the same average, favour designing the game to roll less dice but have higher success chance to get the same average number of successes but with a narrower distribution.
Not sure about the 2D6 thing, will need to read the rules or watch a battle report to see what is meant by that.
Right, but we're not doing loads of dice vs few higher % dice.
We're replacing a double roll with a single roll.
Marine shooting marine in LI is 5+ then fail a 5+ armour = 22.2% chance
40k you're doing 3+ then 4+ then fail 4+ = 16.7% chance to do 1 wound out of 2
Its not really about being swingy, it's the nature of being streamlined.
For once, I'm glad Australia was delayed a week, as I think I'll buy less than if I had to jump on at midday this week and scramble to decide what to get while simultaneously being worried I'll miss out
Interesting to see it took less than an hour to sell out of core boxes on the German webstore. Also a funny experience to sit in the queue for half an hour.
Luckily I just went on there to satisfy my curiosity.
Starting with the caveat that to my unschooled eyes* these models just look badly designed, from the perspective of someone who was happy to build a Marine army out of starter box models with undercut issues, I'm far less offended by seeing these issues on the underside of the models. Doesn't affect looking at them on the tabletop, between the Marines' height and the width of the base you wouldn't necessarily want to pick them up to check out those parts, and even then covering those parts up with dark/black paint should keep attention away from them well enough. The same can definitely not be said about the parts on the top and sides of the models.
This may disagree with some folks due to the extra work assembly entails, but GW should have gone with separate guns and backpacks. At Embiggened scale that produced serviceable results. At Epic scale you'd probably not even see the undercut issues.
*I haven't handled any small scale infantry since Battletech thirty years ago,
but GW should have gone with separate guns and backpacks.
Never again will I do separate 6mm backpacks. The thousands sons I had to do were so fiddly. They made me regret my choice of game.
I ended up gluing them to cocktail sticks, glueing them on the back, letting them dry, then cutting the stick/superglue off. Thankfully there were metal so it was easy clean up. Plastic backpacks would be a mess!
I refuse to believe that those flaws in the models exist. Only a tiny percentage of those sent preview copies, whether for review or painting purposes have mentioned them. They have no reasons to hide such issues from the paying customer.
Starting with the caveat that to my unschooled eyes* these models just look badly designed, from the perspective of someone who was happy to build a Marine army out of starter box models with undercut issues, I'm far less offended by seeing these issues on the underside of the models. Doesn't affect looking at them on the tabletop, between the Marines' height and the width of the base you wouldn't necessarily want to pick them up to check out those parts, and even then covering those parts up with dark/black paint should keep attention away from them well enough. The same can definitely not be said about the parts on the top and sides of the models.
I think that's basically correct. They simply haven't bothered to design the poses to take into account the realities of single piece models.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: I refuse to believe that those flaws in the models exist. Only a tiny percentage of those sent preview copies, whether for review or painting purposes have mentioned them. They have no reasons to hide such issues from the paying customer.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: I refuse to believe that those flaws in the models exist. Only a tiny percentage of those sent preview copies, whether for review or painting purposes have mentioned them. They have no reasons to hide such issues from the paying customer.
I've not read a plethora of reviews, but the first 2 I read, Stahly's and TableTopTime, both mentioned the problems.
but GW should have gone with separate guns and backpacks.
Never again will I do separate 6mm backpacks. The thousands sons I had to do were so fiddly. They made me regret my choice of game.
I ended up gluing them to cocktail sticks, glueing them on the back, letting them dry, then cutting the stick/superglue off. Thankfully there were metal so it was easy clean up. Plastic backpacks would be a mess!
I think it'd be easier to glue plastic backpacks on versus metal ones. For fiddly stuff like that, I usually just put a bit of blutack on a stick, use the stick to pick them up and hold them in place for a few seconds while the glue dries.
That said, I'm not really pro-multipart 8mm marines, I think the best option is to compromise the poses and be very careful with the direction the model is pointing to minimise the issue as much as possible. Like, don't have it so that the legs of a marine are joined by a giant blob of plastic, and don't have a marine elevating its gun high enough that it ends up with a blob joining the shoulder pad to the gun barrel.
Metal minis actually work better because they can have small undercuts.
The infantry models are a pretty small part of the offering and it's easily dealt with with a bit of cleanup or just through careful painting. I'm not concerned. I'm also probably the only person that's pro the foot blobs too because it's going to make getting a decent bond to the bases way easier.
dude, you can see from the pict that not even the cutting mat is in focus..
Will the undercuts disappear if we get them in focus?
Of course not, but if these picts were adequately in focus, the extent to which these models are "ruined" by them could be more accurately judged. All I can see now is that they are there, but without crisp photos, I wont be able to tell just how offensive I'd find them IRL
I’m not overly bothered, but I can see why others might be.
Same. They are clearly visible in all the painting videos I've seen so far, the biggest issue is that people are using very pale colours & contrast paints which really don't help disguise them.
The quality is well below that of alternative metal minis at this scale, but the plastic sculpts to are on the same level of quality that the original epic stuff was. Maybe with more/sharper details.
My sub-par painting isn't going to cause these to be very noticeable (You can get away with a lot by painting badly over black & brown rather than white).
I intend to paint enough of them that anyone looking at them hard enough to spot the extra material on single minis, isn't looking at the whole game on display (and should probably not be in my house in the first place! )
I do expect there to be huge complaints about this come golden daemon time. Someone is going to win without removing that material and the forums will have a melt down.
I think it'd be easier to glue plastic backpacks on versus metal ones. For fiddly stuff like that, I usually just put a bit of blutack on a stick, use the stick to pick them up and hold them in place for a few seconds while the glue dries.
That would usually be my go to as well, but the connection point was so small for the backpacks that I'd actually tear it back off when removing the bluetak stick. It was far better to leave it glue to the stick and let them all dry over night before cutting the stick off.
That said, I'm sure shop brought superglue has gotten worse over the years. I don't recall having so many bottle of bad superglue as a kid.
If I had to do them again (which as I have another 100 or so marines tucked away for a rainy day that I've been avoiding due ot the backpacks) I might use some resin glue to glue & dry them a lot quicker.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: I refuse to believe that those flaws in the models exist. Only a tiny percentage of those sent preview copies, whether for review or painting purposes have mentioned them. They have no reasons to hide such issues from the paying customer.
I've not read a plethora of reviews, but the first 2 I read, Stahly's and TableTopTime, both mentioned the problems.
Yes both were very honest in their appraisals, I find that Stahly always is. The large percentage of the Instagram crowd were less so. Obviously the main issue has been GW's lack of shots showing these issues, just wish they had been more honest with their preview shots. So that potential customers had more time to make up their mind whether they accept the flaws or not. For some the first they will know of this is when they get their box the first week of December, not everyone lives online.
These flaws have completely ruled me out on the set, as seen earlier in the thread other people's mileage varies. It is a bit like Dorn Hole Mark II with how the issue has been largely ignored/glossed over by those given advance copies and GW themselves. To me here there is a duty of care to the paying customer.
but GW should have gone with separate guns and backpacks.
Never again will I do separate 6mm backpacks. The thousands sons I had to do were so fiddly. They made me regret my choice of game.
I ended up gluing them to cocktail sticks, glueing them on the back, letting them dry, then cutting the stick/superglue off. Thankfully there were metal so it was easy clean up. Plastic backpacks would be a mess!
I think it'd be easier to glue plastic backpacks on versus metal ones. For fiddly stuff like that, I usually just put a bit of blutack on a stick, use the stick to pick them up and hold them in place for a few seconds while the glue dries.
That said, I'm not really pro-multipart 8mm marines, I think the best option is to compromise the poses and be very careful with the direction the model is pointing to minimise the issue as much as possible. Like, don't have it so that the legs of a marine are joined by a giant blob of plastic, and don't have a marine elevating its gun high enough that it ends up with a blob joining the shoulder pad to the gun barrel.
Metal minis actually work better because they can have small undercuts.
Ultimately it's a decision between several bad choices. They can't please everyone, unfortunately, and I'm in the group that loses out. First reaction to those undercuts was that I really don't want to give GW money for something like that. It sends the wrong message.
I'd much prefer the models to look good, even if it entails work that makes me lose the will to live. I don't think I'll get that out of the Marine kit unless I take a knife to the models, and for the price that's a bit much to ask.
Billicus wrote: The infantry models are a pretty small part of the offering and it's easily dealt with with a bit of cleanup or just through careful painting. I'm not concerned. I'm also probably the only person that's pro the foot blobs too because it's going to make getting a decent bond to the bases way easier.
I don't think carving out your own details like an arm and half a shoulder pad, studs and all, is what I'd call easily dealt with. I very much doubt a bit of cleanup and careful painting are enough to make undercuts that outright replace parts of the sculpt look good.
RexHavoc wrote: The quality is well below that of alternative metal minis at this scale, but the plastic sculpts to are on the same level of quality that the original epic stuff was. Maybe with more/sharper details.
'Same level of quality as the original Epic stuff' is certainly damning with faint praise.
Especially when the alternatives nowadays are not just pewter, but 3D printed recreations of the same designs without the janky accommodations for injection molding. And likely cheaper to boot.
I was interested in picking up the official models to save myself the trouble of printing it, but yeesh, I might just get the rules.
RexHavoc wrote: The quality is well below that of alternative metal minis at this scale, but the plastic sculpts to are on the same level of quality that the original epic stuff was. Maybe with more/sharper details.
'Same level of quality as the original Epic stuff' is certainly damning with faint praise.
Especially when the alternatives nowadays are not just pewter, but 3D printed recreations of the same designs without the janky accommodations for injection molding. And likely cheaper to boot.
I was interested in picking up the official models to save myself the trouble of printing it, but yeesh, I might just get the rules.
I don't use 3d printed stuff, so I've not real comparison to make there. But against metal minis, these are subpar sculpts (imo)
They are definitely more detailed than the original GW plastics for epic, but I don't see them as being superior sculpts I'd expect of 30+ more years of plastic experience. I'm not complaining or slating the new models though, I like nice simplistic models that might not be the "best sculpts", but can be painted nicely for gaming with. GW tend to go overboard with details and make fragile models. The AoS nighhaunt are prime examples.
I'll take models that my sausage fingers don't snap at the ankles or gun barrels, over the best plastic miniatures the worlds leading company has to offer. These marines stand a chance to still be in one piece after a year. I've snapped so many ends off night haunt robes, I find them in places like you would cat hair!
Finished watching that batrep. Felt a little less swingy than Ash's video, but even in this one, shooting felt fairly inconsistent and melee was much more effective. Terminators seem very fragile and wussy at melee, dreads seem best melee units so far for the points. Assault marines having a 24" charge range seems to be their only redeeming quality, other than that I'd go all tacs and missile launcher dudes and as large dread talons as possible
It's concievable that once we get more varied units on the table, things will start making more sense. I can foresee a dreadnought talon drop podded into charge range being a nasty thing to deal with
I don't think carving out your own details like an arm and half a shoulder pad, studs and all, is what I'd call easily dealt with. I very much doubt a bit of cleanup and careful painting are enough to make undercuts that outright replace parts of the sculpt look good.
Well no, resculpting the models isn't really what I had in mind, there are limits to what's reasonable. I also didn't say it would "make the undercuts look good". I was really just talking about making them look fine at arms' length.
I waited till I saw a few reviews to make my decision. By the time I'd then sat in a GW queue, the decision had been taken from me anyway.
My main thoughts about all those awful undercuts is how this forum would be mocking like crazy if this had been a Mantic set of models. It seems much more forgiving because it's GW.
I do wonder how much Mantic will learn from seeing these before they develop the Warpath minis. I just hope they don't consider it an OK process because GW sell out doing it.
Another batrep, this time we have a 1500 point game with a more reasonable selection of models, more indicative how the game will play with "proper" armies
EDIT: Having now finished watching, my previous concerns regarding this game have been alleviated. When played at 1500 points, with a more diverse selection of units, the game starts working as it should. I'm going to be picking up this game. It feels like Epic as I remember it from my youth
On closer inspection of the previewed models, those are not as nice as we were to believe.
The asking price was already a bit much, but now we know alternative companies can offer better quality for less.
Not only is the core set quite bare (compared to Epic's previous starter box sets), bit due to the importance of buildings, it isn't even a full core set. The expensive buildings are also a required purchase, which just makes the cost even higher.
From all the noise coming in about sale performance, it seems to have sold very well, how many of that was scalpers getting their ebay stock ready remains to be seen.
Seems to play at a decent pace. Now at 1,100 points it’s not exactly a full game. But the hit/save with no to-wound ought to allow it to scale quite well.
More or less as I remember 2nd Ed, with combats proving typically decisive, so long as you pick your fights right and don’t bite off more than you can chew. Quite like adding 1D6 to your roll for extended scraps. Makes Titan Tipping somewhat feasible, albeit at significant risk and cost.
Quite like the Scale rule. It used to be only Super Heavies could pin their own kind in Combat, but that may have changed somewhat, as the Malcador was able to simply “nope” away in the same turn it was charged.
Crucially for me, Objectives Remain King. This is pleasing unto Nuggan and my own Nostalgia. Time will tell how much that holds true in larger battles. But, it’s a promising start.
As always being GW Homegrown this will have been somewhat stage managed, but it does a decent enough job of explaining and demonstrating the rules and mechanics. Which is the main point of GW Homegrown.
but GW should have gone with separate guns and backpacks.
Never again will I do separate 6mm backpacks. The thousands sons I had to do were so fiddly. They made me regret my choice of game.
I ended up gluing them to cocktail sticks, glueing them on the back, letting them dry, then cutting the stick/superglue off. Thankfully there were metal so it was easy clean up. Plastic backpacks would be a mess!
If I had an extra set of 1/4 scale hands I could swap to, I would love separate backpacks & weapons. Lacking those, I'll pass.
Looks like the ebook is going to be US$37.99 so I'll be picking that up in two weeks (and not preordering).
I'll put the box set on the "To Be Purchased When Pile of Shame is Empty" list.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: I refuse to believe that those flaws in the models exist. Only a tiny percentage of those sent preview copies, whether for review or painting purposes have mentioned them. They have no reasons to hide such issues from the paying customer.
I've not read a plethora of reviews, but the first 2 I read, Stahly's and TableTopTime, both mentioned the problems.
Yes both were very honest in their appraisals, I find that Stahly always is. The large percentage of the Instagram crowd were less so. Obviously the main issue has been GW's lack of shots showing these issues, just wish they had been more honest with their preview shots. So that potential customers had more time to make up their mind whether they accept the flaws or not. For some the first they will know of this is when they get their box the first week of December, not everyone lives online.
These flaws have completely ruled me out on the set, as seen earlier in the thread other people's mileage varies. It is a bit like Dorn Hole Mark II with how the issue has been largely ignored/glossed over by those given advance copies and GW themselves. To me here there is a duty of care to the paying customer.
Be aware that most smaller influencer are forced to write positive reviews by the NDA they sign, or in other words get early copies only if they leave those things out
And as they often make a living from doing GW there is no interest for not being very positive about everything
I wanted 1 thing that's Direct Only, Flying Bases.
Gone... lol
I see no point in the cards at this point since they don't contain *all* the cards. Might as well wait until the Mega-Uber-This is All Pack is released.
TalonZahn wrote: I wanted 1 thing that's Direct Only, Flying Bases.
Gone... lol
I see no point in the cards at this point since they don't contain *all* the cards. Might as well wait until the Mega-Uber-This is All Pack is released.
Well bugger, knew there was something I was forgetting
"I'll tell you right now: this is an expensive game. I will talk more about it in the review, but this is more expensive than 40k. If you think that you're getting into this as a cheaper alternative to 40k, you're wrong, it's the opposite, and that SHOCKS us. I think that holds the game back by a tremendous amount."
And this is coming from someone that seems pretty positive about it.
I wonder how is that possible. I got rulebook+templates+accessories + 2 titans + 2 parts of Solar Auxilia for 124€. I can fill a 5x4" table with that.
Once the aircraft and artillery are out, I'll get 1 box of each for less than 80€ and get +500 points.
TalonZahn wrote: I wanted 1 thing that's Direct Only, Flying Bases.
Gone... lol
Yea, stuff went quick. I was able to get my purchase at a GW store so I didn't miss out. I couldn't remember how many titan bases I needed so I didn't get those. Hopefully they'll be back in stock before November 2024.
the failed sculpts, blobs and pieces connecting backpacs and arms, vaguely reminds me of the AOBR set (my first set of 40k) the marines there were subpar (push fit, but subpar)...what really suprises me today is is that, having the posibility of making minis at that size way better (as shown in 3 D printing at home) they deliberatly decided to do them badly and risk the backlash of the guys that were going to buy the game for the epicness of the minis in the previews. Personally, i thought of painting the infantry as a personal challenge, and enjoing the diminutive size with magnifiers and brushes the size of needles...now, i'm reviewing my previous intentions and waiting for the next time the boxset is available (gonna buy it anyway, but now with less hope)
Managed to secure four boxed sets at two different venues, but I also have folks already in mind who wanted the extra books and Warhounds, which added to the discount I got makes a super cheap way to get piles of Infantry, tiny Russes, etc...
So, which kits are not represented at all in the starter? Is it just Rhinos and Baneblades that I need to buy separately?
Seems to play at a decent pace. Now at 1,100 points it’s not exactly a full game. But the hit/save with no to-wound ought to allow it to scale quite well.
More or less as I remember 2nd Ed, with combats proving typically decisive, so long as you pick your fights right and don’t bite off more than you can chew. Quite like adding 1D6 to your roll for extended scraps. Makes Titan Tipping somewhat feasible, albeit at significant risk and cost.
Quite like the Scale rule. It used to be only Super Heavies could pin their own kind in Combat, but that may have changed somewhat, as the Malcador was able to simply “nope” away in the same turn it was charged.
Crucially for me, Objectives Remain King. This is pleasing unto Nuggan and my own Nostalgia. Time will tell how much that holds true in larger battles. But, it’s a promising start.
As always being GW Homegrown this will have been somewhat stage managed, but it does a decent enough job of explaining and demonstrating the rules and mechanics. Which is the main point of GW Homegrown.
Doc, check out the 1500pts batrep I posted earlier. I really got the same feels from watching it as I remember from our own games of 2nd ed Space Marine. I think its safe to say this game is a keeper for fans of 2nd ed (infantry model undercut woes notwithstanding )
Playing just with the contents of the starterset though? Not going to cut it IMHO
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Managed to secure four boxed sets at two different venues, but I also have folks already in mind who wanted the extra books and Warhounds, which added to the discount I got makes a super cheap way to get piles of Infantry, tiny Russes, etc...
So, which kits are not represented at all in the starter? Is it just Rhinos and Baneblades that I need to buy separately?
In terms of new stuff, aside from rhinos and banes it's just the Kratos I think (you get Sicarans in the starter and they're not yet available separately, you don't get any Kratos in the starter but they *are* available separately)
"I'll tell you right now: this is an expensive game. I will talk more about it in the review, but this is more expensive than 40k. If you think that you're getting into this as a cheaper alternative to 40k, you're wrong, it's the opposite, and that SHOCKS us. I think that holds the game back by a tremendous amount."
And this is coming from someone that seems pretty positive about it.
I wonder how is that possible. I got rulebook+templates+accessories + 2 titans + 2 parts of Solar Auxilia for 124€. I can fill a 5x4" table with that.
Once the aircraft and artillery are out, I'll get 1 box of each for less than 80€ and get +500 points.
Probably adding all the scenery needed for it, which won't be compatible with "regular" scaled miniatures, for the most part.
I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs. Sure it isn't glorious, but when starting out, a set of that Dropzone cardstock terrain is like $30 and completely covers a 6'x4' table.
"I'll tell you right now: this is an expensive game. I will talk more about it in the review, but this is more expensive than 40k. If you think that you're getting into this as a cheaper alternative to 40k, you're wrong, it's the opposite, and that SHOCKS us. I think that holds the game back by a tremendous amount."
And this is coming from someone that seems pretty positive about it.
I wonder how is that possible. I got rulebook+templates+accessories + 2 titans + 2 parts of Solar Auxilia for 124€. I can fill a 5x4" table with that.
Once the aircraft and artillery are out, I'll get 1 box of each for less than 80€ and get +500 points.
Probably adding all the scenery needed for it, which won't be compatible with "regular" scaled miniatures, for the most part.
My regular scaled scenery is Epic Armageddon, so no problem. If it is a problem for them it shouln't go into the cost of the game. On top of that, natural scenery should work, and making some ruins is cheap as chips.
If I build an army with maximum qty of drop pods (one of the worst point/price ratios) for example, I can also manipulate and say it's an expensive game (add in counting the price of GW buildings into the cost).
Well yes, going with GW terrain is always expensive. If you want to play Necromunda with a fully jazzed out multilevel plastic Hive Sector with plastic tile floors, its going to cost you several hundreds. LI is no different.
As always, you can use cardboard or MDF alternatives, which will save a bunch of money. Using GW plastics for your terrain was never something mandatory. Heck, even the models can be proxied with cheaper (and less undercut) options, unless you only play at GW events. Hasn't this traditionally been the case for Epic games?
The infantry models don't look good now that we can see them from all sides.
It looks like they just took the poses from 30K, then let a computer down size them and work out the tooling to cram them in a sprue, regardless of the issues it caused to the end result.
from those infantry figures I can see a need to get the Mk V 3d printed ones I have done, I mean they don't look too bad in one way, but in another way the ones from 1st edition were at least designed to be single part models and yes the gun was shadowed to the model but to be honest the pose made it hard to tell.
I suspect once painted they won't look too bad, but 3d print of Vanguard ones will look a lot better
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: Well yes, going with GW terrain is always expensive. If you want to play Necromunda with a fully jazzed out multilevel plastic Hive Sector with plastic tile floors, its going to cost you several hundreds. LI is no different.
As always, you can use cardboard or MDF alternatives, which will save a bunch of money. Using GW plastics for your terrain was never something mandatory. Heck, even the models can be proxied with cheaper (and less undercut) options, unless you only play at GW events. Hasn't this traditionally been the case for Epic games?
for Neccymunda even if you like the Zone Mortalis stuff (I do) there are 3d print options for a heck of a lot less, and several on you tube showing ways to get stuff thats remarkably compatible with it to make the plastic go further from foam and card.
for this I have some home designed stuff I did for Battletech thats suitable as well as some stuff printed for AT.
to the point that if I get seriously into this the cost of one of the 10" resin printers starts to seem a very good investment
I think the infantry looks pretty good. Not really looked at the pictures, just going by opening the store boxed set and having a good old rummage.
It's amazing how different something looks when you're actually physically looking at it in your hand, especially as I got to look at them before placing my order. All in all I'm definitely a happy bunny with this release. Each to their own I suppose.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs. Sure it isn't glorious, but when starting out, a set of that Dropzone cardstock terrain is like $30 and completely covers a 6'x4' table.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs. Sure it isn't glorious, but when starting out, a set of that Dropzone cardstock terrain is like $30 and completely covers a 6'x4' table.
SU-152 wrote:My regular scaled scenery is Epic Armageddon, so no problem. If it is a problem for them it shouln't go into the cost of the game. On top of that, natural scenery should work, and making some ruins is cheap as chips.
If I build an army with maximum qty of drop pods (one of the worst point/price ratios) for example, I can also manipulate and say it's an expensive game (add in counting the price of GW buildings into the cost).
My answer was more to meant that I believe Angry Joe is thinking of the scenery cost and adding it to the price of entry, and that's why he says it's very expensive.
I mean, the models ain't cheap, by any sane measure from outside of the GW bubble, but that's another thing.
I think it'd be easier to glue plastic backpacks on versus metal ones. For fiddly stuff like that, I usually just put a bit of blutack on a stick, use the stick to pick them up and hold them in place for a few seconds while the glue dries.
That would usually be my go to as well, but the connection point was so small for the backpacks that I'd actually tear it back off when removing the bluetak stick. It was far better to leave it glue to the stick and let them all dry over night before cutting the stick off.
That said, I'm sure shop brought superglue has gotten worse over the years. I don't recall having so many bottle of bad superglue as a kid.
If I had to do them again (which as I have another 100 or so marines tucked away for a rainy day that I've been avoiding due ot the backpacks) I might use some resin glue to glue & dry them a lot quicker.
Sounds like metal model problems + maybe slow super glue problems.
I snapped a whole heap of legs off my 8mm 3D printed models because I over supported them, rather than reprinting them I just glued them back on and it only took a matter of seconds for each one. Dab of superglue, hold together for 3 or 4 seconds, done.
Metal models often have uneven gaps, so the glue dries slower, and also the bond is weaker to the metal, so the joint needs to be held for longer.
The advantage of metal is that small undercuts mean if the model was 1 part it wouldn't look anywhere near as bad to begin with.
My aversion to multipart plastic 8mm models isn't with the gluing, I think that'd be the easy part, it'd be that each part would need a sprue gate that has to be removed and another mould line, so clean up gets way more time consuming (especially since most of the new models have the gates on their feet, meaning they don't need to be cleaned up carefully).
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs. Sure it isn't glorious, but when starting out, a set of that Dropzone cardstock terrain is like $30 and completely covers a 6'x4' table.
SU-152 wrote:My regular scaled scenery is Epic Armageddon, so no problem. If it is a problem for them it shouln't go into the cost of the game. On top of that, natural scenery should work, and making some ruins is cheap as chips.
If I build an army with maximum qty of drop pods (one of the worst point/price ratios) for example, I can also manipulate and say it's an expensive game (add in counting the price of GW buildings into the cost).
My answer was more to meant that I believe Angry Joe is thinking of the scenery cost and adding it to the price of entry, and that's why he says it's very expensive.
I mean, the models ain't cheap, by any sane measure from outside of the GW bubble, but that's another thing.
Has anyone added up the cost of a typical army? Like, a legal one? Then compared it to typical armies in the other GW games?
The 30% cap on allies made the road to a cheap army, well, less cheap, because the starter set effectively comes with 3 different factions, when using it to construct a single legal army only about half of it can be used. So buying 2 starters gets you 2 small armies, not a single big one.
Compare that to the 30k starter, which has, what, 1500pts-ish in the starter set that can all go towards creating a single army?
But I've not added up the cost of a 2000pt or 3000pt army (even though GW said 3000pt, it seems like 2000pt might be the better level).
The 30% cap on allies made the road to a cheap army, well, less cheap, because the starter set effectively comes with 3 different factions, when using it to construct a single legal army only about half of it can be used. So buying 2 starters gets you 2 small armies, not a single big one.
Compare that to the 30k starter, which has, what, 1500pts-ish in the starter set that can all go towards creating a single army?
But I've not added up the cost of a 2000pt or 3000pt army (even though GW said 3000pt, it seems like 2000pt might be the better level).
Competitive, I accept that but nobody is telling me when me and my friends play that we wont be using the Starter sets as an army, 30% or not. Certainly until down the line when we have more.
Isnt there even a starter battle set up that lets you ignore the 30%, designed for the starter set forces? (or have I imaged that lol)
Isnt there even a starter battle set up that lets you ignore the 30%, designed for the starter set forces? (or have I imaged that lol)
The WarCom site has a 'quick start' PDF mission download which lets you either split the box as marines vs versus guard with a Warhound on each side, or do a combined marine/SA detachment mirror match with two boxes (and one warhound on each side).
Personally I think a house rule to make both marines & SA count towards the 70% value is a sensible idea, at least in the short term. It lets people use the full starter box without being confined to very small games while waiting potentally months for future model releases.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Has anyone added up the cost of a typical army? Like, a legal one? Then compared it to typical armies in the other GW games?
The 30% cap on allies made the road to a cheap army, well, less cheap, because the starter set effectively comes with 3 different factions, when using it to construct a single legal army only about half of it can be used. So buying 2 starters gets you 2 small armies, not a single big one.
Compare that to the 30k starter, which has, what, 1500pts-ish in the starter set that can all go towards creating a single army?
But I've not added up the cost of a 2000pt or 3000pt army (even though GW said 3000pt, it seems like 2000pt might be the better level).
The starter box gives you approx 450pts of marines and 600pts of SA, plus two Warhounds at 330 each. That basically maxes out 900pts of support options, meaning you need approx 1500-1650pts for the primary army to finish off a full size 3k list.
Outside of further support units, the best point per money ratio will be from armoured units like Kratos, Leman Russ, and Malcadors. Each box will add 250-300pts to your list, so for a strictly legal army you're looking at minimum 5 more boxes of models. At the other end of the scale the worst return will be from rhinos & especially from drop pods.
Of course the other option is to just either house rule things as above while people build up their collections, or agree to play smaller games at maybe 2k pts.
I think some circles will consider the additional costs to field a full army and to have a proper amount of terrain on the table as making the game quite expensive. Circles like the Earth.
Terrain is a tough one because almost every game needs terrain, so do you add the cost of terrain to every game?
It's only really a problem if the rules are so specific that you need the actual GW style terrain (or something close to it) otherwise it'd affect gameplay. At that point you can't just use random paint pots and random blocks/boxes that you have lying around.
Anyway, I think the whole value thing... if the damned starter box didn't have Warhounds it'd be SO much more appealing.
Anyone with am AT starter set will already have ~2000pts worth of Titans and Knights, so it probably makes more sense to build a Titan army and use the Spehss Marines and/or Auxilia as allies rather than the other way around
I'm tempted to wait and see if they release a "battleforce" type box, which ONLY has Marines in it or ONLY has Auxilia.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So basically £150 pounds minimum on top of the starter set to get a 3k army? And that’s assuming you want 2x Warhounds filling out the points.
So a rough guess on an army that doesn’t stretch the points to the limit is maybe £210 or £240 + £120 for the starter?
I dunno, that feels pretty expensive to me.
It's priced awfully close to the cost of a lot of 40k armies, as others are saying the only difference is you might need a whole new table of terrain.
Not sure about Solar Aux, but Space Marines can also use models from Aeronautica as much as Titans and Knights from Titanicus and should count towards the 70%.
And considering that AT and AI are staying put, a Legions collection can spread as far as three games. I'll give GW credit where it's due, unless the core book doesn't include aircraft rules?
A big question is how many planes do you actually want in an army. They're pretty expensive, about 100pts for most and 150pts for the Thunderhawk, so anyone who collected Marines or Imperial Navy for AI can probably put down 1000pts worth aircraft....
....but do you want to? I dunno. In previous Epics I've played the aircraft were very much support and not something you wanted to sink a third of your points into.
Being the AI nerd I am, I could probably field close to 3000pts of just aircraft
For marines, I think the best expansion to what you get from the boxed set is a Kratos squadron. They have good firepower and survivability, something which all other Marine units in the box are lacking.
For SA, just having multiples of the same box seems fine. The included tanks are that good. Just keep spamming those Malcadors and Heavy Sentinels, Ogryns for melee, lasrifle tercios for chaff
AllSeeingSkink wrote: A big question is how many planes do you actually want in an army. They're pretty expensive, about 100pts for most and 150pts for the Thunderhawk, so anyone who collected Marines or Imperial Navy for AI can probably put down 1000pts worth aircraft....
....but do you want to? I dunno. In previous Epics I've played the aircraft were very much support and not something you wanted to sink a third of your points into.
Being the AI nerd I am, I could probably field close to 3000pts of just aircraft
According to the WarCom articles, you'd bring aircraft to counter titans. I'd take a guess that they're also effective against Knights and super heavies.
The way I see it, aircraft can pull similar kind of jobs as Land Speeders in 28mil games. You'd use them to give extra punch to where its most needed at any given time. They can pretty much cover the entire board in a single movement phase. Just reserve their activation until the very last stages of a turn, and catch already activated units by surprise.
For dealing with aircraft, Sicarans seem decent on the Marines side
Watching GMG's review of the army lists, I notice that the rulebook includes rules for everything in the starter box + support batteries box + Leviathan/Deredeos....
Does that make us think the other stuff (Land Raiders, Spartans, Bikes, Jetbikes, etc) are still a long-ish way off, and in the near future we're only going to get what just released + support weapons and dreadnoughts?
(talking about Marines of course, the Auxilia might have other stuff, haven't watched that review)
all those things were teased already with the expansion book, if they keep the delay we will get it in 3-4 months
if GW wants to get back on the original release we should see those rather soon
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So basically £150 pounds minimum on top of the starter set to get a 3k army? And that’s assuming you want 2x Warhounds filling out the points.
So a rough guess on an army that doesn’t stretch the points to the limit is maybe £210 or £240 + £120 for the starter?
I dunno, that feels pretty expensive to me.
yout take 1 core box to start, with either faction + titans for allies
swap the one you don't take for the other faction with a partner
and now buy/swap the half you want another 2 times and you get started but won't have all the things that make Epic exiting
like if you just want to play with Infantry and Walkers without any transports and large tanks, you can do this in HH2 for less (as you can use the full content of the core box)
if you want a diverse force that feels like Epic, we are looking at a higher price than an HH army
no the game is not cheap, no it is not the terrain and no just core box model won't to it if you want a proper game
but people also claim 40k is cheap because you can get the rules for free and just need a single army box to play the game and that doing so is enough "fun" for 3 years until the new Edition hits
They've been previewing these things since start the delay, if they were coming after Q1 next year there's no way they would have continued to show them.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Watching GMG's review of the army lists, I notice that the rulebook includes rules for everything in the starter box + support batteries box + Leviathan/Deredeos....
Does that make us think the other stuff (Land Raiders, Spartans, Bikes, Jetbikes, etc) are still a long-ish way off, and in the near future we're only going to get what just released + support weapons and dreadnoughts?
(talking about Marines of course, the Auxilia might have other stuff, haven't watched that review)
Wait, not even fething Land Raiders on the core? Wow. I knew half the Sicaran variants weren't either, but wow.
For anyone not wanting to wait for a battlescribe version, I created a quick LI army builder sheet that calculates points and upgrade costs: Just create a copy of the sheet and fill out the dropdown fields to enter your units (and the additional grey fields for SM)
For Knights and Titans if you want to take more than one detachment of the same kind just overwrite the automatic points, didn't manage to do it better with the time I had
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So basically £150 pounds minimum on top of the starter set to get a 3k army? And that’s assuming you want 2x Warhounds filling out the points.
So a rough guess on an army that doesn’t stretch the points to the limit is maybe £210 or £240 + £120 for the starter?
I dunno, that feels pretty expensive to me.
Yes and no. Firstly and most obvious, that total can quickly become less via non-GW stores. My extra LI boxes were £96 rather than £120.
This first wave of the game is also clearly targeted at those of us already bought into AT / AI collections. Anyone with existing aircraft can slot them into marine and SA armies, like my existing Thunderhawk providing transport ability, 150pts, and saving me from buying rhinos. Knights also fill up the support side very quickly, with a £27.50 Questoris banner that many already own providing over 500pts.
I don't think it's fair to assume LI will be incredibly expensive for everyone. In time we're almost certainly going to see discounted army boxes similar to the several ones released for AT, and that will be the route into LI for a lot of people without AT collections.
Then for the sake of argument let's say you got a starter box and picked SA as your main army. You have 1,100pts between the marines and warhounds to fill the 900pt support slot.
You can then:
1) Keep them all and have the option to swap between running some combination of two Warhounds / a small marine force / any existing knight and titan models you may already own
2) There will be plenty of people looking to swap box contents, especially SA for marines. Trading the marines for another SA box half gets you 600pts closer to the primary army goal, saving £60.
3) Sell the warhounds if you don't want them. Probably another £30-50 back, depending how many AT players want that new upgrade sprue.
4) Simply build up both armies to use as primary in time. Some players often do provide both sides for specialist games, and I expect with the option to swap support options flexibly between them this will be much cheaper than the equivalent of collecting two full size 40k armies.
A little dodgy of GW on the sprue angles for the infantry models, but I wasn't that jazzed with their design in the first place. I was planning on replacing them with other options once I had concrete scale examples anyway.
I was able to get a starter set and the cards without any hassle this morning - the rules and list building is really what I wanted to get my hands on.
I didn't want to buy lots of models without knowing how they'd fit into a list.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Watching GMG's review of the army lists, I notice that the rulebook includes rules for everything in the starter box + support batteries box + Leviathan/Deredeos....
Does that make us think the other stuff (Land Raiders, Spartans, Bikes, Jetbikes, etc) are still a long-ish way off, and in the near future we're only going to get what just released + support weapons and dreadnoughts?
(talking about Marines of course, the Auxilia might have other stuff, haven't watched that review)
Wait, not even fething Land Raiders on the core? Wow. I knew half the Sicaran variants weren't either, but wow.
Well, Land Raiders are hardly a core Space Marine unit. I don't know why you would expect them to be in the army list any more than Drop Pods. Also, the six big Underhive houses are Goliath and Escher.
What are you going to do? As long as people are happy to buy hacked up rules, GW is happy to sell hacked up rules.
Geifer wrote: Well, Land Raiders are hardly a core Space Marine unit. I don't know why you would expect them to be in the army list any more than Drop Pods. Also, the six big Underhive houses are Goliath and Escher.
What are you going to do? As long as people are happy to buy hacked up rules, GW is happy to sell hacked up rules.
That's the thing: I would totally expect them to be there as much as melon-fething drop pods, or all the fething six Necromunda houses.
As to what I'm going to do... well, not giving them money is what I'm going to do.
Geifer wrote: Well, Land Raiders are hardly a core Space Marine unit. I don't know why you would expect them to be in the army list any more than Drop Pods. Also, the six big Underhive houses are Goliath and Escher.
What are you going to do? As long as people are happy to buy hacked up rules, GW is happy to sell hacked up rules.
That's the thing: I would totally expect them to be there as much as melon-fething drop pods, or all the fething six Necromunda houses.
As to what I'm going to do... well, not giving them money is what I'm going to do.
kodos wrote: you might expect them to be there, but you won't stop buying and playing if they are not
Well, you say that, but I for one have gone back to Oldcromunda and don't play current 40k. I was willing to give this one a chance, but not if they're gonna piecemeal the gak out of it as they did with Newcromunda.
Maybe in five years, when they re-re-re-re-release the core book with actual complete rules and lists. Maybe.
Geifer wrote: Well, Land Raiders are hardly a core Space Marine unit. I don't know why you would expect them to be in the army list any more than Drop Pods. Also, the six big Underhive houses are Goliath and Escher.
What are you going to do? As long as people are happy to buy hacked up rules, GW is happy to sell hacked up rules.
That's the thing: I would totally expect them to be there as much as melon-fething drop pods, or all the fething six Necromunda houses.
As to what I'm going to do... well, not giving them money is what I'm going to do.
My reactions from rumour, to reveal, to pre order.
Wow.
Interesting.
Maybe not? Maybe?
Land Raiders were an Iconic choice for Marines, ditto the pods. Not having them in the core rules is unsurprising though.
Seems obvious that the Kratos being newer for HH release was first on the whiteboard for production and that led to the editorial choices that followed?
I'm now in the wait and see camp if I can pick up LI later down the line.
That was gonna happen regardless, because 1) it's Epic, or looks like it, 2) people are buying sight unseen and 3) They don't seem to be able to actually produce enough gak for their current market on their best day.
and people buy serval boxes just in case that it gets much more expensive after that
in addition having the core box multiple times is the only way to stay cheaper than 40k
kodos wrote: you might expect them to be there, but you won't stop buying and playing if they are not
Well, you say that, but I for one have gone back to Oldcromunda and don't play current 40k. I was willing to give this one a chance, but not if they're gonna piecemeal the gak out of it as they did with Newcromunda.
Maybe in five years, when they re-re-re-re-release the core book with actual complete rules and lists. Maybe.
yeah, I have the feeling we will see the same done with TOW as well
simply because it works and is an easy way to get more money without doing more work
And I for one am unwilling to encourage them to keep doing it, so I'll read the rules when they get in the wild, and I'll keep using the stuff I already have or I want to print this week. And more xenos
That was gonna happen regardless, because 1) it's Epic, or looks like it, 2) people are buying sight unseen and 3) They don't seem to be able to actually produce enough gak for their current market on their best day.
Exactly, which is why they will keep doing it.
It's obviously better for us if everything is in one place, but equally it's obviously not enough of an issue for people to stop buying stuff.
Isnt there even a starter battle set up that lets you ignore the 30%, designed for the starter set forces? (or have I imaged that lol)
The WarCom site has a 'quick start' PDF mission download which lets you either split the box as marines vs versus guard with a Warhound on each side, or do a combined marine/SA detachment mirror match with two boxes (and one warhound on each side).
Personally I think a house rule to make both marines & SA count towards the 70% value is a sensible idea, at least in the short term. It lets people use the full starter box without being confined to very small games while waiting potentally months for future model releases.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Has anyone added up the cost of a typical army? Like, a legal one? Then compared it to typical armies in the other GW games?
The 30% cap on allies made the road to a cheap army, well, less cheap, because the starter set effectively comes with 3 different factions, when using it to construct a single legal army only about half of it can be used. So buying 2 starters gets you 2 small armies, not a single big one.
Compare that to the 30k starter, which has, what, 1500pts-ish in the starter set that can all go towards creating a single army?
But I've not added up the cost of a 2000pt or 3000pt army (even though GW said 3000pt, it seems like 2000pt might be the better level).
The starter box gives you approx 450pts of marines and 600pts of SA, plus two Warhounds at 330 each. That basically maxes out 900pts of support options, meaning you need approx 1500-1650pts for the primary army to finish off a full size 3k list.
Outside of further support units, the best point per money ratio will be from armoured units like Kratos, Leman Russ, and Malcadors. Each box will add 250-300pts to your list, so for a strictly legal army you're looking at minimum 5 more boxes of models. At the other end of the scale the worst return will be from rhinos & especially from drop pods.
Of course the other option is to just either house rule things as above while people build up their collections, or agree to play smaller games at maybe 2k pts.
is this the first starter box GW have ever done where the Marines don't have notably more points that the other side? indeed are considerably less?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So basically £150 pounds minimum on top of the starter set to get a 3k army? And that’s assuming you want 2x Warhounds filling out the points.
So a rough guess on an army that doesn’t stretch the points to the limit is maybe £210 or £240 + £120 for the starter?
I dunno, that feels pretty expensive to me.
Yes and no. Firstly and most obvious, that total can quickly become less via non-GW stores. My extra LI boxes were £96 rather than £120.
This first wave of the game is also clearly targeted at those of us already bought into AT / AI collections. Anyone with existing aircraft can slot them into marine and SA armies, like my existing Thunderhawk providing transport ability, 150pts, and saving me from buying rhinos. Knights also fill up the support side very quickly, with a £27.50 Questoris banner that many already own providing over 500pts.
I don't think it's fair to assume LI will be incredibly expensive for everyone. In time we're almost certainly going to see discounted army boxes similar to the several ones released for AT, and that will be the route into LI for a lot of people without AT collections.
Then for the sake of argument let's say you got a starter box and picked SA as your main army. You have 1,100pts between the marines and warhounds to fill the 900pt support slot.
You can then: 1) Keep them all and have the option to swap between running some combination of two Warhounds / a small marine force / any existing knight and titan models you may already own 2) There will be plenty of people looking to swap box contents, especially SA for marines. Trading the marines for another SA box half gets you 600pts closer to the primary army goal, saving £60. 3) Sell the warhounds if you don't want them. Probably another £30-50 back, depending how many AT players want that new upgrade sprue. 4) Simply build up both armies to use as primary in time. Some players often do provide both sides for specialist games, and I expect with the option to swap support options flexibly between them this will be much cheaper than the equivalent of collecting two full size 40k armies.
Yes there's always discounters, but the baseline is the price GW charges. I can get random Mantic game or ASOIAF discounted too.
An existing AT army doesn't help much in filling out a force for minimal cost, because the starter contains 2 Warhounds that you can't field until 2200pts anyway, so filling out with existing AT models doesn't really make the game cheaper.
AI models do, because they're not allies. Still curious to see how many planes are actually worth taking.
I think the Warhounds are really what damages the value proposition of it all. It effectively means the box set is a 3 faction starter instead of a 2 faction starter. Even if you find someone to buy a 2nd box and swap their marines/SA, there's no point going buying a 3rd or 4th with them because you'll just end up with even more Warhounds that you can't field.
That's assuming you want Warhounds at all. So many people already have 2 or 4 Warhounds, or maybe want a different Titan/Knight ally option. I'm predicting ebay/trading groups will be awash with Warhounds shortly, lol.
I'm hoping in a future wave they release some sort of battleforce that focuses on 1 faction and gives better value... I guess the question is whether I wait in hope or pick up the starter now.
Yes there's always discounters, but the baseline is the price GW charges. I can get random Mantic game or ASOIAF discounted too.
if the argument for "the game is not that expensive" is you can buy leftover 2nd hand no one wants or wait for stores doing sales, as well as "just use you existing collection" you know it actually is expensive
Plus whatever hasn't been revealed yet, potentially adding a dozen boxes or more.
Most Specialist Games got treated to a plastic release per quarter. The notable exception to that was Horus Heresy. I could see Legions Imperialis land somewhere in the middle with an expansion book every three to four months and half a dozen plastic kits for that wave.
That would have been my guess anyway if there hadn't been a delay. I could see GW wanting to catch up and release the next two model waves closer to each other, say the next one in January already.
kodos wrote: you might expect them to be there, but you won't stop buying and playing if they are not
Well, you say that, but I for one have gone back to Oldcromunda and don't play current 40k. I was willing to give this one a chance, but not if they're gonna piecemeal the gak out of it as they did with Newcromunda.
Maybe in five years, when they re-re-re-re-release the core book with actual complete rules and lists. Maybe.
Well as gw can't keep up with demand gw doesn't care if you won't buy it or not. They sell out what they physically can produce anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albertorius wrote: I am sure that helps in the first rush, not so sure that it helps with having a healthy game in the long run, but agreed.
Gw's track record disagrees.
So far nobody has outsmarted gw and so far we know none in dakkadakka provenly knows better than gw.
leopard wrote: if they have the first expansion done and printed it will be out soon simply to clear the space its taking, mid-late Jan makes sense
There's still a fairly substantial wave required to release the remaining units from AT/AI and the core rulebook, such as predators and support boxes. Plus there's further terrain and two discount boxes confirmed.
I think Feb/March is more likely for the expansion book.
leopard wrote: if they have the first expansion done and printed it will be out soon simply to clear the space its taking, mid-late Jan makes sense
There's still a fairly substantial wave required to release the remaining units from AT/AI and the core rulebook, such as predators and support boxes. Plus there's further terrain and two discount boxes confirmed.
I think Feb/March is more likely for the expansion book.
Eh, you have to maintain sales momentum in the wider hobby.
GW achieves this with Core Game, then expansion books and linked waves of models. Whether that’s a Codex, Battle Tome, House Of isn’t especially important. It’s the same overall, tried and tested, business model.
And….its worked out pretty well so far.
They also tend to include more than just unit rules. Across the games, we see background, scenarios, variant campaigns, different environments etc.
Heck, one could even argue 2nd Edition Space Marine was the granddaddy of this approach. You had your core boxed set, then boxed sets covering different armies released after, and Titan Legions as a sub-game/sequel/expansion.
Not only does this model allow GW time to design kits, but tying the rules to a new book provides the hype train and advertising.
leopard wrote: if they have the first expansion done and printed it will be out soon simply to clear the space its taking, mid-late Jan makes sense
There's still a fairly substantial wave required to release the remaining units from AT/AI and the core rulebook, such as predators and support boxes. Plus there's further terrain and two discount boxes confirmed.
I think Feb/March is more likely for the expansion book.
Two discount boxes? Care to elaborate?
I'm committed to starting LI already, but am not too keen on the starter box as I dont like the idea of having to deal with dumping SA & those Warhounds and the physical rulebook, since the secondhand markets will be flooded with them soon enough. If there was a more affordable way to just getting core Marine units at significant discounts, I'd be all over such a thing. I want to go with the digital books and 3rd party lasercut tokens, so don't really see anything in the box I couldn't live without. Aren't those Blast markers the same that ship with Age Of Darkness box? If they are, I already have one set still on sprue
leopard wrote: if they have the first expansion done and printed it will be out soon simply to clear the space its taking, mid-late Jan makes sense
There's still a fairly substantial wave required to release the remaining units from AT/AI and the core rulebook, such as predators and support boxes. Plus there's further terrain and two discount boxes confirmed.
I think Feb/March is more likely for the expansion book.
I wonder if they will do wave two right after Christmas, then wait till march/april for the next wave/expansion.
Old world is due out around January/February and the rumour is first wave is the box set/rulebook/basic starter forces, then the following month is 'Quality of life' stuff for the game, which I assume is books, measuring templates, movement trays, terrain etc.
Thats two big slots taken up for a specialist game as its is, not to mention a couple of weeks taken up with new AoS dawnbringer vol 4, new ghoul army etc. 40k/killteam/necromunda all have items due out over the next couple of months too.
leopard wrote: if they have the first expansion done and printed it will be out soon simply to clear the space its taking, mid-late Jan makes sense
There's still a fairly substantial wave required to release the remaining units from AT/AI and the core rulebook, such as predators and support boxes. Plus there's further terrain and two discount boxes confirmed.
I think Feb/March is more likely for the expansion book.
Two discount boxes? Care to elaborate?
I'm committed to starting LI already, but am not too keen on the starter box as I dont like the idea of having to deal with dumping SA & those Warhounds and the physical rulebook, since the secondhand markets will be flooded with them soon enough. If there was a more affordable way to just getting core Marine units at significant discounts, I'd be all over such a thing. I want to go with the digital books and 3rd party lasercut tokens, so don't really see anything in the box I couldn't live without. Aren't those Blast markers the same that ship with Age Of Darkness box? If they are, I already have one set still on sprue
The old titan and knight discount boxes will come back as limited once and done release. That we know but not wgen.
So I have been looking through the weapon keywords and special rules and there are a few interesting ones who aren't currently used on any model:
Neutron Flux: No model currently that uses a neutron weapon (Except the Dire Wolf but that one doesn't have this rule), looking at 28mm HH Neutron weapon are used by the Sabre tank, Predator and Sicaran versions, Falchion and the Cerberus Tank, all of which we don't have in LI yet. The first thought would be the Sabre/Falchion/Cerberus as those are completely new but the Neutron Flux is actually also used in HH and only for a single weapon, the Neutron-flux warheads of the Sicaran Arcus. That makes me think we will get that Sicaran version in the future which means they are open to make new versions of already existing models. Which opens up endless possibilities for further model options, for example different Predators/Support Squads/Heavy Weapon Squads
Loyalist/Traitor: The Loyalist keyword is used by the Warlord Sinister Psi Titan but the Traitor keyword isn't actually used for anything yet. And the only thing that would really make sense with that would be characters and Primarchs. As they already kinda teased Primarchs those should be pretty locked in.
Same for the Unique keyword, only really makes sense on characters and Primarchs
Battlesmith is also not used currently, not even for the Iron Hands special rules where I would have expected it. In HH in appears on Techmarines, two Consuls and Iron Hands specific characters/Ferrus Manus. Could be further confirmation for Primarchs with Ferrus Manus, could be a 5 man base of Techmarines or could be a sign that we will get individual models like Consuls or characters.
Other weapon keywords I have no idea where they could be used are Power Capacitor (double dice with first fire order) and Ripple Fire (reroll hits of 1 if order is first fire) For special rules there is Phosphex which is used by the Leviathan in HH but he doesn't have that weapon in LI. There are other Phospex weapons for SM not yet in LI like on Destroyers or on the Arquitor but then again its not a weapon keyword but a unit special rule (Models engaged with unit with this rule gain no positive modifiers on their CAF for being garrisoned) Sounds like something we could see with Mechanicum?
Then there is stuff you can already guess like Attached Deployment which should be the SA Cyclops
Matrindur wrote: Am I the only one who is surprised at the lack of battlereports? I can only find thesetwo and GMGs how to play video.
Would have expected more to show the new game
I suspect the supplied previews only contained the starter (Or that they are only allowed to show the stuff that came with the starter) Which makes playing a game hard.
"I'll tell you right now: this is an expensive game. I will talk more about it in the review, but this is more expensive than 40k. If you think that you're getting into this as a cheaper alternative to 40k, you're wrong, it's the opposite, and that SHOCKS us. I think that holds the game back by a tremendous amount."
And this is coming from someone that seems pretty positive about it.
Than 40k? I'm fairly sure this at least is wrong.
Depending on your 40k army though.
Apple fox wrote: Honestly I glad I decided to skip, game doesn’t look particularly worth it for the investment and the minis don’t wow much at all.
The tanks are amazingly done.
I know it's the nature of the internet, and dakka especially, to grouse about the things that suck until they eclipse all other things, but the tanks are very very good.
Goonhammer review is definitely something. The phrase "It’s not great, and may not even be good, but it’s certainly not bad" is going into my quotes collection.
Batreps will come as more people get access to more stuff... which will take time since it all sold out in the US in about 10 minutes.
Either way, we will likely have to get through the holidays before we start seeing any sniffs of the next wave of LI stuff. It'll be impressive if they just bring more stuff back into stock over the next month or so.
I'm not necessarily surprised. GW were likely banking on the game being a flop due to the delays and such, and it still could be if the number 1 buyer of the new stuff were scalpers instead of actual players.
Titanicus had good slow-burn success, but Aeronautica flopped hard (due to covid primarily, but GW don't consider outside effects on their business based on what I've seen, so they just see 'a flop is a flop' and move on). You can also see that many titans and planes are still in stock, which could imply that a lot of the clientele that's buying already had a bunch of titans and planes, so if GW is going for the same demographic, and they have the data to support that, they'll likely make as much of this as they did of Titanicus.
Ergo, long periods of time of resin models being out of stock and intermittent availability of everything else, with a relatively slow release schedule.
Get ready for the long haul, and we still gotta wait 2 weeks before this stuff is in our hands.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I know we are all into doing things to the highest order, as hobbyists... but I never get the assertion that switching to a new scale adds monumental terrain costs. Sure it isn't glorious, but when starting out, a set of that Dropzone cardstock terrain is like $30 and completely covers a 6'x4' table.
I'm not necessarily surprised. GW were likely banking on the game being a flop due to the delays and such, and it still could be if the number 1 buyer of the new stuff were scalpers instead of actual players.
.
Ummm what? Gw wouldn't even greenlight project if they didn't expect to sell.
They are in for PROFIT. Not releasing games to flop just for fun of it and just because unexpected delay happened they don't go "oh I want game to flop". If anytthing they want it succeed even better to sort out added expense...
Seeing that the main box set is sold out already… maybe I missed this but is it coming back or was this a limited box set and like now you can only get the rules and models separately going forward?
Necros wrote: Seeing that the main box set is sold out already… maybe I missed this but is it coming back or was this a limited box set and like now you can only get the rules and models separately going forward?
They confirmed the starter box is a permanent product and will be restocked again in time. Might be a few months though.
SgtBANZAI wrote: Goonhammer review is definitely something. The phrase "It’s not great, and may not even be good, but it’s certainly not bad" is going into my quotes collection.
This is pretty much the tagline of all warhammer products though really.
SgtBANZAI wrote: Goonhammer review is definitely something. The phrase "It’s not great, and may not even be good, but it’s certainly not bad" is going into my quotes collection.
This is pretty much the tagline of all warhammer products though really.
At least in so far as rules are concerned!
Models they tend to be very much in the upper end of ratings; but yeah for rules GW's rules have always been "so so" with glaring issues that could be easily fixed but never are. Either because GW are deaf to them or because they don't so much as fix/change them as just change all the rules every X number of years anyway.
I think the Warhounds are really what damages the value proposition of it all
On the one hand, I agree. Players who played AT likely already have more Warhounds than they're likely to want. So they're an unneeded addition to the box for AT players. Further, given that there's two of them, they're a big, clunky addition points-wise, since you're restricted in how you can use them when putting your army together.
On the other, I can see the logic behind putting them in the box. Big stompy war machines sell, and so putting them in the box will likely drive sales for some who were borderline about it. And they put two in since it's designed as a vs. box. Each side gets one of them.
It occurs to me that a better choice might have been to swap out one of the Warhounds for some aircraft. AI was a much less popular game, so fewer players will already have them. The aircraft would be a basic boost to the points of one of the armies (since they're linked to a specific faction), and get around the issue of having two pricy models that can only be taken as an ally. And keeping one Warhound would retain the "big stompy war machine" appeal.
But they didn't. So there's not much point debating it now.
Crablezworth wrote: Has anyone seen a review that goes in depth on the terrain rules? There would seem to be far more pages of rules than the 1 page titanicus had.
Yeah the GMG rules review posted here earlier covers terrain in detail, and with a lot of enthusiasm.
tneva82 wrote:Both marines and sa have their own aircraft to use.
Ordered myself thunderhawk while waiting for more marine flyers. For now most are for sa. Marine ones waiting re-release
I was finally able to get on the GW site w/o being kicked into the queue. I was thinking about getting a Thunderhawk just to sit on my desk, but Fifty Bucks!?!?? For ONE!!! Hard pass.
Conclusion - GW deliberately understocked and is hurting the market through FOMO
GW product does not sell out on prelaunch
Conclusion - GW has failed again to predict sales and has overstocked on a failing product line that is clearly not selling well and will likely be dead within 6 months
In the end this is just a pre-order wave and chances are GW and many shops have set aside stock for physical release as well as the online. In general it seems like its sold out rather well; most people seem to have managed to get hold of product and since its all going to be long term, any who have missed out can expect to be able to buy it again in the future.
The only exception are the cards, which are always an exception because it seems that GW only ever makes 1 or 2 bulk orders and never treats them as a product to continually restock.
Even then you can oft find cards in physical stores, though that can take some hunting.
I think the Warhounds are really what damages the value proposition of it all
On the one hand, I agree. Players who played AT likely already have more Warhounds than they're likely to want. So they're an unneeded addition to the box for AT players. Further, given that there's two of them, they're a big, clunky addition points-wise, since you're restricted in how you can use them when putting your army together.
Fundamentally a starter box is always going to be a better deal for some players than others. I've seen a few people talk about how the HH AOD box didn't work well for their particular legion, while other players were happy to pick up more than one copy.
In time we'll see LI discount boxes, and possibly a new starter set in a few years once the range has grown a bit. Those will help to pick up new customers with different requirements.
Eumerin wrote: It occurs to me that a better choice might have been to swap out one of the Warhounds for some aircraft.
Unfortunately that's not possible due to the way the sprues are laid out. You either get 4 sprues that build two models, or 3 sprues that build one with tons of spare bits.
I'm not necessarily surprised. GW were likely banking on the game being a flop due to the delays and such, and it still could be if the number 1 buyer of the new stuff were scalpers instead of actual players.
.
Ummm what? Gw wouldn't even greenlight project if they didn't expect to sell.
They are in for PROFIT. Not releasing games to flop just for fun of it and just because unexpected delay happened they don't go "oh I want game to flop". If anytthing they want it succeed even better to sort out added expense...
Repeat. GW is in for PROFIT.
I'm sure it was a very profitable launch for them. The business plan wouldn't be structured such that a quick sellout would be unprofitable, lol.
In some other industries/businesses, you wouldn't want to sell out so quite so quickly because you're effectively turning away sales to customers who may not come back. But LI is just a niche game even for GW. They have to balance LI production against production of kits for their core games. So they're really only going to make so much of it. And they don't want to have to warehouse a gak ton of it anyway, because again it'll be slower-moving product compared to core stuff. So it's going to be like this with stops and starts in terms of kit availability, just like it was for AT.
Conclusion - GW deliberately understocked and is hurting the market through FOMO
GW product does not sell out on prelaunch
Conclusion - GW has failed again to predict sales and has overstocked on a failing product line that is clearly not selling well and will likely be dead within 6 months
The only correct solution for a perfect launch is for GW to have exactly one copy left on a shelf somewhere! /s
But yeah this launch did seem to hit a healthier balance than normal between stock and popularity. LI was still available in many places for several hours on Saturday rather than completely selling out within 2 minutes. I'm also sure other copies will appear as allocations get fine-tuned.
People believed GW didn't think LI will profit must have missed the gazillion of plastic kits revealed, that's several years worth of other Specialist games releases combined.
Chopstick wrote: People believed GW didn't think LI will profit must have missed the gazillion of plastic kits revealed, that's several years worth of other Specialist games releases combined.
It's an interesting example of what they can do when they want to. Meanwhile for Necromunda the same division struggles and in fact might fail to push out a one-sprue vehicle for all the 6 core gangs before the Ash Wastes theme concludes.
Chopstick wrote: People believed GW didn't think LI will profit must have missed the gazillion of plastic kits revealed, that's several years worth of other Specialist games releases combined.
It's an interesting example of what they can do when they want to. Meanwhile for Necromunda the same division struggles and in fact might fail to push out a one-sprue vehicle for all the 6 core gangs before the Ash Wastes theme concludes.
One could suspect that Aeronautica and Titanicus have paved the way for a big investment in Legions. We're likely looking at 30+ plastic releases in the games first year and GW is not known to gamble.
while fluff describes them at 33m.so if infantry is in 8mm(ie marines 9-10mm) then we need redo of titan line
