Nothing as of yet, but it’s been wildly speculated since Adeptus Titanicus returned, and more so since Aeronautica used the same scale, and AT models started coming with AA defence weapons.
That would also line up with the fact that AT and AI have been kind of abandoned. They wouldn't be releasing new expansions for those games if they're being rolled into epic.
One rumour I read (no idea if it originated from Valrak) is that infantry and tanks will make an appearance in the 30K setting first (in 6mm, or 8mm if you want to call it that). Then if it takes off maybe it will be expanded further to include the 40K factions.
While I'd love to see a full blown return of Epic I get the feeling it's going to be a long road before we get to the stage where we can recreate our 40K armies in Epic scale. GW has done a lot in recent years expanding their Specialist Games, though full support for Epic is going to take up a lot of resources. I'm not sure GW would jump head first into that.
Very sound advice, especially as GW's official returns to that eras properties haven't held a candle to the originals. I'm embarrassed at the things they put the Warhammer Quest brand on compared to what we got in 1995.
Very sound advice, especially as GW's official returns to that eras properties haven't held a candle to the originals. I'm embarrassed at the things they put the Warhammer Quest brand on compared to what we got in 1995.
They also effectively split blood bowl community into those who want to use lrb and those who want current GW with passing stat added and other rules changes.
And Necromunda is a soup sandwich in a paper bag carried on a 20 mile hike.
El Torro wrote: One rumour I read (no idea if it originated from Valrak) is that infantry and tanks will make an appearance in the 30K setting first (in 6mm, or 8mm if you want to call it that). Then if it takes off maybe it will be expanded further to include the 40K factions.
Someone asked Valrak on that stream about more infos and he only could say that he know nothing expect that the game is already in the playtesting phase and that it will come in the unknown future.
GW can do what they want with Epic rules wise, if the models are nice I'll just use them in the classic Epic 40,000
GW's recent forays into their classic games have been abysmal, and a very transparent cash grab... the sheer number of books Necromunda has inow compared to the original is insane.
In a lot of the advertising material for 30k, including box art and other things, we see a lot of Titan stuff in the background, including the Warmaster titan, which has no full-scale 30k model, but was released for Titanicus.
Either a 2.0 for Titanicus or Epic is likely to be coming.
Toofast wrote: That would also line up with the fact that AT and AI have been kind of abandoned. They wouldn't be releasing new expansions for those games if they're being rolled into epic.
While AI sales have been soft, saying that AT has been abandoned is a stretch. It frequently has stretches of quiet between releases, and even then, the Dire Wolf is a pretty recent release.
If they do Epic, it would be cool if they took the opportunity to do some ret-retconning of titan heights in the lore.
I read epic stories of Titans, god machines that shake mountains, with great city like cathedrals on their backs and entire armies in their legs and guns longer than oil tankers, vast machines that conquer planets and strike utter horror into Xenos. The art too is incredible, showing striding behemoths that dwarf all, and imperator titans that dwarf other titans.
Annnndd then I look up how tall they are and the statue of liberty is taller than the tallest titan. OOF.
I don't mind the smaller titan heights, its just the largest titans are a bit of a let down. They lack a bit of that God Machine hype that I would expect from a setting like 40k. There used to be some descriptions of some truly massive titans in oldhammer lore, but it seems to be have been retconned or forgotten about as imperator titans are nowhere near as big these days.
It would be nice if they could bring some of that EPIC scale back for the big titans in lore if not on tabletop.
GW can do what they want with Epic rules wise, if the models are nice I'll just use them in the classic Epic 40,000
GW's recent forays into their classic games have been abysmal, and a very transparent cash grab... the sheer number of books Necromunda has inow compared to the original is insane.
I mean, I'm already an outlier, as my Epic poison of choice is E:40k, so finding people to play with is already an issue ^^
And yeah, the Necromunda situation is completely nuts, and have killed off all my interest on it.
Very sound advice, especially as GW's official returns to that eras properties haven't held a candle to the originals. I'm embarrassed at the things they put the Warhammer Quest brand on compared to what we got in 1995.
They also effectively split blood bowl community into those who want to use lrb and those who want current GW with passing stat added and other rules changes.
And Necromunda is a soup sandwich in a paper bag carried on a 20 mile hike.
Anecdotal but I don't think I've seen any usage of the LRB for a good while; any NAF tournament seems to run with the core 2020 edition rules. What I have seen happening is tournament and team building rules deviate (which has always been a thing) and a tendency now to outright ban Star Players. The LRB hasn't really been current since 2016, it just happened that the 2016 edition from the GW relaunch wasn't that different.
Necromunda is certainly spread over a wide area; it's inconvenient trying to find stuff at times though I actually like the sheer volume of content and the quasi-RPG setup it has going on these days.
For the posters commenting above "I would love to try Epic" - you can, and its super cheap and easy to get into these days with the amount of 3D print minis and proxies available (with some fairly large online communities on FB also)
This guide, which was written using help from Epic players from all over, will hopefully help: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
TalonZahn wrote: The amount of 3D Printed Epic armies is insane.
People are clearly dying to play Epic.
We already are, and many would rather GW put their hand in their own pockets and left it well alone.
Thanks for writing this, I kind of feel the same way. Although it would be nice to have more players enter the community, which would happen as a result of the release (even if it is a very limited one - which I suspect might be the case)
I'm planning an expo/participation game with all of my stuff at Firestorm Games in October, so no doubt that will be the weekend that GW launches the game
I would also say I can't see GW going after NetEpic, EpicEA groups etc. They didn't bother doing that when they launched new versions of Necromunda and Blood Bowl, where fan-edit versions of the rules were available online, so not sure why they would do so now for Epic?
derpherp wrote: If they do Epic, it would be cool if they took the opportunity to do some ret-retconning of titan heights in the lore.
I read epic stories of Titans, god machines that shake mountains, with great city like cathedrals on their backs and entire armies in their legs and guns longer than oil tankers, vast machines that conquer planets and strike utter horror into Xenos. The art too is incredible, showing striding behemoths that dwarf all, and imperator titans that dwarf other titans.
Annnndd then I look up how tall they are and the statue of liberty is taller than the tallest titan. OOF.
I don't mind the smaller titan heights, its just the largest titans are a bit of a let down. They lack a bit of that God Machine hype that I would expect from a setting like 40k. There used to be some descriptions of some truly massive titans in oldhammer lore, but it seems to be have been retconned or forgotten about as imperator titans are nowhere near as big these days.
It would be nice if they could bring some of that EPIC scale back for the big titans in lore if not on tabletop.
I agree and disagree. That kind of lore and scale is pure awesome; but on the tabletop it means that you'd basically be playing with either titans only and little squares with pictures on them for infantry and tanks; or you'd be playing with infantry and tanks and the feet of a titan as a terrain feature. Basically when the disparity in scale between two models is too great you can only have one or the other.
It's the same as how in games like Battlefleet Gothic fighters are often very limited in variety and represented by tokens half the time. Because they are so so small compared to the mega ships. Instead of 20 different sorts of fighter you've usually 2 or 3 in such a game and that's it. Because no one really wants vast legions of tokens or ships so small that differences are almost impossible to see at 1ft away when actually playing.
I think the current scale of AT is good because it allows you titans, infantry and tanks and aircraft all at once and all with a good level of detailing
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: For the posters commenting above "I would love to try Epic" - you can, and its super cheap and easy to get into these days with the amount of 3D print minis and proxies available (with some fairly large online communities on FB also)
This guide, which was written using help from Epic players from all over, will hopefully help: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
TalonZahn wrote: The amount of 3D Printed Epic armies is insane.
People are clearly dying to play Epic.
We already are, and many would rather GW put their hand in their own pockets and left it well alone.
Thanks for writing this, I kind of feel the same way. Although it would be nice to have more players enter the community, which would happen as a result of the release (even if it is a very limited one - which I suspect might be the case)
I'm planning an expo/participation game with all of my stuff at Firestorm Games in October, so no doubt that will be the weekend that GW launches the game
I would also say I can't see GW going after NetEpic, EpicEA groups etc. They didn't bother doing that when they launched new versions of Necromunda and Blood Bowl, where fan-edit versions of the rules were available online, so not sure why they would do so now for Epic?
So far GW is pretty tame iwth 3D printing. They only go after stuff they can 100% protect like specific iconography designs and such. Anything else is left up. There are loads of 40K and Fantasy scale models that are very good as counts as and proxies and alternative models that are different enough that GW isn't going after them. The only ones they do are those who are copy-catting GW and in all honestly that's a good thing because we shouldn't be encouraging 3D printing to become a hotbed of copyright rip-offs/theft (because today its GW, tomorrow its PP, Infinity and your favourite 3D print designer)
Malika2 wrote: Is this an actual rumours thread or just wishlisting?
99.9% of rumours threads evolve into wishlisting very quickly unless there's a very regular supply of fresh rumours with proven sources or photos or such. We don't have detectives ferreting out rumours; we don't have teams of people hunting them down and we don't have the days of the Kirby era marketing where GW was leaking like crazy with rumours
I agree and disagree. That kind of lore and scale is pure awesome; but on the tabletop it means that you'd basically be playing with either titans only and little squares with pictures on them for infantry and tanks; or you'd be playing with infantry and tanks and the feet of a titan as a terrain feature. Basically when the disparity in scale between two models is too great you can only have one or the other.
It's the same as how in games like Battlefleet Gothic fighters are often very limited in variety and represented by tokens half the time. Because they are so so small compared to the mega ships. Instead of 20 different sorts of fighter you've usually 2 or 3 in such a game and that's it. Because no one really wants vast legions of tokens or ships so small that differences are almost impossible to see at 1ft away when actually playing.
I think the current scale of AT is good because it allows you titans, infantry and tanks and aircraft all at once and all with a good level of detailing
I don't think their lore scale should be directly reflected on the tabletop, I would separate them so that there is the more reasonable scale for table top, and then the God Machine scale that is used in Lore and video games and movies. Warhammer table top scale isn't true scale anyway and many things on the table top are a bit bigger and smaller than they should technically be.
Like, if a Warhammer Cinematic Universe ever happens, I'd like to see the Imperator titan to at least be a few times bigger than the statue of liberty which is pretty tame in size for our world. We have buildings that are 8 times taller than the statue of liberty right now.
Seeing an imperator titan from 40,000 years in the future looking like a little baby toddler running around the base of the Burj Khalifa skyscraper is just... a bit gak.
Give me Old Hammer for the Big Screen where the cathedrals on their backs are described as cities and they wield one kilometer long guns. (well maybe not that crazy, but still)
Epic seems like a convenient opportunity to do some lore retconning on this subject.
It would also either make them silly soft or totally dominate game to the level other than titans shouldn't be bothered to be fielded because one titan and game over. Unless it's then like 40k where you auto lose with titan because while nothing can kill it and it kill anything at will you auto lose on scenario which isn't good for game either.
There's limit size of individual unit can be taken in game system. In 40k titan will break game period and be impossible to balance. Anything with kilometer long guns would be impossible to balance in epic.
As it is warmaster titan like imperator would break AT game system much like titan breaks 40k...
It is inevitable that they'll get back into Epic at some point. It's been pointed out above it is still very popular and regular tournaments are still held. They'd be fools not to tap into that. To what level, who knows. If they do Heresy, a bunch of infantry and tanks in plastic will shift.
Personally, I can't wait for them to! To me, the Epic games are some of the best rules GW has put out and the 40k setting fits Epic scale so well
Yeah, Epic always felt like the right scale for 40k, and I say that as someone who likes the default 40k aesthetic.
Funnily enough, Warmaster never felt right for WFB, despite technically also being a better representation of the scale and form of engagements WFB was trying to represent.
tneva82 wrote: It would also either make them silly soft or totally dominate game to the level other than titans shouldn't be bothered to be fielded because one titan and game over. Unless it's then like 40k where you auto lose with titan because while nothing can kill it and it kill anything at will you auto lose on scenario which isn't good for game either.
There's limit size of individual unit can be taken in game system. In 40k titan will break game period and be impossible to balance. Anything with kilometer long guns would be impossible to balance in epic.
As it is warmaster titan like imperator would break AT game system much like titan breaks 40k...
You know there was a time when GW via FW made rules for titans that did not break the game. back in 3rd ed while being harder to kill titans were a huge points sink for very little output. there were no destroyer/D/macro etc.. rules titan weaposn were just slightly better 40K scale weapons.
Take for instance the warhound clocking in at over 800 points in 3rd edition points costs. the most iconic loadout was a vulcan mega bolter that was a glorified assault cannon (with 10 shots instead of 4 and a 36" range) and a twin turbo laser destructor which was nothing more than a lascanon that used the small blast template and had slightly longer range.
They were centerpiece models that were there for the rule of cool.
In epic/AT scale titans work just fine. in fact, having loads of super heavies in epic scale games doesn't slow things down a bit as the rules are simplified to take them into account and the fact that you have the ability to run so many it doesn't diminish an army when you lose one or even a few in the battle.
From 3rd onward we were always told that these battles only represented a small section of the skirmish line, as such i like to think of epic as the rest of the battle line
I agree that epic always felt like an ideal scale for representing 40k, which might seem weird, but seeing those waves of infantry and tanks... It's just great.
I can't wait, to be perfectly honest. Seeing GW pumping out plastic Epic-scale miniatures again will bring a huge grin to my face. People can bang on about the existing versions of Epic being kept alive online, and I've played them, but my experience with the recent Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronautica miniatures has convinced me that I just want GW to jump back in feet-first.
Those 3D printed armies are absolutely wonderful, but they'll only ever be stopgaps. I want the experience of clipping out Space Marine #87 from a sprue again, pushing him into his epic base and breaking him apart at the ankles.
You know there was a time when GW via FW made rules for titans that did not break the game. back in 3rd ed while being harder to kill titans were a huge points sink for very little output. there were no destroyer/D/macro etc.. rules titan weaposn were just slightly better 40K scale weapons.
And those titans could actually win?
Breaking doesn't mean they are unbeatable monsters. Look at titans now. Nobody should worry about them. I oppose facing them because they are automatic win. I don't need to even bother to roll single dice. I win with zero dice roll needed...
In epic/AT scale titans work just fine. in fact, having loads of super heavies in epic scale games doesn't slow things down a bit as the rules are simplified to take them into account and the fact that you have the ability to run so many it doesn't diminish an army when you lose one or even a few in the battle.
And in AT if you have played it you know how important activations are...Imperator will be such a point sink opponent can easily avoid it. There just comes point when game bends and breaks and extremes are not good and binary results. Single warhound vs warlord titan will be binary game and once warhound gets too close there's literally nothing warlord can do all game.
You need certain amount of units for both side to work. One imperator vs army will not work.
It's been seen decades and decades for games. You can't just play big games by scaling up sizes. You don't get epic game by playing 30k points 40k. Game breaks down at too small and too big sizes.
I'm not buying it. 3D printers probably can't keep up with mimicking GW's 28mm+ kits for a long time, but they could replicate 6-15mm without any real issue.
ekwatts wrote: I agree that epic always felt like an ideal scale for representing 40k, which might seem weird, but seeing those waves of infantry and tanks... It's just great.
I can't wait, to be perfectly honest. Seeing GW pumping out plastic Epic-scale miniatures again will bring a huge grin to my face. People can bang on about the existing versions of Epic being kept alive online, and I've played them, but my experience with the recent Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronautica miniatures has convinced me that I just want GW to jump back in feet-first.
Those 3D printed armies are absolutely wonderful, but they'll only ever be stopgaps. I want the experience of clipping out Space Marine #87 from a sprue again, pushing him into his epic base and breaking him apart at the ankles.
Ahh, childhood.
I wish this attitude was less prevelant but sadly it's why GW will always dominate the market. People just want Citadel and Games Workshop slapped on the box or they'll never touch it.
GW can do what they want with Epic rules wise, if the models are nice I'll just use them in the classic Epic 40,000
GW's recent forays into their classic games have been abysmal, and a very transparent cash grab... the sheer number of books Necromunda has inow compared to the original is insane.
I mean, I'm already an outlier, as my Epic poison of choice is E:40k, so finding people to play with is already an issue ^^
And yeah, the Necromunda situation is completely nuts, and have killed off all my interest on it.
Shame we live so far apart! Aye, finding people who want to play Epic is hard enough, never mind the edition that for some reason people really dislike.
His Master's Voice wrote: Yeah, Epic always felt like the right scale for 40k, and I say that as someone who likes the default 40k aesthetic.
Part of that was better rules. the armies could feel like their lore equivalents. I can teleport in terminators, extract by thunderhawk, and air assault in the next turn. My Orks cheerfully charge or run towards the enemy firing into the air in a horde, but are hard to get to do short controlled aimed bursts... The Eldar will get the initiative and advantage over my Guard and run rings round them. And so on.
Whilst Chaos Marines vs Marines is a an excellent matchup, marines vs marines ain't that hot and I doubt Titans are central enough for them, so the rules would change and depending on the team they have a very patchy record. I honestly can't imagine a decent ruleset and I can't not see them changing basing and other core elements to make previous armies invalid (because a couple of mm won't stop people).
Arbitrator wrote: I'm not buying it. 3D printers probably can't keep up with mimicking GW's 28mm+ kits for a long time, but they could replicate 6-15mm without any real issue.
ekwatts wrote: I agree that epic always felt like an ideal scale for representing 40k, which might seem weird, but seeing those waves of infantry and tanks... It's just great.
I can't wait, to be perfectly honest. Seeing GW pumping out plastic Epic-scale miniatures again will bring a huge grin to my face. People can bang on about the existing versions of Epic being kept alive online, and I've played them, but my experience with the recent Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronautica miniatures has convinced me that I just want GW to jump back in feet-first.
Those 3D printed armies are absolutely wonderful, but they'll only ever be stopgaps. I want the experience of clipping out Space Marine #87 from a sprue again, pushing him into his epic base and breaking him apart at the ankles.
Ahh, childhood.
I wish this attitude was less prevelant but sadly it's why GW will always dominate the market. People just want Citadel and Games Workshop slapped on the box or they'll never touch it.
I definitely think a lot of hobbyists are nervous about buying anything that isn't shrink-wrapped and with the GW logo on the cover - and just keeping up with the latest releases, whatever they might be.
In some respects I can completely understand this - not everyone has the luxury of gaming colleagues who will go down these rabbit holes of old games, or less popular games with them. If I want to just turn up at a GW on a Thursday night then for the most part its 40k/AoS-way or the highway.
That being said, the internet and social media have done so much in not only keeping these older games alive but in actually making them prosper. Before the relaunch of Blood Bowl there were tournaments in Europe with hundreds of players attending and a massive community. To a lesser extent this has happened with other old specialist GW games, but the Epic community at the moment is really prospering; the likes of Vanguard and Onslaught are producing wonderful proxy miniatures, and 3D printing is exploding. The rules are available for free (for the most part, they have been improved from the originals by dedicated fan communities) - in my mind it really is something quite special. There are tournaments and events happening constantly, and if you want to find an army you can do so. Or why not like the guys from the Tabletop Standard Youtube channel? None of them had played Epic for years, but they just downloaded some Epic Heresy rules for free, and got some (absolutely beautiful looking) 3D prints sorted out for armies. It is not difficult.
So, by all means, wait for an official £100 boxset, and what will no doubt be some nice looking minis. But, in my mind, if you really are a fan of paying at Epic scale (and your hobby isn't just, as Kirby described it, buying GW miniatures) then there is absolutely nothing to stop you starting with it right now.
Exactly that. Right now this thread feels like the many other discussions we've had on Epic, with the only difference being "Valrak said it's a rumour it might come back" and then the community recalling the awesomeness of the game and wishlisting what they'd like to see back. To me it doesn't feel like any rumour or leak.
I wish this attitude was less prevelant but sadly it's why GW will always dominate the market. People just want Citadel and Games Workshop slapped on the box or they'll never touch it.
I think people just like Warhammer more tbh, and that is perfectly okay. People complain and moan about Games Workshop non-stop, but at the end of the day they are the best in the business, especially when it comes to compelling worldbuilding. The fact that nerds are hypnotised into stealing plastic toy soldiers is a damning indictment of that.
Personally I've tried other non-warhammer options often enough and none of it has really appealed to me.
I am excited for the future of Warhammer though. It really feels like it's in a renaissance right now, and I hope it continues to do well. The skirmish games GW is putting out are all at minimum good. Warcry is the most fun I've had on the tabletop in ages, and Killteam legit deserves awards. Age of Sigmar has emerged from its crap-tastic beginning and is genuinely flourishing with ten times the player base of fantasy. If AoS had its own Total Warhammer or Dawn of War videogame type of moment I'm sure it would shed the last of its bad image from early on. I haven't played it yet, but the new Horus Heresy seems like it's good, so much so that even the Oldhammer types love it.
If GW keeps up its streak hopefully the Old World and 10th edition and the rumoured Epic will all be as good.
And then there's off the tabletop, so many amazing looking videogames are coming in the next year or so with Space Marine 2. Darktide. Rogue Trader. Boltgun. Shootas, blood, & teef. Immortal Empires. Etc etc
And then there's the potential film stuff. If they manage to pull off that Eisenhorn show then that could be the start of some crazy cinematic universe. Hell, even warhammer plus is pretty fun if you are a hobbyist, that Plague Song episode was Akira levels of fethed up. I loved it.
Straight up, there has never been a better time to be a Warhammer fan.
...I'm just sad that Total Biscuit and iNcontrol aren't alive to see it. They would have loved this era so goddam much and would have been absolute giants in the scene. : (
I agree and disagree. That kind of lore and scale is pure awesome; but on the tabletop it means that you'd basically be playing with either titans only and little squares with pictures on them for infantry and tanks; or you'd be playing with infantry and tanks and the feet of a titan as a terrain feature. Basically when the disparity in scale between two models is too great you can only have one or the other.
It's the same as how in games like Battlefleet Gothic fighters are often very limited in variety and represented by tokens half the time. Because they are so so small compared to the mega ships. Instead of 20 different sorts of fighter you've usually 2 or 3 in such a game and that's it. Because no one really wants vast legions of tokens or ships so small that differences are almost impossible to see at 1ft away when actually playing.
I think the current scale of AT is good because it allows you titans, infantry and tanks and aircraft all at once and all with a good level of detailing
I don't think their lore scale should be directly reflected on the tabletop, I would separate them so that there is the more reasonable scale for table top, and then the God Machine scale that is used in Lore and video games and movies. Warhammer table top scale isn't true scale anyway and many things on the table top are a bit bigger and smaller than they should technically be.
Like, if a Warhammer Cinematic Universe ever happens, I'd like to see the Imperator titan to at least be a few times bigger than the statue of liberty which is pretty tame in size for our world. We have buildings that are 8 times taller than the statue of liberty right now.
Seeing an imperator titan from 40,000 years in the future looking like a little baby toddler running around the base of the Burj Khalifa skyscraper is just... a bit gak.
Give me Old Hammer for the Big Screen where the cathedrals on their backs are described as cities and they wield one kilometer long guns. (well maybe not that crazy, but still)
Epic seems like a convenient opportunity to do some lore retconning on this subject.
This is already all throughout the lore for its size and everything so I don’t really know what you are wanting?
They’ll be the size they are meant to be in any live action (or indeed animation) that we see.
It’s never gonna be seen next to the buildings you mention anyway so I guess that bit doesn’t matter..
People complain and moan about Games Workshop non-stop, but at the end of the day they are the best in the business, especially when it comes to compelling worldbuilding.
Classic battletech says world building? -hold my bear
The problem is that GW has built the largest legacy share of the market. making it more accessible, because it is more accessible it becomes bigger in a repeating cycle. because of the position they are in, they are effectively too big to fail. because the gaming community would not put up with the kind of behavior GW gets away with if it was any other smaller competitor.
People complain and moan about Games Workshop non-stop, but at the end of the day they are the best in the business, especially when it comes to compelling worldbuilding.
Classic battletech says world building? -hold my bear
The problem is that GW has built the largest legacy share of the market. making it more accessible, because it is more accessible it becomes bigger in a repeating cycle. because of the position they are in, they are effectively too big to fail. because the gaming community would not put up with the kind of behavior GW gets away with if it was any other smaller competitor.
Kind of? Ish?
In the U.K., GW is 100% King. They have High Street presence in the form of shops/recruitment centres. You go in one of those, and each and every sale goes straight to GW. Even better? Going in one you don’t even know other companies exist, let alone see their products.
Yes, they can only do that because that’s been their business model since the very beginning, and back then at least it proved highly successful - certainly pre-internet. But even when it’s arguably a less profitable sales medium than online? It’s still the pre-eminent recruitment and even retention tool.
Anecdote is anecdote, but when I worked for them (last stint was 12 years ago) most months you’d get someone dropping by that used to be in the hobby. Just sticking their nose in, seeing what’s changed. A skilled salesperson could usually make a sale. And sometimes, by no means every time, they’d be back for more. And more. And more. Because you have that tactile shopping experience the internet just doesn’t have. Well. Not yet. Who knows what the future may hold. Even then, you still need to find fanatical enough fans to staff them - because enthusiastic staff (no, not that enthusiastic) Make Sales especially if they can learn how to enthuse others.
No other company has anything like that self contained network of Plastic Crack Pedaler (Peddler? Never sure on that one). It is replicable, but it’s an expensive approach with no immediate pay off. On the scale GW has built it to? Incredibly, incredibly unlikely. And without it, they simply do not have the reach GW have, completely regardless of their Worlds, Models or Rules.
So to say “GW is big because GW is big” is only a tiny part of the overall reasoning behind their ongoing, and indeed growing, success. They kickstarted modern wargaming. They built the ground floor and contributed the most to the modern wargaming market. They’ve been pretty consistent, certainly unlike Battletech they’ve not come and gone in various guises under various owners. Do not overlook that stuff nor handwave it away.
If we get it. And right now it remains an if remember GW are here to make money, not tickle our pickle.
Which makes me think we likely won’t see the crazy boxed sets of yesteryear we commonly associate with Epic.
Company Equivalent of Marines? Sure. Super cheap boxes of Tanks? I’d direct folk price and content wise to AT Knights, which would make that a “sort of” at best.
Either that, or we’ll see significantly large games in terms number of models required. As you may know, I’m lucky enough to have a nearly complete set of 2nd Ed Epic rules, just missing Titan Legions (because that is hella expensive) and oodles of WD only rules in print version I will get round to tracking down one of these days.
The battle reports still work for me, and really set me craving the olden days. But even looking at those, the armies were pretty damned modest. Sure as a snot nosed kid even a single Super Heavy stretched my pocket money, but if I’d had a full time job I’d have been able to comfortably afford decent sized armies of every faction.
Modern Epic? Modern GW. Bigger bigger bigger. Which depending on the rules wouldn’t be a bad thing I suppose. Opinions will I suspect vary of course, but I’d be happy to see Warlords and even Reaver obliterating tank companies in a single round of shooting, because that matches my head canon!
Not to be confused with Head Cannon, one an option for Warlord Titans.
aphyon wrote:Classic battletech says world building? -hold my bear
I'd rather not hold your bear, thank you - he might try to remove my arm.
And that's not the right to arm bears that Americans are meant to get behind.
derpherp wrote:Age of Sigmar has emerged from its crap-tastic beginning and is genuinely flourishing with ten times the player base of fantasy.
Citation and point of comparison fething required.
I mean, AoS blossomed here after the release of the first generals handbook. I recall very clearly the two or three people playing it in my area in 2016 were constantly struggling to even get a single game in per week. Both of the LGS at the time did not carry any stock of the game at all. Today in 2022, our AoS community outnumbers our 40K community 2-1, and they've shown no signs of slowing down. I have heard similar stories from other parts of the world as well.
If AoS is selling better it's because GW's customer base exploded with 40k 8e and since most people are terrified of playing non-GW games no matter how craptastic they are, they inevitably went with AoS because it was GW's fantasy offering. Even 40k's sales were starting to drop in 2015.
You only need to stick your head in to Old World social media spaces to see a similar effect. No matter how angry people were about Fantasy being killed many of those same people still can't comprehend the idea of playing a ruleset (even with their Fantasy models being fully useable in it) that isn't an officially supported Games Workshop product and act like Old World is their only chance of ever playing a rank/file wargame.
No doubt we'll see something similar when/if Epic is coming back; a lot of people clamouring about how much they loved Epic, how they wish they had models for it but stubbornly ignoring fan rulesets even to fill the time and pretending their old rulebooks crumpled to dust the second GW binned it.
Arbitrator wrote: I'm not buying it. 3D printers probably can't keep up with mimicking GW's 28mm+ kits for a long time, but they could replicate 6-15mm without any real issue.
What's more, I'm unsure that GW is prepared to support Nu-Epic (as a Specialist Game) to the level to satisfy much of the fanbase. People will want their IG and Eldar and Orks and Tyranids. They'll want their Gargants and Stompas and Warlocks and Revenants. They'll also want their Manticores and Basilisks and Hydras and Wyverns and Haruspex and Exocrines and on and on. Epic done right would involve a huge number of SKUs, even if they start combining things on sprues.
Would old and new Epic players be satisfied with 'mirror-matchy' games featuring Imperial units? Considering 'xenos when?' pops up in every AT conversation, I'm pretty skeptical. Would they be happy with a pared-down, Titans-planes-tanks game? Again, I'm skeptical.
I think I'd be more inclined to believe this if they'd already released xenos Titans for AT to start paying off the development and mold production costs. But they haven't. Some Imperial Titan kits and Imperial and xenos aircraft models don't add up to GW being halfway to Epic, or at least the kind of Epic that people have in mind.
Arbitrator wrote: I'm not buying it. 3D printers probably can't keep up with mimicking GW's 28mm+ kits for a long time, but they could replicate 6-15mm without any real issue.
What's more, I'm unsure that GW is prepared to support Nu-Epic (as a Specialist Game) to the level to satisfy much of the fanbase. People will want their IG and Eldar and Orks and Tyranids. They'll want their Gargants and Stompas and Warlocks and Revenants. They'll also want their Manticores and Basilisks and Hydras and Wyverns and Haruspex and Exocrines and on and on. Epic done right would involve a huge number of SKUs, even if they start combining things on sprues.
Would old and new Epic players be satisfied with 'mirror-matchy' games featuring Imperial units? Considering 'xenos when?' pops up in every AT conversation, I'm pretty skeptical. Would they be happy with a pared-down, Titans-planes-tanks game? Again, I'm skeptical.
I think I'd be more inclined to believe this if they'd already released xenos Titans for AT to start paying off the development and mold production costs. But they haven't. Some Imperial Titan kits and Imperial and xenos aircraft models don't add up to GW being halfway to Epic, or at least the kind of Epic that people have in mind.
I think GW today could actually support a lot for Epic without many kits. Don't forget back in the day most armies had 1 small boxed set for infantry and that was pretty much it. Vehicles then came in two forms, the core being plastic and the specialist being metal. GW today would just do all plastic so a whole army could, in theory, be supported by perhaps 4 sprue. Plus things like infantry might even count as half a sprue and just double or triple up in the box. For the same amount of sprue space as 1 Warlord Titan you could likely have a huge bulk of the core of any faction in models released for Epic.
I do agree though, I'd have or would expect to see Chaos and Xenos titans in AT before seeing Epic. Right now its mirror-match loyalist and traitor, we are only just starting to see warped titans in the rules/fluff so we should cross our fingers we'll see them in plastic
GW elbowing their way back into epic would be terrible for the game.
It would exponentially raise the costs of entry for new players.
Once that is complete they would next turn to completely destroying the tenuous balance of the metagame, subjecting it to the endless treadmill of churn and burn to drive quarterly sales.
And finally they would then bully, threaten and intimidate every small DIY 3d sculptor who ever dared to dream about what sort of representations fantasy tropes like "space bugs" or "space marine" could look like until they've monopolised the game design space, collapsing the wide variation in potential army design into the carefully guarded tedium of GWs lazy game design philosophy.
Gregor Samsa wrote: GW elbowing their way back into epic would be terrible for the game.
It would exponentially raise the costs of entry for new players.
Once that is complete they would next turn to completely destroying the tenuous balance of the metagame, subjecting it to the endless treadmill of churn and burn to drive quarterly sales.
And finally they would then bully, threaten and intimidate every small DIY 3d sculptor who ever dared to dream about what sort of representations fantasy tropes like "space bugs" or "space marine" could look like until they've monopolised the game design space, collapsing the wide variation in potential army design into the carefully guarded tedium of GWs lazy game design philosophy.
Actually if you look at how GW acts today with regard to copyright its really not like that at all. The only ones they are targeting are those which are outright copies or which copy specific design elements/insignias and the like.
Someone who made Epic models that look like GW models in all but name, yeah they 100% will get hit with copyright strikes. Someone who used their own imagination and came up with their own designs that perhaps only mirror GW's unit slot roster system - totally fine and won't be touched at all. Though the latter group might get targeted if they sell those models as "Warhammer Space Marine" or similar names on Etsy or other stores (or merchants of those creators do)
RazorEdge wrote: Would expect Epic set in the HH. I doubt they start with many different sprues for different Factions from the beginning.
Yes, they can do that. And is that what the customers - new or old - want in a new Epic? It’s GW’s current approach to AT, and there’s a vocal minority that’s unhappy with/staying on the sidelines because it’s Imperial on Imperial. I suspect those voices would be more plentiful and louder with Epic in the same scenario since that game has much deeper roots…and in fact already has a more modern rule set that can be played right now and with third-party miniatures.
Let’s also remember that a pared-down Epic ruleset has already bombed once for GW, and it basically ended Epic as a core game for the company. I just think an Epic relaunch is a lot trickier than say the Necromunda relaunch.
RazorEdge wrote: Would expect Epic set in the HH. I doubt they start with many different sprues for different Factions from the beginning.
Yes, they can do that. And is that what the customers - new or old - want in a new Epic? It’s GW’s current approach to AT, and there’s a vocal minority that’s unhappy with/staying on the sidelines because it’s Imperial on Imperial. I suspect those voices would be more plentiful and louder with Epic in the same scenario since that game has much deeper roots…and in fact already has a more modern rule set that can be played right now and with third-party miniatures.
Let’s also remember that a pared-down Epic ruleset has already bombed once for GW, and it basically ended Epic as a core game for the company. I just think an Epic relaunch is a lot trickier than say the Necromunda relaunch.
Exactly!
The "Big Guns" edition lost a lot of people, even though it is a great game in terms of rules mechanics, apparently.
GW probably knows this?
And leaving out the Xenos stuff wouldn't be prudent!
ekwatts wrote: I agree that epic always felt like an ideal scale for representing 40k, which might seem weird, but seeing those waves of infantry and tanks... It's just great.
I can't wait, to be perfectly honest. Seeing GW pumping out plastic Epic-scale miniatures again will bring a huge grin to my face. People can bang on about the existing versions of Epic being kept alive online, and I've played them, but my experience with the recent Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronautica miniatures has convinced me that I just want GW to jump back in feet-first.
Those 3D printed armies are absolutely wonderful, but they'll only ever be stopgaps. I want the experience of clipping out Space Marine #87 from a sprue again, pushing him into his epic base and breaking him apart at the ankles.
Toofast wrote: That would also line up with the fact that AT and AI have been kind of abandoned. They wouldn't be releasing new expansions for those games if they're being rolled into epic.
While AI sales have been soft, saying that AT has been abandoned is a stretch. It frequently has stretches of quiet between releases, and even then, the Dire Wolf is a pretty recent release.
Yes but look at the campaign books. We got 6 or 7 of them within about a year of the original game release. Since then, nothing other than a couple FW only models with terrible value and even worse casting. Every post I've ever seen about armigers was about how awful the casting is...on a brand new mold that costs $20 per model for a 1" tall figure. I love the game but not a fan of the direction GW has gone with the model releases. Warmaster being 2 totally separate kits with no option to change loadout or buy the weapon sprue alone really turned me off.
Epic 40K I think did a lot of damage. Some of the new models were genuinely better. Some (Eldar) were not. The rules were just……bloody awful. Worked well for BFG, but not for Epic.
It was too radical a departure from what had come before, and I know it left a lot of my area completely cold.
Epic Armageddon was objectively a better game. But by then? The damage had been done. Armies had been sold off, interest had been lost.
It’s a shame, as I think if we just excise Epic 40K from the history, and had moved from Space Marine to Epic Armageddon? Possibly rose tinting to the point of blindness, but I reckon it might’ve survived. Certainly I think weapons having AT/AP profiles was an excellent decision.
Epic 40K I think did a lot of damage. Some of the new models were genuinely better. Some (Eldar) were not. The rules were just……bloody awful. Worked well for BFG, but not for Epic.
Absolutely disagree about this. Having just played it last saturday, I am more sure than ever that it's the game that better actually gives you the feeling of being an actual army commander without getting bogged down in inane gak that doesn't and should really account for at the scale.
It's a game that very much knows what it wants to be and goes about beautifully to achieve it. And it actually gets around to make the armies feel like they should.
E:A, on the other hand, makes individual units much more unwieldy by stapling extra rules that are simply too much for the scale of conflict it wants to emulate, while at the same time making army building much drier due to specific army detachments being heavily codified instead of the versatile ones from E:40k, which made the lists from the core able to build basically anything from the factions instead of absolutely needing dozens of lists to instilll a bit of character to detachments.
Epic 40K I think did a lot of damage. Some of the new models were genuinely better. Some (Eldar) were not. The rules were just……bloody awful. Worked well for BFG, but not for Epic.
It was too radical a departure from what had come before, and I know it left a lot of my area completely cold.
Epic Armageddon was objectively a better game. But by then? The damage had been done. Armies had been sold off, interest had been lost.
It’s a shame, as I think if we just excise Epic 40K from the history, and had moved from Space Marine to Epic Armageddon? Possibly rose tinting to the point of blindness, but I reckon it might’ve survived. Certainly I think weapons having AT/AP profiles was an excellent decision.
Sorry, but this is hot garbage. Epic 40,000 is the best version of rules Epic has ever had. It was one of the few times GW had came close to making a wargame and not a miniature game. The rules reflected war at that scale, that is to say they were abstract, because with 6mm infantry that is the only way to get a good result.
It was a radical departure from the versions before (the lack of Squats was also met with disappointment, in epic they had a full range, unlike 40K), because they had become an unworkable mess... a mess that a lot of those who played Epic liked. It tanked not due to how good or bad it was as a rule set, but because people at the time didn't want their Epic to change. Sales are not an indication of whether a commodity is good or bad, otherwise the likes of McDonald's would be regarded as the best food in the world.
Epic Armageddon was an attempt to fuse the previous editions, it took a lot of bits from them all and tried to get a compromise. It was a good idea, which if given the full focus may have been a financial success. The lack of a starter box, and only Marines, Guard, and Orks being in the main rule book really did it no favours. It felt like GW had produced half a product. The Swordwind expansion added Seige Masters Eldar, and Feral Orks if I recall correctly. Still no Chaos or Tyranids, so officially the game didn't have rules for a lot of people's armies.
Edit.
As for Epic Armageddon being Objectively better... just remember that the game designers Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers have publically stated that Epic 40,000 was the best set of rules they ever came up with.
The problem epic 40K had was that GW dropped it like hot lead. IT came out with a lot of fanfare and then vanished almost as fast. Armageddon I recall got pushed into the FW/specialist line which at the time meant it got less marketing and was on a side site and such. Ergo slow death kind of like how BFG went the same pathway.
The main issue is that 6-20mm gaming is a superniche. In fantasy and futuristic its often totally outsold by 28-35mm scale games. It has more strength as historicals, but that in itself is a niche.
I think GW going into any restoration of epic has to accept that no matter what they do it will never equal the investment return of a 28-35mm game. If it does then that will only be after a lot of work growing it.
Overread wrote: The problem epic 40K had was that GW dropped it like hot lead. IT came out with a lot of fanfare and then vanished almost as fast. Armageddon I recall got pushed into the FW/specialist line which at the time meant it got less marketing and was on a side site and such. Ergo slow death kind of like how BFG went the same pathway.
The main issue is that 6-20mm gaming is a superniche. In fantasy and futuristic its often totally outsold by 28-35mm scale games. It has more strength as historicals, but that in itself is a niche.
I think GW going into any restoration of epic has to accept that no matter what they do it will never equal the investment return of a 28-35mm game. If it does then that will only be after a lot of work growing it.
The same is true for GW's other good game, Warmaster. Support for that dropped as soon as the the range was complete. It got very little White Dwarf coverage.
Rick Priestley (who designed it) has gone on to use a slightly modified version of the rules for 3 very successful game systems, Hail Caesar, Pike & Shot, and Black Powder.
28mm and above dominate miniature gaming outside of historicals. The smaller the scale the smaller the niche. I was surprised to see GW do AT, I had honestly thought their forays into smaller then 28mm scale were over.
Epic 40K I think did a lot of damage. Some of the new models were genuinely better. Some (Eldar) were not. The rules were just……bloody awful. Worked well for BFG, but not for Epic.
Absolutely disagree about this. Having just played it last saturday, I am more sure than ever that it's the game that better actually gives you the feeling of being an actual army commander without getting bogged down in inane gak that doesn't and should really account for at the scale.
It's a game that very much knows what it wants to be and goes about beautifully to achieve it. And it actually gets around to make the armies feel like they should.
E:A, on the other hand, makes individual units much more unwieldy by stapling extra rules that are simply too much for the scale of conflict it wants to emulate, while at the same time making army building much drier due to specific army detachments being heavily codified instead of the versatile ones from E:40k, which made the lists from the core able to build basically anything from the factions instead of absolutely needing dozens of lists to instilll a bit of character to detachments.
I agree with Mad Doc. E:40k was the worst version of the game. I started playing since original AT back in 1990 and it was hugely popular. Owner of the store I played at said it was his biggest seller. When E:40k came out it killed the game and I hate it. Many people left the game. Best version of the game is epic E:A . When it was released people started to play it but then GW stopped supporting it. After that people started to lose interest.
Let’s also remember that a pared-down Epic ruleset has already bombed once for GW, and it basically ended Epic as a core game for the company. I just think an Epic relaunch is a lot trickier than say the Necromunda relaunch.
Last epic game gw released outsold gw's own expectations by 400%. Lack of sales wasn't issue. We can be pretty damn sure it was profitable by good margin as gw wouldn't have green lighted project if their sale expectation was so low even such huge outselling wouldn't make profit.
Arguments about Epic 40k killing the game aside, I think probably the main reason we didn't see it come back over the 00s and 10s was because GW had a core game sales philosophy (this is on record - see comments on Space Hulk sales at the time). It probably helped also that 40k had steadily changed in scale, both in terms of model count (inc. Apocalypse) and the miniatures themselves (titans, superheavies etc) being introduced. It didn't matter if 6/8mm scale is so much better for representing that type of combat, as why sell a squadron of those tanks for £20 if people are shelling out £80 for a single vehicle?
If a new Epic does come I suspect the AT model will be followed; Heresy setting marine-only, 2 or 3 sprues max with the popular troop and vehicle options. Epic Armageddon-esque rules, nice boxset, 2-3 years of limites releases and 19 campaign books before it switches to direct order only and the ocassional overpriced FW mini. BFG re-releases, or Trolls in the Pantry.
Let’s also remember that a pared-down Epic ruleset has already bombed once for GW, and it basically ended Epic as a core game for the company. I just think an Epic relaunch is a lot trickier than say the Necromunda relaunch.
Last epic game gw released outsold gw's own expectations by 400%. Lack of sales wasn't issue. We can be pretty damn sure it was profitable by good margin as gw wouldn't have green lighted project if their sale expectation was so low even such huge outselling wouldn't make profit.
Yup it was killed by the higer ups at GW because they kept thinking that it would cannibalize sales from 40k/WHFB. Then they went to the extreme end of Kirbism and anything not 40k/WHFB was pushed to specialist games. That was usually the death kneel for the system because they didn't promote feth all, you couldn't play the games in the store and the models where mail order only.
What they failed to realize is that those games kept a lot of people around who where burnt out on 40k/FB in the stores and in the GW loop. Once they banned playing those in the stores it all moved onto game clubs and peoples basements with good friends.
Honestly I don't see how todays 40k/Aos is the golden age of gaming. 40k is a horrible system that is going to be stuck in a 3 year edition cycle to drive quarterly profit margins. The big center piece model and the kits they want to push will have OP rules to drive sales then the 3 month nerf, rinse lather repeat. The splitting of the Imperium is a joke at best, the story is horrible and always dependent on the next warzone book they want to push. The 40k universe is a mish mash of other IP's mixed together to get something kinda unique and with the quality of GW's writers now a days the only deep thing about it is their ego's and managements bonus's. AoS seems like a good idea for a game world a bunch of magical realms but most of them are so forgettable and so impractical that they hold no interest to me.
GW will always be a model company that sells rules so you can push your models around the table and roll bucket loads of D6 dice. The heart and soul of GW died long long ago and FW's heart and soul passed the same day Mr Bligh did. Loosing him was such a kick in the nads. He was the vision behind the HH and did most of the leg work and planned most of it out. I would LOVE to of seen his Vision come to life fully in the black books but alas it was not ment to be sadly
Books 1-3 where fantastic books well written with a clear coherent vision. Books 4-5 where oh gak GW switched to 7th edition we have to update HH. Book 6 was oh gak Mr Bligh is sick and all we have where his notes and some idea's we have to make this work. Books 7-9 where we have to milk these HH players for all their worth while we make HH a main line GW game.
People keep saying give them a chance, lets see how HH 2.0 plays out, GW knows what they are doing etc etc etc. Those who have been around have seen this song and dance before and we honestly all know how it ends. I am just glad they finished off HH in 1.0 and didn't abandon it 3/4 of the way through like so many other failed GW side projects.
I have no interest in GW touching Epic again. They had 4 chances at it and kicked it to the curb to chase the 40k money. I LOVED SM 1and 2nd edition. They where fantastic games that I have fond memories of playing. The hidden deployment in 2nd was great. I loved seeing the GW staff members hold up big chunks of cardboard so we could set up our armies. Fun times fun times. I also miss the selection of vehicles in metal so they could sculpt up a vehicle give it rules in WD and boom you had models. Not a two year plus lead time for cutting metal molds for HIPS minis. They could react to much faster if they had a good idea for a model or rules. Now it all has to be run by middle management to see if it fit into projections and if the shop has time to cut the molds and shoot the plastic. I really really miss old GW. To each their own though. I am glad people who play today enjoy the models and the games. No point in hating on people for doing what they enjoy/love. Just because I don't like where the story line and models have gone with GW doesn't mean that I dislike the people enjoying and playing it. You do you all the power to you.
Epic 40K I think did a lot of damage. Some of the new models were genuinely better. Some (Eldar) were not. The rules were just……bloody awful. Worked well for BFG, but not for Epic.
Absolutely disagree about this. Having just played it last saturday, I am more sure than ever that it's the game that better actually gives you the feeling of being an actual army commander without getting bogged down in inane gak that doesn't and should really account for at the scale.
It's a game that very much knows what it wants to be and goes about beautifully to achieve it. And it actually gets around to make the armies feel like they should.
E:A, on the other hand, makes individual units much more unwieldy by stapling extra rules that are simply too much for the scale of conflict it wants to emulate, while at the same time making army building much drier due to specific army detachments being heavily codified instead of the versatile ones from E:40k, which made the lists from the core able to build basically anything from the factions instead of absolutely needing dozens of lists to instilll a bit of character to detachments.
I agree with Mad Doc. E:40k was the worst version of the game. I started playing since original AT back in 1990 and it was hugely popular. Owner of the store I played at said it was his biggest seller. When E:40k came out it killed the game and I hate it. Many people left the game. Best version of the game is epic E:A . When it was released people started to play it but then GW stopped supporting it. After that people started to lose interest.
It was a different game than the ones before, that is for sure. Over here it did the contrary, though. Here in Spain it sold really well until they exiled it to Specialist Games and out of the stores with E:A while at the same time doubling prices. But the game people kept playing was E:40k for a long while.
There is clearly no account for taste, that's for sure, but I feel it was more a case of expectations (wanting more of the same there was begore) instead of quality issues.
Epic 40k was an amazing system, as said above you made you feel like a commander of huge army, ordering sweeping advances and desperate retreats. I loved it.
Epic 40K killed off Epic entirely in my area whereas before it was a big seller. While 2nd edition and Titan Legions had lots of problems and troublesome rules interactions, E40K threw too much out. While later it was revamped for use with BFG where it fit better, the original E40K sucked all the flavor out of many armies, particularly the non-SM ones as there seemed to be a double standard when it came to granularity. SM got slightly more detail and Land Raiders were overpowered with their 4+ AT shots, while other factions seemed to get a phoned in effort. It was also the time the Eldar had that awkward shift from their old 2nd edition catapults to the ridiculous 12" catapults in 40K, and E40K replicated that. Fragile infantry vulnerable to close combat assaults that yielded more points to the enemy if destroyed and with cripplingly short range, and for what? Slightly higher short range firepower that was ultimately insufficient to be worth all those downsides.
The old 2nd ed. and Titan Legions players liked all the detail and nuts and bolts. Streamlining and resolving those illogical rule interactions was what was needed, not completely tossing the system. Sure E40K as a system could be played and I have seen some argue that it worked as a system, but it wasn't what players wanted and it wasn't fun. People wanted their flavorful factions, not a faction that was playable but was as bland as bread and water.
Official statements:
-They experimented with rescaling FW Stuff like Infantry and Tanks into 8mm
-Models are slightly bigger for better distinction of the different Power Armour Marks
-Contradictory staements about the status of working on Epic in the last Years
Rumors:
-Set in the Horus Heresy
-Incooperating Models from AT and AI
-Already at the playtesting phase
Iracundus wrote: Epic 40K killed off Epic entirely in my area whereas before it was a big seller. While 2nd edition and Titan Legions had lots of problems and troublesome rules interactions, E40K threw too much out. While later it was revamped for use with BFG where it fit better, the original E40K sucked all the flavor out of many armies, particularly the non-SM ones as there seemed to be a double standard when it came to granularity. SM got slightly more detail and Land Raiders were overpowered with their 4+ AT shots, while other factions seemed to get a phoned in effort. It was also the time the Eldar had that awkward shift from their old 2nd edition catapults to the ridiculous 12" catapults in 40K, and E40K replicated that. Fragile infantry vulnerable to close combat assaults that yielded more points to the enemy if destroyed and with cripplingly short range, and for what? Slightly higher short range firepower that was ultimately insufficient to be worth all those downsides.
The old 2nd ed. and Titan Legions players liked all the detail and nuts and bolts. Streamlining and resolving those illogical rule interactions was what was needed, not completely tossing the system. Sure E40K as a system could be played and I have seen some argue that it worked as a system, but it wasn't what players wanted and it wasn't fun. People wanted their flavorful factions, not a faction that was playable but was as bland as bread and water.
Pretty debatable, as seen. I guess it really depends on what baggage you had and what you considered "fun", because I can assure you, for me E:40k is fun, and I felt the armies acted like they should and were very flavorful, even though you streamlined a LR to a FP litsing instead of 4 different weapons each.
That said, the extra units added to orks and Guard in the epic magazine did help too, and added differentiation between LR tanks, much needed trukks to oros and the like.
Still, when I play Epic I play the armies, not the individual units, and for that E:40k provides the best experience by far. There is an effort being done in the E:40k Resurrected group to fix the issues of the game and the army lists, if anyone's interested, plus adding the more modern units.
The main issue is that 6-20mm gaming is a superniche. In fantasy and futuristic its often totally outsold by 28-35mm scale games. It has more strength as historicals, but that in itself is a niche.
This isnt accurate, 15mm was the dominant scale of wargaming for many years and it wasnt really until the late 90s/early 2000s that 28s took the crown with the rise of GW gaming. Having done a lot of market research on this over the last several years and pulling survey data from many sources, etc the audience on 15mm is almost as large as 28mm (keeping in mind that many people who play GW games also do play other games despite perception they don't). 6mm is the third most popular scale by a somewhat more distant margin. Describing these scales as "superniche" isn't really justifiable, though you are correct in saying that support for fantasy/scifi in these scales is lower (though the recent re-emergenxe of Battletech has breathed a lot of new life into 6mm scifi).
The niche scales are really the "in between" scales (i.e. 10mm, 20mm, etc) and the true superniche scales are at the extremes (2mm/3mm and 40mm/54mm).
I am running out of thumbs to give you thumbs up over.
Honestly I don't see how todays 40k/Aos is the golden age of gaming.
It isn't, it is a flaming dumpster fire, it is just easily accessible for the masses. for me when it comes to 40K it's golden age when it became the grim dark universe was 1998-2012 (3rd-5th ed). the lore was solidified, the universe was built, and most armies had loads of lore based rules. there were rules tweaks made between editions but effectively it was the same game for 14 years.
It is also the same time that all the specialist games were going in full swing in tandem with the main game. some players still prefer the silly hero hammer more skirmish style system of 2nd like that version a bit better, that was before i took an interest as battletech had all of my attention when it came to wargaming.
The heart and soul of GW died long long ago, and FW's heart and soul passed the same day Mr Bligh did. Losing him was such a kick in the nads. He was the vision behind the HH and did most of the leg work and planned most of it out.
When you lose almost all the original team that created the universe and the games related to it. then replace it with a company where the sales team/executives finally won the long running fight with the game design and lore development teams. that is exactly what you get. a model company that happens to have a game attached to its models.
The difference for people like Alan, Rick, Andy and the rest is that they LOVED the universe they created and played in. and the game design reflected that. this was especially true with the old FW team. IA books were more than just rulebooks for armies. they were adventures in the 41st millennium.
When it comes to the HH. there will never be a 2.0 in my world. i own all the old books and have plenty of minis i never need to buy anything from GW ever again. i feel the same way about 40K playing 5th ed with my friends is way more enjoyable than what GW is currently doing.
I also understand that i come from a different place that probably 75% of the current crop of 40K gamers who only have the time/resources or interest in following one system. i have been playing since 3rd and also regularly play over a dozen different game systems on a very regular basis. If i am not at the game store for 12+ hours every weekend getting games in i am either very sick or dead (i have missed around 3 weekends since 2006 and one of them was for my wedding).
GWs business model is a dying breed, and they know it that is why they are investing so heavy into expanding the IP outside of just the miniatures game.
As with any new technology creative destruction will happen. remember when VCRs were something rich people had because they cost hundreds of dollars as new tech. now, they are almost not used and if you need one, they cost almost nothing. other more advanced forms of digital media have replaced them.
Even in its current state the potential for 3d printing's ability for design expression and cost savings is so extreme that eventually it will replace the markets core source of miniatures.
"Even in its current state the potential for inkjet printing's ability for design expression and cost savings is so extreme that eventually it will replace the markets core source of cards."
My mate with his new colour desktop inkjet printer in the early 00s saying that Magic the Gathering was now a dead game and would be gone by the end of the decade.
Arbitrator wrote: I'm not buying it. 3D printers probably can't keep up with mimicking GW's 28mm+ kits for a long time, but they could replicate 6-15mm without any real issue.
What's more, I'm unsure that GW is prepared to support Nu-Epic (as a Specialist Game) to the level to satisfy much of the fanbase. People will want their IG and Eldar and Orks and Tyranids. They'll want their Gargants and Stompas and Warlocks and Revenants. They'll also want their Manticores and Basilisks and Hydras and Wyverns and Haruspex and Exocrines and on and on. Epic done right would involve a huge number of SKUs, even if they start combining things on sprues.
Would old and new Epic players be satisfied with 'mirror-matchy' games featuring Imperial units? Considering 'xenos when?' pops up in every AT conversation, I'm pretty skeptical. Would they be happy with a pared-down, Titans-planes-tanks game? Again, I'm skeptical.
I think I'd be more inclined to believe this if they'd already released xenos Titans for AT to start paying off the development and mold production costs. But they haven't. Some Imperial Titan kits and Imperial and xenos aircraft models don't add up to GW being halfway to Epic, or at least the kind of Epic that people have in mind.
GW doesn´t care what people want. GW acts upon what they think might be profitable. When AT was released people already longed to have infantry, tanks and artillery alongside their titans. Did GW change course? Nope.
The "tank and infantry" folks don't really want to play AT, they want Epic. There're artillery in AT, just not the kind Epic people really want or can field in an Epic game.
With how stingy the plastic production has been on AT, people who play the "titans and knights" game would prefer the budget went into said units, unfortunately they were all spent in uber huge warmaster titan with the rest of the smaller units being resin.
Epic 40K I think did a lot of damage. Some of the new models were genuinely better. Some (Eldar) were not. The rules were just……bloody awful. Worked well for BFG, but not for Epic.
It was too radical a departure from what had come before, and I know it left a lot of my area completely cold.
Epic Armageddon was objectively a better game. But by then? The damage had been done. Armies had been sold off, interest had been lost.
It’s a shame, as I think if we just excise Epic 40K from the history, and had moved from Space Marine to Epic Armageddon? Possibly rose tinting to the point of blindness, but I reckon it might’ve survived. Certainly I think weapons having AT/AP profiles was an excellent decision.
Sorry, but this is hot garbage. Epic 40,000 is the best version of rules Epic has ever had. It was one of the few times GW had came close to making a wargame and not a miniature game. The rules reflected war at that scale, that is to say they were abstract, because with 6mm infantry that is the only way to get a good result.
It was a radical departure from the versions before (the lack of Squats was also met with disappointment, in epic they had a full range, unlike 40K), because they had become an unworkable mess... a mess that a lot of those who played Epic liked. It tanked not due to how good or bad it was as a rule set, but because people at the time didn't want their Epic to change. Sales are not an indication of whether a commodity is good or bad, otherwise the likes of McDonald's would be regarded as the best food in the world.
Epic Armageddon was an attempt to fuse the previous editions, it took a lot of bits from them all and tried to get a compromise. It was a good idea, which if given the full focus may have been a financial success. The lack of a starter box, and only Marines, Guard, and Orks being in the main rule book really did it no favours. It felt like GW had produced half a product. The Swordwind expansion added Seige Masters Eldar, and Feral Orks if I recall correctly. Still no Chaos or Tyranids, so officially the game didn't have rules for a lot of people's armies.
Edit.
As for Epic Armageddon being Objectively better... just remember that the game designers Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers have publically stated that Epic 40,000 was the best set of rules they ever came up with.
I only had the fortune to play Space Marine (2nd epic) in the 90s. After a decade or so I got acquainted with the Epic: Armageddon rules and I liked them a lot as they added depth like blast markers & crossfire to the game. In what regard was Epic 40K an even better ruleset to Epic:A?
Depends what you want. Different taste, different better.
Did work out as better grand army feel. Aka bigger games look and feel better. EpicA btw starts to work less well as point sizes go up.
If 40k is platoon/semi company, epic A is multi company and epic 40k as battalion level so to speak.
Also army building was lot more flexible than EA.
It depends a lot do you prefer abstract big battle feel or more gritty details and in what level. In E40 weapons aren't nearly as detailed as EA for example. It matters less do you have missile launcher or lascannon for AT purposes for example.
How is Valrak´s track record on rumours? Reliable or not?
Literally a coin toss. Sometimes people send him legit rumours, sometimes a whole stream chatting about something that never happens. Basically Faeit with a youtube channel.
Epic Heresy is quite a safe future GW prediction to make right now, from a purely business POV there are so many benefits for them:
The 3D CAD designs being done from scratch for the new range of 28mm HH units can be designed for both scales at the same time
Just like AT and the original Space Marine, GW can sell the same models to both sides which halves design & production costs
People with existing Titanicus or Aeronautica collections can jump in with their existing models
GW know Titanicus outsold expectations so it's very likely that the demand is there
derpherp wrote: My mate with his new colour desktop inkjet printer in the early 00s saying that Magic the Gathering was now a dead game and would be gone by the end of the decade.
Every time I hear about the death of GW's business model, I think about the average dad spilling IPA all over the bathroom floor as he's cleaning that last batch of Marine prints for little Timmy.
I would be pretty surprised at GW doing Epic right now, or even in the next few years. But that is only because I've never been a fan of the 10mm scale for minis. I can understand AT and AI as being popular because that's essentially planes and mechs. Adding whole reams of infantry for that? Nah.
Chopstick wrote: The "tank and infantry" folks don't really want to play AT, they want Epic. There're artillery in AT, just not the kind Epic people really want or can field in an Epic game.
With how stingy the plastic production has been on AT, people who play the "titans and knights" game would prefer the budget went into said units, unfortunately they were all spent in uber huge warmaster titan with the rest of the smaller units being resin.
As I said earlier my Epic activity was during Space Marine which meant my force included multiple Blood Angel companies. Per company a player was allowed to include special cards which included the titan unit type. So you could have it all in one army list.
I only had the fortune to play Space Marine (2nd epic) in the 90s. After a decade or so I got acquainted with the Epic: Armageddon rules and I liked them a lot as they added depth like blast markers & crossfire to the game. In what regard was Epic 40K an even better ruleset to Epic:A?
It was heavily streamlined, which was both a good and a bad thing. On one hand there was a ton of excess detail in the model range; you had situations like 8+ different versions of the Ork battlewagon, each with bespoke rules that probably didn't need to exist. E40K consolidated these and you'd just have one battlewagon unit profile and could use any of the available models to represent it. Most infantry weapons were also re-classified as "Small arms" as there isn't much difference between lasguns, shuriken catapults, and boltguns at this scale.
However at the other end of the scale, a lot of the existing playerbase were folks who'd grown up with Titanicus and then Titan Legions, both of which put a fair bit of emphasis on the detail of managing titans. You can probably remember the Imperator titan datacard that went into more detail than even the current edition of Titanicus. This detail was drastically cut and titans (war engines) now basically worked in a similar way to 40k vehicles with a hitpoints/wounds value. Much of the previous flavour of these units was removed.
I do believe that if Epic 40k had come first as a brand new game it would have been more popular. However it was far too big of a change from what came before it to retain the established players.
Arbitrator wrote: I'm not buying it. 3D printers probably can't keep up with mimicking GW's 28mm+ kits for a long time, but they could replicate 6-15mm without any real issue.
ekwatts wrote: I agree that epic always felt like an ideal scale for representing 40k, which might seem weird, but seeing those waves of infantry and tanks... It's just great.
I can't wait, to be perfectly honest. Seeing GW pumping out plastic Epic-scale miniatures again will bring a huge grin to my face. People can bang on about the existing versions of Epic being kept alive online, and I've played them, but my experience with the recent Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronautica miniatures has convinced me that I just want GW to jump back in feet-first.
Those 3D printed armies are absolutely wonderful, but they'll only ever be stopgaps. I want the experience of clipping out Space Marine #87 from a sprue again, pushing him into his epic base and breaking him apart at the ankles.
Ahh, childhood.
I wish this attitude was less prevalent but sadly it's why GW will always dominate the market. People just want Citadel and Games Workshop slapped on the box or they'll never touch it.
Superbly ignorant response, there. Well done. Almost impressive, but also predictable.
I've played Epic since I started playing wargames. I had the original Space Marine and AT box sets. Finding other players can, understandably, sometimes be tough, and I have a modern Space Marine army made up of either 1980s/1990s originals from GW or proxies from Vanguard Miniatures, but I don't have a problem with playing long out of production games nor other companies' games (Battletech, Warmachine, Infinity, etc). But I also admit that the games I do tend to play the most are GW games. Mordheim is probably my number one.
What I don't really understand about your response is that we're very specifically talking about a GW game that GW may be rereleasing... It's a GW game. It's a GW game I enjoyed when it was supported, I found ways to continue enjoying it when they didn't, and I'm excited at the prospect of new miniatures and rules for this GW game system being released by GW. I don't really understand what you're complaining about. It's a GW game. It didn't stop being a GW game when they stopped supporting it. It just meant we all had to put more effort into sourcing miniatures or updating rulesets.
Your post just doesn't really make any sense in that respect.
If it comes it will be interesting what happens to the community.
The main danger I think is if they do something like opt for 10mm scale (rather than 8mm) which will really screw over the pretty sizeable cottage industry that has grown up supporting the game, as well as those of us who have sizeable collections.
So, I hope they are at least mindful of that (but who knows?)
How is Valrak´s track record on rumours? Reliable or not?
Literally a coin toss. Sometimes people send him legit rumours, sometimes a whole stream chatting about something that never happens. Basically Faeit with a youtube channel.
Epic Heresy is quite a safe future GW prediction to make right now, from a purely business POV there are so many benefits for them:
The 3D CAD designs being done from scratch for the new range of 28mm HH units can be designed for both scales at the same time
Just like AT and the original Space Marine, GW can sell the same models to both sides which halves design & production costs
People with existing Titanicus or Aeronautica collections can jump in with their existing models
GW know Titanicus outsold expectations so it's very likely that the demand is there
Partly it’s just things people are saying anyway that he just uses his platform to talk about.
I don’t know how much of an inside he has on anything, or is just quick to get any mention or rumour and turn it into a video, which is why it’s kind of 50/50
Pacific wrote: If it comes it will be interesting what happens to the community.
The main danger I think is if they do something like opt for 10mm scale (rather than 8mm) which will really screw over the pretty sizeable cottage industry that has grown up supporting the game, as well as those of us who have sizeable collections.
So, I hope they are at least mindful of that (but who knows?)
Why would they adopt a specific scale for AT or AI and then ignore it completely? I think we can safely put that idea behind us.
How is Valrak´s track record on rumours? Reliable or not?
Literally a coin toss. Sometimes people send him legit rumours, sometimes a whole stream chatting about something that never happens. Basically Faeit with a youtube channel.
Would say he is maginal more reliable than Faeit. And what surprise, an Epic Rumor pops up on Faeit 212:
via a great source here on Faeit 212
Epic is coming. The game entered the playtesting phase.
Game is set in the Horus Heresy.
Arbitrator wrote: I'm not buying it. 3D printers probably can't keep up with mimicking GW's 28mm+ kits for a long time, but they could replicate 6-15mm without any real issue.
ekwatts wrote: I agree that epic always felt like an ideal scale for representing 40k, which might seem weird, but seeing those waves of infantry and tanks... It's just great.
I can't wait, to be perfectly honest. Seeing GW pumping out plastic Epic-scale miniatures again will bring a huge grin to my face. People can bang on about the existing versions of Epic being kept alive online, and I've played them, but my experience with the recent Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronautica miniatures has convinced me that I just want GW to jump back in feet-first.
Those 3D printed armies are absolutely wonderful, but they'll only ever be stopgaps. I want the experience of clipping out Space Marine #87 from a sprue again, pushing him into his epic base and breaking him apart at the ankles.
Ahh, childhood.
I wish this attitude was less prevalent but sadly it's why GW will always dominate the market. People just want Citadel and Games Workshop slapped on the box or they'll never touch it.
Superbly ignorant response, there. Well done. Almost impressive, but also predictable.
I've played Epic since I started playing wargames. I had the original Space Marine and AT box sets. Finding other players can, understandably, sometimes be tough, and I have a modern Space Marine army made up of either 1980s/1990s originals from GW or proxies from Vanguard Miniatures, but I don't have a problem with playing long out of production games nor other companies' games (Battletech, Warmachine, Infinity, etc). But I also admit that the games I do tend to play the most are GW games. Mordheim is probably my number one.
What I don't really understand about your response is that we're very specifically talking about a GW game that GW may be rereleasing... It's a GW game. It's a GW game I enjoyed when it was supported, I found ways to continue enjoying it when they didn't, and I'm excited at the prospect of new miniatures and rules for this GW game system being released by GW. I don't really understand what you're complaining about. It's a GW game. It didn't stop being a GW game when they stopped supporting it. It just meant we all had to put more effort into sourcing miniatures or updating rulesets.
Your post just doesn't really make any sense in that respect.
GWs business model is a dying breed, and they know it that is why they are investing so heavy into expanding the IP outside of just the miniatures game.
As with any new technology creative destruction will happen. remember when VCRs were something rich people had because they cost hundreds of dollars as new tech. now, they are almost not used and if you need one, they cost almost nothing. other more advanced forms of digital media have replaced them.
Even in its current state the potential for 3d printing's ability for design expression and cost savings is so extreme that eventually it will replace the markets core source of miniatures.
The doom and gloom and proselytizing around 3d printing never ceases to amaze me. There is no evidence for GWs business model dying. Miniature and tabletop sales have *increased* despite the improving quality and accessibility of 3d printers and 3d printing services. 3D printing will have a place in the industry, but its not going to kill GWs core business unless some form of singularity event occurs with a truly revolutionary breakthrough that eliminates or mitigates many of the limitations and concern factors of the technology, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. You are more likely to see GW switch from plastic injection molding to 3d print on demand production than you are to see home 3d printers put GW out of business.
How is Valrak´s track record on rumours? Reliable or not?
Depends on if he's reposting rumors from known reliable sources. Generally speaking, if its an unsourced rumor or something that hes presenting as a scoop/something that was sent to him directly, then he's not reliable at all. If he's discussing a rumor posted by certain known community members on reddit/certain forums, etc. then "he" is reliable, but only because hes presenting info from another source.
In this case, its a seemingly unsourced rumor = load of bs.
tneva82 wrote: Except of course it's not as simple as click button. AT warlord cad took about as much time to get in 6mm as it would have been from scratch.
Yep, its not the simply "set scale conversion factor to 25% and hit go" that people seem to think it is. GWs sculptors are on record saying that they have to do extensive resculpting when converting scales, to the point that they are almost redoing the whole model from scratch. 3D printing is a bit more forgiving in this sense, as sculptors tend to over-exaggerate details as a result of print resolutions being somewhat limited until relatively recently (although even the latest 8k printers struggle to reproduce certain details) and any detail below the threshold of the printers ability to reproduce simply doesn't get printed or gets lost/obscured by surrounding detail and surfaces, etc. without generally harming the overall models geometry, and if it comes out bad then you only wasted a few dollars of resin printing it instead of tens of thousands of dollars of mold production. Making injection molds is a bit different as you have to mind both the precision of the tool pathing as well as the size of the cutting tool itself (which puts a hard finite limit on how fine details can be made). You also have to take into account temperature and pressure limitations, flow restrictions, tolerances, thermal expansion and contraction, minimum thicknesses, pull directions, etc. All of that is stuff that essentially needs to be baked into the sculpt from the word go, and its not something that will necessarily scale well when you're taking models and and reducing them to 25% of their original size - a lot of the detail and engineering that goes into the sculpt for the full scale mini gets thrown out the window entirely when you rescale it.
I would be pretty surprised at GW doing Epic right now, or even in the next few years. But that is only because I've never been a fan of the 10mm scale for minis. I can understand AT and AI as being popular because that's essentially planes and mechs. Adding whole reams of infantry for that? Nah.
I can see them adding tanks and other vehicles into the game, but I can't see them going for full-on infantry. It doesn't fit with their business model/objective of producing what are essentially high quality plastic sculptures - while the quality of epic scale minis from other manufacturers has improved dramatically over the past 20 years, there are some hard tech limits and challenges that will keep GW from being able to make the same sorts of quality improvements that they've managed on their "28mm" miniatures to 6/8mm infantry miniatures over their competitors. I don't think they can reasonably produce "display quality" infantry in such a small scale, but they can definitely manage tanks.
If it comes it will be interesting what happens to the community.
The main danger I think is if they do something like opt for 10mm scale (rather than 8mm) which will really screw over the pretty sizeable cottage industry that has grown up supporting the game, as well as those of us who have sizeable collections.
So, I hope they are at least mindful of that (but who knows?)
Why would they support a community that hasn't purchased their products and a cottage industry that is only really serving to free-ride on GWs IP? Its more likely they would do something to purposefully pull the rug out from the existing community there then do something that meshes well with it.
As ever in defence of Faeit and Valrak? Both are rumour aggregators, not rumour mongers.
The advantage with Valrak is he’ll normally be quite open about “I want it to be true, but I can’t say for certain it is”. The exception being the source he calls “Omegon”, who has been on the money more often than not, and even when not, it’s not been an outright porky pie.
Pacific wrote: If it comes it will be interesting what happens to the community.
The main danger I think is if they do something like opt for 10mm scale (rather than 8mm) which will really screw over the pretty sizeable cottage industry that has grown up supporting the game, as well as those of us who have sizeable collections.
So, I hope they are at least mindful of that (but who knows?)
I would say a bigger risk is naff rules. You end up with a line up and fight game rather than the current far more free wheeling affair with very different look and feel between each army (and sub army).
I can see them adding tanks and other vehicles into the game, but I can't see them going for full-on infantry. It doesn't fit with their business model/objective of producing what are essentially high quality plastic sculptures - while the quality of epic scale minis from other manufacturers has improved dramatically over the past 20 years, there are some hard tech limits and challenges that will keep GW from being able to make the same sorts of quality improvements that they've managed on their "28mm" miniatures to 6/8mm infantry miniatures over their competitors. I don't think they can reasonably produce "display quality" infantry in such a small scale, but they can definitely manage tanks.
Set against that is seeing a bunch of the EpicUK armies and sticked them in warhammer world museum for a while as they were blown away at the paint jobs and mini diorama on the bases.
I know you are being facetious there Chaos0xomega, but I guess my answer would be because a lot of Epic gamers do buy GW products, chiefly from the AT and AI ranges, to go along with their games of Epic (from what I have seen this is pretty common).
Although you may be correct - they were willing to torpedo a 'living' community for an active game with WHFB, so might have even less heed for a game that hasn't been officially supported for 20 years!
Pacific wrote: If it comes it will be interesting what happens to the community.
The main danger I think is if they do something like opt for 10mm scale (rather than 8mm) which will really screw over the pretty sizeable cottage industry that has grown up supporting the game, as well as those of us who have sizeable collections.
So, I hope they are at least mindful of that (but who knows?)
Why would they adopt a specific scale for AT or AI and then ignore it completely? I think we can safely put that idea behind us.
Yea, if this happens, there is exactly a 0.0% chance that they use anything other than AT/AI scale.
I haven't taken the dive yet. What do you like about it?
...I'm just sad that Total Biscuit and iNcontrol aren't alive to see it.
Ah man I had forgotten about them. Only four years ago...damn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arbitrator wrote: If AoS is selling better it's because GW's customer base exploded with 40k 8e and since most people are terrified of playing non-GW games no matter how craptastic they are, they inevitably went with AoS because it was GW's fantasy offering. Even 40k's sales were starting to drop in 2015.
You only need to stick your head in to Old World social media spaces to see a similar effect. No matter how angry people were about Fantasy being killed many of those same people still can't comprehend the idea of playing a ruleset (even with their Fantasy models being fully useable in it) that isn't an officially supported Games Workshop product and act like Old World is their only chance of ever playing a rank/file wargame.
No doubt we'll see something similar when/if Epic is coming back; a lot of people clamouring about how much they loved Epic, how they wish they had models for it but stubbornly ignoring fan rulesets even to fill the time and pretending their old rulebooks crumpled to dust the second GW binned it.
Other rank and file fantasy games just don't have it. Even the 9th age forums reference the lack of lore as a detriment to their growth. I don't play AoS - I'm tempted, because I love the models, but I am very eager for Old World.
It has nothing to do with being the biggest and lots to do with making the best models and engaging lore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
His Master's Voice wrote: Apparently Epic is both alive and well AND in danger of immediate collapse as soon as GW takes notice.
Pacific wrote: If it comes it will be interesting what happens to the community.
The main danger I think is if they do something like opt for 10mm scale (rather than 8mm) which will really screw over the pretty sizeable cottage industry that has grown up supporting the game, as well as those of us who have sizeable collections.
So, I hope they are at least mindful of that (but who knows?)
Seeing epic, at and ai are 6mm i really doubt they go for 10mm suddenly. Invalidates all at and ai models.
FabricatorGeneralMike wrote: The big center piece model and the kits they want to push will have OP rules to drive sales then the 3 month nerf, rinse lather repeat.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing epic, at and ai are 6mm i really doubt they go for 10mm suddenly. Invalidates all at and ai models.
Wasn't there talk of AT being made in a 8mm infantry "scale"?
When AT launched in 2018, the designers said they chose the ~1/4 of 40k scale so that a marine (a very tall transhuman monster, not a regular person) would be about 8 mm tall because the details would still look nice in case they ever decided to do infantry as well. Their media team cocked up and the internet took this as "zomg 8 mm scale! All older Epic things are invalidated". The Titanicus models measure to about 1:267, which makes a normal 180 cm human about 6-7 mm tall, so the game is "6 mm scale" or "heroic 6 mm" as I like to call it. After the great flame wars over this scale, most people just refer to it as Titanicus scale now.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing epic, at and ai are 6mm i really doubt they go for 10mm suddenly. Invalidates all at and ai models.
Wasn't there talk of AT being made in a 8mm infantry "scale"?
This topic tends to get heated. Sherrypie outlined it nicely.
But I agree they probably wouldn't make a drastic scale change. That kinda undermines the entire reason "Epic when?" shows up unsolicited in every conversation about AT and AI.
Sherrypie wrote: Their media team cocked up and the internet took this as "zomg 8 mm scale! All older Epic things are invalidated".
But that's exactly what happened. When you look at AT/AI models side by side with the same model in Epic or AI 1.0 there's a clear scale difference. You can argue about the exact scale number but GW very clearly did change the scale in a way that invalidates existing collections.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing epic, at and ai are 6mm i really doubt they go for 10mm suddenly. Invalidates all at and ai models.
Wasn't there talk of AT being made in a 8mm infantry "scale"?
When AT launched in 2018, the designers said they chose the ~1/4 of 40k scale so that a marine (a very tall transhuman monster, not a regular person) would be about 8 mm tall because the details would still look nice in case they ever decided to do infantry as well. Their media team cocked up and the internet took this as "zomg 8 mm scale! All older Epic things are invalidated". The Titanicus models measure to about 1:267, which makes a normal 180 cm human about 6-7 mm tall, so the game is "6 mm scale" or "heroic 6 mm" as I like to call it. After the great flame wars over this scale, most people just refer to it as Titanicus scale now.
Surely it can't be 6mm now otherwise why would the Aeronautica Imperialis miniatures then be a noticeably different size to the previous models which were also supposedly 6mm?
Sherrypie wrote: Their media team cocked up and the internet took this as "zomg 8 mm scale! All older Epic things are invalidated".
But that's exactly what happened. When you look at AT/AI models side by side with the same model in Epic or AI 1.0 there's a clear scale difference. You can argue about the exact scale number but GW very clearly did change the scale in a way that invalidates existing collections.
So a Warhound Titan should be able to carry a crew of three inside its head. Have you tried placing three 8mm (or even 6mm) scaled models next to its head? Seems like they won’t fit…
Sherrypie wrote: Their media team cocked up and the internet took this as "zomg 8 mm scale! All older Epic things are invalidated".
But that's exactly what happened. When you look at AT/AI models side by side with the same model in Epic or AI 1.0 there's a clear scale difference. You can argue about the exact scale number but GW very clearly did change the scale in a way that invalidates existing collections.
Invalidates existing collections of the few people that had models for a game that hasn't been made in 25 years. I think making something that new customers want to buy is more important to them than keeping people with dusty epic stuff in their closet and 3D printers happy.
So a Warhound Titan should be able to carry a crew of three inside its head. Have you tried placing three 8mm (or even 6mm) scaled models next to its head? Seems like they won’t fit…
Considering that the 40K scale Warhound literally has a hollow head with three 40K scale people in it, I don't quite grasp how dividing the size of the titan and the people by four would cause them to no longer fit in there.
Sherrypie wrote: Their media team cocked up and the internet took this as "zomg 8 mm scale! All older Epic things are invalidated".
But that's exactly what happened. When you look at AT/AI models side by side with the same model in Epic or AI 1.0 there's a clear scale difference. You can argue about the exact scale number but GW very clearly did change the scale in a way that invalidates existing collections.
An Epic plastic SM scout is a head and a half taller than a regular plastic powered armor space marine. Let's just say Epic scale was anything but consistent.
tneva82 wrote: Except of course it's not as simple as click button. AT warlord cad took about as much time to get in 6mm as it would have been from scratch.
I mean, it's a good job that that windmill doesn't reflect what the previous poster said, tneva - xttz said:
The 3D CAD designs being done from scratch for the new range of 28mm HH units can be designed for both scales at the same time
"Designed for both scales at the same time" =/= "Press a button to convert from one scale to another"
tneva82 wrote: Seeing epic, at and ai are 6mm i really doubt they go for 10mm suddenly. Invalidates all at and ai models.
Wasn't there talk of AT being made in a 8mm infantry "scale"?
When AT launched in 2018, the designers said they chose the ~1/4 of 40k scale so that a marine (a very tall transhuman monster, not a regular person) would be about 8 mm tall because the details would still look nice in case they ever decided to do infantry as well. Their media team cocked up and the internet took this as "zomg 8 mm scale! All older Epic things are invalidated". The Titanicus models measure to about 1:267, which makes a normal 180 cm human about 6-7 mm tall, so the game is "6 mm scale" or "heroic 6 mm" as I like to call it. After the great flame wars over this scale, most people just refer to it as Titanicus scale now.
Surely it can't be 6mm now otherwise why would the Aeronautica Imperialis miniatures then be a noticeably different size to the previous models which were also supposedly 6mm?
The AI planes are obviously flying at a different altitude to the older Epic ones...
Toofast wrote: Invalidates existing collections of the few people that had models for a game that hasn't been made in 25 years. I think making something that new customers want to buy is more important to them than keeping people with dusty epic stuff in their closet and 3D printers happy.
Ok? You can argue the merits of a scale change but that doesn't mean the scale change was just uniformed people ranting on the internet, as the person I was replying to claimed.
So a Warhound Titan should be able to carry a crew of three inside its head. Have you tried placing three 8mm (or even 6mm) scaled models next to its head? Seems like they won’t fit…
Considering that the 40K scale Warhound literally has a hollow head with three 40K scale people in it, I don't quite grasp how dividing the size of the titan and the people by four would cause them to no longer fit in there.
Toofast wrote: Invalidates existing collections of the few people that had models for a game that hasn't been made in 25 years. I think making something that new customers want to buy is more important to them than keeping people with dusty epic stuff in their closet and 3D printers happy.
Ok? You can argue the merits of a scale change but that doesn't mean the scale change was just uniformed people ranting on the internet, as the person I was replying to claimed.
That was not exactly what I said, but anyway. The point here was that some of the people, among them quite many uninformed ones, did get their proverbial knickers in a twist over a matter that really doesn't warrant it and latched onto the 8 mm statement by the WarCom media team (who were very much wrong on that account, as they often are. The launch of AT was a particularly fun time, when pretty much every single article on WarCom was erroneous for months on end).
No collections were invalidated. Epic doesn't really care about miniature sizes, people can and regularly do happily play their slightly differently scaled armies against each other as long as the basing fits the (very form agnostic) basing standards. Heck, people play new and old titans against each other without a hitch The original titans from the end of 80's are made in 2-3 mm scale, later infantry in 6~ish mm, tanks closer to 4 mm, Aeronautica 1.0 planes are 1/5 of 40k (which is not 6 mm yet still over twice the size of the first Epic planes like Thunderbricks!) and so on. Just the basic Space Marine troopers have had like 2-3 mm differences in height between their early and late 90's incarnations. Epic scales have always been all over the place with the "about 6 mm" infantry setting the general feel of the games. The current move to "heroic 6 mm" (which can, again, be trivially measured from the current models that have human-sized hatches, doors and such details in them as well) is the best attempt at standardizing the scale that GW has ever done, which will still end up with some funny shenanigans like comically small Rhinos but hey-ho.
Yes, the scaling has changed at parts (titans up from tiny, planes up to 1/4 from 1/5 or smaller etc.). It has, however, mostly done that to better standardize around the already used previous baseline: 6-7 mm human models. None of this invalidated anything and if you take a look at any Epic communities, everyone cheered when GW started making cool models for them again. That's it.
I'm not. The plastic head is not properly hollow and it doesn't seem like it is designed to fit things in it and the metal models are really chunky.
It doesn't still change the basic "divide by four math."
Note that these are chunky 7mm tall models, in 40k scale they’d be 28mm tall. But in contemporary 40k, regular humans tend to be between 32 and 35mm tall, so these figures would have to even. even bigger even further hollowed out, they probably wouldn’t fit in that Warhound’s head.
Note that these are chunky 7mm tall models, in 40k scale they’d be 28mm tall. But in contemporary 40k, regular humans tend to be between 32 and 35mm tall, so these figures would have to even. even bigger even further hollowed out, they probably wouldn’t fit in that Warhound’s head.
Yet if you multiply their size of both the infantry and the titan by four, they provably do fit. I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here? It is undisputable that the AT scale is 1/4 of 40K scale.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Very sound advice, especially as GW's official returns to that eras properties haven't held a candle to the originals. I'm embarrassed at the things they put the Warhammer Quest brand on compared to what we got in 1995.
Next to Epic, the best game they ever made. Spent soooooo much time of my college years playing Warhammer Quest.
Note that these are chunky 7mm tall models, in 40k scale they’d be 28mm tall. But in contemporary 40k, regular humans tend to be between 32 and 35mm tall, so these figures would have to even. even bigger even further hollowed out, they probably wouldn’t fit in that Warhound’s head.
Yet if you multiply their size of both the infantry and the titan by four, they provably do fit. I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here? It is undisputable that the AT scale is 1/4 of 40K scale.
I know the Titans and aircraft are 1/4th of 40k, but the point is that the rest if 40k is all over the place. And that for some reason 7mm humans have a hard time fitting inside that Warhound for some reason. There’s something similar happening with the tiny human sized door on the civitas terrain set which is too small to fit in a regular human, at least a 1/4 of 40k regular human model.
As long as no-one starta talking about fitting 10 guys in a classic Rhino
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way guys if anyone is interested in seeing some Epic projects upon reading this thread in a "things what we made" thread, where people post their Epic projects, there is one down in the Specialist Games section of the forum
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/480/791159.page
I'm sure I remember seeing a diorama showing 10 RT Marines fitting inside a classic Rhino (with added interior detailing), but I can't remember where/when.
The long and short of it is that the new Titans and Aeronautica Imperialis models were a better fit to classic Epic infantry than the original models were.
Dysartes wrote: I'm sure I remember seeing a diorama showing 10 RT Marines fitting inside a classic Rhino (with added interior detailing), but I can't remember where/when.
Someone did this - it's tight, but doable:
That is the single greatest thing I've seen!
You know in my head that's mostly how I imagined it. 6 marines sitting on the benches either side and then 3 in the middle facing the rear ramp.
Maybe each marine has a little pull handle under their armpits that you tug and it deflates their shoulder pads to a normal size before getting in transport.
The core issue with all the "does the infantry fit in vehicles" thing is the various level of heroic scaling, which will get more extreme (due the need to keep things visible) smaller the models are. So models might be roughly the correct height compared to the vehicles, but they're hella more chunkier than real people.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing epic, at and ai are 6mm i really doubt they go for 10mm suddenly. Invalidates all at and ai models.
Wasn't there talk of AT being made in a 8mm infantry "scale"?
When AT launched in 2018, the designers said they chose the ~1/4 of 40k scale so that a marine (a very tall transhuman monster, not a regular person) would be about 8 mm tall because the details would still look nice in case they ever decided to do infantry as well. Their media team cocked up and the internet took this as "zomg 8 mm scale! All older Epic things are invalidated". The Titanicus models measure to about 1:267, which makes a normal 180 cm human about 6-7 mm tall, so the game is "6 mm scale" or "heroic 6 mm" as I like to call it. After the great flame wars over this scale, most people just refer to it as Titanicus scale now.
Surely it can't be 6mm now otherwise why would the Aeronautica Imperialis miniatures then be a noticeably different size to the previous models which were also supposedly 6mm?
To be clear, the answer is that old Epic aircraft and titans like Sherrypie said were not 6mm, they were smaller. The Titans and aircraft in AT/AI are now actually 6mm.
So if GW were to re-release Epic in a consistent 6mm scale, it would just use AT/AI titans and aircraft (which are noticeably bigger than their old-Epic counterparts), but the infantry would be about the same size as the old ones. Probably a little bigger because the typical size of a Marine has crept upwards, but not as significant a difference as the bigger stuff.
To be clear, the answer is that old Epic aircraft and titans like Sherrypie said were not 6mm, they were smaller. The Titans and aircraft in AT/AI are now actually 6mm.
So if GW were to re-release Epic in a consistent 6mm scale, it would just use AT/AI titans and aircraft (which are noticeably bigger than their old-Epic counterparts), but the infantry would be about the same size as the old ones.
The infantry would be about 8mm, because 40K normal humans are about 32mm, and 32/4=8. 6mm AT/AI infantry would only be 24mm in 40K scale, and that's smaller than the squats.
If the new Epic would be set in the 30K era I would definitely buy in. It would complement my future HH 2.0 force. Also it would solve the faction bloat 40K is suffering from by avoiding 40K in the first place. In HH there are only a couple of factions and being a "historical" setting in the franchise no new factions would bog the release schedule down. So I am all in.
Previously I was on the fence of buying a 3D printer but after some careful consideration I truly haven´t a great setup spot for it. The machine will eventually stink up my environment and I am not keen on that happening.
Strg Alt wrote: If the new Epic would be set in the 30K era I would definitely buy in. It would complement my future HH 2.0 force. Also it would solve the faction bloat 40K is suffering from by avoiding 40K in the first place. In HH there are only a couple of factions and being a "historical" setting in the franchise no new factions would bog the release schedule down. So I am all in.
Previously I was on the fence of buying a 3D printer but after some careful consideration I truly haven´t a great setup spot for it. The machine will eventually stink up my environment and I am not keen on that happening.
I'm in the same position (no space for a 3d printer) but a friend of mine who does printed me some 8mm not-MK IV marines, not-Rhinos, not-Spartans, and not-Sicarans. The detail is fantastic. I want to use them with Future War Commander.
So there is no way for me to not sound like an ass asking this, but just to confirm, there isn't any real credible rumor for Epic, outside of "Valrak, a random dude on Youtube said" correct?
Togusa wrote: So there is no way for me to not sound like an ass asking this, but just to confirm, there isn't any real credible rumor for Epic, outside of "Valrak, a random dude on Youtube said" correct?
Nothing at this time. All we do know is that we have Titanicus and Aeronautica, and both are very quiet at this time.
I'm hopeful that we'll hear something( anything ) for both games next month.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing epic, at and ai are 6mm i really doubt they go for 10mm suddenly. Invalidates all at and ai models.
Wasn't there talk of AT being made in a 8mm infantry "scale"?
When AT launched in 2018, the designers said they chose the ~1/4 of 40k scale so that a marine (a very tall transhuman monster, not a regular person) would be about 8 mm tall because the details would still look nice in case they ever decided to do infantry as well. Their media team cocked up and the internet took this as "zomg 8 mm scale! All older Epic things are invalidated". The Titanicus models measure to about 1:267, which makes a normal 180 cm human about 6-7 mm tall, so the game is "6 mm scale" or "heroic 6 mm" as I like to call it. After the great flame wars over this scale, most people just refer to it as Titanicus scale now.
Surely it can't be 6mm now otherwise why would the Aeronautica Imperialis miniatures then be a noticeably different size to the previous models which were also supposedly 6mm?
To be clear, the answer is that old Epic aircraft and titans like Sherrypie said were not 6mm, they were smaller. The Titans and aircraft in AT/AI are now actually 6mm.
So if GW were to re-release Epic in a consistent 6mm scale, it would just use AT/AI titans and aircraft (which are noticeably bigger than their old-Epic counterparts), but the infantry would be about the same size as the old ones. Probably a little bigger because the typical size of a Marine has crept upwards, but not as significant a difference as the bigger stuff.
Also worth pointing out Epic never did have a set scale.
The Warlord Titan was of course first introduced in Adeptus Titanicus. Being a game of Titan vs Titan, as long as each chassis scaled well enough with the next, no harm done. But. Once it expanded into Space Marine? The infantry were about as small as they could make them, and still have each individual teensy tiny model visibly recognisable as it’s type. And so the Tanks kind of scaled with the Infantry - leaving the Titans as the odd scale, even though they arguably set a scale.
The same is true of the original 40K Rhino and Landraider. They were about as big as GW could make the die at the time. And like the Titans, being first out the gate that scale has never really changed. Though worth bearing in mind the RTB-01 Wombles are smaller than you might think if you’ve not seen or built them yourself.
Togusa wrote: So there is no way for me to not sound like an ass asking this, but just to confirm, there isn't any real credible rumor for Epic, outside of "Valrak, a random dude on Youtube said" correct?
Nothing at this time. All we do know is that we have Titanicus and Aeronautica, and both are very quiet at this time.
I'm hopeful that we'll hear something( anything ) for both games next month.
Yeah, I've been waiting ages for some good Titanicus content, and for the basic terrain to come back into stock. Epic would be kind of cool!
Togusa wrote: I mean I don't watch or care about these people's content. They aren't GW employees, therefore to me, they are just random dudes on the internet.
So you have no way of evaluating what is a credible rumor and should stop trying to do so.
Rihgu wrote: That feels like calling Ok_E a random dude on reddit or honestly any rumor source a random dude.
It's as credible as any other random dude we get rumors from.
I mean I don't watch or care about these people's content. They aren't GW employees, therefore to me, they are just random dudes on the internet.
...if it was actual employees telling us these as rumours without having been told to do so, then they probably wouldn't be employees there for long...
Rihgu wrote: That feels like calling Ok_E a random dude on reddit or honestly any rumor source a random dude.
It's as credible as any other random dude we get rumors from.
Wut?
Ok_E has proven his legitimacy with a track record of giving us accurate info.
Valrak is a dude with a big mouthpiece on youtube who takes a shotgun approach to spitting out every rumor he comes across for clicks no matter how implausible or silly they might be.
Tad hard to take him seriously when he basically posts "I have it on good authority that 40k Primarch Rogal Dorn will be released soon" multiple times a year.
Yes, its unfair/wrong to finger him as the source of a rumor that was originally posted by Faeit... but also, why is he signal boosting rumors posted by Faeit? Faeit is wrong way more often than Faeit is right and basically hasn't been the original source of an accurate rumor in a really damned long time. Basically everyone knows that, I would struggle to imagine that Valrak isn't aware of their reputation. Personally, I think as a very local GW community mouthpiece he has some responsibility to act as a filter for information and not promote or perpetuate likely misinformation.
Samsonov wrote: Another defender of epic 40,000 here. I think it is the fourth best GW game after Warmaster, BFG and advanced space crusade.
I would say Warmaster was the best wargame rules set - it focuses on C&C and as such can be ported to lots of different settings.
Epic A was the best wargame (within certain parameters so no breaking it by berating a non optimised oppo in army creation) doing combined arms with dynamic movement. It manages to be faithful to the 40k background in a way 40k fails miserably at.
BFG was a great game, even if it cheated by making you think playing with irconclads was how spaceships should feel
Advanced Space Crusade? Well I do remember a chat with Jervis many moons ago where he said the main problem was using every idea he had... Like Advanced Heroquest it had some mechanical problems where there were set tactics to use that were unfair, and once you know them it is hard not to use them. Both games really need the Space Crusade/Heroquest models added to it for variety (the 'Nids got mind control bugs to hand wave this away...).
Rihgu wrote: That feels like calling Ok_E a random dude on reddit or honestly any rumor source a random dude.
Valrak is a dude with a big mouthpiece on youtube who takes a shotgun approach to spitting out every rumor he comes across for clicks no matter how implausible or silly they might be.
They are not the same.
Yeah Valrak basically just reads Reddit, Dakka and a few other sources and then creates videos from what he's read, pretending he has 'sources'. I know this because I've literally seen the rumours that he creates videos on, pop up on Reddit etc, a few hours before he makes his vids. He might have a few sources beyond those but I bet they're limited at best. There's plenty better sources of rumours.
Samsonov wrote: Another defender of epic 40,000 here. I think it is the fourth best GW game after Warmaster, BFG and advanced space crusade.
I would say Warmaster was the best wargame rules set - it focuses on C&C and as such can be ported to lots of different settings.
Epic A was the best wargame (within certain parameters so no breaking it by berating a non optimised oppo in army creation) doing combined arms with dynamic movement. It manages to be faithful to the 40k background in a way 40k fails miserably at.
Funny how that works, because I've mostly felt the other way around. But to each their own.
Or by 40k you mean regular Warhammer 40.000 instead of Epic: 40.000? Because then yeah, I agree
Epic being set in the Horus Heresy seems a bit odd. I could understand it for Titanicus as the majority of Titans are Imperial or Chaos with only a few Xenos ones, but limiting Epic to that setting too would be a bigger thing that takes out a large portion of variety. Not to mention there were also rumours a while back of A Heresy BFG game.
Rihgu wrote: That feels like calling Ok_E a random dude on reddit or honestly any rumor source a random dude.
Valrak is a dude with a big mouthpiece on youtube who takes a shotgun approach to spitting out every rumor he comes across for clicks no matter how implausible or silly they might be.
They are not the same.
Yeah Valrak basically just reads Reddit, Dakka and a few other sources and then creates videos from what he's read, pretending he has 'sources'. I know this because I've literally seen the rumours that he creates videos on, pop up on Reddit etc, a few hours before he makes his vids. He might have a few sources beyond those but I bet they're limited at best. There's plenty better sources of rumours.
I get the impression he's over-eager to report things without much actual checking things in the first place too. Like that video above where he said that the Codex saying The Lion being "healed and ready to return" was apparently evidence he'd be coming back soon....even though that exact thing about him being healed and waiting has been in the lore since at least 6th edition, possibly earlier.
Togusa wrote: I mean I don't watch or care about these people's content. They aren't GW employees, therefore to me, they are just random dudes on the internet.
So you have no way of evaluating what is a credible rumor and should stop trying to do so.
No, I just don't waste my time with youtube nobodies who constantly fill their channels full of click-bait tripe.
Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.
Johanxp wrote: Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.
The problem GW have is that they've been TOO successful since the games that made them in the past. We can point out how original AT and Space Marine were Heresy - indeed, invented it - purely to save costs. And as it, and they, took off they could afford to easily adjust the scope. Good news guys, here's rules for Orks. Have some Eldar too. Here's the Imperial Guard, and Squats, and actual Chaos! And so on. And we largely accepted that as the pace of things.
But now, those armies and races are out there. People have identified with them already, or in 40k, and want to use them, not more marines. And that support is wanted NOW, you see it even in this thread, hell it was a constant even with BFG back when, and that was always explicitly set up as Imps v Chaos with added piracy and NO previous models (sorry Doc, Space Fleet does NOT count, as charming as they were!). And given the ongoing complaints over Imperium-centrism (read: all power armour, all the time), perhaps that shouldn't be too surprising.
Johanxp wrote: Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.
I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.
Johanxp wrote: Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.
I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.
Yep, I hope they think along this way. Furthermore the argument of GW would infuriate xenos players by avoiding the 40K setting in Epic is not valid because Epic is so cheap in comparison to other systems that players naturally own several armies. Therefore only a minority of the player base would be adversely affected as most players would have some kind of space marines at their disposal anyway. So Epic HH could contain these factions:
- SM Legions
- Mechanicum
- Solar Auxilia
- Daemon Ruinstorm
Four factions (or maybe even five) would be a sensible approach to avoid the 40K faction bloat madness.
Johanxp wrote: Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.
I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.
Yep, I hope they think along this way. Furthermore the argument of GW would infuriate xenos players by avoiding the 40K setting in Epic is not valid because Epic is so cheap in comparison to other systems that players naturally own several armies. Therefore only a minority of the player base would be adversely affected as most players would have some kind of space marines at their disposal anyway. So Epic HH could contain these factions:
- SM Legions
- Mechanicum
- Solar Auxilia
- Daemon Ruinstorm
Four factions (or maybe even five) would be a sensible approach to avoid the 40K faction bloat madness.
It being cheap is debatable: does anyone else remember Epic's prices back when they moved everything to Specialists Games? Because cheap they were'nt.
And don't expect it to be any cheaper than that now, if they ever actually reboot it.
Johanxp wrote: Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.
I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.
Yep, I hope they think along this way. Furthermore the argument of GW would infuriate xenos players by avoiding the 40K setting in Epic is not valid because Epic is so cheap in comparison to other systems that players naturally own several armies. Therefore only a minority of the player base would be adversely affected as most players would have some kind of space marines at their disposal anyway. So Epic HH could contain these factions:
- SM Legions
- Mechanicum
- Solar Auxilia
- Daemon Ruinstorm
Four factions (or maybe even five) would be a sensible approach to avoid the 40K faction bloat madness.
What? "Non-imperium players shouldn't be unhappy because they can just buy Space Marines instead"?
Mentlegen324 wrote: Epic being set in the Horus Heresy seems a bit odd. I could understand it for Titanicus as the majority of Titans are Imperial or Chaos with only a few Xenos ones, but limiting Epic to that setting too would be a bigger thing that takes out a large portion of variety. Not to mention there were also rumours a while back of A Heresy BFG game.
The vast majority of people play Marines or at least Imperial armies even in the spin-off games. Setting it in the Heresy is a 'safe bet' because if the game flops they can stop supporting it and pretend it was "always our plan to support a core game of Legion vs Legion warfare", but if it's a roaring success they can expand it into other, popular Imperial armies (Gua- I mean Army, Mechanicum etc) and then see if it's still holding up in the long-long term with an eye to Xenos armies.
Johanxp wrote: Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.
I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.
Yep, I hope they think along this way. Furthermore the argument of GW would infuriate xenos players by avoiding the 40K setting in Epic is not valid because Epic is so cheap in comparison to other systems that players naturally own several armies. Therefore only a minority of the player base would be adversely affected as most players would have some kind of space marines at their disposal anyway. So Epic HH could contain these factions:
- SM Legions
- Mechanicum
- Solar Auxilia
- Daemon Ruinstorm
Four factions (or maybe even five) would be a sensible approach to avoid the 40K faction bloat madness.
What? "Non-imperium players shouldn't be unhappy because they can just buy Space Marines instead"?
At some point it becomes an increasingly thin excuse if players keep asking for it, thus showing there is actual market demand. We have seen similar things happen with SoB. GW joked and mocked the idea of plastic SoB army, until at last somebody in marketing must have noticed that if all these players keep asking for it, maybe it means they actually want to spend $ on it and that they might not be willing to spend $ on more SM. Now we have SoB as a fully fledged army.
Black Library also claimed to have a never any xenos books ever policy after no doubt getting many people inquiring. Yet now we have Necron books, Eldar books, Ork books, Tau books etc... Again I think at some point somebody finally realized they were leaving money on the table by not providing what people kept asking for.
Adeptus Titanicus players have asked for when xenos Titans will come and so far they have been ignored in favor of more and more Imperial Titans. I expect at some point they will either release xenos Titans or the same thing that happened when GW killed off Epic 40K. Players did not necessarily all migrate their spending over to 40K. Some just kept their wallets closed or walked away from GW entirely.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing epic, at and ai are 6mm i really doubt they go for 10mm suddenly. Invalidates all at and ai models.
Wasn't there talk of AT being made in a 8mm infantry "scale"?
When AT launched in 2018, the designers said they chose the ~1/4 of 40k scale so that a marine (a very tall transhuman monster, not a regular person) would be about 8 mm tall because the details would still look nice in case they ever decided to do infantry as well. Their media team cocked up and the internet took this as "zomg 8 mm scale! All older Epic things are invalidated". The Titanicus models measure to about 1:267, which makes a normal 180 cm human about 6-7 mm tall, so the game is "6 mm scale" or "heroic 6 mm" as I like to call it. After the great flame wars over this scale, most people just refer to it as Titanicus scale now.
Surely it can't be 6mm now otherwise why would the Aeronautica Imperialis miniatures then be a noticeably different size to the previous models which were also supposedly 6mm?
To be clear, the answer is that old Epic aircraft and titans like Sherrypie said were not 6mm, they were smaller. The Titans and aircraft in AT/AI are now actually 6mm.
So if GW were to re-release Epic in a consistent 6mm scale, it would just use AT/AI titans and aircraft (which are noticeably bigger than their old-Epic counterparts), but the infantry would be about the same size as the old ones. Probably a little bigger because the typical size of a Marine has crept upwards, but not as significant a difference as the bigger stuff.
Also worth pointing out Epic never did have a set scale.
The Warlord Titan was of course first introduced in Adeptus Titanicus. Being a game of Titan vs Titan, as long as each chassis scaled well enough with the next, no harm done. But. Once it expanded into Space Marine? The infantry were about as small as they could make them, and still have each individual teensy tiny model visibly recognisable as it’s type. And so the Tanks kind of scaled with the Infantry - leaving the Titans as the odd scale, even though they arguably set a scale.
The same is true of the original 40K Rhino and Landraider. They were about as big as GW could make the die at the time. And like the Titans, being first out the gate that scale has never really changed. Though worth bearing in mind the RTB-01 Wombles are smaller than you might think if you’ve not seen or built them yourself.
Old Epic wasn't even consistent within the same kit, lol. Look at a regular Space Marine next to some of the Space Marine characters.
But yeah, AI and AT are 1/4 40k scale, if you say 40k scale is 28 to 32mm, that would mean AI and AT are 7 to 8mm scale, but we know 40k isn't self consistent either. I call AI and AT 8mm scale because I think that's most appropriate these days. If GW decide to release Epic scale infantry that fits in well with AI and AT, I can pretty much guarantee it'll be much larger than Epic infantry that came out in the late 90's.
I say the old FW Aeronautica Imperialis was 6mm scale because according to the fluff values that came in the old AI books, for those aircraft they scaled quite well to 6mm scale (roughly 1/285 scale).
To be honest, as long as base sizes are roughly correct, I’m not fussed if someone uses old epic models.
I just want Epic back. It’s always been my favoured scale. Except Epic 40,000 which remains an uncinematic betrayal of Epic. Don’t care if it’s technically a better combat simulator. Nobody asked it to be.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: To be honest, as long as base sizes are roughly correct, I’m not fussed if someone uses old epic models.
I just want Epic back. It’s always been my favoured scale. Except Epic 40,000 which remains an uncinematic betrayal of Epic. Don’t care if it’s technically a better combat simulator. Nobody asked it to be.
It's been a while (over 20 years) since I actually built an Epic army, but isn't base size largely generally not too important? I seem to recall a thread discussing base sizes and people giving a bunch of options.
Every time I see someone post something to the effect of "non-imperium players shouldn't be unhappy because they can just buy Space Marines instead", my mind imagines them approaching a game like Flames of War or Bolt Action and going "what do you mean there are no xenos? I demand to be accommodated!".
Not everything needs to have xenos.
The "I don't play Imperium"/"I only play xenos" thing is a self-imposed rule and a self-assumed label. Theres no such thing as a "xenos player" or a "non-Imperium player", especially not for a game that doesn't presently exist. What there is, are people who prefer to play non-Imperium and xenos armies, but if you take that to an absolute and will only play non-Imperium factions, then that is wholly 100% a "you problem".
I don't play Napoleonic or Ancients armies. Know what I do when I encounter a Napoleonics or Ancients game?
I don't play.
I also don't insist that the developer needs to add Pike & Shotte armies or American Civil War armies into the game because I am a "Pike & Shotte player" or an "ACW player".
There really is no justification for the insistence that every vaguely 40k related thing needs the inclusion of xenos or whatever your favorite faction is. This isn't an expansion to 40k, this isn't something that you use your existing miniature collections for. You don't need to be catered to, you don't lose anything or miss out or get screwed over if GW produces a whole new game with a whole new miniatures range that doesn't suit your tastes or interest you. Its okay to not play all their games, its okay to not like everything they do.
Its also okay to *WISH* that your favorite faction is included in the game - but theres a fine line between wishing it to be included and acting like you are being screwed over or victimized by GW.
That's a lot of words to say "if you don't want Space Marines don't buy it"
I dunno if anyone is going far enough to say they're acting like they're being victimised, clearly people are just wishlisting and explaining how they'd like to see it done.
Space marines as a core would be a little odd for an Epic reboot, as in at least Epic40K and EA, marines are strange extreme lists that break a lot of the core rules.
Marines in EA are my favourite game interpretation of them though, followed by new Kill Team. You could easily see a single company taken over a planet even if the match up formations seems laughable at first compare to things like the Orks or IG.
It'd be pretty cheap to upgrade my current infantry with 'truescaled' ones though, if they do go that way. The old Epic40K box marine army is just two sprues and almost 2K points if you skimp a bit on bikes and Terms/base.
Three sprues and a thunderhawk or two would put you happily in the 3K standard tournament range.
chaos0xomega wrote: Every time I see someone post something to the effect of "non-imperium players shouldn't be unhappy because they can just buy Space Marines instead", my mind imagines them approaching a game like Flames of War or Bolt Action and going "what do you mean there are no xenos? I demand to be accommodated!".
Not everything needs to have xenos.
The "I don't play Imperium"/"I only play xenos" thing is a self-imposed rule and a self-assumed label. Theres no such thing as a "xenos player" or a "non-Imperium player", especially not for a game that doesn't presently exist. What there is, are people who prefer to play non-Imperium and xenos armies, but if you take that to an absolute and will only play non-Imperium factions, then that is wholly 100% a "you problem".
I don't play Napoleonic or Ancients armies. Know what I do when I encounter a Napoleonics or Ancients game?
I don't play.
I also don't insist that the developer needs to add Pike & Shotte armies or American Civil War armies into the game because I am a "Pike & Shotte player" or an "ACW player".
There really is no justification for the insistence that every vaguely 40k related thing needs the inclusion of xenos or whatever your favorite faction is. This isn't an expansion to 40k, this isn't something that you use your existing miniature collections for. You don't need to be catered to, you don't lose anything or miss out or get screwed over if GW produces a whole new game with a whole new miniatures range that doesn't suit your tastes or interest you. Its okay to not play all their games, its okay to not like everything they do.
Its also okay to *WISH* that your favorite faction is included in the game - but theres a fine line between wishing it to be included and acting like you are being screwed over or victimized by GW.
I think this may be one of the most utterly absurd nonsensical comparisons I've seen. You're doing the same thing as the other guy and basically going "Non-imperium armies don't matter, what everyone really wants are Space Marines" as if an arbitrary decision to include a large portion of players and the setting would be a good thing.
Oh my god, seriously? Talk about utterly absurd nonsensical things. Thats like saying every book, movie, animation, etc. needs to have representation of every single faction in 40k, just to make sure every possible player is fully "included", because apparently something is only interesting to someone if - and only if - it includes their one specific favorite faction.
Thats like saying you need Tau and Necrons in Necromunda or you're excluding a portion of players from what is essentially another game.
Thats like saying Kill Team needs to include Knights or you're excluding a portion of players from what is essentially another game.
Thats like saying that Age of Sigmar or Warhammer Fantasy needs Space Marines or you're excluding a portion of players from what is not just another game, but another setting.
Horus Heresy is another game in what is essentially another setting, though one which shares a common universe. Theres no obligation or justification to "include a large portion of players" of ANOTHER GAME. If they release a game and its just Imperium and Chaos, then there aren't any xenos players, because that game is NOT 40K and those factions are out of the scope of the setting and the game designed around it.
This should not be a difficult concept to understand. In the context of Horus Heresy you are NOT a Tau player (or whatever), because in Horus Heresy TAU DO NOT EXIST FOR YOU TO PLAY. Its that simple. If you want to play Tau - too bad, you can't. Pick something else. If nothing appeals to you - don't play it.
GW - any creator or publisher for that matter - is allowed to produce things that do not cater to your specific interests. If you don't like it or aren't interested in what it is they are offering you, THEN DON'T BUY IT OR PLAY IT. Its very straightforward.
Space Marines/Imperium vs Chaos only is a perfectly valid and reasonable choice for GW to make. If you are such a damned xenos/Tau/Eldar/whatever purist that you cannot bring yourself to play one of the "appropriate" factions for the game and setting that GW designed - then that is your own damned choice and problem to live with. Nobody has held a gun to your head and said "you're a Tau player now, you can never play anything else". This decision has no impact on your current collection of models, it does not invalidate your purchases to date or make them any less functional, etc. You are free to continue using them in 40k as you have always done and they are not any lesser for it.
There is no obligation for anyone to twist and reform their creative vision and output in order to accommodate your specific tastes and interests, especially when you have zero skin in the game. You are not the target audience for this product, ergo your viewpoint is not one that needs to be taken into consideration. If GW wanted your money, then they would have made the decision to incorporate xenos into the game - that they haven't incorporated xenos indicates that they are perfectly okay catering to what is probably still an overwhelmingly large subset of their community who are willing to explore and play in a more limited and niche sandbox. Likewise, they likely understand that this product has a stronger and more distinct brand and identity by purposefully excluding xenos from it, and that this also preserves the brand and identity of their flagship product line which does include xenos.
Again, not hard to comprehend, 30k is not an attempt to reinvent the wheel and make a replica of 40k but with minor changes. It is its own separate and distinct thing - its own game in its own setting with its own separate players. And thats okay - live with it, accept it. There is no "include a large portion of players" here, because those players you're talking about are 40k players, not Horus Heresy players. While there are people who will play both, there are also plenty who will only play one. Again - that is okay. Not everything or everyone is "for all markets" as they say, nor does it need to be.
Given a lot of thought, I think it would make more sense to release the odd tank and infantry kit for Adeptus Titanicus. It allows GW to test the waters before committing fully to Epic. Also it doesn't hurt that its called "Adeptus Titanicus: The Horus Heresy", and Scale 1 is yet to receive a model, along with Scale 7 and 11.
With a single book expansion they could do this pretty much now; a knight kit sprue's worth of infantry, and an Aeronautica-sized kit for some baneblades, with the option for shadowswords. If not, off load them onto Forgeworld and have them as support-only units, if they don't want the hassle of publishing a new book. All they have to do is avoid a Porphyrion fiasco with the rules( the armigers, at Scale 2, have already been well received ) and they would be best sellers as base decorations alone.
It would also keep the release schedule free to possibly introduce another game in demand; Battlefleet Gothic...
chaos0xomega wrote: In the context of Horus Heresy you are NOT a Tau player (or whatever), because in Horus Heresy TAU DO NOT EXIST FOR YOU TO PLAY.
Tau don't, but Eldar and Orks do exist. And Tau are a good representation for the various minor xenos factions that existed at the time. Plus, let's not forget that a big part of the success of the original 30k game was that it was fully compatible with 40k and you could play 30k marines vs. 40k Tau. If 30k had been marines-only I doubt it would have seen anywhere near as much success.
There is no obligation for anyone to twist and reform their creative vision
GW has no creative vision. Their rules exist for the sole purpose of selling models and providing good quarterly reports to the shareholders. If GW believes that retconning Tau into 30k will give a 1% increase in shareholder value then Tau will be in 30k without any hesitation at all. Just look at how much GW's "creative vision" mattered when they ended WHFB, retconned primaris marines into 40k, etc.
If non-Imperial factions are not in this (or any other) game it is only because GW is calculating the revenue from the xenos products vs. the cost to make them vs. the opportunity cost of not making another space marine box and concluding that the money says no. Any "creative" excuses are nothing more than an after the fact rationalization to justify the business decisions to people like you and convince you to keep buying.
Again, not hard to comprehend, 30k is not an attempt to reinvent the wheel and make a replica of 40k but with minor changes.
That's funny, because in the world the rest of us live in 30k was just the 40k rules with some new units added, exactly as the Badab War books had been previously. It only diverged from 40k at all when GW launched 8th edition at a point when 30k was a dead game, up until that point it was absolutely standard practice to play 30k vs. 40k armies and treat 30k as nothing more than a set of additional codices for 40k. And TBH I expect 30k will probably get updated to the standard 40k rules once people realize that their nostalgia for armor facings and blast templates has nothing to do with reality and those things were removed for good reasons.
That's funny, because in the world the rest of us live in 30k was just the 40k rules with some new units added, exactly as the Badab War books had been previously. It only diverged from 40k at all when GW launched 8th edition at a point when 30k was a dead game, up until that point it was absolutely standard practice to play 30k vs. 40k armies and treat 30k as nothing more than a set of additional codices for 40k. And TBH I expect 30k will probably get updated to the standard 40k rules once people realize that their nostalgia for armor facings and blast templates has nothing to do with reality and those things were removed for good reasons.
What are you talking about? None of that is true at all.
Would be great to see some RT-inspired orks and eldar, a specific 30k take on the races could form an entire subfaction to also have rules for 40k.
Something like exodites for eldar could be perfect, orks could have a list filled with the wonders in the old 'ere we go' book (bazillion different weird squigs and stuff).
GW has no creative vision. Their rules exist for the sole purpose of selling models and providing good quarterly reports to the shareholders. If GW believes that retconning Tau into 30k will give a 1% increase in shareholder value then Tau will be in 30k without any hesitation at all. Just look at how much GW's "creative vision" mattered when they ended WHFB, retconned primaris marines into 40k, etc.
If non-Imperial factions are not in this (or any other) game it is only because GW is calculating the revenue from the xenos products vs. the cost to make them vs. the opportunity cost of not making another space marine box and concluding that the money says no. Any "creative" excuses are nothing more than an after the fact rationalization to justify the business decisions to people like you and convince you to keep buying.
Making money is the aim of every company. If that was not their aim, then they would not exist as a company for very long.
That being said, this stuff about being completely shackled to shareholders and profit is just nonsense. If it were true then we would have had female ultramarines in the noughties, all the extreme stuff would have been culled from 30k and 40k as it was written so it was more suitable for a younger audience, and none of the primarchs would have died. That is what shareholders would want. But that is not what happened.
Any "creative" excuses are nothing more than an after the fact rationalization to justify the business decisions to people like you and convince you to keep buying.
Is it? Because there are genuine creative reasons to do what they do alongside financial reasons. We've heard from insiders how sometimes a designer or writer or artist will show an idea or design to a higher up and then the higher up will get on board, and sometimes the higher up will ask for x and the team will make it, and sometimes it will be a collaboration.
It's a testament to the fact that they do have creative vision that Warhammer 40,000 is currently the best popular pulp science-fiction universe.
caladancid wrote: What are you talking about? None of that is true at all.
It's absolutely true and it's revisionist history to suggest otherwise.
The first 30k books were just army lists and scenarios like any of the 40k Imperial Armour books, they used the core 40k rules as-is. Even as late as the very end of 7th there was only minimal divergence from 40k, with 30k rejecting the widely hated formation nonsense and invisibility psychic power but otherwise making very few changes.
30k vs. 40k was common enough that GW even printed official suggestions for how to do it (using the 30k FOC and banning formations), and outside of formation nonsense you could easily play a game of 30k vs. 40k with no compatibility issues. And you can't deny that it's a major selling point for a "new" game when you can use the models in your existing 40k armies and can play your 30k lists against your friends' 40k lists even if nobody else invests in 30k.
Whether or not 30k will be updated is a matter of opinion and speculation, not truth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
derpherp wrote: Making money is the aim of every company. If that was not their aim, then they would not exist as a company for very long.
Well yes, I'm not saying GW is unique here. But GW is clearly running their games as a business and freely retconning away anything that gets in the way of making money.
That being said, this stuff about being completely shackled to shareholders and profit is just nonsense. If it were true then we would have had female ultramarines in the noughties, all the extreme stuff would have been culled from 30k and 40k as it was written so it was more suitable for a younger audience, and none of the primarchs would have died. That is what shareholders would want. But that is not what happened.
Is it really what shareholders would want? Or is it what you would want? Because from my point of view a game targeting 14 year old boys (as GW openly admitted was their goal) in the days when "nerd hobbies" openly excluded women absolutely wouldn't have been making a smart business decision by introducing female marines. The only thing that market would have wanted would have been female marines in power bikinis instead of armor, and overtly sexualizing the models would have had angry parents throwing a riot and killing future sales. And targeting an even younger market wouldn't have worked well, an expensive war game with complex and delicate models isn't something you can successfully sell to 5-10 year olds.
Now, of course, things are different and I won't be at all surprised when GW retcons everything and introduces female marines just like they retconned everything to introduce primaris marines.
Is it? Because there are genuine creative reasons to do what they do alongside financial reasons. We've heard from insiders how sometimes a designer or writer or artist will show an idea or design to a higher up and then the higher up will get on board, and sometimes the higher up will ask for x and the team will make it, and sometimes it will be a collaboration.
Sure, but in all of that rule #1 is "will this make money for the company". Maybe occasionally you'll see a vanity project get company support to keep an important employee happy but GW has been aggressively cutting niche products that don't make enough money and retconning away anything that stands in the way of a new release.
chaos0xomega wrote: Every time I see someone post something to the effect of "non-imperium players shouldn't be unhappy because they can just buy Space Marines instead", my mind imagines them approaching a game like Flames of War or Bolt Action and going "what do you mean there are no xenos? I demand to be accommodated!".
Not everything needs to have xenos.
The "I don't play Imperium"/"I only play xenos" thing is a self-imposed rule and a self-assumed label. Theres no such thing as a "xenos player" or a "non-Imperium player", especially not for a game that doesn't presently exist. What there is, are people who prefer to play non-Imperium and xenos armies, but if you take that to an absolute and will only play non-Imperium factions, then that is wholly 100% a "you problem".
I don't play Napoleonic or Ancients armies. Know what I do when I encounter a Napoleonics or Ancients game?
I don't play.
I also don't insist that the developer needs to add Pike & Shotte armies or American Civil War armies into the game because I am a "Pike & Shotte player" or an "ACW player".
There really is no justification for the insistence that every vaguely 40k related thing needs the inclusion of xenos or whatever your favorite faction is. This isn't an expansion to 40k, this isn't something that you use your existing miniature collections for. You don't need to be catered to, you don't lose anything or miss out or get screwed over if GW produces a whole new game with a whole new miniatures range that doesn't suit your tastes or interest you. Its okay to not play all their games, its okay to not like everything they do.
Its also okay to *WISH* that your favorite faction is included in the game - but theres a fine line between wishing it to be included and acting like you are being screwed over or victimized by GW.
GTFO with your imperium or nothing bs. If people are calling for xenos why exacrly can't they be added? Ya there is none so get off your lame horse and realize 40k wouldn't be anywhere near as seccesfull today without xenos and the same will be true for any game released in the 40k setting.
Johanxp wrote: Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.
I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.
I think this is it exactly. HH would allow the game box to be 2-3 sprues; Few types of infantry, land raiders and rhinos. I think one of the biggest barriers to Epic ever returning is that it would be a BIG investment in resources for GW, both number of SKUs and the rules writers having to create that content. A HH era box lets them ignore that risk, tap into the Epic nostalgia, few expansions and campaign books and boom job done.
Not saying this is ideal, but I'm afraid if you want xenos the chances are you will need to take the little training wheels off your bicycyle and get into NetEpic, Epic Armageddon etc. and those existing communities.
SamusDrake wrote: Given a lot of thought, I think it would make more sense to release the odd tank and infantry kit for Adeptus Titanicus. It allows GW to test the waters before committing fully to Epic. Also, it doesn't hurt that its called "Adeptus Titanicus: The Horus Heresy", and Scale 1 is yet to receive a model, along with Scale 7 and 11.
There's also precedent for this idea. In the Fanatic days, Epic 40,000 Magazine featured rules for an updated Adeptus Titanicus game to return the focus to the big robots (since successive editions of Epic had relegated them to a support role in armies). Alongside the Titans, it included rules for superheavy tanks such as Baneblades and Shadowswords.
I'm surprised we haven't seen something similar for modern AT by now.
Is it really what shareholders would want? Or is it what you would want? Because from my point of view a game targeting 14 year old boys (as GW openly admitted was their goal) in the days when "nerd hobbies" openly excluded women absolutely wouldn't have been making a smart business decision by introducing female marines. The only thing that market would have wanted would have been female marines in power bikinis instead of armor, and overtly sexualizing the models would have had angry parents throwing a riot and killing future sales. And targeting an even younger market wouldn't have worked well, an expensive war game with complex and delicate models isn't something you can successfully sell to 5-10 year olds.
Now, of course, things are different and I won't be at all surprised when GW retcons everything and introduces female marines just like they retconned everything to introduce primaris marines.
Yes, sanding down the rough bits is what shareholders want. It's for the same reason so many movies that should have been R rated instead have their scripts edited and trimmed and made PG13. It makes more money. There are tons of things in the 40k universe that are just unsuitable for a mainstream IP such as the daemonculuba, or even just servitors being used by the 'good guys', and if it were up to the shareholders they would never ever have been made or they would have been retconned by now.
The things that make the 40k IP what it is also make 40k an extremely difficult IP to turn into a mass market IP. Starwars is easy mode for making billions of dollars, 40k is extreme hard mode. Most big time media investors are going to take one look at 40k and run away screaming at the top of their lungs, which is exactly what shareholders do not want.
Yes, killing off primarchs is objectively bad for business. Period. Primarch models sell like hotcakes. The fact that there are dead primarchs means that there is less money to be made. Every dead primarch is a huge financial loss for GW. If shareholders were in control not a single primarch would be dead.
Yes, the addition of female marines would make them more money, if not as head swaps on the sprue, then as their own cover-hero Ultramarine detachment with boob armour. That has been the case now and since at least the 00s when the sisters of battle became their own army. But GW recently Officially re-confirmed male marines only as being the standard when they had ample opportunity to retcon it.
CadianSgtBob wrote: "Sure, but in all of that rule #1 is "will this make money for the company". Maybe occasionally you'll see a vanity project get company support to keep an important employee happy but GW has been aggressively cutting niche products that don't make enough money and retconning away anything that stands in the way of a new release."
Looking to make money =/= no creative vision.
By your logic nothing ever created in the creative industry has ever had any creative vision because everything the creative industry does is sold to make money and a profit. No one in the industry makes anything for free mate.
If a creative comes up with a COOL idea, then more often than not that COOL idea is also going to sell well because it is a COOL idea. The creative vision is the primary and not the secondary here. We know from insiders that this does happen and is not "occasional" but happens all of the time.
The "GW kicked my dog!!!!" crowd really seem to have an unreasonable view of GW as a company.
Johanxp wrote: Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.
I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.
Yep, I hope they think along this way. Furthermore the argument of GW would infuriate xenos players by avoiding the 40K setting in Epic is not valid because Epic is so cheap in comparison to other systems that players naturally own several armies. Therefore only a minority of the player base would be adversely affected as most players would have some kind of space marines at their disposal anyway. So Epic HH could contain these factions:
- SM Legions
- Mechanicum
- Solar Auxilia
- Daemon Ruinstorm
Four factions (or maybe even five) would be a sensible approach to avoid the 40K faction bloat madness.
It being cheap is debatable: does anyone else remember Epic's prices back when they moved everything to Specialists Games? Because cheap they were'nt.
And don't expect it to be any cheaper than that now, if they ever actually reboot it.
I played Space Marine (Epic 2nd) and several armies were in my collection. And no, I wasn´t filthy rich in order to collect them back in the day.
I think one of the issues that makes bringing back Epic harder (especially in a post heresy setting) is the big increase in the number of vehicles available in 40K proper,
all they really needed initially was landraiders and rhinos and a bunch of wee marines (and there are more varieties of those too), but now there a whole bunch more and players will expect them to be available too (with all their different weapon options as well)
Johanxp wrote: Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.
I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.
Yep, I hope they think along this way. Furthermore the argument of GW would infuriate xenos players by avoiding the 40K setting in Epic is not valid because Epic is so cheap in comparison to other systems that players naturally own several armies. Therefore only a minority of the player base would be adversely affected as most players would have some kind of space marines at their disposal anyway. So Epic HH could contain these factions:
- SM Legions
- Mechanicum
- Solar Auxilia
- Daemon Ruinstorm
Four factions (or maybe even five) would be a sensible approach to avoid the 40K faction bloat madness.
What? "Non-imperium players shouldn't be unhappy because they can just buy Space Marines instead"?
As I have said before most people in the hobby own several armies. Therefore they don´t identify themselves as "Imperium" or "Xenos" players. They are just collectors interested in the 30K/40K setting. I own myself regarding to xenos Bad Moonz Orks, Ulthwe Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tyranids/GSC. Am I unhappy that those factions are not included in HH? Absolutely not.
Just imagine GW would recreate the second or the third war for Armageddon with releasing new models for said armies. Everybody would expect to see only orks and imperial troops as it is another historic event. You can´t shoehorn in any other xenos just to accomodate a salty, vocal minority as it would diminish the overall enjoyment of the main target audience.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think one of the issues that makes bringing back Epic harder (especially in a post heresy setting) is the big increase in the number of vehicles available in 40K proper,
all they really needed initially was landraiders and rhinos and a bunch of wee marines (and there are more varieties of those too), but now there a whole bunch more and players will expect them to be available too (with all their different weapon options as well)
This is one of the many reasons why faction bloat is a bad thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Potentially a barrier is that 90's GW was happy to put a bunch of different tanks on one sprue, I doubt if modern GW will do that.
Also 90's GW used metal to fill gaps, so they could get away with just a couple of sprues per faction.
Space Marine starter box was great back in the day. You had SM Tacticals, Rhinos, Land Raiders, Ork Boys, Battlewagons, Eldar Guardians, Falcon Grav Tanks, a Warlord Titan and multiple tall buildings.
Do it right and weapon options simply don’t matter. Epic is not the place for that level of granularity. In “Space Marine” the Bolters profile covered everything from Bolt Pistols to Heavy Bolters and it worked wonderfully.
Someone wanting to select their loadouts at Epic scale and have it be anything other than cosmetic invites rules nonsense.
Any actual Epic rumours lately or is it just wishlisting/reacting to one YouTuber who has no actual sources?
Strg Alt wrote: I played Space Marine (Epic 2nd) and several armies were in my collection. And no, I wasn´t filthy rich in order to collect them back in the day.
I mean.. ok, but I was talking about the last time GW was selling stuff, so your answer it's kind of a non sequitur.
I mean, it's as if I'd say that 40k is cheap because the RTB01 box was cheap.
And back when E.A was around in the Specialist Games range, the minis were anything but cheap... and I can't believe for one minute they would be cheaper now. Because GW is gonna GW (and also, AT scale is generally bigger).
JohnnyHell wrote: Do it right and weapon options simply don’t matter. Epic is not the place for that level of granularity. In “Space Marine” the Bolters profile covered everything from Bolt Pistols to Heavy Bolters and it worked wonderfully.
Someone wanting to select their loadouts at Epic scale and have it be anything other than cosmetic invites rules nonsense.
That's actually one of the things I liked about Epic. The fluffy differences between an Ultramarine and a Grey Hunter and a whatever or a Bolter and a Plasma Gun were outside of the scale of the game, so you were free to do or imagine whatever you wanted for your force but in the end it was just the number on the detachment sheet that mattered... Speed, Range, Firepower, Assault, and Armour.
Any actual Epic rumours lately or is it just wishlisting/reacting to one YouTuber who has no actual sources?
There's also precedent for this idea. In the Fanatic days, Epic 40,000 Magazine featured rules for an updated Adeptus Titanicus game to return the focus to the big robots (since successive editions of Epic had relegated them to a support role in armies). Alongside the Titans, it included rules for superheavy tanks such as Baneblades and Shadowswords.
I'm surprised we haven't seen something similar for modern AT by now.
Yes, sadly so.
I wouldn't want Titanicus to be overloaded with such units, but the odd unit here and there would add just enough flavour to the game.
The balance of likely risk and likely reward will probably keep any future epic to space marines for a while. The risk of marines vs xenos is lower, since marines only need one faction rather than two of xenos vs someone. The likely reward will be higher given the popularity of marines and the already existing players doing loyalist vs rebels.
Could xeno turn a profit? Probably, but that probability is lower than marines whilst the costs are higher due to needing two factions. Also, even if xeno was likely to be a profit, that tooling time needs be compared to likely profit from tooling something for AoS or 28mm 40k. Again, marines are likely to more favourably compare.
lord_blackfang wrote: Not sure why anyone thinks Epic will be cheap when we already have a price benchmark to look at, Aeronautica.
The price of Aeronautica is what made me wonder if it's best GW leave Epic be
Aeronautica models look great, and the price is somewhat palatable because you only need a few models to play a game, but buying 10's of tanks, dreadnoughts, etc, at Aeronautica prices could be a bit hurty.
I'm pretty sure that some of the Epic 40k minis - Land Raiders and the like - were worth their weight in silver (not quite gold) they were so damned expensive.
Samsonov wrote: The balance of likely risk and likely reward will probably keep any future epic to space marines for a while. The risk of marines vs xenos is lower, since marines only need one faction rather than two of xenos vs someone. The likely reward will be higher given the popularity of marines and the already existing players doing loyalist vs rebels.
Could xeno turn a profit? Probably, but that probability is lower than marines whilst the costs are higher due to needing two factions. Also, even if xeno was likely to be a profit, that tooling time needs be compared to likely profit from tooling something for AoS or 28mm 40k. Again, marines are likely to more favourably compare.
Counter-point: a game where the only factions are different colors of marines is boring as hell and, unlike 28mm 30k, won't sell a bunch of boxes to 40k marine players who want them for their 40k armies. Only having one faction makes it less likely that the game will ever have any success. So yes, xenos releases may not make as much per kit sold but they're still an important part of having a functioning game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strg Alt wrote: Just imagine GW would recreate the second or the third war for Armageddon with releasing new models for said armies. Everybody would expect to see only orks and imperial troops as it is another historic event. You can´t shoehorn in any other xenos just to accomodate a salty, vocal minority as it would diminish the overall enjoyment of the main target audience.
Sure, but that target audience would be what, three people? Four? It would certainly be a much less successful game than one with a wider range of factions and a setting that can be generalized to other conflicts.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm pretty sure that some of the Epic 40k minis - Land Raiders and the like - were worth their weight in silver (not quite gold) they were so damned expensive.
Some of the Armageddon (4th edition) release metal Rhinos and Land Raiders weren't particularly cheap at the time, I don't think sold in particularly high volumes and so are ridiculously expensive now when you do see them.
The 1st and 2nd edition plastics sold in massive volumes, if you shop around and buy in bulk you can usually get for £0.50 - £1 per vehicle, especially if you don't mind paint stripping. For any other types of vehicle I usually go for proxies from Vanguard/Onslaught or now 3D prints as they tend to be cheaper than the GW Epic originals, especially as there are a couple of guys who seem to have a lot of the original miniatures and sell them for crazy money on eBay (if you are after individual classic minis, the FB groups are definitely your best bet).
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm pretty sure that some of the Epic 40k minis - Land Raiders and the like - were worth their weight in silver (not quite gold) they were so damned expensive.
Yeah. Also arguably overly detailed.
Looking at the original ones, the only tank I’d say was visually boring would be the original Vindicator.
The rest of the range was, in my opinion, pretty much fine and dandy. Everything look visually distinct, and had some decent and interesting levels detail.
Epic 40K? And I think this piccie is squished, so apologies.
Just….waaaay too far in the other direction, way, way too far. Stormbolter was wildly out of scale. And let’s not even look at the E:40K Eldar range, on account I don’t want my eyes to vomit. Not again.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm pretty sure that some of the Epic 40k minis - Land Raiders and the like - were worth their weight in silver (not quite gold) they were so damned expensive.
Yeah. Also arguably overly detailed.
Looking at the original ones, the only tank I’d say was visually boring would be the original Vindicator.
The rest of the range was, in my opinion, pretty much fine and dandy. Everything look visually distinct, and had some decent and interesting levels detail.
Epic 40K? And I think this piccie is squished, so apologies.
Just….waaaay too far in the other direction, way, way too far. Stormbolter was wildly out of scale. And let’s not even look at the E:40K Eldar range, on account I don’t want my eyes to vomit. Not again.
Them's fighting words, sir!
Like the rules or dislike the rules, complain about the prices or ... um ... complain about the prices, but the Epic 40K model range was gorgeous. Well, mostly gorgeous. All those variant tracks and hulls really cut down on the repetition. Though it does get annoying to paint all the detail on the Imperial tanks.
The stormbolters and so on were out of scale in the same 'heroic' way that pistols and chainswords are out of scale on GW's 28mm models. So that they're easily visible on the tabletop.
By contrast, some of the preceding 2nd ed Epic stuff had the detail level of a Duplo brick.
If you want to talk about things being waaaay out of scale, have you seen the 2nd ed Tyranid metals compared to the 3rd ed metals? Or the old metal Chaos Daemons? And the 3rd ed Tyranids got additional variant sculpts for lots of their classic models too (Exocrines with different frills, Zoanthropes in various poses and so on).
As for the Eldar range, the only really ugly aspect (as it were) was the Titans--the Phantom and Revenants. Even those don't look too bad on their own terms, e.g. as generic mechs for some other game, but it's true they don't look at all Eldary.
The rest of the 3rd ed Eldar occasionally had a penchant for unnecessary ribbing--like those weird vanes on the back of the War Walkers--along with hexagonal-plated armour variants. But the 3rd ed range was the one that replaced the old wedge-shaped Eldar tanks with the sleek sexy modern-style Falcons and Fire Prisms that were still a few months away from appearing in WH40K.
I like some of the 2nd ed Eldar range, especially the sailboat Wave Serpents, but I'm perplexed that anyone would find E40K's modern style vomitous.
Of course, Epic A improved on the Eldar range in several respects (the superheavy tanks are ).
/triggered
That said, I do see the irony of GW releasing a ruleset that was meant to make bigger battles faster and easier to play (E40K), while simultaneously increasing the detail level and price of the models. It reminds me of the contrast between Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Lord of the Rings SGB. The former needed big blocks of troops, tightly lined up in ranks, to act as glorified wound counters. The latter was a skirmish game needing only a handful of models. What did GW do? Make the WFB models complex multi-part poseable kits, and make the LotR models single-piece.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm pretty sure that some of the Epic 40k minis - Land Raiders and the like - were worth their weight in silver (not quite gold) they were so damned expensive.
Some of the Armageddon (4th edition) release metal Rhinos and Land Raiders weren't particularly cheap at the time, I don't think sold in particularly high volumes and so are ridiculously expensive now when you do see them.
The 1st and 2nd edition plastics sold in massive volumes, if you shop around and buy in bulk you can usually get for £0.50 - £1 per vehicle, especially if you don't mind paint stripping. For any other types of vehicle I usually go for proxies from Vanguard/Onslaught or now 3D prints as they tend to be cheaper than the GW Epic originals, especially as there are a couple of guys who seem to have a lot of the original miniatures and sell them for crazy money on eBay (if you are after individual classic minis, the FB groups are definitely your best bet).
I was working at GW at the time. The SG releases were fething expensive, even at the redshirt discount prices (which was a lot smaller than the regular store one).
Albertorius wrote: I was working at GW at the time. The SG releases were fething expensive, even at the redshirt discount prices (which was a lot smaller than the regular store one).
When it came to Epic Armageddon, GW shot themselves in the foot several times. In fact, this edition of Epic was pretty much doomed from the start. Some things that hurt the release of Epic Armageddon were:
• Metal models. These were always sold at a premium by GW. Yes, updated sculpts of Land Raider and Rhino helped but the huge price increase really hurt. The price of the Thunderhawk Transport was nearly prohibitive. This got worse when you calculated the total price of entry for a competitive army.
• Inconsistent scale. This one always plagued Epic releases. GW models, aircraft in particular, were under-scaled. Even the titans were too small for the very game they were the stars of. One huge selling point for Forge World was that their resin models were better scaled (larger) for Epic. Go back and look at the old metal Thunderbolt and compare it to the resin one from Forge World.
• Recycling old plastic sculpts. When GW put together new plastic sprues for Space Marines, they used the old sub-standard sculpts of previous editions. There was literal TONS of these things floating around and eBay was flooded with auctions at this time. Other armies were in the same boat. GW was trying to sell the old models with a hefty price increase. Returning players didn't have any reason to buy the models. Why pay a premium to GW when eBay had the exact same stuff at pennies on the dollar? Had GW updated some of the sculpts, perhaps they would have sold more.
• Refusing to adapt to market demands. People wanted more than just a repackage of Epic 40,000, but aside from the new Imperial Titans, GW didn't bother. No Necron models. No Tau. Jervis state explicitly that the Dark Eldar were a raiding force and had no place in Epic. GW didn't change or adapt so people went to Forge World for their Eldar and Imperial Guard models. Forge World sold a lot of resin Tau. They did the same with BFG and people liked the Forge World models much more than the trash GW made. People were willing to pay for new stuff, but for some reason GW wasn't willing to sell.
There are other issues that hurt Epic Armageddon such as blast markers, but nothing as much as the models. Forge World is running things better with the "Boxed Games" and I think if they released Epic it would be worth buying into. On the other hand, Forge World are already having problems such as their unwillingness to release chaos and xenos kits for Adeptus Titanicus or to develop new units for various smaller factions in Aeronautica Imperialus.
chaos0xomega wrote: In the context of Horus Heresy you are NOT a Tau player (or whatever), because in Horus Heresy TAU DO NOT EXIST FOR YOU TO PLAY.
Tau don't, but Eldar and Orks do exist.
Show me the Eldar and Ork rules for Horus Heresy then.
You can't, because they don't exist.
It doesn't matter if they are in the background of the setting, they are out of scope. They do not exist for you to play. You are not an Eldar or an Ork player in Horus Heresy/30k, only in 40k.
Plus, let's not forget that a big part of the success of the original 30k game was that it was fully compatible with 40k and you could play 30k marines vs. 40k Tau. If 30k had been marines-only I doubt it would have seen anywhere near as much success.
#doubt. I'm sure there are plenty of people that played that way, I just have never personally met anyone who does. I'm sure they exist, but every Horus Heresy game I have personally participated in or witnessed were strictly 30k rules. Its hard for me to justify the idea that 30k took off because of people playing against 40k armies and not because people were playing 30k vs 30k as intended.
GW has no creative vision.
Alan Bligh is rolling in his grave. Huge insult to all the people at GW and elsewhere who pour their passion and creativity into making the game and setting what it is. The profit motive/greed of senior leadership has nothing to do with the efforts of those actually doing the work. People really should learn not to miss the trees for the forest when discussing businesses.
That's funny, because in the world the rest of us live in 30k was just the 40k rules with some new units added, exactly as the Badab War books had been previously.
So your argument against my point is to prove my point? There would be no point to 30k if it had all the same factions as 40k. Again, it is not an attempt to reinvent the wheel and make a game that is almost exactly like 40k but with minor differences. The absence of a number of key factions/the presence of an entirely different roster of factions is, in fact, a major difference.
Your argument goes back to some of the stuff I mentioned about historical games - there are plenty of games out there that run on what is basically the same game engine but have different periods of focus and only include certain nations/factions but not others as a result. This is no different.
Your argument, essentially, is that Team Yankee and Flames of War are the same game and that its unfair that you can't play your Finnish WW2 army against your mates 1980s West Germans.
GTFO with your imperium or nothing bs. If people are calling for xenos why exacrly can't they be added? Ya there is none so get off your lame horse and realize 40k wouldn't be anywhere near as seccesfull today without xenos and the same will be true for any game released in the 40k setting.
Cope. Theres a number of 40k games released so far with zero xenos in it that have been extremely successful. Necromunda and Adeptus Titanicus being the big ones. Not everythign needs xenos, sorry you have assumed your favorite 40k faction into your personal identity and can't enjoy playing something if they aren't in it.
As I have said before most people in the hobby own several armies. Therefore they don´t identify themselves as "Imperium" or "Xenos" players.
Certainly my case, started as a Tau player when they were first released, now own a few thousand points of basically every faction in the game. The idea that someone is such a purist that they will only play x faction, even in what is essentially an entirely different game, is utterly alien to me. Like - how far does that idea of purity and assumed identity extend? Do you show up to a game of Bolt Action and insist that you should be allowed to play your Tau against your mates Germans? Or is it just when it comes to GW games - in which case do you demand to play Tau in Age of Sigmar? Because the two settings are linked by the warp, so like...
Albertorius wrote: Or by 40k you mean regular Warhammer 40.000 instead of Epic: 40.000? Because then yeah, I agree
Yes regular big warhammer. Epic - I can teleport in, air extract out, air assault in with my terminators. 40k - I turn up and die, feel vaguely tough while doing it. Also always fun routing a hundred odd Orks with 30 marines (though you have to use tactics...).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mentlegen324 wrote: Epic being set in the Horus Heresy seems a bit odd. I could understand it for Titanicus as the majority of Titans are Imperial or Chaos with only a few Xenos ones, but limiting Epic to that setting too would be a bigger thing that takes out a large portion of variety. Not to mention there were also rumours a while back of A Heresy BFG game.
The whole Horus Heresy narrative was invented as an excuse so GW could produce Space Marine, a “6mm scaled” game for which they only had to produce models of a single faction
Having heard of how Legendary Epic was I'm intrigued for a re-release to give it a go. The Heresy setting implies the AT and AI are same scale to build up to a Epic game rumors were a bust. Shame as I've got a few AI aircraft I'd like to see go on tank/titan busting runs.
chaos0xomega wrote: It doesn't matter if they are in the background of the setting, they are out of scope.
Background defines the scope of the game. They exist in the setting, asking for them to be playable armies is a reasonable request. As is not playing 30k if GW insists on it being marines-only.
PS: guess what the most common reason I've seen for people not playing 30k is: "Why do I want to play a boring marines-only game".
Its hard for me to justify the idea that 30k took off because of people playing against 40k armies and not because people were playing 30k vs 30k as intended.
Go read the original rulebooks then. It was common enough that GW even included suggestions on how to do it in the 30k books.
Alan Bligh is rolling in his grave. Huge insult to all the people at GW and elsewhere who pour their passion and creativity into making the game and setting what it is. The profit motive/greed of senior leadership has nothing to do with the efforts of those actually doing the work. People really should learn not to miss the trees for the forest when discussing businesses.
Primaris marines and their associated retcons were "senior leadership"? Ugly model designs with no ambition are "senior leadership"? Codices with 90% of the lore stripped out and all of the paintings replaced with copies of the GW website pictures is "senior leadership"?
So your argument against my point is to prove my point? There would be no point to 30k if it had all the same factions as 40k.
Then why did GW publish the Badab War books, which included a campaign with a specific set of armies in it? Was there no point to those books?
Again, it is not an attempt to reinvent the wheel and make a game that is almost exactly like 40k but with minor differences.
And yet 30k was so similar to 40k that GW didn't even bother to include rules for playing the game in the books, they just said "use your 40k rulebooks like any other 40k expansion".
Your argument, essentially, is that Team Yankee and Flames of War are the same game and that its unfair that you can't play your Finnish WW2 army against your mates 1980s West Germans.
No, because once again the missing factions are present in the background. It's like complaining that a WWII game has France and Italy but is missing Germay, Japan, UK, US, etc. You can complain all you like about "scope" but the reality is that game will not be popular with most people and there will be a lot of demands for the missing factions to be added.
Dysartes wrote: Why do you think blast markers hurt E:A, Breotan?
Because they were spiky maybe?
The player base overall didn't like them. Frequent complaints were that the system was too abstract or deviated too far from earlier versions of the game. Jervis commented in an article some time ago lamenting this because he really liked the mechanic, and it does work well for BFG.
Dysartes wrote: Why do you think blast markers hurt E:A, Breotan?
Because they were spiky maybe?
The player base overall didn't like them. Frequent complaints were that the system was too abstract or deviated too far from earlier versions of the game. Jervis commented in an article some time ago lamenting this because he really liked the mechanic, and it does work well for BFG.
This sounds very much like you're conflating comments regarding Epic 40,000 with comments about Epic: Armageddon - BFG ended up being based mechanically on the chassis of the Epic 40,000 rules, while E:A wasn't released for four years after BFG came out.
I don't recall anyone complaining about blast markers as a suppression mechanic on the Epic: Armageddon forums on Fanatic/Specialist Games back then, but given we're talking nearly 20 years ago now, I might be forgetting that. Anecdotally, I also don't recall anyone I played E:A with having any problems with them.
I just feel like I need to interject here and note that a game is intreasting because of the tactics etc at play, not the colour and the shape of the models being pushed about
BrianDavion wrote: I just feel like I need to interject here and note that a game is intreasting because of the tactics etc at play, not the colour and the shape of the models being pushed about
You are [partially] incorrect.
A game is interesting BOTH because of the tactics etc at play AND the color and the shape of the models being pushed about.
As for the people complaining about the possibility of a new version of Epic that would only include Hersey-era units, I agree with those complaints.
Given a choice between a re-released Epic set in the 40k timeline or one set in the 30k timeline, I would very much prefer the former. I don't think that is a controversial opinion.
If GW decided to limit the game to only space marines, knights, and titans, then that would be a worse game in my opinion, all else being equal. I think that the fans of any/all of the previous versions of the game would be feel like GW would be ignoring/subtracting from the previously available content.
It has been 16 years (give or take) since the last new, official Epic models were released. Even at that time, most of the available models no longer matched their 40K counterparts. I would like to see new plastic models translated from the current 40k designs into Epic scale. If the game is set during the Heresy, then I won't get that.
I also think that if GW actually does decide on a 30K setting, then that will effectively prevent them from making a version set in 40k for a very long time. People keep acting like any marines that are made for Heresy can just as easily be used in the 40K setting, but that ignores the fact that all new SM models in 40k these days are Primaris. I know that 'first born' space marines are still present in the current rules/setting of 40K, but that probably won't last forever. If the only new Epic-scaled infantry GW makes in the near future are Heresy-era marines, then that really won't save GW any effort if they decide to move the setting of the game to 40K later on. GW would have to make Primaris Marines for the SM players, and twisted/spikier versions of the Heresy marines for CSM players.
And to address those people claiming that a new version of Epic would require too many SKUs, that's just flat out incorrect. The current version of Necromunda has had a crazy amount of SKUs released. At the scale of Epic, all of the infantry models for a given army would fit on the same number of sprues that contain a ten-man Necromunda gang. That's one box of two identical 'half-sized' sprues for each army. Because many armies re-use vehicle chassis for multiple units, most of an army's vehicles can fit within the same amount of sprue space as the infantry. Sure there are some outliers, but most armies would be sufficiently represented by 3-4 box sets, plus assorted FW gap fillers. The same as Necromunda.
As it is, I think the odds of GW choosing to limit the model line to 30K are about 50/50. They've had 4 years to introduce xenos titans into AT and they haven't done it yet (back in the day of the original game, tanks and infantry were introduced after a month, and xenos within 3 months). That's a point in favor of a 30K setting. However, half of the Aeronautica Imperialis models are xenos, so that's a point in favor of a 40K setting. If they decide on a 40k setting, then all of the AT and AI models are usable. If they decide on a 30K setting, then they've wasted half of the effort they put into AI (although some might argue that they've wasted 100% of the effort put into AI, given the number of times I've seen it played).
BrianDavion wrote: I just feel like I need to interject here and note that a game is intreasting because of the tactics etc at play, not the colour and the shape of the models being pushed about
You are [partially] incorrect.
A game is interesting BOTH because of the tactics etc at play AND the color and the shape of the models being pushed about.
As for the people complaining about the possibility of a new version of Epic that would only include Hersey-era units, I agree with those complaints.
Given a choice between a re-released Epic set in the 40k timeline or one set in the 30k timeline, I would very much prefer the former. I don't think that is a controversial opinion.
If GW decided to limit the game to only space marines, knights, and titans, then that would be a worse game in my opinion, all else being equal. I think that the fans of any/all of the previous versions of the game would be feel like GW would be ignoring/subtracting from the previously available content.
It has been 16 years (give or take) since the last new, official Epic models were released. Even at that time, most of the available models no longer matched their 40K counterparts. I would like to see new plastic models translated from the current 40k designs into Epic scale. If the game is set during the Heresy, then I won't get that.
I also think that if GW actually does decide on a 30K setting, then that will effectively prevent them from making a version set in 40k for a very long time. People keep acting like any marines that are made for Heresy can just as easily be used in the 40K setting, but that ignores the fact that all new SM models in 40k these days are Primaris. I know that 'first born' space marines are still present in the current rules/setting of 40K, but that probably won't last forever. If the only new Epic-scaled infantry GW makes in the near future are Heresy-era marines, then that really won't save GW any effort if they decide to move the setting of the game to 40K later on. GW would have to make Primaris Marines for the SM players, and twisted/spikier versions of the Heresy marines for CSM players.
And to address those people claiming that a new version of Epic would require too many SKUs, that's just flat out incorrect. The current version of Necromunda has had a crazy amount of SKUs released. At the scale of Epic, all of the infantry models for a given army would fit on the same number of sprues that contain a ten-man Necromunda gang. That's one box of two identical 'half-sized' sprues for each army. Because many armies re-use vehicle chassis for multiple units, most of an army's vehicles can fit within the same amount of sprue space as the infantry. Sure there are some outliers, but most armies would be sufficiently represented by 3-4 box sets, plus assorted FW gap fillers. The same as Necromunda.
As it is, I think the odds of GW choosing to limit the model line to 30K are about 50/50. They've had 4 years to introduce xenos titans into AT and they haven't done it yet (back in the day of the original game, tanks and infantry were introduced after a month, and xenos within 3 months). That's a point in favor of a 30K setting. However, half of the Aeronautica Imperialis models are xenos, so that's a point in favor of a 40K setting. If they decide on a 40k setting, then all of the AT and AI models are usable. If they decide on a 30K setting, then they've wasted half of the effort they put into AI (although some might argue that they've wasted 100% of the effort put into AI, given the number of times I've seen it played).
The bolded part is correct for infantry, but not so much for vehicles. Current GW seems to be horrified of undercuts, so their sprues usually have a lot of gak that could have been done away with. Take a look at the AI sprues and you'll see that they actually don't fit that much.... if they were to design all Epic stuff with the same philosophy, we'd get sprues of 3 Leman Russes and the like, and then they'd sell them as they currently sell the AT knights, or maybe three prues per box as armored company deals for however much they'd decide they cost (guessing about 60 euros or so).
Because you can't do undercuts in plastic without expensive and complicated multi-part molds (which GW doesn't use). Standard two-part molds can't do them, period. So you either make something like the AI sprues or you sacrifice detail and make a bunch of ugly vehicle-shaped blobs like the original Epic models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: I just feel like I need to interject here and note that a game is intreasting because of the tactics etc at play, not the colour and the shape of the models being pushed about
Partly. In a game like 40k, where the setting is a huge part of the appeal, having everyone's favorite faction and units is very important. And a huge part of the tactics being interesting is having a game where you have multiple unique factions, not a single faction painted in multiple colors.
Show me the Eldar and Ork rules for Horus Heresy then.
You can't, because they don't exist.
It doesn't matter if they are in the background of the setting, they are out of scope. They do not exist for you to play. You are not an Eldar or an Ork player in Horus Heresy/30k, only in 40k.
Well to be honest 30K is just *fixed 7th edition. all the old codexes from 3rd-7th are cross compatible for orks and eldar. you just have to leave out some named characters that would not be alive at the time. like Ghaz. the eldar however would all still be very much alive. I do not think any player wanting to expand 30K into xenos races that would have been around would have any problem allowing, eldar, dark eldar and orks into the setting. heck the rare necron could be a thing to.
GW has no creative vision.
Alan Bligh is rolling in his grave. Huge insult to all the people at GW and elsewhere who pour their passion and creativity into making the game and setting what it is. The profit motive/greed of senior leadership has nothing to do with the efforts of those actually doing the work. People really should learn not to miss the trees for the forest when discussing businesses.
I agree that CURRENT GW is not the GW that built 40K-look back to the 90's and early 2000's. Rick Priestly, Andy Chambers, etc... were really good at writing rules, and also really LOVED the universe they created as well. the fact of the matter is that the game DEVs were always fighting a battle against the marketing department and management. After they all moved on to other things The game design team lost the battle for the heart and soul of 40K .
That does not mean however that we have to give in. No matter what the company is currently doing we can play 40K any way we like -old editions, 30K, epic etc....we do not need upper management for rules sets to use.
Because you can't do undercuts in plastic without expensive and complicated multi-part molds (which GW doesn't use). Standard two-part molds can't do them, period. So you either make something like the AI sprues or you sacrifice detail and make a bunch of ugly vehicle-shaped blobs like the original Epic models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: I just feel like I need to interject here and note that a game is intreasting because of the tactics etc at play, not the colour and the shape of the models being pushed about
Partly. In a game like 40k, where the setting is a huge part of the appeal, having everyone's favorite faction and units is very important. And a huge part of the tactics being interesting is having a game where you have multiple unique factions, not a single faction painted in multiple colors.
What I meant is more that they absolutely have to have all the undercuts in the world, and for that their minis now are made of a feth ton of parts, and occupy X times the plastic sprue realspace it did before.
If they didn't absolutely had to have all the undercuts, they could probably have sprues with twice or three times the models.
BrianDavion wrote: I just feel like I need to interject here and note that a game is intreasting because of the tactics etc at play, not the colour and the shape of the models being pushed about
I think you're being reductive. If that's all you want, pass a piece of graph paper and a pencil back and forth between players. Or if that's too simple, step up to old Avalon Hill map and token games.
Albertorius wrote: What I meant is more that they absolutely have to have all the undercuts in the world, and for that their minis now are made of a feth ton of parts, and occupy X times the plastic sprue realspace it did before.
If they didn't absolutely had to have all the undercuts, they could probably have sprues with twice or three times the models.
I think it remains to be seen what level of detail GW will be comfortable with when it comes to Epic-scaled infantry and AVs.
The current AT models seem like as much of an appeal to people who like assembling Gundams as it is to people who want to play a tabletop wargame. And the level of detail on the planes in AI may be simply due to GWwanting to have one sprue per model type, because otherwise the game system would only have one box set per faction. Those factors could be driving the level of detail in those models. Add in the fact that, in those game systems, players do not need a high model count, so if it takes hours to assemble one model, that is okay.
Because Epic is a game with a much higher model count, and the models used need to be viable as game pieces more than they need to be perfect scale models, I expect that there will be a trade-off between the number of parts in a model and the number of models that are expected to be used in a game. The more models that you need to play the game, the fewer assembly steps each model will require.
As for how many of each model that could fit on a sprue, Epic-scaled AVs are generally smaller than most AI planes or AT knights. I think you could fit 5 Leman Russes on a single 'half-sized' sprue with all of the weapon options included to make the most common variants (or have a mix of Russes and Chimeras). Eldar and Tau can be handled in a similar fashion. Orcs could probably get a sprue with a bunch of random hulls for battle wagons and buggies with interchangeable tracks and wheels all on one sprue.
Realistically, I think each army would need:
- 1 infantry sprue
- 1 light vehicle sprue
- 1 armored vehicle sprue
- 1 war engine sprue
If that's approaching too many SKUs, then you could put AI branding on all of the planes and AT branding on all of the titan-like stuff. Because apparently GW is okay with having a bajillion different game systems. FW would pick up the rest of the slack.
GW has demonstrated in the recent past that they are perfectly comfortable producing loads of high-detail, low sales-volume products. I think that the amount of effort needed to produce a new version of Epic would only be a small fraction of their production capacity.
I think that the biggest negative factor for GW is that Epic doesn't share the same scale as 40k. When it comes to Necromunda, Warcry, Warhammer Quest, etc - GW knows that some non-zero number of sales of those products are to people intending to use models in one of their other game systems. All of the effort that GW pours into terrain kits for the minor box games is to done with the full knowledge that the terrain will be compatible across the entire GW range. That fact does not apply to anything that GW makes at Epic-scale, meaning that 2 or 3 games that use that scale will always be a small, isolated subset of GWs range. That fact alone could keep Epic from being re-relesaed, more than any other reason.
BrianDavion wrote: I just feel like I need to interject here and note that a game is intreasting because of the tactics etc at play, not the colour and the shape of the models being pushed about
You are [partially] incorrect.
A game is interesting BOTH because of the tactics etc at play AND the color and the shape of the models being pushed about.
I play a lot of Command & Colours games, it has wooden blocks for units. The colour and shape isn't interesting, yet I still play it... as do a great deal of people as it is a very popular wargame.
Also see Kreigspeil.
I think that the shape and colour of the models/pieces used is more important for those who are after the spectacle, or trying to recapture that Holywood epic battle scene from a film.
Where as those who don't put too much emphasis upon that aspect care more about the tactics.
Epic, being the small scale it is, is more suited to the later camp. Those who want the grand tactical planning of a large conflict over a big area.
I think the handicap for Epic Armageddon was that it wasn't treated like a main game (it was the only edition of Epic not to come with a box set release IIRC) - you get out what you put in from a marketing and sales perspective, and so the game performed accordingly. It not being cheap either meant one of Epic's historic big advantages over 40k (large volumes of infantry and tanks at a very cheap cost) was lost as well.
Albertorius wrote: What I meant is more that they absolutely have to have all the undercuts in the world, and for that their minis now are made of a feth ton of parts, and occupy X times the plastic sprue realspace it did before.
If they didn't absolutely had to have all the undercuts, they could probably have sprues with twice or three times the models.
Albertorius wrote: What I meant is more that they absolutely have to have all the undercuts in the world, and for that their minis now are made of a feth ton of parts, and occupy X times the plastic sprue realspace it did before.
If they didn't absolutely had to have all the undercuts, they could probably have sprues with twice or three times the models.
And models with half the quality. No thanks.
Pretty debatable, that, but hey, to each their own.
Alan Bligh is rolling in his grave. Huge insult to all the people at GW and elsewhere who pour their passion and creativity into making the game and setting what it is. The profit motive/greed of senior leadership has nothing to do with the efforts of those actually doing the work. People really should learn not to miss the trees for the forest when discussing businesses.
Alan Bligh, if he moves at all, is given greater angular velocity by the follies of that senior leadership, and the derivative and uninspired rubbish produced by his successors, than by any of our meager "insults". Not that I think Bligh deserves any kind of canonization or special treatment as some kind of grand visionary.
Just how much "quality" do you want for a wargame in this miniscule of a scale? I've never looked at an Epic vehicle and gone "You know what this needs? More rivet detail and individually rendered stowage!" but maybe I'm the weirdo for thinking the old pre-E40k plastic space marine Rhinos were perfectly adequate.
If you like low-detail lumps of plastic that come in fewer pieces I guess you have the right to poor taste.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agamemnon2 wrote: Just how much "quality" do you want for a wargame in this miniscule of a scale? I've never looked at an Epic vehicle and gone "You know what this needs? More rivet detail and individually rendered stowage!" but maybe I'm the weirdo for thinking the old pre-E40k plastic space marine Rhinos were perfectly adequate.
Look at the old FW Epic stuff. That's the standard GW needs to exceed for Epic 2.0, but with fewer casting flaws. The new Aeronautica Imperialis kits have shown that it can be done and anything less is unacceptable.
Well, you're not asking for much then, are you? I still think it's entirely a fool's errand and the demand for Epic is simply not there for them to do it. Nothing I've seen in this misguided thread has changed my mind.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Well, you're not asking for much then, are you? I still think it's entirely a fool's errand and the demand for Epic is simply not there for them to do it. Nothing I've seen in this misguided thread has changed my mind.
Given that GW has already demonstrated the ability to do what I want, nope, not asking for much. Just treating Epic like a real game and not having the intern's kid throw some models together over the weekend.
Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Some things are genuine lightning-in-a-bottle moments that could never occur again. I'm sure that modern gaming culture, for example, with its emphasis on optimization and competitive play, would mean that the play experience of any potential future edition of Epic would be far different (and IMO far inferior) to past ones, no matter how cunning the artifice used in its creation.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Some things are genuine lightning-in-a-bottle moments that could never occur again. I'm sure that modern gaming culture, for example, with its emphasis on optimization and competitive play, would mean that the play experience of any potential future edition of Epic would be far different (and IMO far inferior) to past ones, no matter how cunning the artifice used in its creation.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here? My comments were strictly about the models (specifically simple models on compact sprues vs. complex models with full detail, multiple pieces to handle undercuts, etc) and had nothing to do with the rules.
CadianSgtBob wrote: If you like low-detail lumps of plastic that come in fewer pieces I guess you have the right to poor taste.
Sure, thanks! I'll leave you to your plastic gunk-encrusted fingers due to having to glue way too many minuscule parts on minuscule vehicles
Get better at building models I guess? It's not that hard.
You might wanna 1) check your sarcasm meter, it seems to be broken and 2) take another look at the post
Also, you might want to take into account one fact: vehicles, and more specifically, Epic scale vehicles, don't really need any kind of detail whatsoever on the underside. That allows for a lot of detail in the side that matters without needing that many parts. If they so choose.
Flying planes and titans are one thing, tanks another altogether. But I'm sure there's only insanely detailed with millions of pieces and unformed plastic blobs, and nothing at all in between, so what do I know.
Albertorius wrote: You might wanna 1) check your sarcasm meter, it seems to be broken and 2) take another look at the post
Oh hey, you do understand the point of high-detail models. I'm not sure why you're complaining about GW making models like those instead of vaguely tank-shaped blobs of plastic?
PS: it's pretty dishonest to edit your post after someone has replied to it and then pretend they missed the thing you edited in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albertorius wrote: Also, you might want to take into account one fact: vehicles, and more specifically, Epic scale vehicles, don't really need any kind of detail whatsoever on the underside. That allows for a lot of detail in the side that matters without needing that many parts. If they so choose.
It's not just the bottom (and in fact the AI kits don't need many additional parts to cover that), it's the top and sides that are difficult. Parts like the exhaust pipes on the Rhinos and Predators would have to be separate pieces, and even the detail on the armor plates would require doing the base hull in multiple pieces.
Albertorius wrote: You might wanna 1) check your sarcasm meter, it seems to be broken and 2) take another look at the post
Oh hey, you do understand the point of high-detail models. I'm not sure why you're complaining about GW making models like those instead of vaguely tank-shaped blobs of plastic?
PS: it's pretty dishonest to edit your post after someone has replied to it and then pretend they missed the thing you edited in.
Is it? I did not infer you missed it, just that I edited it
As to the point, such as it is, you might want to take into account one fact: vehicles, and more specifically, Epic scale vehicles, don't really need any kind of detail whatsoever on the underside. That allows for a lot of detail in the side that matters without needing that many parts. If they so choose.
Flying planes and titans are one thing, tanks another altogether. But I'm sure there's only insanely detailed with millions of pieces and unformed plastic blobs, and nothing at all in between, so what do I know.
Just to be clear, what I'm "complaining" about is to the idea that you need to have tens of pieces to get that level of detail. You do not. Most of those details are on a single plane, and the underside is completely bare. You don't need that many pieces unless you're insanely scared of missing a single undercut.
Albertorius wrote: As to the point, such as it is, you might want to take into account one fact: vehicles, and more specifically, Epic scale vehicles, don't really need any kind of detail whatsoever on the underside. That allows for a lot of detail in the side that matters without needing that many parts. If they so choose.
Albertorius wrote: Also, you might want to take into account one fact: vehicles, and more specifically, Epic scale vehicles, don't really need any kind of detail whatsoever on the underside. That allows for a lot of detail in the side that matters without needing that many parts. If they so choose.
It's not just the bottom (and in fact the AI kits don't need many additional parts to cover that), it's the top and sides that are difficult. Parts like the exhaust pipes on the Rhinos and Predators would have to be separate pieces, and even the detail on the armor plates would require doing the base hull in multiple pieces.
Flying planes and titans are one thing, tanks another altogether. But I'm sure there's only insanely detailed with millions of pieces and unformed plastic blobs, and nothing at all in between, so what do I know.
You don't seem to know much about injection molded plastic kit design. Simple kits like you're describing would look like garbage next to those 3d printed models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most of those details are on a single plane
Some are. Some aren't. Just to do that basic Rhino you'd need two side hull parts, two track parts, a front plate, four exhaust parts, two bolter parts. That's 11 parts already and I'm accepting a slight loss of detail for things like the holes in the exhaust pipes getting warped into oval shapes to avoid undercuts. I suspect that if an actual mold designer started trying to break down that tank the number would go up considerably.
CadianSgtBob wrote: You don't seem to know much about injection molded plastic kit design. Simple kits like you're describing would look like garbage next to those 3d printed models.
Oh, I'm pretty sure I do. But carry on.
Most of those details are on a single plane
Some are. Some aren't. Just to do that basic Rhino you'd need two side hull parts, two track parts, a front plate, four exhaust parts, two bolter parts. That's 11 parts already and I'm accepting a slight loss of detail for things like the holes in the exhaust pipes getting warped into oval shapes to avoid undercuts. I suspect that if an actual mold designer started trying to break down that tank the number would go up considerably.
That tells me everything I need to know about your position. 11 parts at the very least per single Rhino. Noted. Carry on.
And yet somehow you can't recognize undercuts and places where a model would need to be separated into multiple pieces.
11 parts at the very least per single Rhino.
If you want models that look good, yes. If you want garbage then you can do it in 1-2 pieces but I have no idea why anyone would want to buy them when even low-end 3d printed stuff looks better.
And yet somehow you can't recognize undercuts and places where a model would need to be separated into multiple pieces.
11 parts at the very least per single Rhino.
If you want models that look good, yes. If you want garbage then you can do it in 1-2 pieces but I have no idea why anyone would want to buy them when even low-end 3d printed stuff looks better.
11 parts for an Epic scaled Rhino... are you serious?
The old Epic Rhinos were 1 piece, and they look fine. A good paint job and they look fantastic.
I'll put my vote in for "make some design compromises so that the sprue can be packed full of models."
The old ones were done in 1996, I imagine if they were done now even using the exact same method the detail would be a bit sharper, the models would also be larger which would allow better detail (these Rhinos were 22mm long, using the 1/4 40k scale they'd be ~29mm long).
But these look pretty much fine to me, maybe the sides of the tanks could be separate, but having 2x Land Raiders 2x Whirlwinds and 4x Rhinos on a single small sprue that wasn't as densely packed as modern sprues was a big plus and meant most of a Space Marine army could be made with multiples of the infantry and vehicle sprues, which was less moulds than what is typical of a single squad these days.
chaos0xomega wrote: It doesn't matter if they are in the background of the setting, they are out of scope.
Background defines the scope of the game.
No it doesn't. Not even remotely. GTFO with that. Tau, Necrons, Tyranids, Astartes, etc. all exist in the background of Necromunda, it does not mean that those are in scope for Necromunda.
PS: guess what the most common reason I've seen for people not playing 30k is: "Why do I want to play a boring marines-only game".
Guess what the common sense solution to that problem is: "Play Warhammer 40k".
Go read the original rulebooks then. It was common enough that GW even included suggestions on how to do it in the 30k books.
I wouldn't consider statements saying "we don't recommend doing this but if you must you should probably make these changes" to really be "suggestions". They certainly made no statements and offered no "suggestions" about which 40k factions would be era appropriate nor how to field them in a manner that would be reflective of their status in the 31st millennium.
Primaris marines and their associated retcons were "senior leadership"? Ugly model designs with no ambition are "senior leadership"? Codices with 90% of the lore stripped out and all of the paintings replaced with copies of the GW website pictures is "senior leadership"?
Uh, yeah. Actually. Everything that you described is basically directed by senior leadership and upper management. Go read James Hewitts interviews for a rundown of how GW operates and how these decisions get made. These aren't things coming out of the design studio.
Then why did GW publish the Badab War books, which included a campaign with a specific set of armies in it? Was there no point to those books?
I'm really not understanding what point you're trying to make by repeatedly invoking 40k expansions in this discussion. The Badab War books might have been a themed campaign, like all Imperial Armour publications, but the rules were 100% intended and compatible for general use in 40k. This is an entirely different story from 30k which is and always has been intended as an entirely separate game.
And yet 30k was so similar to 40k that GW didn't even bother to include rules for playing the game in the books, they just said "use your 40k rulebooks like any other 40k expansion".
You keep saying that, but that isn't entirely true. The "Age of Darkness Battles" section of Betrayal included the necessary modifications to the core rules and - imagine that, includes a list of all the factions available to play... none of them are from 40k.
In any case, its irrelevant. One game spinning off of another is not a justification for a forced linkage of the two in perpetuity. Early Rogue Trader rules were based on Warhammer Fantasy, a number of publications (like the old Realm of Chaos books) included rules for both games, and a number of models/factions were available for use in both WHFB and 40k. Clearly then, I should be allowed to take a Leman Russ to battle against my friends Dark Elf army. Hell, AoS (and by extension WHFB/The Old World) are linked to the 40k galaxy via the warp, ergo I should be free to bring Tyranids against my friends Stormcast, and I can't wait for my Necrons to tear it up versus everyones armies for the Old World once GW gets around to it.
No, because once again the missing factions are present in the background.
You mean like how the missing factions in 30k are present in the background? Glad we're on the same page finally, thanks for finally acknowledging that you don't need Eldar and Orks in Horus Heresy because they are out of scope for the game, in much the same way that various nations and factions are out of scope in Flames of War and Team Yankee because of their non-belligerent/neutral status, etc.
That does not mean however that we have to give in. No matter what the company is currently doing we can play 40K any way we like -old editions, 30K, epic etc....we do not need upper management for rules sets to use.
If thats the case then go grab your old 6th edition Ork Codex or whatever and go find someone that wants to play against you with their Horus Heresy Space Marine Legion army. I mean the other guy insists that Horus Heresy is just 6th or 7th edition anyway, so clearly there shouldn't be any issues and you don't need GW to produce anything for you if you have everything you need.
That's a lot of words to say "all I care about is my boring as hell red marines fighting blue marines and you don't deserve to play my game". Sorry, but the reality is that the vast majority of what made 30k popular was playing it as a 40k expansion and using the models in 40k armies. If it had been a separate game with no compatibility with normal 40k it would have died on release and that would have been the end of it.
stonehorse wrote: 11 parts for an Epic scaled Rhino... are you serious?
The old Epic Rhinos were 1 piece, and they look fine. A good paint job and they look fantastic.
They look fine if you have low standards. I don't.
Have you actually played a game of Epic? The models are tiny and you have tons of them, you aren't counting rivets on individual Rhinos.
I like detailed models, but detail should marry up with the scale of the game being played. A 6mm or 8mm scale mass combat game isn't the place for expensive models that are time consuming to assemble and paint.
If we were talking about a 15mm game or hell even a 10mm game, or an 8mm game with larger but fewer models (AT or AI for example) then it's a different story.
Of course you're welcome to like what you want to like, more power to you. I, for one, am happy if they release it in a way that doesn't cost a fortune to build an army, and we actually get more than 1 army to play with.
Might I suggest if you want a high detail Epic army, 3D printing might be the better answer, that way you can have things like circular vent holes all the way around your Deimos Rhino exhaust stacks without needing them to be made from 4 pieces each
I like detailed models, but detail should marry up with the scale of the game being played. A 6mm or 8mm scale mass combat game isn't the place for expensive models that are time consuming to assemble and paint.
*looks up from my pile of individually converted legionaires and dioramic bases*
Pacific wrote: I think the handicap for Epic Armageddon was that it wasn't treated like a main game (it was the only edition of Epic not to come with a box set release IIRC) - you get out what you put in from a marketing and sales perspective, and so the game performed accordingly. It not being cheap either meant one of Epic's historic big advantages over 40k (large volumes of infantry and tanks at a very cheap cost) was lost as well.
In conversation with Jervis he said they were taken aback at the popularity. At launch it sold 400% of what Warmaster did total.
*looks up from my pile of individually converted legionaires and dioramic bases*
... oi! :'D
It is all about the diorama bases.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want the whole Space Marine codex options, that is loads. Hell just Primaris or tinys is loads. Buuuut actual fielded units are a lot less.
Even if you want to make the current Epic A force in plastic you have a lot of rarely taken or redundant options.
Currently all the options are
Marine with bolter
Marine with heavy weapon
Marine with jump pack
Scout
Terminator
Officer
Chaplain
Librarian
Attack Bike (not often used)
Bike
Dreadnaught (Ranged OR close)
Rhino
Rhino - Razorback
Rhino - AA Rhino - Predator AT Rhino - Predator AP Rhino - Vindicator
Rhino - Whirlwind
Land Raider
Land Speeder
Land Speeder alt weapon fits (rarely used)
Landing Craft
Spaceships (as BFG isn't in production)
Then of course you can add sergeants, special weapons etc etc.
But with todays tech no reason why every tiny guy can't have different poses and weapons.
I would love an Epic A release with pre-set 4000 point ish balanced armies that you could pick 2000-3000 point forces from. So complex manufacturing codes potentially, but stocking wise limited Skus and a defined shelf life when the average collector will have got them all. Then make a bunch direct only, keep the 2 main sellers in stock and rotate the third one through and stick it back on life support.
stonehorse wrote: 11 parts for an Epic scaled Rhino... are you serious?
The old Epic Rhinos were 1 piece, and they look fine. A good paint job and they look fantastic.
They look fine if you have low standards. I don't.
I don't have low standards, I just have a limited amount of time to devote to hobbying.
Quite a while ago, FW produced a limited-release set of epic-scaled 3-part gray knight space marines (in resin). They were much more detailed than the stock epic marines (not hard to do because those hadn't changed since 2nd edition), but they were totally impractical as gaming pieces. They function as collector's pieces, but not much else.
I am of the opinion that the current AT and AI models [and current 40k and AoS models] are too detailed. Assembling each individual model takes forever and the functionality of the models as game pieces is actually decreased due to all of the small protrudy-bits that are prone to breakage. If epic infantry are multi-part and epic vehicle consist of 6+ parts just for the main chassis, then the amount of time that it would take to assembled the required number of infantry stands and assorted vehicles necessary for a normal-sized epic army would be prohibitive.
GW has the ability to produce sufficiently detailed 2- or 3-part push-fit 28-mm scale models for their specialist box games, I don't see why doing the same for Epic-scale vehicles would be out of the question.
semajnollissor wrote: I don't have low standards, I just have a limited amount of time to devote to hobbying.
That's low standards. You have a severe time constraint so you're willing to accept poor quality models if it means you can build them faster.
Quite a while ago, FW produced a limited-release set of epic-scaled 3-part gray knight space marines (in resin). They were much more detailed than the stock epic marines (not hard to do because those hadn't changed since 2nd edition), but they were totally impractical as gaming pieces. They function as collector's pieces, but not much else.
Nah, those marines were 100% practical as gaming pieces. The only issue was FW's inability to cast the epic stuff without major flaws on ever piece, if I could guarantee flawless casting on everything I'd be perfectly happy to build an entire army with those multi-part marines.
GW has the ability to produce sufficiently detailed 2- or 3-part push-fit 28-mm scale models for their specialist box games, I don't see why doing the same for Epic-scale vehicles would be out of the question.
It should be out of the question because those push-fit models look like garbage next to real models. They're tolerable in an intro game meant for children, they're not something I'm ever going to spend money on in a real game.
I haven't played Epic but I've painted a few of the models, and I've played Aeronautica Imperialis which used the same models. High detail models work just fine and a good painter can absolutely make use of that detail.
Might I suggest if you want a high detail Epic army, 3D printing might be the better answer, that way you can have things like circular vent holes all the way around your Deimos Rhino exhaust stacks without needing them to be made from 4 pieces each
It shouldn't be the answer. If GW can't match the quality of amateur 3d printing with all the money and design expertise they have it's time for them to quit and hand the industry over to someone else.
I haven't played Epic but I've painted a few of the models, and I've played Aeronautica Imperialis which used the same models. High detail models work just fine and a good painter can absolutely make use of that detail.
I specifically mentioned AI as an exception because aircraft models are large and the game doesn't need many of them to play.
An Epic army you'll be rocking up with 10's of tanks, 100's of infantry, etc.
Might I suggest if you want a high detail Epic army, 3D printing might be the better answer, that way you can have things like circular vent holes all the way around your Deimos Rhino exhaust stacks without needing them to be made from 4 pieces each
It shouldn't be the answer. If GW can't match the quality of amateur 3d printing with all the money and design expertise they have it's time for them to quit and hand the industry over to someone else.
That wasn't really my point, what GW "can" do and "should" do are two separate things. GW "can" make 20 piece Rhinos that are superdetailed and all the undercuts modelled that are expensive and difficult to build and require them to manufacture 20 sprues to make a single army. Should they do that? Yeah, nah, I don't think so.
Also, FW Aeronautica masters ARE 3D printed, and they don't look massively better than amateur printed ones (which you can either take as a compliment to the high quality of amatuer printed ones or an insult at the poor quality of FW Aeronautica models ).
I like detailed models, but detail should marry up with the scale of the game being played. A 6mm or 8mm scale mass combat game isn't the place for expensive models that are time consuming to assemble and paint.
*looks up from my pile of individually converted legionaires and dioramic bases*
... oi! :'D
Dioramic bases are cool... but how are you converting individual epic scale legionaries? If you're hacking up and gluing back together 6mm models you may have missed your calling as a neurosurgeon
Regarding the multipart models, there’s a difference between doing them as part of a diorama or base decoration for Titanicus, and having to do an entire army of them consisting of hundreds of individual models. I feel that this is also one of the things that kinda killed WHFB and that game was in “28mm” scale.
I like detailed models, but detail should marry up with the scale of the game being played. A 6mm or 8mm scale mass combat game isn't the place for expensive models that are time consuming to assemble and paint.
*looks up from my pile of individually converted legionaires and dioramic bases*
... oi! :'D
Dioramic bases are cool... but how are you converting individual epic scale legionaries? If you're hacking up and gluing back together 6mm models you may have missed your calling as a neurosurgeon
...with a knife ? It's not that much harder despite the scale, though putting too much glue in and drowning the details is a risk. For example:
A librarian with a head and arm swap.
Deathshroud terminators (okay, these were fiddly as f...).
Nah, those marines were 100% practical as gaming pieces. The only issue was FW's inability to cast the epic stuff without major flaws on ever piece, if I could guarantee flawless casting on everything I'd be perfectly happy to build an entire army with those multi-part marines.
The grey knights? You are insane. I have an army of them, I doubt any have their halberds still attached.
That's a lot of words to say "all I care about is my boring as hell red marines fighting blue marines and you don't deserve to play my game". Sorry, but the reality is that the vast majority of what made 30k popular was playing it as a 40k expansion and using the models in 40k armies. If it had been a separate game with no compatibility with normal 40k it would have died on release and that would have been the end of it.
Whatever you have to tell yourself at night while you sob yourself to sleep clutching your xenos waifu pillow. I think we all know that Horus Heresy was popular enough on its own merit, what with Space Marine players alone accounting for something like 30% of GWs sales, and that loose compatibility with 40k was a secondary feature that was a "nice to have" for some but irrelevant for most that invested deeply into it.
chaos0xomega wrote: Whatever you have to tell yourself at night while you sob yourself to sleep clutching your xenos waifu pillow.
Nice to know we can stay civil in a discussion about extra tiny toy soldiers in a game that hasn't even been released and doesn't even have any genuine rumours.
Agreed. The discussion of scale is irrelevent at this point. Epic has not been announced to be talking about it in detail.
As for the heated arguments, we're on a forum where the moderaters give us more leeway than most others. Its good of them to do that so lets be mature going forward and thus worthy of that leeway.
Personally I think the 30k setting is... least interesting. 40k and 41k have a lot more to offer in terms of stories and adventure.
... and well... with Craftworld Eldar and Tau among my favourite fleets... xenos must be part
To whatever said that about low standards and miniatures must be better:
Any examples of what you consider high standard miniatures for epic?
(Images pleasy)
Don't think there is anything wrong with the humble classic GW mk1 Rhino!
I think so far I've finished about 40+ of these little guys for my force with more to come. They are still cheap to get hold of as they sold in the tens of thousands and they paint up quickly - not sure what would have happened if I had had to assemble a multi-part kit for something this tiny! (I guess I would be fielding a lot less. I agree one of the appeals of Epic is you can smash out companies of stuff in no time, although on the other side I do love to see people super-detailing and converting too!)
SamusDrake wrote: Agreed. The discussion of scale is irrelevent at this point. Epic has not been announced to be talking about it in detail.
As for the heated arguments, we're on a forum where the moderaters give us more leeway than most others. Its good of them to do that so lets be mature going forward and thus worthy of that leeway.
I must say, Pacific, seeing those old Rhinos brings back memories of my first brush strokes in the early 90s. I was about 13 back then and...pffff had no idea at all. One thick coat, naturally!
Pacific wrote: Don't think there is anything wrong with the humble classic GW mk1 Rhino!
I think so far I've finished about 40+ of these little guys for my force with more to come. They are still cheap to get hold of as they sold in the tens of thousands and they paint up quickly - not sure what would have happened if I had had to assemble a multi-part kit for something this tiny! (I guess I would be fielding a lot less. I agree one of the appeals of Epic is you can smash out companies of stuff in no time, although on the other side I do love to see people super-detailing and converting too!)
Spoiler:
They're a good match for the Rhinos that existed at the time also.
I think these days, a 3 piece Rhino would make sense, one for the middle then 1 for each side, simply because modern rhinos have more detail and overhangs on their sides that wouldn't be possible in a single piece. The way modern GW sprues are laid out, that would still allow for a single "tank sprue" that has multiples of 3 or 4 varieties of tank.
But I think if they start breaking it down further than that (4 separate pieces for the exhausts, separate pieces for the hatches and so on) then it starts to become excessive.
Yes I think that would probably be reasonable AllSeeingSkink - just a bit of modular detail, but keep them as an easy construction and straightforward to make in volume.
I think in all honesty (and sounding like a stuck record now) this is the only modern Epic we are likely to get; 2-3 sprues with a number of different infantry and tank options, a decal set thrown in on the side. Would be a quick one-and-done for GW, nostalgia buyers and even Heresy fans who are too young for Epic or didn't try first time around would jump straight in. It would be low risk for GW and I would be very surprised if they don't try it.
SamusDrake wrote: I must say, Pacific, seeing those old Rhinos brings back memories of my first brush strokes in the early 90s. I was about 13 back then and...pffff had no idea at all. One thick coat, naturally!
I will say a lot of the Rhinos I've got hold of 2nd hand have looked very similar! Giving them a new coat of paint and a fresh lease of life now
Sherrypie wrote: There were once very intricate forumware Tyranids with separate limbs. They are utter madness to assemble and keep intact over time.
I have a crate of thousand sons forumware that I must get around too soon. The deepest level hell is just a room with the guy that deigned the those separate marine backpacks!
Crossposting from the Titanicus thread since I forget there was a thread for it:
Take with a pinch of salt, but I heard from a trusted (but not necessarily reliable) source that the Epic reboot is real. No timeline offered other than assurances that they knew it to be coming in the near future. This takes me from the "Epic rumors are made up bs, stop wasting my time" camp into the "this is happening" camp.
For clarity - source is ex-GW corporate management, probably 20 years removed. Still well connected with GW staff, including folks in the design studio - they are on a first name basis with many names at GW that folks might recognize, and speaks and visits with many of them semi-regularly. Has whispered rumors to me in the past, many of which turned out to be true or "true", but quite a few which turned out to be not be as well. In general, their rumors are "broad brushstrokes" rather than specifics, so I don't know anything else beyond "epic reboot is being worked on and coming soon" - if they had details about inclusion of infantry, vehicles, etc. they would not say one way or another, etc. Just wait and see.
I thought that epic armagedon did come in a starterbox it contained spacemarines, orks and the rulebook. Later swordwind came out for steellegion, feral-orks and eldar lists.
The above seems to be falls. But i have no memory buying the 3 edition, because i dont have the rulebooks but i do have the models and the 2 books that came out as a 4the edition.
I still cal me a stupid for traiding the ork half for more spacemarines.
3d printing can give you a lot of detail without having to do multi part models.
It would be a nighmare to compose multipart infatrie models.
with all the signs and references to an epic remake: I don't believe it until it's officially announced. I just can't imagine how GW wants to make money with such a system, with all the third-party manufacturers. Titanicus, Aeronautica, BFG, ... ok, they have enough unique selling points and still enough competition with 3D printers, but tanks and soldiers...?
Yes Overread although a lot of the independently produced 3D print miniatures are pretty much exactly the same as their 28mm official counterparts, I don't think you can even call them proxies, as you would for Vanguard or Onslaught Miniatures. And at the small scale there are only so many differences possible.
You have to also think that stuff like 3D printing, fan-supported rules and even coming onto sites like Dakka are only for people really invested into the hobby. There are a much larger group of casual gamers who just go into a GW store, an FLGS or whatever and just pickup what is on the shelf. They don't know enough about the 3rd party stuff or perhaps have the time or inclination to do anything other than buy new and shrink-wrapped from GW. So for those people, an official release will be great because it will make a lot of people at a scale (I think the best one! that they might otherwise not.
This is partly why I am running an Epic intro event. There is a whole generation now who haven't even seen an Epic game released officially, or maybe even know of its existence. Or who have never played such a great ruleset as Epic, so I hope to give people an opportunity to see the game in action and give it a try themselves.
I, for one, hope epic is never resurrected. I like it being dead without the corruption of power creep and pay to win. I have a nice printer and willing to lose every game based solely on my own incompetence, thank you very much.
I have found a lot of vehicles you can proxy but i did not find good infantrie. Have seen a lot of metal mini's but they where bad castings.
you can say a lot of gw prices but they make the best minatures. even the old epic mini's are better then those that company's sell today.
I can definitely vouch for Vanguard Miniatures Skeleton - I have spent probably £hundreds on their infantry and tanks, I don't think I have had to throw away a single little guy (just the odd broken one because of my clumsy fingers!)
Doktor_G I know what you mean about the power creep and rule changes. You just have to look at what is happening with new 40kFAQs or even with the new HH release, where suddenly people have armies or units (that cost hundreds) that they suddenly can't use anymore and are waiting for a new release. Even with Blood Bowl, I had to change my team, that ruleset survived so many years with no support and is perfectly fine. There is an element of "please just leave it the feth alone"!
skeleton wrote: I have found a lot of vehicles you can proxy but i did not find good infantrie. Have seen a lot of metal mini's but they where bad castings.
you can say a lot of gw prices but they make the best minatures. even the old epic mini's are better then those that company's sell today.
Vanguard Miniatures is the place to be for decent infantry and vehicles
Thinking about a relaunched version of Epic, I was listening to a Podcast the other day about Imperius Dominatus, and wondered why don't GW just get Peter Ramos and David McDonald's version of the rules and just use those under license?
- Both of those guys have been involved with Epic since its creation, they understand what the system is about, what works and what doesn't.
- They created NetEpic, which is quite possibly the most enduring version of the game globally.
- They have created a system with all of the modern 40k units (so Primaris, new SM vehicles, everything) and come up with a formula-based system to create accurate points values and balancing.
- It's a 'modern' game: D10 system, lack of overblown special rules and a logical/intuitive set of mechanics. It looks and feels like what Epic should be if it were designed and built from the ground up in the modern era.
I know there is probably more chance of Rick Priestley returning to helm 40k and completely overhaul the rules, but something like this, to me, would make absolutely perfect sense and be such a good 'fit' for everyone involved. And most importantly the players.
Pacific wrote: Thinking about a relaunched version of Epic, I was listening to a Podcast the other day about Imperius Dominatus, and wondered why don't GW just get Peter Ramos and David McDonald's version of the rules and just use those under license?
- Both of those guys have been involved with Epic since its creation, they understand what the system is about, what works and what doesn't.
- They created NetEpic, which is quite possibly the most enduring version of the game globally.
- They have created a system with all of the modern 40k units (so Primaris, new SM vehicles, everything) and come up with a formula-based system to create accurate points values and balancing.
- It's a 'modern' game: D10 system, lack of overblown special rules and a logical/intuitive set of mechanics. It looks and feels like what Epic should be if it were designed and built from the ground up in the modern era.
I know there is probably more chance of Rick Priestley returning to helm 40k and completely overhaul the rules, but something like this, to me, would make absolutely perfect sense and be such a good 'fit' for everyone involved. And most importantly the players.
Could you provide a link to said podcast please?
As for the rest, licensing is a fickle beast, and i don't think that GW is willing to buy whole system that they ultimately don't hold all the rights to. They've been burned by licensing going awry in the past, and now it just isn't something they engage in.
Systems outside of D6 and combinations thereof also run counter to their core principles, and piling special rules on top of each other is pretty much their current design philosophy. An elegant system that relies on profiles and player skill to differentiate between armies and units is not what they want, it's not 'flashy' enough and does not lend itself to 'cinematic' moments in the way they prefer.
Yes I agree they probably won't do it. When we are sat here looking at some bastard system of Armageddon and Epic 40k with all of the tactical elements removed (so they can be included in future supplements) we will be wishing that they had got someone else involved. But they probably won't.
Yes I agree they probably won't do it. When we are sat here looking at some bastard system of Armageddon and Epic 40k with all of the tactical elements removed (so they can be included in future supplements) we will be wishing that they had got someone else involved. But they probably won't.
Thanks for that, i'll have a look where i can get it.
Pardon the Necro, but there are news about a potential re-release of Epic; rumourmonger Chaptermaster Valrak now claims that Epic 30k will come at the end of the year, and may possibly be announced or at least teased as early as next week at Adepticon. So far, rumours that he attributes to 'sources he trusts' have been highly accurate.
I may quote myself from the 10th edition rumour roundup thread:
- The next big Kill Team box will be Votann vs. Beastmen according to sources he trusts
- 'So much more stuff' is coming for KT, Eldar, Space Marines etc.
- Campaign book 'Cthonia' coming for HH, campaign involving Sons of Horus and Imperial Fists
- Tank commander models for the legions
- Forge World Knights going plastic according to sources he trusts
- 'Maybe' hints at Epic as Horus Heresy Epic
- Epic coming at the end of the year according to sources he highly trusts
- Adeptus Titanicus titans and Aeronautica planes are going to be wrapped into Epic - Age of Sigmar: Cities of Sigmar are getting a box set reveal
- Blablabla the Lion is coming reiterated for the n-th time
- Dante speculated to be revealed at Adepticon
- More boarding patrols: Agents of the Imperium, Nurgle
- Maybe a trailer for the CGI trailer for 10th edition
Do we know if this person is genuinely accurate with their rumour-mongering?
There is an element to this rumour that it makes so much sense that, if you keep on predicating it, one of these days it is going to be right.
The main question now is which ruleset GW will use to replicate, or even if they will replicate one at all. Unlike many of the other specialist games which have been resurrected, they have a choice of systems, some of which play very differently.
I would like it to be some variation of Epic Space Marine (NetEpic) but I feel like the most likely variation would be Armageddon using a Heresy-era setting, to line it up with Titanicus. There are some really good fan community rules which have been made, and they could shamelessless steal them without crediting the authors.
I saw Duncan Rhodes recently did a video of painting Epic, certainly some coincidental timing. I know he isn't in GW any more, but you don't know if he might have got wind of something coming from friends who still are and be getting a jump on it? Will have to check what he was painting as that might give a clue.
).
