Valrak talks about again about a reboot of Epic for next year.
There were some rumours abut Epic in the past months and it looks like the Game could get released after the 10th Edition next Year and could be set in the Horus Heresy.
"Seems to be returning" and "definitely returning" at the same time. Right.
The only thing 'epic' is the amount of BS Valrak usually produces, closely followed by the almost equal amount of backpedaling that usually follows. He has good rumours, but he also throws a lot of stuff to the wall to see what sticks. At the moment, he also predicts the 'Brutalis Dreadnought' for the 3rd time, as well as missile launcher Primaris, and jump pack melee primaris that he gleaned from the Space Marine II trailer. And of course the return of the Lion.
To put his Epic rumours in perspective: We get Arks of Omen. We get 10th edition in 2023. New Edition reasonably means new Codex Space Marines in short time. Adeptus Titanicus is barely supported atm, and Aeronautica still less supported than that. I can't see GW introducing a whole new game that has limited appeal and cannibalizes the same player demographic in the same year that they relaunch their most profitable main system and probably its most important faction. That would mean that epic is probably slotted for 2024, if it exists at all. And on top of that: we have seen nothing that could reasonably be epic miniatures, not even as a hint in the rumour engine or as a random cryptic riddle on the website. The oldest rumor engine pictures go back over two years - if Epic was due for release sometime in 2023, they would have shown something by now, even if it only made sense in hindsight.
There's going to be some side game in 2023, we just don't know what. Betting on one of the, what, 3?, specialist games left unrebooted is the optimal move if you want to min/max your internet clout.
"Seems to be returning" and "definitely returning" at the same time. Right.
The only thing 'epic' is the amount of BS Valrak usually produces, closely followed by the almost equal amount of backpedaling that usually follows. He has good rumours, but he also throws a lot of stuff to the wall to see what sticks. At the moment, he also predicts the 'Brutalis Dreadnought' for the 3rd time, as well as missile launcher Primaris, and jump pack melee primaris that he gleaned from the Space Marine II trailer. And of course the return of the Lion.
To put his Epic rumours in perspective: We get Arks of Omen. We get 10th edition in 2023. New Edition reasonably means new Codex Space Marines in short time. Adeptus Titanicus is barely supported atm, and Aeronautica still less supported than that. I can't see GW introducing a whole new game that has limited appeal and cannibalizes the same player demographic in the same year that they relaunch their most profitable main system and probably its most important faction. That would mean that epic is probably slotted for 2024, if it exists at all. And on top of that: we have seen nothing that could reasonably be epic miniatures, not even as a hint in the rumour engine or as a random cryptic riddle on the website. The oldest rumor engine pictures go back over two years - if Epic was due for release sometime in 2023, they would have shown something by now, even if it only made sense in hindsight.
Is there some sort of list of what he has and hasn't got right? I know he's got a few things right, like the Rogal Dorn Tank and the return of the Squats, but at the same time he's predicted all sorts of absurd things over the years, and even some of the times he has got something right it was so vague and could easily have been guessed (I.e. new campaign book involving Abbadon)
lord_blackfang wrote: There's going to be some side game in 2023, we just don't know what. Betting on one of the, what, 3?, specialist games left unrebooted is the optimal move if you want to min/max your internet clout.
It's not too far-fetched to have Epic 'return' in some fashion by releasing a rulebook that allows the use of aeronautica planes for both sides and make some blisters for the most important tanks, i.e. Land Raides, the various Rhino-chassis variants and maybe some stands for infantry and fast attack elements. That's easily covered in one of the boxed game 'splash' slots or some other limited support scheme. But it's also a far cry from the end state of Epic as it was last seen about 15 years ago.
On the other hand, betting on more reboots is not that creative - with Warcry and Underworlds they've shown that they are willing to do new Standalone games with continued support, and Necromunda seems to be going quite well too. Also, some support has to go into that thing with the Old World. Among the older specialist games, Epic and BFG are the ones you could bet on - Gorkamorka doesn't really need anything, Inq54 is not economically viable and Mordheim has a -for now- dead setting and would step on the toes of Warcry/Underworlds.
Is there some sort of list of what he has and hasn't got right? I know he's got a few things right, like the Rogal Dorn Tank and the return of the Squats, but at the same time he's predicted all sorts of absurd things over the years, and even some of the times he has got something right it was so vague and could easily have been guessed (I.e. new campaign book involving Abbadon)
When the Tyranid codex was first rumoured early this year, he claimed it was coming with several updated models including new gaunts.
LOLno, they were always laughably wrong, save for 1-2 rare instances of someone feeding him good info or V stealing good rumors from someone actually reliable, no matter what his sockpuppets here say. He "predicted" a plastic warhound titan like twenty times starting in 2014, see it on tables anywhere?
Or last example, from Arks - he "predicted" a female demon princess tied to Dark Mechanicus, almost as if he was blindly guessing from lithe figure silhouette - oops, turns out it's a male demon that never was mortal, from Forge of Souls, no ties to DM. A complete opposite. This alone should tell you how "accurate" he is
I'll believe it when I see it. Titanicus has had a grand total of one model released this year and the last plastic kit was back in November 2021. Making full-blow Epic would be a massive project and it seems that production is stretched thin already.
LOLno, they were always laughably wrong, save for 1-2 rare instances of someone feeding him good info or V stealing good rumors from someone actually reliable, no matter what his sockpuppets here say. He "predicted" a plastic warhound titan like twenty times starting in 2014, see it on tables anywhere?
Or last example, from Arks - he "predicted" a female demon princess tied to Dark Mechanicus, almost as if he was blindly guessing from lithe figure silhouette - oops, turns out it's a male demon that never was mortal, from Forge of Souls, no ties to DM. A complete opposite. This alone should tell you how "accurate" he is
I remember him saying a "daemon prince" model was coming and assumed he was right with Arks because i can kinda see why someone would get it confused with a daemon prince....but he said it was a female character coming?
Eh AT doesn't have any Xenos models; heck it doesn't even have any proper corrupted titan models. I'd expect those long long long before any attempt to bring Epic back
If (big 'if') Epic was to come back, I hope it isn't locked into the Heresy Era. Space Marines are cool and all, but sometimes you want to be something else and not feel like a sideshow.
lord_blackfang wrote: There's going to be some side game in 2023, we just don't know what. Betting on one of the, what, 3?, specialist games left unrebooted is the optimal move if you want to min/max your internet clout.
It's not too far-fetched to have Epic 'return' in some fashion by releasing a rulebook that allows the use of aeronautica planes for both sides and make some blisters for the most important tanks, i.e. Land Raides, the various Rhino-chassis variants and maybe some stands for infantry and fast attack elements. That's easily covered in one of the boxed game 'splash' slots or some other limited support scheme. But it's also a far cry from the end state of Epic as it was last seen about 15 years ago.
On the other hand, betting on more reboots is not that creative - with Warcry and Underworlds they've shown that they are willing to do new Standalone games with continued support, and Necromunda seems to be going quite well too. Also, some support has to go into that thing with the Old World. Among the older specialist games, Epic and BFG are the ones you could bet on - Gorkamorka doesn't really need anything, Inq54 is not economically viable and Mordheim has a -for now- dead setting and would step on the toes of Warcry/Underworlds.
I agree that if "Epic" was to happen, it'd probably have a very limited scope of miniatures and be set in the Heresy. I'm just not sure I see GW pushing lots of different tiny infantry models, vehicle variants, etc. especially when those are already alternatives in the form of 3rd parties and 3D files. And there are no xenos Titan kits, so those would need to happen too. A very limited-scope game -- Imperial tanks, planes and Titans -- might be doable.
But is that what the customers want out of a reborn Epic game? And if it's not scratching their itch...is it a good business idea to invest in? We're also talking about a game that once imploded because the ruleset got more streamlined even as the model range basically didn't. It'd be an interesting roll of the dice.
Still, AT is awfully quiet, which suggests something...either a 2nd edition set or it being sidelined for Epic. They're gonna want to keep pushing those Titan kits, so it'll probably be one or the other. I hope it's a 2nd edition, and I think it'd be a good play by GW, because COVID really impacted AT right at the time the game was filling out and would have started getting more traction.
Overread wrote: Eh AT doesn't have any Xenos models; heck it doesn't even have any proper corrupted titan models. I'd expect those long long long before any attempt to bring Epic back
Yup, I just can't see GW doing Epic before going for low hanging fruit in AT that could fit both HH and 40K, like ork and eldar titans. Or mechanicum. Or Imperial Army/IG. Or anything, really, before diving into new game requiring tons of new releases...
Mentlegen324 wrote: Is there some sort of list of what he has and hasn't got right?
Funnily enough, there used to be amazing rumor checker thread on Dakka but alas, looks like it was long abandoned:
Mentlegen324 wrote: I remember him saying a "daemon prince" model was coming and assumed he was right with Arks because i can kinda see why someone would get it confused with a daemon prince....but he said it was a female character coming?
I am pretty sure he did but checking it is next to impossible as he tends to ramble in every video dragging what should be one minute into 10+ to hit these sweet Youtube enhanced monetization thresholds. Anyway, on quick check, he said there will be Arks of Omen Boxset in last big preview on B&C (where he posts regularly thanks to uncritical adoration), oops, wrong again (which really takes talent because GW loves doing boxsets, of course GW might throw together something later and his defenders will say he was ""right"" even though he was wrong about preview itself and it's really so no effort high probability guess even a child can do it)...
gorgon wrote: Still, AT is awfully quiet, which suggests something...either a 2nd edition set or it being sidelined for Epic. They're gonna want to keep pushing those Titan kits, so it'll probably be one or the other. I hope it's a 2nd edition, and I think it'd be a good play by GW, because COVID really impacted AT right at the time the game was filling out and would have started getting more traction.
Blood Bowl got a new edition at the end of 2020 (4 years from original release). Necromunda had a significant slow down in new releases during 2021, but the Ash Wastes update (around 4.5 years from original release) was followed by a lot of new stuff. Titanicus has just passed 4 years old in August, but the combination of Necromunda & new HH launch in summer probably took priority this year.
I fully expect the slowdown of AT releases this year is due to new stuff being developed for 2023. I'm not sure what form that will take, but Epic Heresy seems like an easy guess given the recent work on redesigning the models. GW might instead use a relaunch to do things like updating the classic daemon titans in plastic, new psi-titans to fight them, and new terrain. Wonder if it will appear before or after the inevitable new 40k edition...
Is there some sort of list of what he has and hasn't got right? I know he's got a few things right, like the Rogal Dorn Tank and the return of the Squats, but at the same time he's predicted all sorts of absurd things over the years, and even some of the times he has got something right it was so vague and could easily have been guessed (I.e. new campaign book involving Abbadon)
Squats weren't him. That was the bolter and chainsword person but when it became apparent that big list of leaks was accurate he was quick to siphon videos off it. He was the first with the Rogal Dorn scoop I think and some of the early heresy rule leaks.
He's very hit and miss. He's been more accurate recently but he's been pedalling "epic is coming back guys for reals!!!" every couple of years. If he says Bloody Mary enough times in the mirror she might eventually show up.
Commander Cain wrote: I'll believe it when I see it. Titanicus has had a grand total of one model released this year and the last plastic kit was back in November 2021. Making full-blow Epic would be a massive project and it seems that production is stretched thin already.
Though I would actually expect quiet release schedule before epic precisely because it's massive project. It would take more resources to keep pushing AT AND do epic than slow down AT for epic.
Though yeah with the source being what it is not holding my breath.
Commander Cain wrote: I'll believe it when I see it. Titanicus has had a grand total of one model released this year and the last plastic kit was back in November 2021. Making full-blow Epic would be a massive project and it seems that production is stretched thin already.
Ah! But this is in fact evidence that Epic is coming! Since GW is obviously slowing down new releases as they prepare for the big Epic release!
Jarms48 wrote: I don't understand why they'd even do a HH Epic. Just seems like a waste of time. 40k is a more diverse and engaging setting.
For you.
Surprise surprise. Not everybody thinks same or has same preference.
Also simple finances. Try to calculate how many plastic sprues every race included at once would amount to?
HH epic meanwhile requires one set of sprues that can be used for both sides.
In fact that's how epic started...One set of models, loyal vs heretic, rest expanded later as resources allowed.
Also, Epic is a very different experience.
Where 40K tends to be super zoomed in, the last moments of a much wider battle being played out? Epic is, in theory, the grand, sweeping view of the whole of the thing.
I think this is where I get hung up on 2nd Ed Space Marine, due to how you selected your army. Company Card, 0-5 Support Cards, 0-1 Special Card.
They were set formations. And brought their own army restrictions on their own. You may go for an all Infantry Company, and round out it’s support with some transport capacity, some battle tank and artillery support, or more specialised Infantry.
The headspace for me is the Overall Commander directing his troops from a secure bunker or orbit, rather than from the front.
The actual combat is much more straight forward than 40K, regardless of which edition of Epic we’re considering. Because the Thing of the Game is wielding these relatively set forces as greater than the whole of the thing. No individual heroics. No Smash Captains deployed in lieu of actual tactical ability. It’s setting up cross fires, planning your objective seizure and which enemy units you want to crush turns in advance.
2nd Ed had the Orders System, which I will always revere. Different Orders allowed different things. Chosen in secret (unless you’re Eldar, and have the right web of units) revealed at the same time, I had to anticipate my opponent, but also plan for being dead wrong. With alternating activation, Orders prevented the players simply reacting to whatever their opponent just did. Well. Limited I suppose rather than prevented, as a given order dictated what that unit could or couldn’t do.
That was the fun, and where the skill truly lay. A wonderful game system.
Aeronautica could hold hints as to the direction of Epic...
On the one hand it introduced Orks, Eldar, IG, Marines, Tau and Necrons, which might indicate a return to the 40K era. On the other hand the last release was a Horus Heresy book, which may be a sign that GW are cutting their loses with the existing imperial-only kits and refocusing on the Heresy era, while slowly discontining the existing xenos kits.
Could the larger player base get confused with a second "The Horus Heresy" game so close to the exhausting relaunch of 30K? Could GW be working on an Epic game solely focused on battles between the Imperium and Orks, set on Armageddon? As much as Marines, Orks are very much the comical mascot of the 40K brand. With a focus on just the additional Ork range, this might allow AT and AI to stick around just a bit longer...
If he repeats this rumour every year until he's right, he can finally say "SEE! I was correct! Ignore the previous 18 videos!"
It's rather genius in its absolutely stupid way.
It's like this with a lot of things really - a new boxed set with Space Marines? In a year with a new edition? Not really hanging far out of the window here, given that every single starter box in history had space marines in some form and would fit the definition.
The Lion returning? Well, Primarchs are the current hot thing, and for the imperial side it's pretty much 50:50 between Russ and The Lion, because they have established model ranges and Sanguinius is dead. Predicting Fulgrim is the other obvious safe bet, all the big 4 demon Primarchs will eventually be available.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Truly, Valrak is the Darksydephil of the 40k community.
I have nothing against Valrak personally, his presentation style just does nothing for me, i'm not a friend of hyping every fart on the wind as ''HUGE! revelations'' and such, and his overly padded video style gets really grating after you watched a couple of them.
SamusDrake wrote: Aeronautica could hold hints as to the direction of Epic...
On the one hand it introduced Orks, Eldar, IG, Marines, Tau and Necrons, which might indicate a return to the 40K era. On the other hand the last release was a Horus Heresy book, which may be a sign that GW are cutting their loses with the existing imperial-only kits and refocusing on the Heresy era, while slowly discontining the existing xenos kits.
Could the larger player base get confused with a second "The Horus Heresy" game so close to the exhausting relaunch of 30K? Could GW be working on an Epic game solely focused on battles between the Imperium and Orks, set on Armageddon? As much as Marines, Orks are very much the comical mascot of the 40K brand. With a focus on just the additional Ork range, this might allow AT and AI to stick around just a bit longer...
The issue they'd have with working on xenos factions is that a lot of folks would likely wait it out assuming 'their' faction is coming eventually. So you'd get people not buying Marines or Orks because they'd prefer to make an Eldar or Tyranid army. But then at the same time, GW sees the low sales of new Epic as proof that it's not worth making Eldar or Tyranids, so they never happen.
It's why I think that if Epic did happen, HH is the more likely approach they'd take because the same models cover both sides of the game. That is after all how Adeptus Titancius and Epic Space Marine originally began.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Truly, Valrak is the Darksydephil of the 40k community.
I have nothing against Valrak personally, his presentation style just does nothing for me, i'm not a friend of hyping every fart on the wind as ''HUGE! revelations'' and such, and his overly padded video style gets really grating after you watched a couple of them.
That's fair enough, I do think he's a windbag and his presentation is incredibly abrasive to me, but he's ultimately inoffensive beyond the the sheer amount of substanceless guff he produces.
I'm not really a fan, I watched one video a long time ago and was put off by what I thought was some needlessly overblown rhetoric. I think it was a complaint about something and I don't remember whether I even agreed, I just found his presentation of the argument to be too dramatic for my tastes.
schoon wrote: Love Epic, so the gamer in me wants to believe...
Honestly, at this point, it'd be nice to see new Epic models and the potential for new opponents, but I don't trust that GW won't just completely feck up the rules.
Epic 3rd edition is probably the most elegant game GW has made (though I know some people prefer the other editions). Though there's some holes in the rules, the entire rulebook is less than 50 pages in roughly A5 format and can be read in the space of about an hour and you're ready to start gaming. There's no way GW won't completely feth that up
schoon wrote: Love Epic, so the gamer in me wants to believe...
Honestly, at this point, it'd be nice to see new Epic models and the potential for new opponents, but I don't trust that GW won't just completely feck up the rules.
Epic 3rd edition is probably the most elegant game GW has made (though I know some people prefer the other editions). Though there's some holes in the rules, the entire rulebook is less than 50 pages in roughly A5 format and can be read in the space of about an hour and you're ready to start gaming. There's no way GW won't completely feth that up
Elegant rules are pretty much the antithesis of what GW likes to produce right now and has been producing for a couple of years. Epic in its later incarnations, or BFG for that matter, had what - three dozen specials rules that were used in combinations to represent everything from basic infantry to emperor-class titans, or escorts to blackstone fortresses, and used stuff like firepower tables. Nowadays single high-end models in 40k can easily have more rules baggage than whole Epic armies, betwenn detachment rules, army-wide and faction-wide special rules, warlord traits, stratagems and then of course individual special rules both for the model, optionally with a degrading statline, and even single pieces of armament and equipment.
If i had to guess, i'd say that BFG was more likely to return than Epic: it does inherently not need as much support as Epic, it can integrate well with 40k without cannibalizing 40k sales -which was one of the arguments that lead to the sidelining of Epic, however realistic that was- and is open-ended enough that it would feel complete with just a couple of boxes and clampacks, but would also allow for a lot of further expansion if it really took off.
Is there some sort of list of what he has and hasn't got right? I know he's got a few things right, like the Rogal Dorn Tank and the return of the Squats, but at the same time he's predicted all sorts of absurd things over the years, and even some of the times he has got something right it was so vague and could easily have been guessed (I.e. new campaign book involving Abbadon)
Squats weren't him. That was the bolter and chainsword person but when it became apparent that big list of leaks was accurate he was quick to siphon videos off it. He was the first with the Rogal Dorn scoop I think and some of the early heresy rule leaks.
He's very hit and miss. He's been more accurate recently but he's been pedalling "epic is coming back guys for reals!!!" every couple of years. If he says Bloody Mary enough times in the mirror she might eventually show up.
Exactly that.
He’s quick to report on stuff. But equally any hint of something (that will get clicks) and he will say maybe, or I’m hearing this, and so on.
He didn’t get Squats right, just his yearly suggestion they’re coming was correct on the year they came back.
I hope as he’s been more accurate of late it means that the Lion is finally coming.
But again he’s been saying that for a long time.
A lot of it is, we could all say like 40 things we think might come out, and likely we will get a good 10 right. It’s our hobby, we know it well, we can guess a lot of the time.
Do that, but with a big YouTube channel and there you are.
Is there some sort of list of what he has and hasn't got right? I know he's got a few things right, like the Rogal Dorn Tank and the return of the Squats, but at the same time he's predicted all sorts of absurd things over the years, and even some of the times he has got something right it was so vague and could easily have been guessed (I.e. new campaign book involving Abbadon)
Squats weren't him. That was the bolter and chainsword person but when it became apparent that big list of leaks was accurate he was quick to siphon videos off it. He was the first with the Rogal Dorn scoop I think and some of the early heresy rule leaks.
He's very hit and miss. He's been more accurate recently but he's been pedalling "epic is coming back guys for reals!!!" every couple of years. If he says Bloody Mary enough times in the mirror she might eventually show up.
The Squat rumor was elsewhere first, but he said they'd be coming back with Men of Iron, which turned out to be pretty much true.
Horus Heresy Epic has the benefit that it lets GW get away with making 1 faction and having both sides represented. It's what AT is currently running on and it does well for itself.
It's not what I'd like because whilst titans are basically ageless (they can advance the AT timeline to the 40K setting or any point they want and the titans don't have to change); the 30K and 40K eras in terms of infantry and tanks visually change a lot. For infantry at this scale not so much, but for tanks and such there's huge changes.
I'd also dislike it because its just more mirrormatching and whilst it works for GW in terms of mould investment; its visually far less exciting than seeing different forces facing off against each other.
Personally I' hope that AT gets chaos and then xenos titans as they advance the storyline with those models. Then we might see a return of Epic which can use AT and AN models in the 40K setting along with fresh tanks and ground forces. Heck with the AA turrets and terrain from AT and the titans and aircraft there's a good amount of groundwork already done.
Overread wrote: Horus Heresy Epic has the benefit that it lets GW get away with making 1 faction and having both sides represented. It's what AT is currently running on and it does well for itself.
It's not what I'd like because whilst titans are basically ageless (they can advance the AT timeline to the 40K setting or any point they want and the titans don't have to change); the 30K and 40K eras in terms of infantry and tanks visually change a lot. For infantry at this scale not so much, but for tanks and such there's huge changes.
I'd also dislike it because its just more mirrormatching and whilst it works for GW in terms of mould investment; its visually far less exciting than seeing different forces facing off against each other.
Personally I' hope that AT gets chaos and then xenos titans as they advance the storyline with those models. Then we might see a return of Epic which can use AT and AN models in the 40K setting along with fresh tanks and ground forces. Heck with the AA turrets and terrain from AT and the titans and aircraft there's a good amount of groundwork already done.
Hocus heresy epic would be a mistake. The horus heresy setting is a niche compared to the main 40k line. Epic is a niche. Creating a niche in a niche is just bad planning. I love epic armaggedon, space marine and net epic. Seeing this in the horus heresy doesn't appeal to me at all. Epic's great strength was being the main setting up scaled with a wide variety of foes on table top. Regardless of whether someone likes heresy or not, this would be limiting the buyers dramatically.
Mentlegen324 wrote: The Squat rumor was elsewhere first, but he said they'd be coming back with Men of Iron, which turned out to be pretty much true.
Except it was as wrong as pretty much everything V says. Real Men of Iron, as shown in comics, books, or BSF model/short story, are vastly more powerful and intelligent than glorified autonomous drones Ironkin are. They don't even have full AI and just pretend/ape emotions and social behaviours. Plus, ""predicting"" that new squats will have robots of some kind was suuuper difficult seeing old ones heavily relied on them.
So, yeah, there you have it, V does tons of blind guessing that turns out to be wrong in almost every case, and even in such cases where he stumbles on a near miss details are all wrong, but if you throw BS often enough and vague enough, eventually something will stick and then people will be all 'oh look he was cOrReCt!'
Here, look me do a Valrak: in 2023, GW will release white painted army! And oh, something on 28 mm bases! And space marine HQ! And chaos army book! And new edition (and if it turns out they won't thanks to all the delays, I will just quietly ignore it and will just do same prediction in 2024)! And plastic warhound titan (ditto)! And a new big PC game! And a new space marine codex! And a second votann wave! And 40K store promo limited model (super hard to guess seeing last one was AoS)! And female inquisitor! And then there is shocking rumor next Kill Team might be released soon! And oh, this tiny, insignificant detail in obscure game/comic/book means GW will soon do new character/unit/army (though they never do this but better say that every time there is something new to maybe chance on something in that odd 0.01% of cases)!
Wanna bet how soon I will be cOrReCt like V at least in 5 of these?
Is there some sort of list of what he has and hasn't got right? I know he's got a few things right, like the Rogal Dorn Tank and the return of the Squats, but at the same time he's predicted all sorts of absurd things over the years, and even some of the times he has got something right it was so vague and could easily have been guessed (I.e. new campaign book involving Abbadon)
Squats weren't him. That was the bolter and chainsword person but when it became apparent that big list of leaks was accurate he was quick to siphon videos off it. He was the first with the Rogal Dorn scoop I think and some of the early heresy rule leaks.
He's very hit and miss. He's been more accurate recently but he's been pedalling "epic is coming back guys for reals!!!" every couple of years. If he says Bloody Mary enough times in the mirror she might eventually show up.
I don't think Valrak has ever been the source of a rumour, he gets literally 90% of the content for his videos directly from Dakka, Reddit, Facebook and a few of the old rumour mongers, rarely sources where he gets it from beyond 'I've heard from sources' and then creates a video on it. He's hit and miss because he reports on practically everything he's read on other communities, I've even seen some of the rumours that form his videos hit forums a few hours before his videos then pop up.
As for Epic in 2023? Doubt it, considering it's very likely to have 40k 10e as the mainline major release and fairly likely to see The Old World as the major specialist release. GW aren't going to load another major release alongside those two.
Sureshot05 wrote: Hocus heresy epic would be a mistake. The horus heresy setting is a niche compared to the main 40k line. Epic is a niche. Creating a niche in a niche is just bad planning. I love epic armaggedon, space marine and net epic. Seeing this in the horus heresy doesn't appeal to me at all. Epic's great strength was being the main setting up scaled with a wide variety of foes on table top. Regardless of whether someone likes heresy or not, this would be limiting the buyers dramatically.
Yeah, that's kinda what I was alluding to in my previous post. My gut tells me more gamers would like Epic to be 40K but zoomed out. I'm sure they'd hype the gak out of a limited scope mirror match Epic 30K box and sell them out. But I think the customers would quickly start asking 'xenos when?'...just like they already do with AT. Still, it'd probably push more existing plane and Titan kits for a while, even if the game ends up lacking legs.
I love AT as is and still want to see the remaining Imperial Titans they've teased. But I can't stick my head in the sand and pretend that xenos factions wouldn't have brought more people into the game. You can hardly start an AT discussion without it coming up. If they want AT *OR* Epic to have legs, I think xenos have to happen. But then GW has had trouble supporting AT at anything more than a glacial pace even though the kits have sold really well by their own admission.
So who knows where things go from here. Guess it really depends on the business plan.
I'm curious: why would a new Epic scale system be successful when GW released the new Apocalypse not so long ago (pretty much "Epic" but for standard 40k scale minis) and that system did not seem to get much traction? Many more players already have or much easier access to 40k scale minis useable with Apocalypse. A true new Epic system would require Epic scale minis which many players no longer have or are not as readily available to most players (besides 3D printing). Do you all really think a new Epic scale system would drive significant sales of new Epic scale miniatures when past experience has shown that 40k scale minis are where the market is at?
Gnarlly wrote: I'm curious: why would a new Epic scale system be successful when GW released the new Apocalypse not so long ago (pretty much "Epic" but for standard 40k scale minis) and that system did not seem to get much traction? Many more players already have or much easier access to 40k scale minis useable with Apocalypse. A true new Epic system would require Epic scale minis which many players no longer have or are not as readily available to most players (besides 3D printing). Do you all really think a new Epic scale system would drive significant sales of new Epic scale miniatures when past experience has shown that 40k scale minis are where the market is at?
The fact that most people don't have epic models and means they have to buy them from GW if they were to do Epic is actually a great reason for GW to to Epic. Because that means its generating sales for GWGW getting to sell models is fantastic for GW, its their whole business.
Also Apoc is always going to be a superniche because of the investment in models you need; the space and the time. Running an Apoc game isn't something you do every week; heck some places do them once a year if that. They are huge and amazing if run right; but they are a super niche. Heck they often rely on teams not individual players because most people don't collect 30K points of one single army. Epic, is an entirely different scale and game where one person can collect a whole Epic army to field; where it doesn't require a van to get all the models to the game table; where you don't have to take up the entire room to play etc...
They are two totally different scales of models
Gnarlly wrote: I'm curious: why would a new Epic scale system be successful when GW released the new Apocalypse not so long ago (pretty much "Epic" but for standard 40k scale minis) and that system did not seem to get much traction? Many more players already have or much easier access to 40k scale minis useable with Apocalypse. A true new Epic system would require Epic scale minis which many players no longer have or are not as readily available to most players (besides 3D printing). Do you all really think a new Epic scale system would drive significant sales of new Epic scale miniatures when past experience has shown that 40k scale minis are where the market is at?
Apocalypse is a good way to play massive battles, and yes, you can play them with Epic models, but it's not "really" an Epic game.
And IMHO, if regular 40k already look ridiculous, when you try and play Apocalypse the "overstuffed parking lot" effect only gets exacerbated.
Albertorius wrote: I would certainly prefer to see more factions for AT. They are harder to find than good proxies for the rest of Epic
Right.
And I find it hard to believe that GW even wants to be in the business of making little 6mm people again. They want to push bigger, cooler, more intricate kits that really show off what they can design and create. It's too easy to find third-party 6mm stuff that looks great.
Albertorius wrote: I would certainly prefer to see more factions for AT. They are harder to find than good proxies for the rest of Epic
Right.
And I find it hard to believe that GW even wants to be in the business of making little 6mm people again. They want to push bigger, cooler, more intricate kits that really show off what they can design and create. It's too easy to find third-party 6mm stuff that looks great.
Thing is the original Epic did almost all the infantry for each faction on 1 sprue and 1 boxed set. What was varied were tanks and bigger things. Epic allows you to do a full mechancial armoured core of Imperial Guard. Heck the IG metal tanks for Epic 40K were in many ways more detailed than their plastic 40K versions - they had ammo racks and camoflage around the barrels and such.
Epic keeps the infantry simple and lets you go wild with bigger things in a more practical way. You can do legions of tanks, vast flights of aircraft; huge swarms of infantry or vast behemoth titans and demi-titans and lords of war and such. Yes you can do those things in 40K kind of; but Epic lets you do it on a whole different scale for a more practical price and amount of size/playspace/playtime.
Albertorius wrote: I would certainly prefer to see more factions for AT. They are harder to find than good proxies for the rest of Epic
Right.
And I find it hard to believe that GW even wants to be in the business of making little 6mm people again. They want to push bigger, cooler, more intricate kits that really show off what they can design and create. It's too easy to find third-party 6mm stuff that looks great.
I mean... yeah ^^. When you can make stuff at home at this insane level of detail, it would be in their best interest to go war engines or bust
Albertorius wrote: I would certainly prefer to see more factions for AT. They are harder to find than good proxies for the rest of Epic
Right.
And I find it hard to believe that GW even wants to be in the business of making little 6mm people again. They want to push bigger, cooler, more intricate kits that really show off what they can design and create. It's too easy to find third-party 6mm stuff that looks great.
Thing is the original Epic did almost all the infantry for each faction on 1 sprue and 1 boxed set. What was varied were tanks and bigger things. Epic allows you to do a full mechancial armoured core of Imperial Guard. Heck the IG metal tanks for Epic 40K were in many ways more detailed than their plastic 40K versions - they had ammo racks and camoflage around the barrels and such.
Epic keeps the infantry simple and lets you go wild with bigger things in a more practical way. You can do legions of tanks, vast flights of aircraft; huge swarms of infantry or vast behemoth titans and demi-titans and lords of war and such. Yes you can do those things in 40K kind of; but Epic lets you do it on a whole different scale for a more practical price and amount of size/playspace/playtime.
And also a completely different way of playing the setting, something you cant really get out of 40k no matter how big you go.
Exactly - I don't want 1 Exocrine, or two; I want multiple batteries that I can set up on a hillside backed up with teams of trygons erupting in the midst of vast rank and file swarms of Imperial Guard.
I want to siege fortifications with titans that tear down huge chunks of wall; or charge into battle with a huge column of tanks blasting every which way.
While I agree that GW would see a new Epic as an incentive to sell more (Epic-scale) minis, history has shown that Epic scale minis just don't sell that much in comparison to 40k scale minis. There will always be the GW whales that buy anything "new" from GW but I just don't see a new Epic doing any better than its previous iterations.
Also, it seems several people are under the illusion that all games using the new Apocalypse system must be massive all-day sessions with tables turned into congested "parking lots" of figures. The game actually plays quite well at the size of large standard 40k battles (roughly 2000 points of minis each side using 40k's points system) and such games can be played in less time than a 2000 point 40k match.
This matchup was roughly 2500 points each side in standard 40k terms of points on a 6'x4' table (not "niche" IMO as many players have armies of that size or more). A little cramped for an Ork horde but perfectly playable:
See, that's a parking lot, chock full already, with no real space for meaningful maneuvering, and you don't even have all the minis on the table yet.
Just going small scale it would look exponentially better.
One important thing when playing Epic is maneuvering, and for that there needs to be actual space for it to be meaningful. For example, it would look more like that:
Gnarlly wrote: While I agree that GW would see a new Epic as an incentive to sell more (Epic-scale) minis, history has shown that Epic scale minis just don't sell that much in comparison to 40k scale minis. There will always be the GW whales that buy anything "new" from GW but I just don't see a new Epic doing any better than its previous iterations.
NOTHING sells as well as 40K and honestly within 40K nothing touches space marines (except urrok warriors for middleearth! )
That's the failing that Kirby era GW management had I think. They kept comparing sales to marines and when everything measured up short they kept focusing on more marines. I think GW today is FAR more open to investing in stuff other than marines. In things that will sell and turn a healthy profit and, most importantly, not leave a segment of the market open for other firms. Heck Epic 40K only got what 6 months before GW killed it - hardly enough time for the marketing to get going or armies outside of the Imperials and Orks to get diverse ranges of models before BOOM it was dead.
Since then it got pushed into specialist games (sold from FW and hardly marketed) and then died fully. So its been a very long time since GW tried marketing, pushing, selling and working with Epic on any kind of front.
Albertorius wrote: See, that's a parking lot, chock full already, with no real space for meaningful maneuvering, and you don't even have all the minis on the table yet.
Just going small scale it would look exponentially better.
All minis were actually "on the table" - in transports. Looks like a normal large (2000+ point) standard 40k battle to me
Albertorius wrote: See, that's a parking lot, chock full already, with no real space for meaningful maneuvering, and you don't even have all the minis on the table yet.
Just going small scale it would look exponentially better.
All minis were actually "on the table" - in transports. Looks like a normal large (2000+ point) standard 40k battle to me
Yeah, that's the look I kinda hate already, so... ^_^
Will Epic make money in a time of recession and inflation?
If no, shelved.
If yes, how will we maximize return on investment. IMO: Rescale to cut out 3dmodelers. New models. Grand Master boxed set. Rules that require purchases of other boxed sets (AT / AI). And see what happens as a weather balloon. If it sells like crazy... more. If it doesn't, shelved.
doktor_g wrote: Rescale to cut out 3dmodelers. New models. Grand Master boxed set. Rules that require purchases of other boxed sets (AT / AI). And see what happens as a weather balloon. If it sells like crazy... more. If it doesn't, shelved.
You can't rescale to cut out the 3D print market Cause anyone with a 3d printer can rescale in seconds.
Plus we already know GW would use the same scale they use in AT and AN so that those models would cross over into Epic. So we already know the scale.
Overread wrote: Horus Heresy Epic has the benefit that it lets GW get away with making 1 faction and having both sides represented. It's what AT is currently running on and it does well for itself.
It's not what I'd like because whilst titans are basically ageless (they can advance the AT timeline to the 40K setting or any point they want and the titans don't have to change); the 30K and 40K eras in terms of infantry and tanks visually change a lot. For infantry at this scale not so much, but for tanks and such there's huge changes.
I'd also dislike it because its just more mirrormatching and whilst it works for GW in terms of mould investment; its visually far less exciting than seeing different forces facing off against each other.
Personally I' hope that AT gets chaos and then xenos titans as they advance the storyline with those models. Then we might see a return of Epic which can use AT and AN models in the 40K setting along with fresh tanks and ground forces. Heck with the AA turrets and terrain from AT and the titans and aircraft there's a good amount of groundwork already done.
Well 40k has largely all 30k vehicles available and mars/deimos varianj isn't that relevant.
Overread wrote: Horus Heresy Epic has the benefit that it lets GW get away with making 1 faction and having both sides represented. It's what AT is currently running on and it does well for itself.
It's not what I'd like because whilst titans are basically ageless (they can advance the AT timeline to the 40K setting or any point they want and the titans don't have to change); the 30K and 40K eras in terms of infantry and tanks visually change a lot. For infantry at this scale not so much, but for tanks and such there's huge changes.
I'd also dislike it because its just more mirrormatching and whilst it works for GW in terms of mould investment; its visually far less exciting than seeing different forces facing off against each other.
Personally I' hope that AT gets chaos and then xenos titans as they advance the storyline with those models. Then we might see a return of Epic which can use AT and AN models in the 40K setting along with fresh tanks and ground forces. Heck with the AA turrets and terrain from AT and the titans and aircraft there's a good amount of groundwork already done.
Hocus heresy epic would be a mistake. The horus heresy setting is a niche compared to the main 40k line. Epic is a niche. Creating a niche in a niche is just bad planning. I love epic armaggedon, space marine and net epic. Seeing this in the horus heresy doesn't appeal to me at all. Epic's great strength was being the main setting up scaled with a wide variety of foes on table top. Regardless of whether someone likes heresy or not, this would be limiting the buyers dramatically.
Epic started as hh. Real mistake. It's what allowed rest to come.
Complete epic isn't coming period. At least not for looong time. Maybe marines vs orks with limited amount of kits per side and then over years expand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gnarlly wrote: I'm curious: why would a new Epic scale system be successful when GW released the new Apocalypse not so long ago (pretty much "Epic" but for standard 40k scale minis) and that system did not seem to get much traction? Many more players already have or much easier access to 40k scale minis useable with Apocalypse. A true new Epic system would require Epic scale minis which many players no longer have or are not as readily available to most players (besides 3D printing). Do you all really think a new Epic scale system would drive significant sales of new Epic scale miniatures when past experience has shown that 40k scale minis are where the market is at?
It exceeded gw's sale expectations by 400%...
What you call that? Failure? Gw wouldnt greenlight project that exceeds expectations that big and fail.
They killed it for politics. Gw didn't want side games. It was all about 40k/fb.
Ah great the perennial 'new Epic is coming' rumour thread. This gives me a chance to crawl out of my fetid hole in the earth and let people know about the existing community and these threads
There is no need to wait for a new version of Epic from GW if you want to play at that scale! The scene has arguably never been stronger since the game stopped being sold, there are such a range of free rules, proxy miniatures, 3D prints available now, the community is big and is growing.
We have a great thread on people's current projects down in the depths of the specialist forum section (ignore the 30k bit in the title, it has everything): https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/791159.page Want to have a go but not sure where to start? This thread is an attempt at a new player guide, grab a cuppa and have a read through https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
From my own perspective it would be lovely to have a range of new official plastic minis that are readily available. And it will help grow the community, for customers who don't want to remove their water wings and buy anything that doesn't have an official GW stamp and a shrink-wrapped box.
But for the rules? Going on track record best we can hope for a regurgitation of Epic Armageddon or Epic 40,000. But, looking at what has happened to Necromunda and even increasingly Blood Bowl now, I am sure if the first box sells it will be turned into a over-bloated mess of rule books, expansions that ultimately make them game completely unapproachable for anyone except the firmly committed.
Gnarlly wrote: While I agree that GW would see a new Epic as an incentive to sell more (Epic-scale) minis, history has shown that Epic scale minis just don't sell that much in comparison to 40k scale minis. There will always be the GW whales that buy anything "new" from GW but I just don't see a new Epic doing any better than its previous iterations.
Epic was a 'main' system alongside 40k and WHFB for many years, and by accounts from the time sold very well. It eventually suffered from a new system launch that tried to change too much and for various reasons the Epic 40,000 didn't appeal to both existing Epic players and new recruits. Then Armageddon didn't even get a boxset release and had a lot of the range in Specialist Games, so probably performed as well as could be expected towards the Kirby era of anything that wasn't 40k/WHFB/LoTR being cancelled.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the format and arguably the small scale suits the larger company-level engagements much better, I think it's probably why it continues to be popular and with so many proxy and 3D producers still making stuff even though the game has been officially dead for many years. GWs trick was realising that rather than selling an entire Land Raider company for <£20, they can sell them at £50+ for one tank at 28mm and people will buy three of them.
Epic was fairly cheap to play, thanks to the plastic sets stuffed full of units, and how (in 2nd Ed) you went about picking your army.
Adding a unit from a Support Card was typically “buy a single Blister pack”. Non-vehicle Company Card? Buy your army’s plastic box and you’re more or less done, depending on how exotic it was.
It most definitely sold well. And as most units were a single sculpt (perhaps with alternative turrets at best), seemed cheap to produce in terms of making the original model.
New Epic would not be cheap to play. Don't expect a sprue of 80 marines and 4 Rhinos, just take a look at AI. You're looking at 3 Rhinos for 20ish quid.
doktor_g wrote: Rescale to cut out 3dmodelers. New models. Grand Master boxed set. Rules that require purchases of other boxed sets (AT / AI). And see what happens as a weather balloon. If it sells like crazy... more. If it doesn't, shelved.
You can't rescale to cut out the 3D print market Cause anyone with a 3d printer can rescale in seconds.
Plus we already know GW would use the same scale they use in AT and AN so that those models would cross over into Epic. So we already know the scale.
Well, we know the scale of titans, but the scale of titans is wildly inconsistent in its own way. If they were smart, they would actually scale everything but the titans down even further for a prospective Epic relaunch, to really hammer home how titanic the titans are, and to make it a much different game where transports actually have a strategic reason to exist, speed and maneuverability are much more important and tank-based artillery does not have practically unlimited range. Battlefields are much too small anyway, and opening up that design space would set epic apart from 40k quite nicely.
Will Epic make money in a time of recession and inflation?
If no, shelved.
If yes, how will we maximize return on investment. IMO: Rescale to cut out 3dmodelers. New models. Grand Master boxed set. Rules that require purchases of other boxed sets (AT / AI). And see what happens as a weather balloon. If it sells like crazy... more. If it doesn't, shelved.
The weather balloon approach may seem like a smart play, but if the initial launch isn't as robust or appealing as it could be, you've set yourself up to underperform.
So much depends on the target audience and business plan. Is the idea to hook some players new to Epic (especially among the 30K community) in order to push some additional Titan and plane kits, and then call it a day? Well, then a conservative, limited scope will probably get them there.
If the idea is to create a new game with legs that appeals to Epic vets and new players alike...you're going to need to give people something more than vague comments about other factions being a possibility some years down the road. Otherwise, potential customers will decline to take the plunge. There's no doubt in my mind that this already has happened with AT, which has sold well but could easily have roped in more customers with only a xenos faction or two.
Having said all of this, I think the former scenario is more likely, just because I don't think Epic will be any higher on the priority list than AT when it comes to manufacturing. I'm just not sure what the point would be.
Will Epic make money in a time of recession and inflation?
If no, shelved.
If yes, how will we maximize return on investment. IMO: Rescale to cut out 3dmodelers. New models. Grand Master boxed set. Rules that require purchases of other boxed sets (AT / AI). And see what happens as a weather balloon. If it sells like crazy... more. If it doesn't, shelved.
The weather balloon approach may seem like a smart play, but if the initial launch isn't as robust or appealing as it could be, you've set yourself up to underperform.
So much depends on the target audience and business plan. Is the idea to hook some players new to Epic (especially among the 30K community) in order to push some additional Titan and plane kits, and then call it a day? Well, then a conservative, limited scope will probably get them there.
If the idea is to create a new game with legs that appeals to Epic vets and new players alike...you're going to need to give people something more than vague comments about other factions being a possibility some years down the road. Otherwise, potential customers will decline to take the plunge. There's no doubt in my mind that this already has happened with AT, which has sold well but could easily have roped in more customers with only a xenos faction or two.
Having said all of this, I think the former scenario is more likely, just because I don't think Epic will be any higher on the priority list than AT when it comes to manufacturing. I'm just not sure what the point would be.
.
Pleasing veterans and new players alike is probably a fools errand anyway... it will be 20 years since the last 'official' edition of Epic next year, everybody that still qualifies as veteran either has not played in a decade or has long since surpassed the need for GW proper and uses some sort of community or homebrew ruleset and miniatures. A relaunch of Epic as a GW main game would need to build a new player base from the ground up.
Albertorius wrote: I would certainly prefer to see more factions for AT. They are harder to find than good proxies for the rest of Epic
Right.
And I find it hard to believe that GW even wants to be in the business of making little 6mm people again. They want to push bigger, cooler, more intricate kits that really show off what they can design and create. It's too easy to find third-party 6mm stuff that looks great.
Thing is the original Epic did almost all the infantry for each faction on 1 sprue and 1 boxed set. What was varied were tanks and bigger things. Epic allows you to do a full mechancial armoured core of Imperial Guard. Heck the IG metal tanks for Epic 40K were in many ways more detailed than their plastic 40K versions - they had ammo racks and camoflage around the barrels and such.
Epic keeps the infantry simple and lets you go wild with bigger things in a more practical way. You can do legions of tanks, vast flights of aircraft; huge swarms of infantry or vast behemoth titans and demi-titans and lords of war and such. Yes you can do those things in 40K kind of; but Epic lets you do it on a whole different scale for a more practical price and amount of size/playspace/playtime.
Sure, but I also have 3d-printed Epic-scale vehicles on my Titan bases that look *great*. Tiny dudes and even tiny personnel carriers just don't feel like their sweet spot as the miniatures manufacturing company they are today. Cripes, just look at AT. They gave us the huge Warmaster kit and then turned around and gave us a Warmaster variant kit later that same year.
Albertorius wrote: I would certainly prefer to see more factions for AT. They are harder to find than good proxies for the rest of Epic
Right.
And I find it hard to believe that GW even wants to be in the business of making little 6mm people again. They want to push bigger, cooler, more intricate kits that really show off what they can design and create. It's too easy to find third-party 6mm stuff that looks great.
Thing is the original Epic did almost all the infantry for each faction on 1 sprue and 1 boxed set. What was varied were tanks and bigger things. Epic allows you to do a full mechancial armoured core of Imperial Guard. Heck the IG metal tanks for Epic 40K were in many ways more detailed than their plastic 40K versions - they had ammo racks and camoflage around the barrels and such.
Epic keeps the infantry simple and lets you go wild with bigger things in a more practical way. You can do legions of tanks, vast flights of aircraft; huge swarms of infantry or vast behemoth titans and demi-titans and lords of war and such. Yes you can do those things in 40K kind of; but Epic lets you do it on a whole different scale for a more practical price and amount of size/playspace/playtime.
Sure, but I also have 3d-printed Epic-scale vehicles on my Titan bases that look *great*. Tiny dudes and even tiny personnel carriers just don't feel like their sweet spot as the miniatures manufacturing company they are today. Cripes, just look at AT. They gave us the huge Warmaster kit and then turned around and gave us a Warmaster variant kit later that same year.
One of the weaknesses of old Epic was that they were still pretty stuck in their ''5 dudes per Stand''-rule for infantry for all races, i.e. a 40k combat squad per stand. Even with the technology of the early 2000s, they could have gone and made ''horde stands'' for some of the hordier armies and units, like they did for the short-lived ''Fantasy Epic'' Warmaster. With the current technology, you could go even further and do really impressive horde blobs as opposed to sculpting every single infantry model as detailled as possible.
Assuming GW was considering a new version of Epic, the things that I see are these -
1.) Imperium-only is all but guaranteed, at least for the initial roll-out. This makes it easier and more cost-effective for something that GW would consider a gamble. Note that an Imperium-only roll-out can still include a heavy Guard presence. Space Marines would be guaranteed, of course. Also, including Guard would allow GW to include the anti-titan Super Heavies, which really should be part of an initial roll-out.
2.) Doesn't need to be Horus Heresy even for a mirror match set-up. The official excuse could be The Badab War, or something similar. That makes it more "modern", for those who are concerned about that. Sure, the scope is more limited. But it's not as if that really matters when you're looking for an excuse to put troops on the table. And even if it were officially a Badab setting, how many of you would complain if your opponent brought an army painted up as the Dark Angels?
3.) AT complicates things. If Phantoms and Gargants exist in AT (presumably added in the near-future) and a new Imperium-only version of Epic appears, players will expect that Eldar and Orks will be added soon to the new Epic. Others have noted that if players expect that their favorite armies will be added to Epic later, they'll be inclined to wait instead of buying in at launch. I'm of the opinion that the existence of the xenos aircraft doesn't matter as much.
Now as for the actual rumor? I'm very skeptical. Strikes me as more of a "say it often enough and eventually I'll get it right".
Eumerin wrote: Assuming GW was considering a new version of Epic, the things that I see are these -
1.) Imperium-only is all but guaranteed, at least for the initial roll-out. This makes it easier and more cost-effective for something that GW would consider a gamble. Note that an Imperium-only roll-out can still include a heavy Guard presence. Space Marines would be guaranteed, of course. Also, including Guard would allow GW to include the anti-titan Super Heavies, which really should be part of an initial roll-out.
2.) Doesn't need to be Horus Heresy even for a mirror match set-up. The official excuse could be The Badab War, or something similar. That makes it more "modern", for those who are concerned about that. Sure, the scope is more limited. But it's not as if that really matters when you're looking for an excuse to put troops on the table. And even if it were officially a Badab setting, how many of you would complain if your opponent brought an army painted up as the Dark Angels?
3.) AT complicates things. If Phantoms and Gargants exist in AT (presumably added in the near-future) and a new Imperium-only version of Epic appears, players will expect that Eldar and Orks will be added soon to the new Epic. Others have noted that if players expect that their favorite armies will be added to Epic later, they'll be inclined to wait instead of buying in at launch. I'm of the opinion that the existence of the xenos aircraft doesn't matter as much.
Now as for the actual rumor? I'm very skeptical. Strikes me as more of a "say it often enough and eventually I'll get it right".
Initial roll-out could be pretty limited; do some of the anti-titan superheavys, do some battle tanks as a counter to them, do some infantry as a counter to the tanks. Ideally, you'd want to make a couple of superheavies together be able to seriously endanger or kill a titan, but have too few shots or whatever to beat a tank company point for point, to get some rock-paper-scissor-style tactics going among the non-titan elements, and have each 'class' of non-titan be able to bring down titans if attacking them unmolested and en masse, so that you need to have some sort of plan for countering each, either by bringing along counter-units or by including relevant arms in titan loadouts. Then later on, when that is established, you can differentiate and have anti-infantry superheavies, assault infantry, transports and the like - so practically you get a smooth transition form additional units for AT to full-on epic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Epic is a more natural home for Xenos Titans, due to their historic lack of variety.
Even at the dawn of Epic, only Imperial and Chaos Titans had variety in chassis and armament.
But Epic brought genuine diversity, not just in looks and models, but playstyle.
And the same can be done again, relieving the need for the Xenos Titans to start off with a decent level of variety.
Yeah, pretty much - there are what, 3.5 types of Gargant -normal, great, mega + 0.5 for the mekboy gargant - 2.5 Eldar titan - small, big, + 0.5 for the warlock -, 3 tyranid - hierodule, hierophant, dominatrix - and 2 chassis types for Tau Flyers? If we exclude the Mega-Gargant as Emperor Titan equivalent for the moment, that boils down to one scout class and one battle titan class set per xenos race, with a couple of knight-sized models thrown in for variety perhaps, and the great gargant as the only one approaching the size of a Warlord in mass. That's doable.
Malika2 wrote: So do we have any substantial rumours or are we wishlisting and speculating again?
We have Valraks word for it to be ''definitely maybe coming'', followed up by a unrelated, yet timely reminder that all rumours are always lies up until they are proven true
In terms of Xenos Titans, they don’t quite fit the same slots as their Imperial origin counterparts.
Eldar Titans tend to have fewer, but more powerful and accurate weapon systems. This is massively offset by their higher movement, agility and holofields. Of course, as ever, get through the Holofields and it’s gonna knack. Revenants are directly comparable to Warhounds, but the Phantom and Warlock are closer to Reaver than Warlord.
Orky Gargants? Lots and lots and lots of guns, but outside of the Gutbuster Belly Cannon, none are particularly good against opposing Titans. However, they’re incredibly difficult to destroy - and their guns do tend to be good at stripping void shields and keeping them stripped.
Great Gargants are probably my favourite in terms of rules and background. The chainshot (think ballistic bolas of ridiculous bore) was deadly in-game, but in-universe, was preferred because it incapacitated rather than destroyed, ensuring the Meks wot built Da Gargant had plenty of tasty scrap to collect once Da ‘Umies had been stomped.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In terms of Xenos Titans, they don’t quite fit the same slots as their Imperial origin counterparts.
Eldar Titans tend to have fewer, but more powerful and accurate weapon systems. This is massively offset by their higher movement, agility and holofields. Of course, as ever, get through the Holofields and it’s gonna knack. Revenants are directly comparable to Warhounds, but the Phantom and Warlock are closer to Reaver than Warlord.
Orky Gargants? Lots and lots and lots of guns, but outside of the Gutbuster Belly Cannon, none are particularly good against opposing Titans. However, they’re incredibly difficult to destroy - and their guns do tend to be good at stripping void shields and keeping them stripped.
Great Gargants are probably my favourite in terms of rules and background. The chainshot (think ballistic bolas of ridiculous bore) was deadly in-game, but in-universe, was preferred because it incapacitated rather than destroyed, ensuring the Meks wot built Da Gargant had plenty of tasty scrap to collect once Da ‘Umies had been stomped.
I was mainly thinking on the level of resource investment to produce the models and assorted gubbins like command panels and so on, not in-game role.
Just rumours. I find it rather comical that there is a rumour tracker for reliability, as it feels like an Mi5 operation for what is just toy soliders...
"Dammit Sir, we have it on our most reliable sources that Epic WILL return next year! To ignore this information is to invite disaster!"
...and then we have Valrak who gets as excited as we once did knowing the N64 was about to be released, back in the day.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In terms of Xenos Titans, they don’t quite fit the same slots as their Imperial origin counterparts.
Eldar Titans tend to have fewer, but more powerful and accurate weapon systems. This is massively offset by their higher movement, agility and holofields. Of course, as ever, get through the Holofields and it’s gonna knack. Revenants are directly comparable to Warhounds, but the Phantom and Warlock are closer to Reaver than Warlord.
Orky Gargants? Lots and lots and lots of guns, but outside of the Gutbuster Belly Cannon, none are particularly good against opposing Titans. However, they’re incredibly difficult to destroy - and their guns do tend to be good at stripping void shields and keeping them stripped.
Great Gargants are probably my favourite in terms of rules and background. The chainshot (think ballistic bolas of ridiculous bore) was deadly in-game, but in-universe, was preferred because it incapacitated rather than destroyed, ensuring the Meks wot built Da Gargant had plenty of tasty scrap to collect once Da ‘Umies had been stomped.
I was mainly thinking on the level of resource investment to produce the models and assorted gubbins like command panels and so on, not in-game role.
I’m just enjoying an excuse to wibble about my favourite game GW ever made ever.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In terms of Xenos Titans, they don’t quite fit the same slots as their Imperial origin counterparts.
Eldar Titans tend to have fewer, but more powerful and accurate weapon systems. This is massively offset by their higher movement, agility and holofields. Of course, as ever, get through the Holofields and it’s gonna knack. Revenants are directly comparable to Warhounds, but the Phantom and Warlock are closer to Reaver than Warlord.
Orky Gargants? Lots and lots and lots of guns, but outside of the Gutbuster Belly Cannon, none are particularly good against opposing Titans. However, they’re incredibly difficult to destroy - and their guns do tend to be good at stripping void shields and keeping them stripped.
Great Gargants are probably my favourite in terms of rules and background. The chainshot (think ballistic bolas of ridiculous bore) was deadly in-game, but in-universe, was preferred because it incapacitated rather than destroyed, ensuring the Meks wot built Da Gargant had plenty of tasty scrap to collect once Da ‘Umies had been stomped.
I was mainly thinking on the level of resource investment to produce the models and assorted gubbins like command panels and so on, not in-game role.
I’m just enjoying an excuse to wibble about my favourite game GW ever made ever.
I still fondly remember the additional flyer missions from german White Dwarf 23, quarter of a century ago...
Malika2 wrote: So do we have any substantial rumours or are we wishlisting and speculating again?
We have Valraks word for it to be ''definitely maybe coming'', followed up by a unrelated, yet timely reminder that all rumours are always lies up until they are proven true
Gnarlly wrote: While I agree that GW would see a new Epic as an incentive to sell more (Epic-scale) minis, history has shown that Epic scale minis just don't sell that much in comparison to 40k scale minis. There will always be the GW whales that buy anything "new" from GW but I just don't see a new Epic doing any better than its previous iterations.
Heck Epic 40K only got what 6 months before GW killed it - hardly enough time for the marketing to get going or armies outside of the Imperials and Orks to get diverse ranges of models before BOOM it was dead.
It was utterly daft from a business perspective but I miss the 90s GW that would just release stuff on a hope and a prayer, without any seeming business plan, it led to some really interesting releases. In 1997 alone you had Epic 40k and Gorkamorka release and then be dead within six months but leaving behind their own legacies. From what I understand Gorkamorka was an infamous financial flop.
Gnarlly wrote: While I agree that GW would see a new Epic as an incentive to sell more (Epic-scale) minis, history has shown that Epic scale minis just don't sell that much in comparison to 40k scale minis. There will always be the GW whales that buy anything "new" from GW but I just don't see a new Epic doing any better than its previous iterations.
Heck Epic 40K only got what 6 months before GW killed it - hardly enough time for the marketing to get going or armies outside of the Imperials and Orks to get diverse ranges of models before BOOM it was dead.
It was utterly daft from a business perspective but I miss the 90s GW that would just release stuff on a hope and a prayer, without any seeming business plan, it led to some really interesting releases. In 1997 alone you had Epic 40k and Gorkamorka release and then be dead within six months but leaving behind their own legacies. From what I understand Gorkamorka was an infamous financial flop.
Epic 40k was hung out to dry pretty badly, but Gorkamorka barely had any game going at all - the stylistic choices were weird; it introduced what would become the design elements of 3rd edition and onwards orks, at a time when ''Space Orks'' were still some weird amalgam of Space Nazi, in-jokes and funny random table stuff form the era of 'ere we go. Also, it had barely any discernable gameplay, effectively only one faction in endless mirror-matches up to the release of Digganob, and was set on the most boring planet you could imagine and had a paper-thin excuse for a backstory or player motivation. In other words, it was weirdly glorious if you were a very particular kind of not right in the head, and absolute rubbish in all other circumstances.
Yeah, pretty much - there are what, 3.5 types of Gargant -normal, great, mega + 0.5 for the mekboy gargant - 2.5 Eldar titan - small, big, + 0.5 for the warlock -, 3 tyranid - hierodule, hierophant, dominatrix - and 2 chassis types for Tau Flyers? If we exclude the Mega-Gargant as Emperor Titan equivalent for the moment, that boils down to one scout class and one battle titan class set per xenos race, with a couple of knight-sized models thrown in for variety perhaps, and the great gargant as the only one approaching the size of a Warlord in mass. That's doable.
Not counting the Emperor Titan, weren't there only three Imperium Titan chassis in Epic? I only recall the Warhound, Reaver, and Warlord. I recall people here discussing things such as the Nightgaunt, but those still used a basic chassis (and were only available in AT - not Epic - to boot). It was only the hardpoint distribution that made the variants visually different from the basic titans.
do some of the anti-titan superheavys
Early on, there was speculation that these would be added to the new AT. After all, they'd fit in fine with the knights that have been in since launch. And a Shadowsword would be a real threat to anything on the table that didn't have void shields protecting it. No such luck, though.
Yeah, pretty much - there are what, 3.5 types of Gargant -normal, great, mega + 0.5 for the mekboy gargant - 2.5 Eldar titan - small, big, + 0.5 for the warlock -, 3 tyranid - hierodule, hierophant, dominatrix - and 2 chassis types for Tau Flyers? If we exclude the Mega-Gargant as Emperor Titan equivalent for the moment, that boils down to one scout class and one battle titan class set per xenos race, with a couple of knight-sized models thrown in for variety perhaps, and the great gargant as the only one approaching the size of a Warlord in mass. That's doable.
Not counting the Emperor Titan, weren't there only three Imperium Titan chassis in Epic? I only recall the Warhound, Reaver, and Warlord. I recall people here discussing things such as the Nightgaunt, but those still used a basic chassis (and were only available in AT - not Epic - to boot). It was only the hardpoint distribution that made the variants visually different from the basic titans.
do some of the anti-titan superheavys
Early on, there was speculation that these would be added to the new AT. After all, they'd fit in fine with the knights that have been in since launch. And a Shadowsword would be a real threat to anything on the table that didn't have void shields protecting it. No such luck, though.
Yep, the classic titans were Warhound, Reaver and Warlord, everything else is a later addition. The Emperor Titan was a holdover from Adeptus Titanicus, then late in the days of Epic 40k they added the Warmonger, a Emperor-sized loadout variant with a rack of doomsday missiles and a superheavy multilaser as main armaments. Other than that, different chassis were mentioned from time to time, but never saw the light of day as an actual model that was for sale. Warbringers, Warmasters and so on are all current additions, but partially based on old sketches that Jes Goodwin did at various points in time.
doktor_g wrote: Rescale to cut out 3dmodelers. New models. Grand Master boxed set. Rules that require purchases of other boxed sets (AT / AI). And see what happens as a weather balloon. If it sells like crazy... more. If it doesn't, shelved.
You can't rescale to cut out the 3D print market Cause anyone with a 3d printer can rescale in seconds.
Plus we already know GW would use the same scale they use in AT and AN so that those models would cross over into Epic. So we already know the scale.
Well, we know the scale of titans, but the scale of titans is wildly inconsistent in its own way. If they were smart, they would actually scale everything but the titans down even further for a prospective Epic relaunch, to really hammer home how titanic the titans are, and to make it a much different game where transports actually have a strategic reason to exist, speed and maneuverability are much more important and tank-based artillery does not have practically unlimited range. Battlefields are much too small anyway, and opening up that design space would set epic apart from 40k quite nicely.
The scale of both AT and AI is 1/4th of the 40k scale. Extrapolate.
Predating Epic 40K there was Titan Legions which had a LOT more titans and knights in general, orks and Imperials both had quite expensive numbers with Imperials having a lot of knight class titans.
It's also where the mighty Imperator first reared its castle back onto the battlefields.
And whilst titan scales have varied a lot over the years and the artwork has varied even more (some show reavers standing over whole cities); the scales for AT and AN are pretty fixed. GW would be utter fools to choose any other scale, though of course practicalities of making models means that sometimes you sacrifice a bit of scale for a viable good model to work with. Which is pretty normal - heck most buildings we game with are woefully undersized. Few game systems aim for true "real scale" representation.
Mentlegen324 wrote: The Squat rumor was elsewhere first, but he said they'd be coming back with Men of Iron, which turned out to be pretty much true.
Except it was as wrong as pretty much everything V says. Real Men of Iron, as shown in comics, books, or BSF model/short story, are vastly more powerful and intelligent than glorified autonomous drones Ironkin are. They don't even have full AI and just pretend/ape emotions and social behaviours. Plus, ""predicting"" that new squats will have robots of some kind was suuuper difficult seeing old ones heavily relied on them.
So, yeah, there you have it, V does tons of blind guessing that turns out to be wrong in almost every case, and even in such cases where he stumbles on a near miss details are all wrong, but if you throw BS often enough and vague enough, eventually something will stick and then people will be all 'oh look he was cOrReCt!'
Here, look me do a Valrak: in 2023, GW will release white painted army! And oh, something on 28 mm bases! And space marine HQ! And chaos army book! And new edition (and if it turns out they won't thanks to all the delays, I will just quietly ignore it and will just do same prediction in 2024)! And plastic warhound titan (ditto)! And a new big PC game! And a new space marine codex! And a second votann wave! And 40K store promo limited model (super hard to guess seeing last one was AoS)! And female inquisitor! And then there is shocking rumor next Kill Team might be released soon! And oh, this tiny, insignificant detail in obscure game/comic/book means GW will soon do new character/unit/army (though they never do this but better say that every time there is something new to maybe chance on something in that odd 0.01% of cases)!
Wanna bet how soon I will be cOrReCt like V at least in 5 of these?
Did you get banned from his chat or something? He is obviously living rent free in your head.
Overread wrote: Predating Epic 40K there was Titan Legions which had a LOT more titans and knights in general, orks and Imperials both had quite expensive numbers with Imperials having a lot of knight class titans.
This was touched on up above, and there were still only the same basic chassis. As for knights, my recollection is that they were added in Epic. They were stated in fluff to be human copies of the Eldar knights used by the Exodites.
Gnarlly wrote: While I agree that GW would see a new Epic as an incentive to sell more (Epic-scale) minis, history has shown that Epic scale minis just don't sell that much in comparison to 40k scale minis. There will always be the GW whales that buy anything "new" from GW but I just don't see a new Epic doing any better than its previous iterations.
Also, it seems several people are under the illusion that all games using the new Apocalypse system must be massive all-day sessions with tables turned into congested "parking lots" of figures. The game actually plays quite well at the size of large standard 40k battles (roughly 2000 points of minis each side using 40k's points system) and such games can be played in less time than a 2000 point 40k match.
This matchup was roughly 2500 points each side in standard 40k terms of points on a 6'x4' table (not "niche" IMO as many players have armies of that size or more). A little cramped for an Ork horde but perfectly playable:
A picture like that shows me exactly why I'm getting back into Epic and not 40k It just looks like someone has taken a bunch of vehicles and infantry, set them up on the long edges of a football field, and are about to mash them together like some chaotic game of dodgeball.
Epic lets you assemble something that actually looks like it could be an army, have everything from gretchin to warlord titans on the table, play a game on a 4x4, 6x4 or 8x4 table and have space to move, realistic looking ranges, a chance for fast troops to exploit their speed because there's enough space on a table, and play a fun game that doesn't take multiple days to finish.
Model creep has definitely made 40k boards look worse, too cramped, like someone poured a bucket of their toys on the table and started bashing them together.
It actually works well for AOS because you're supposed to envision big blobs of melee soldiers smashing into one another, but 40k tables (especially at tournaments) look awful these days. That's before getting into terrible, cheap L shaped terrain with no holes in it because people will rule that 0.25" bullet hole someone poked in means their entire army can shoot through and hit your unit, as well as covering the board with ugly XXKILLGRIMDESIGNSXX objective markers that look like product placement at football games (and usually are if it's a battle report video).
Arbitrator wrote: Model creep has definitely made 40k boards look worse, too cramped, like someone poured a bucket of their toys on the table and started bashing them together.
I guess the scales kind of made sense back in the 90's, when 2nd edition 40k was mostly games of a few squads and a vehicle or two, WHFB was a game of a handful of blocks of infantry/cav with maybe 1 big impressive monster-type-thing, and Epic was a game hundreds of models but at a smaller scale so it kind of made sense.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: A picture like that shows me exactly why I'm getting back into Epic and not 40k It just looks like someone has taken a bunch of vehicles and infantry, set them up on the long edges of a football field, and are about to mash them together like some chaotic game of dodgeball.
Epic lets you assemble something that actually looks like it could be an army, have everything from gretchin to warlord titans on the table, play a game on a 4x4, 6x4 or 8x4 table and have space to move, realistic looking ranges, a chance for fast troops to exploit their speed because there's enough space on a table, and play a fun game that doesn't take multiple days to finish.
That photo looks awesome. Sure, everyone started off lined up like a football game, but once everyone got moving there would be a lot of maneuvering. Does it replicate modern combined-arms combat? No. But it looks like WH40k. I bet that was a fun game once the Orks got stuck in.
I don't agree that Epic looked any better or was any more realistic. It was fun because you could mix massive war machines with infantry, but it didn't look much different from the WH40k game in the photo. And it was even more abstract than WH40k.
That photo looks awesome. Sure, everyone started off lined up like a football game, but once everyone got moving there would be a lot of maneuvering. Does it replicate modern combined-arms combat? No. But it looks like WH40k. I bet that was a fun game once the Orks got stuck in.
I don't agree that Epic looked any better or was any more realistic. It was fun because you could mix massive war machines with infantry, but it didn't look much different from the WH40k game in the photo. And it was even more abstract than WH40k.
You are, of course, entitled to your own wrong opinion
As to the amount of maneuvering you can do on that table with the shwon armies... well. I guess they can advance, yes. Like, once, as there's mostly vehicles.
But Epic armies did look quite different, I think, even with bigass titans. At the very least, the titans look properly massive ^^
But regular 40k wouldn't need to go that small, really. 15mm 40k looks amazing already, with nary a rule change (well, other than going back to old sized tables):
A return of Epic would be cool I mean we have the basis in Adeptus Titanicus: The Horus Heresy and to be honest at the moment 3D printing is bringing infantry units to the table and Falchions and Glaives..
As for official support beyond AT I am not so sure id love my Word Bearers in 15mm for sure it would be like having everything I cant afford from Forgeworld at my hands..
But GW unlikely so many pots and pans in the sink already ...
Malika2 wrote: So do we have any substantial rumours or are we wishlisting and speculating again?
We have Valraks word for it to be ''definitely maybe coming'', followed up by a unrelated, yet timely reminder that all rumours are always lies up until they are proven true
In other words: sadly nothing, but were busy for four pages discussing rules and nostalgia.
I feel this is becoming a recurring ritual. Perhaps such Epic “rumours” topics shouldn’t be allowed in the rumours section until there’s something more substantial…
Malika2 wrote: So do we have any substantial rumours or are we wishlisting and speculating again?
We have Valraks word for it to be ''definitely maybe coming'', followed up by a unrelated, yet timely reminder that all rumours are always lies up until they are proven true
In other words: sadly nothing, but were busy for four pages discussing rules and nostalgia.
I feel this is becoming a recurring ritual. Perhaps such Epic “rumours” topics shouldn’t be allowed in the rumours section until there’s something more substantial…
This really irritates me, it's a news & rumours forum, just because the rumour is small or of questionable validity it doesn't mean it doesn't belong. What should maybe happen is the thread topic is better managed to prune off pages of loosely related chatter.
It doesn't need to be a fact to have a place in a rumour board.
Anyway chance to plug something! If anyone is interested in giving Epic Space Marine a go, perhaps you played it back in the day or have seen it for the first time and are intrigued, a couple of pals and I are running an Expo/Participation game in March next year in Firestorm Games, Cardiff (UK). It's completely free to take part and will be two massive armies, Titans/gargants, armoured & infantry companies, all duking it out on 12ft of table.
Dudeface wrote: This really irritates me, it's a news & rumours forum, just because the rumour is small or of questionable validity it doesn't mean it doesn't belong. What should maybe happen is the thread topic is better managed to prune off pages of loosely related chatter.
It doesn't need to be a fact to have a place in a rumour board.
But it's also not much more meaningful to discuss than just any random topic.
Dudeface wrote: This really irritates me, it's a news & rumours forum, just because the rumour is small or of questionable validity it doesn't mean it doesn't belong. What should maybe happen is the thread topic is better managed to prune off pages of loosely related chatter.
It doesn't need to be a fact to have a place in a rumour board.
But it's also not much more meaningful to discuss than just any random topic.
Exactly that! I feel that we might just as well keep a general epic wishlisting and speculation topic in the Specialist Games section of this forum. Oh wait...we already have such a thread over there!
First came Adeptus Titanicus. At the time of release, it was the boxed game (maybe GW’s first with plastic models?), and expansion sets of Titans.
To bring variety, the Warlord chassis was presented with set sub-types which offered different loadouts, speed, VSG and manouverability. Names such as Nightgaint, Goth etc.
Shortly after, Codex Titanicus arrived. This brought Warhounds and Reavers (effectively replacing the Warlord sun-types), Warlocks, Phantoms, Gargants and Great Gargants. Plus some infantry rules.
Space Marine 1st Ed then arrived, bringing us to a “proper” Epic Game.
And what we’re seeing here is…pretty much the same it would seem.
AT and Aeronautica use much the same scale, so to rebirth Epic we just need to see scaled infantry and tanks.
From a model design point of view, that’s cost efficient, because you don’t need and to some extent can’t have the usual pose variety we see from GW
The devil is in the gameplay though. We’ve had five incarnations, if we include the current AT. And all have aspects which worked, and aspects which didn’t. And all have their die hard fans. For me I wouldn’t be welcoming of a return to 3rd Epic which for me was a disappointing, anaemic affair with Bloody Awful Eldar Models. For others, my beloved 2nd Ed is anathema. Both and neither of us are right.
I could wax lyrical about the merits of 2nd Ed, but even I have to acknowledge the market and gaming in general has moved on. So much as I argue “just use that, for it is lovely and perfect” the sheer number of tokens and counters probably doesn’t have the same appeal to others. Plus, from a Supply and Demand point of view keeping the cardboard flowing is a headache GW probably wants to do without!
Definitely would be an interesting thing choosing which ruleset to go with, although I would say all of them (perhaps except for 1st edition) are far easier to learn than modern 40k or Necromunda, with its estimated 100+ hobbyist deaths per year from being buried under rulebook landslides!
AllSeeingSkink wrote: A picture like that shows me exactly why I'm getting back into Epic and not 40k It just looks like someone has taken a bunch of vehicles and infantry, set them up on the long edges of a football field, and are about to mash them together like some chaotic game of dodgeball.
Epic lets you assemble something that actually looks like it could be an army, have everything from gretchin to warlord titans on the table, play a game on a 4x4, 6x4 or 8x4 table and have space to move, realistic looking ranges, a chance for fast troops to exploit their speed because there's enough space on a table, and play a fun game that doesn't take multiple days to finish.
That photo looks awesome. Sure, everyone started off lined up like a football game, but once everyone got moving there would be a lot of maneuvering. Does it replicate modern combined-arms combat? No. But it looks like WH40k. I bet that was a fun game once the Orks got stuck in.
I don't agree that Epic looked any better or was any more realistic. It was fun because you could mix massive war machines with infantry, but it didn't look much different from the WH40k game in the photo. And it was even more abstract than WH40k.
Lots of manouvering on board that's too small to allow it
40k has no meaningful manouvering thanks to small boards, high movement rates and ranges not being issue.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I could wax lyrical about the merits of 2nd Ed, but even I have to acknowledge the market and gaming in general has moved on. So much as I argue “just use that, for it is lovely and perfect” the sheer number of tokens and counters probably doesn’t have the same appeal to others. Plus, from a Supply and Demand point of view keeping the cardboard flowing is a headache GW probably wants to do without!
Buckets o' tokens still works in FFG/AMG games, so I wouldn't say that's necessarily an exclusionary factor...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: True, but for GW it’s an outsourcing job, and we’ve seen them have trouble keeping such things in stock.
With the amount of cardboard they push nowadays it has to be close to the point that re-integrating some sort of printing service is long-term viable again. Packaging in handling is a whole other problem though.
I'd love to see what modern manufacturing could do with Epic. I'm very impressed with what fan 3d sculptors and modellers are doing already with similar scales. As for modern 40k, I think with the model count and variety of model sizes that the game is shoehorning in, 10-15mm would work better for the post 5e apocalypsified 40k.
I don't think something like Space Marine would need too many tokens? Order tokens (no different from activation tokens you have in Warcry or Necromunda), and unit selection could be an app where you simply construct your force from companies and support cards. The same with Titan hit charts, if they took that route, could be app-supported (although I realise that would need some investment, which they probably wouldn't bother with if it was a 'one and done').
AllSeeingSkink wrote: A picture like that shows me exactly why I'm getting back into Epic and not 40k It just looks like someone has taken a bunch of vehicles and infantry, set them up on the long edges of a football field, and are about to mash them together like some chaotic game of dodgeball.
Epic lets you assemble something that actually looks like it could be an army, have everything from gretchin to warlord titans on the table, play a game on a 4x4, 6x4 or 8x4 table and have space to move, realistic looking ranges, a chance for fast troops to exploit their speed because there's enough space on a table, and play a fun game that doesn't take multiple days to finish.
That photo looks awesome. Sure, everyone started off lined up like a football game, but once everyone got moving there would be a lot of maneuvering. Does it replicate modern combined-arms combat? No. But it looks like WH40k. I bet that was a fun game once the Orks got stuck in.
I don't agree that Epic looked any better or was any more realistic. It was fun because you could mix massive war machines with infantry, but it didn't look much different from the WH40k game in the photo. And it was even more abstract than WH40k.
Lots of manouvering on board that's too small to allow it
40k has no meaningful manouvering thanks to small boards, high movement rates and ranges not being issue.
Its definitely something that has changed over time. 1st and 2nd edition had a lot of maneuver (just check out battle reports from that time), there was a lot of flanking, fast attack, getting around your opponents. I would say that started to change from 3rd edition when the game became necessarily more abstract as model count increased, and by the time we got to 6th edition and onwards and super heavies, big tank groups started appearing on tabletops, it gradually move towards what you saw in that photo above. I would never denigrate what other people play and enjoy, each to his own, but we're getting into statement of fact saying there is the same possibility for employment of movement tactics in 40k as there are in Epic (any version) and that is simply not the case. If you think that is so, then it just means you haven't read the Epic rulebook - just to take Armageddon as an example you have rules for crossfire, for firing into assault before the melee begins (ideas taken directly from historical wargaming and an attempt to make a 'realistic' portrayal of warfare). The scale belies a really neat, and not overly complex, game mechanics and is a strong reason why many think its the best rule system that GW have ever written.
warboss wrote: I'd love to see what modern manufacturing could do with Epic. I'm very impressed with what fan 3d sculptors and modellers are doing already with similar scales. As for modern 40k, I think with the model count and variety of model sizes that the game is shoehorning in, 10-15mm would work better for the post 5e apocalypsified 40k.
I think we can expect infantry and tanks in scale with AT and Aeronautica.
Plus, one of the appeals of Epic is you have huge armies which don’t take a huge amount of time to paint or assemble.
The visual spectacle comes from the scale and the Titans. Also the terrain I suppose.
Maneuvering died when 5th edition made area terrain transparent and the concepts of line of sight and fire lanes ceased to exist in any meaningful capacity.
Another 2nd ed fan here. I'd instabuy 2nd ed Space Marine again any day of the week (although must admit the 3rd edition box minis look even better).
If we get four pages of lyrical waxing in short order at the slightest rumour of an Epic comeback, GW probably knows they need to throw us a bone sooner or later. Could even be a "one and done" type of affair at first, just to gauge reactions. One bigger box is all it would take to get the ball running. They already sell terrain suitable for the scale. I wouldn't mind keeping it HH themed, as HH is already targeted more towards us older gents. Let the yoof have their 40K parking lots if thats their thing
I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.
Just Titans isn’t a particularly scalable game type. Much of the strategy is resource management and manouvering, over simply shooting something with the right gun.
And it’s not really a game one can just add infantry to.
Do a separate game, allow the Titans to port over? And you’ve a ready made partial player base.
And hey, go for a grander scale of battle than classic Epic. Being set during the Heresy, up the numbers of tanks and infantry (classic Epic being largely set in 40K).
And hey, go for a grander scale of battle than classic Epic. Being set during the Heresy, up the numbers of tanks and infantry (classic Epic being largely set in 40K).
Tanks in 40k are about 20% too small anyway, so the 'solution' to embiggen the scope of the game is pretty simple: leave titans, planes and tanks scaled as they are and reduce the size of infantry a little bit, and everything looks much better and truer to fluff immediately. So if e.g. infantry in Titanicus scale should be 8mm, just go to 6mm anyway, but do the tanks in 8mm. That would also account for the slightly higher level of detailling that's needed to make the tanks look good while not overburdening infantry with unnecessary details.
Mr.Pickels wrote: I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.
It does work because quite a few of us are already doing it This is my Crusade-era World Eaters force. It is made up of Vanguard Miniatures proxies, some 3d prints and GW classics (as well as AT titans). I have a choice of rulesets, all of which are free to download, and are expertly balanced/playtested from many years with the community.
Arbitrator wrote: Model creep has definitely made 40k boards look worse, too cramped, like someone poured a bucket of their toys on the table and started bashing them together.
I guess the scales kind of made sense back in the 90's, when 2nd edition 40k was mostly games of a few squads and a vehicle or two, WHFB was a game of a handful of blocks of infantry/cav with maybe 1 big impressive monster-type-thing, and Epic was a game hundreds of models but at a smaller scale so it kind of made sense.
Well the last version cut down the numbers somewhat. A tourney winning marine army was:-
6 squads tactical marines,
4 squads terminators
4 squads of scouts
8 rhinos/droppods (as required for each mission)
30 marines on bikes (whats that, 6 bike squads? 3? How many bikes to a squad now?)
5 Landspeeders
4 Predators
1 Hunter
4 Whirlwinds
Thunderhawk
4 Thunderbolt fighters
One of the weaknesses of old Epic was that they were still pretty stuck in their ''5 dudes per Stand''-rule for infantry for all races, i.e. a 40k combat squad per stand. Even with the technology of the early 2000s, they could have gone and made ''horde stands'' for some of the hordier armies and units, like they did for the short-lived ''Fantasy Epic'' Warmaster. With the current technology, you could go even further and do really impressive horde blobs as opposed to sculpting every single infantry model as detailled as possible.
Yes, it would ahve been cool if a stand was a combat squad of marines, aspect warrior team, etc, or a 10 man squad of guardsmen, or horde of chitin etc. Would have further emphasised elite options over other races.
Arbitrator wrote: Model creep has definitely made 40k boards look worse, too cramped, like someone poured a bucket of their toys on the table and started bashing them together.
I guess the scales kind of made sense back in the 90's, when 2nd edition 40k was mostly games of a few squads and a vehicle or two, WHFB was a game of a handful of blocks of infantry/cav with maybe 1 big impressive monster-type-thing, and Epic was a game hundreds of models but at a smaller scale so it kind of made sense.
Well the last version cut down the numbers somewhat. A tourney winning marine army was:-
6 squads tactical marines,
4 squads terminators
4 squads of scouts
8 rhinos/droppods (as required for each mission)
30 marines on bikes (whats that, 6 bike squads? 3? How many bikes to a squad now?)
5 Landspeeders
4 Predators
1 Hunter
4 Whirlwinds
Thunderhawk
4 Thunderbolt fighters
I have seen that in 40k scale on a table...
Back in the day when Epic 40k was released they did a battle report with some sort of 'designers notes' for each phase, and one of the key concepts that they mentioned was that a single firefight/close combat between epic detachments would cover about the same type and extent of engagement as a typical 40k game of the time. So by that logic, a typical force of a handful of detachments and support groups would cover what would be about 4000 - 5000 points in 40k at the time, which would be closer to maybe 2500 pts today.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: A picture like that shows me exactly why I'm getting back into Epic and not 40k It just looks like someone has taken a bunch of vehicles and infantry, set them up on the long edges of a football field, and are about to mash them together like some chaotic game of dodgeball.
Epic lets you assemble something that actually looks like it could be an army, have everything from gretchin to warlord titans on the table, play a game on a 4x4, 6x4 or 8x4 table and have space to move, realistic looking ranges, a chance for fast troops to exploit their speed because there's enough space on a table, and play a fun game that doesn't take multiple days to finish.
That photo looks awesome. Sure, everyone started off lined up like a football game, but once everyone got moving there would be a lot of maneuvering. Does it replicate modern combined-arms combat? No. But it looks like WH40k. I bet that was a fun game once the Orks got stuck in.
I don't agree that Epic looked any better or was any more realistic. It was fun because you could mix massive war machines with infantry, but it didn't look much different from the WH40k game in the photo. And it was even more abstract than WH40k.
You're of course welcome to think it looks awesome, but I doubt there was a lot of movement manoeuvring and I'm sure the Orks did get stuck in, lol.
But I think the idea that Epic didn't look much different from that 40k photo is just factually wrong.
Of course what you think looks good is entirely subjective, I just said that for me, personally, games that look like that in 40k I find entirely unappealing. Less of a game and more of an excuse to line up all your models before removing them and packing them back away again, lol.
Back in the day when Epic 40k was released they did a battle report with some sort of 'designers notes' for each phase, and one of the key concepts that they mentioned was that a single firefight/close combat between epic detachments would cover about the same type and extent of engagement as a typical 40k game of the time. So by that logic, a typical force of a handful of detachments and support groups would cover what would be about 4000 - 5000 points in 40k at the time, which would be closer to maybe 2500 pts today.
Yes Epic 40k (3rd edition) had the concept of being able to do your 40k army in miniature. It was neat, and you could do it with the right players. Most though very quickly moved to mono type detachments moving at similar speeds with AP or AT firepower as the enemy were likely doing the same and it was the most 'efficient'.
Arbitrator wrote: Model creep has definitely made 40k boards look worse, too cramped, like someone poured a bucket of their toys on the table and started bashing them together.
I guess the scales kind of made sense back in the 90's, when 2nd edition 40k was mostly games of a few squads and a vehicle or two, WHFB was a game of a handful of blocks of infantry/cav with maybe 1 big impressive monster-type-thing, and Epic was a game hundreds of models but at a smaller scale so it kind of made sense.
Well the last version cut down the numbers somewhat. A tourney winning marine army was:-
6 squads tactical marines,
4 squads terminators
4 squads of scouts
8 rhinos/droppods (as required for each mission)
30 marines on bikes (whats that, 6 bike squads? 3? How many bikes to a squad now?)
5 Landspeeders
4 Predators
1 Hunter
4 Whirlwinds
Thunderhawk
4 Thunderbolt fighters
I have seen that in 40k scale on a table...
Back in the day when Epic 40k was released they did a battle report with some sort of 'designers notes' for each phase, and one of the key concepts that they mentioned was that a single firefight/close combat between epic detachments would cover about the same type and extent of engagement as a typical 40k game of the time. So by that logic, a typical force of a handful of detachments and support groups would cover what would be about 4000 - 5000 points in 40k at the time, which would be closer to maybe 2500 pts today.
That was written in the Appendix of the Battles Book. They said 15cm in Epic is roughly equivalent to 24" in 40k, which is the typical distance starting distance between forces in a game of 40k, and why "Firefights" in Epic occur over a distance of 15cm, and one assault phase in Epic is equivalent to a four-turn 40k game.
So the idea I guess is that the Assault phase = game of 40k, while the Shooting and Movement phases = long ranged posturing and shooting that occurs at ranges beyond the scope of a typical 40k game.
Back in the day when Epic 40k was released they did a battle report with some sort of 'designers notes' for each phase, and one of the key concepts that they mentioned was that a single firefight/close combat between epic detachments would cover about the same type and extent of engagement as a typical 40k game of the time. So by that logic, a typical force of a handful of detachments and support groups would cover what would be about 4000 - 5000 points in 40k at the time, which would be closer to maybe 2500 pts today.
Yes Epic 40k (3rd edition) had the concept of being able to do your 40k army in miniature. It was neat, and you could do it with the right players. Most though very quickly moved to mono type detachments moving at similar speeds with AP or AT firepower as the enemy were likely doing the same and it was the most 'efficient'.
Yeah, it's kind of also what makes the most sense, real militaries bundle groups of similar units together because it makes sense to put all your artillery together, a bunch of similar tanks together, a bunch of cavalry together, etc. Whereas 40k might have a single artillery piece next to a tank next to a short ranged assault squad next to a cavalry unit which for some reason is supported by a single aircraft that flies no further than 100m away, lol. Not really how you'd organise a force for a real battle, unless maybe you had some very specific mission that required a small number of troops with a weirdly diverse range of capabilities.
But I do still like the way 3rd edition gave you a lot of freedom in how detachments were constructed.
Gnarlly wrote: While I agree that GW would see a new Epic as an incentive to sell more (Epic-scale) minis, history has shown that Epic scale minis just don't sell that much in comparison to 40k scale minis. There will always be the GW whales that buy anything "new" from GW but I just don't see a new Epic doing any better than its previous iterations.
Also, it seems several people are under the illusion that all games using the new Apocalypse system must be massive all-day sessions with tables turned into congested "parking lots" of figures. The game actually plays quite well at the size of large standard 40k battles (roughly 2000 points of minis each side using 40k's points system) and such games can be played in less time than a 2000 point 40k match.
This matchup was roughly 2500 points each side in standard 40k terms of points on a 6'x4' table (not "niche" IMO as many players have armies of that size or more). A little cramped for an Ork horde but perfectly playable:
A picture like that shows me exactly why I'm getting back into Epic and not 40k It just looks like someone has taken a bunch of vehicles and infantry, set them up on the long edges of a football field, and are about to mash them together like some chaotic game of dodgeball.
Epic lets you assemble something that actually looks like it could be an army, have everything from gretchin to warlord titans on the table, play a game on a 4x4, 6x4 or 8x4 table and have space to move, realistic looking ranges, a chance for fast troops to exploit their speed because there's enough space on a table, and play a fun game that doesn't take multiple days to finish.
Agreed. Too crammed. Two mats would make matters better in that regard.
Random thought. 40K set games and Classical Music.
40K is the finale or chorus (sorry, not a musical sort, using the best terms I know). Think the end of the 1812 Overture.
Yet, the 1812 Overture is far more than the finale. Like, waaaaay long. There are bits of the finale throughout.
That? That is what I want Epic to be. The whole concerto. The whole of the thing. Then early turns being the quieter jostling for position and advantage with the odd relative skirmish of violence, before the tension builds into the last couple of turns, where the player that has, aha, conducted their forces to the superior position unleashes hell and carries they day.
I’m not claiming a given incarnation of Epic ever achieved that. Just that…..I really really want it!
I got into epic with Epic 40K. I really should read the 2e rules someday to see why there was so much disappointment with what I thought was an amazing game. I did pick up Renegades, Warlords, and Hive War for a song, just for the extra fluff. I think I still have the cards stuck in a box somewhere, but I'm not sure about the books...
But even when I got into 40K 3e, I always felt like what 40K tries to do is best expressed in Epic scale. It always felt grander, more involved than the Parking Lot Blitzkrieg 40K eventually finished devolving into.
Mr.Pickels wrote: I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.
They could but I really, really, really, really doubt random new custom-made-for-epic race is going to attract that much attention as providing good quality epic orks, tyranids and eldars would. Those have existing fanbase. Sort of like how it's cheaper to keep customer than get a new one.
It could be interesting idea once epic is running but to start with it would be risk. Not impossible one but risk.
Also in terms of playstyle what new ones you could come up with that isn't just reskinned orks/eldar/tyranids/IG/space marines? Sure you COULD come up with 100 races but can you come up with 100 distinct ones?
Mr.Pickels wrote: I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.
It does work because quite a few of us are already doing it
Uh. How is that different to having heresy army?
Where's the new never heard xenos he mentioned? Are you fighting against xenos forces that haven't been covered before? Or vs orks/ig/chaos/other marines/tyranids?
Closest thing you could get with current gw models to crusade is marines vs orks but he's talking about bringing in new xenos armies never mentioned before or maybe referenced once or twice in BL/FW books
Mr.Pickels wrote: I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.
They could but I really, really, really, really doubt random new custom-made-for-epic race is going to attract that much attention as providing good quality epic orks, tyranids and eldars would. Those have existing fanbase. Sort of like how it's cheaper to keep customer than get a new one.
It could be interesting idea once epic is running but to start with it would be risk. Not impossible one but risk.
Also in terms of playstyle what new ones you could come up with that isn't just reskinned orks/eldar/tyranids/IG/space marines? Sure you COULD come up with 100 races but can you come up with 100 distinct ones?
Crusade era would still have Orks, Eldar and Imperial Army, but yeah, the others would be missing.
I love the idea of GW delving into some of the Crusade factions, but I feel like it'd be better done at 40k scale (even though I don't currently play 40k and have no intention of getting back into it).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psychopomp wrote: I got into epic with Epic 40K. I really should read the 2e rules someday to see why there was so much disappointment with what I thought was an amazing game. I did pick up Renegades, Warlords, and Hive War for a song, just for the extra fluff. I think I still have the cards stuck in a box somewhere, but I'm not sure about the books...
But even when I got into 40K 3e, I always felt like what 40K tries to do is best expressed in Epic scale. It always felt grander, more involved than the Parking Lot Blitzkrieg 40K eventually finished devolving into.
I started with Epic 40k back in '97, so I'm probably biased, actually had an Epic 40k army before I had a regular 40k army, back in the day one friend bought the 5th ed WHFB set, another bought the 2nd ed 40k set, and Epic came about a year after I started so I bought that set when it came out.
But I think it was likely because Epic 40k simplified the game, which people saw as removing depth, and maybe they were right.
But Epic 40k was built from the ground up to be a good game, not necessarily a good representation of the 40k universe on the table top, but a good game. It was super simple and the designers on occasion spoke about how they worked to trim it back to the bare minimum. That let it scale well from relatively small games to huge games, without becoming tedious affairs that would take multiple weekends to play. From memory, Rick Priestly said in an interview that he thought it was the best game GW have made purely as a game... though I can't find that interview now so maybe my brain just dreamt it up
And hey, go for a grander scale of battle than classic Epic. Being set during the Heresy, up the numbers of tanks and infantry (classic Epic being largely set in 40K).
Tanks in 40k are about 20% too small anyway, so the 'solution' to embiggen the scope of the game is pretty simple: leave titans, planes and tanks scaled as they are and reduce the size of infantry a little bit, and everything looks much better and truer to fluff immediately. So if e.g. infantry in Titanicus scale should be 8mm, just go to 6mm anyway, but do the tanks in 8mm. That would also account for the slightly higher level of detailling that's needed to make the tanks look good while not overburdening infantry with unnecessary details.
Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but at Epic scale the difference between tanks and infantry scales bothers me less than it does in 40k scale. So when I printed my Epic Marines I went with 8mm scale to the eye (which was about 8% bigger than the STLs out there), and yeah, they look a bit big next to the tanks, but IMO they still look good and to my eye an 8mm Marine looks better on the table than a 6mm one.
Here was one of my early test prints where I was deciding on the scale...
Mr.Pickels wrote: I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.
It does work because quite a few of us are already doing it
Uh. How is that different to having heresy army?
Where's the new never heard xenos he mentioned? Are you fighting against xenos forces that haven't been covered before? Or vs orks/ig/chaos/other marines/tyranids?
Closest thing you could get with current gw models to crusade is marines vs orks but he's talking about bringing in new xenos armies never mentioned before or maybe referenced once or twice in BL/FW books
We have started with Orks, but are currently planning at & looking at the following: Squats (Demiurg/Votann - basically short guys), non-Imperium humans (with high-tech base), arachnid world (meant to be bugs/spiders but now thinking crabs ), then as a longer term goal looking at Rangdan and going back further into the Crusade. Some of these have rules already but we just adapt existing rules, elements of the Tyranid lists for the bugs, subbing in some Eldar rules for the 'hi-tech' humans.
There is a massive amount of miniature ranges at 6-8mm too, loads of sci-fi minis and bugs from other companies and for other games, and this is before you even look at the new 3D printed stuff.
Anyway, I was just trying to make the point that if you wanted to do something more unusual (which the GC is, like Unification wars, unlikely to get any sort of official release in the near or midterm future) most of the components are already there, and there is a really active and supportive community that will help you out and get involved too.
I do agree with you as an official release something like this would be so far down the pecking order of importance for GW and we will probably never see!
Mr.Pickels wrote: I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.
They could but I really, really, really, really doubt random new custom-made-for-epic race is going to attract that much attention as providing good quality epic orks, tyranids and eldars would. Those have existing fanbase. Sort of like how it's cheaper to keep customer than get a new one.
It could be interesting idea once epic is running but to start with it would be risk. Not impossible one but risk.
Also in terms of playstyle what new ones you could come up with that isn't just reskinned orks/eldar/tyranids/IG/space marines? Sure you COULD come up with 100 races but can you come up with 100 distinct ones?
One option that might do well in a new 40k Epic - as we haven't seen an official line of them there before, off the top of my head - would be Epic Necrons. Maybe Epic AdMech, too.
The complaints were around taking the flavour out, which they addressed by adding some of it back in for Epic Armageddon.
If you want flavour or streamlined rules will determine which version of epic you like.
Jervis in 1998 wrote:The last thing I'd like to go on about isn't so much a rumour, so much
as
some of the nonsense I've seen written about Epic 40K. First of all, I
should point out that I designed the Epic game system (though Andy and
Gav
did most of the development work and army lists), and that it is the
game
system I am most proud of out of all those I've designed. This makes it
upsetting to see people saying that GW is disappointed with Epic and
that
it's been a failure. In fact we're very pleased with the game and will
keep
on supporting it. More to the point, what we're finding now is that,
contrary to popular opinion on the net, Epic has become something of a
'cult
game' and is becoming more and more popular as time goes along (i.e. the
percentage it makes up of total GW sales is _increasing_ as time goes
along,
and is now _higher_ than percentage sales were for the old system). One
final point about Epic, just in case some of you are tempted to
speculate
wildly (I know, as if you would : )); simply because the rules system
worked
so well for Epic, it does _not_ mean we're going to 'lift it' and use it
as
the basis of a new 40K game - OK!
Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but at Epic scale the difference between tanks and infantry scales bothers me less than it does in 40k scale. So when I printed my Epic Marines I went with 8mm scale to the eye (which was about 8% bigger than the STLs out there), and yeah, they look a bit big next to the tanks, but IMO they still look good and to my eye an 8mm Marine looks better on the table than a 6mm one.
Here was one of my early test prints where I was deciding on the scale...
Grats, your prints look great.
In my ''Mind Epic'' i'd still go with 6mm, and forego individual miniatures for most types of infantry anyway, in favor of some sort of 'swarm base' that represents a literal wave of gaunts, ork mobs or a rabble of cultist. Individual troopers would be reserved for more elite and high-profile types of units like marines, terminators or eldar. For tyranids, think of stuff like these:
That's just a placeholder because I didn't have any bases on hand, so I just blutacked them down to a couple of bigger bases to keep them together.... but I find it oddly appealing nonetheless.
I think 10 man bases could be a possible change for a new version of Epic, probably a 32mm round might fit 10 marines.
Vorian wrote: The complaints were around taking the flavour out, which they addressed by adding some of it back in for Epic Armageddon.
Interestingly enough, although the individual units might have lost detail and "flavor", the actual armies where one of the best representations of the factions in any 40k game.
Vorian wrote: The complaints were around taking the flavour out, which they addressed by adding some of it back in for Epic Armageddon.
If you want flavour or streamlined rules will determine which version of epic you like.
Jervis in 1998 wrote:The last thing I'd like to go on about isn't so much a rumour, so much
as
some of the nonsense I've seen written about Epic 40K. First of all, I
should point out that I designed the Epic game system (though Andy and
Gav
did most of the development work and army lists), and that it is the
game
system I am most proud of out of all those I've designed. This makes it
upsetting to see people saying that GW is disappointed with Epic and
that
it's been a failure. In fact we're very pleased with the game and will
keep
on supporting it. More to the point, what we're finding now is that,
contrary to popular opinion on the net, Epic has become something of a
'cult
game' and is becoming more and more popular as time goes along (i.e. the
percentage it makes up of total GW sales is _increasing_ as time goes
along,
and is now _higher_ than percentage sales were for the old system). One
final point about Epic, just in case some of you are tempted to
speculate
wildly (I know, as if you would : )); simply because the rules system
worked
so well for Epic, it does _not_ mean we're going to 'lift it' and use it
as
the basis of a new 40K game - OK!
Hope that helps,
Jervis
I love how this is displayed as some sort of poem or ode/saga, passed down from antiquity. Words of wisdom from the game's creator
If anything I think GW are moving away from small miniatures, their ranges tend to be getting bigger. Yes they may have AT and AI, but those are centered around large vehicles, GW suddenly adding in 6-8mm infantry is very unlikely.
Either way Wpic is in safe hands within the fan communities, and the many alternative 3d party model manufacturers.
GW doing Epic again would only damage it, as it would be a flash in the pan, and more than likely be centrered around the HH.
Edit.
Epic 40,000 is the best version of Epic ever. Really like what Jercis said about it back in 1998.
Epic, more than most other scales, is also really well suited to 3D printing. You can have most of your supports on the bottom of the integral base, maybe 1 or 2 supports on the model itself that are easy to clean up and can't be seen once you've assembled them on their base.
I'd say it's preferable to moulded plastic, where you'd have to clean mould lines off insanely small details.
On bigger scale models you end up with little pock marks over much of the model from the supports that can be worse to clean up than mould lines.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Epic, more than most other scales, is also really well suited to 3D printing.
That's why I'm sceptical believing this rumour. I don't think 3d printing will hurt their normal 28mm+ stuff but Epic is the kind of thing anyone could very easily mimic pretty much all the detail of a model designed for 6-15mm and have an exact replica of, except maybe for a few larger kits like Titans. Why would they bring a specialist game back that COULD possibly be overtaken by 3d printed 'fakes' in a way their other lines don't have to worry about?
Dysartes wrote: One option that might do well in a new 40k Epic - as we haven't seen an official line of them there before, off the top of my head - would be Epic Necrons. Maybe Epic AdMech, too.
That would be sweet thing but runs into issue of loads of SKU's needed. Horus Heresy avoids that one which is why AT and epic originally started with horus heresy and why AT restarted with HH as well.
Does GW feel like commiting to huge line right away...
Does GW feel like commiting to huge line right away...
At the moment they are firing on all cylinders supporting the two main games, a handful of skirmish games -Kill Team, Warcry, Underworlds, Necromunda- and the occasional boxed standalone like Cursed City or Blackstone fortress. They could probably support a third main line after one of the skirmishes had run its course, if they also reduced the amount of standalones, the question is if they'd find it advisable to put their eggs in that basket.
In the coming year, we'll have 10th edition 40k, probably some new waves for their most important product line - Space Marines - and probably Cities of Sigmar for AoS late in the year, which is said to be a very big release that will stretch to much of 2024. On the ''We know it's coming, but have no idea when'' front we have Fulgrim and his faction for 40k, but that may be years off.
There are a lot of open questions about their longer term plans that can't be answered without insider knowledge. Most importantly, we do not know how long GW will hold the licenses for the assorted LotR Brands and produce the battle game, and how much production capacity is tied up in it. But we also do not know how long they expect to support the skirmishes, how well these are doing and what the long-term plans around that are. At the moment, there is a steady trickle of support for all of them, but that may change after the current expansion of e.g. Necromunda is furnished with the stuff that it's still missing.
Dysartes wrote: One option that might do well in a new 40k Epic - as we haven't seen an official line of them there before, off the top of my head - would be Epic Necrons. Maybe Epic AdMech, too.
That would be sweet thing but runs into issue of loads of SKU's needed. Horus Heresy avoids that one which is why AT and epic originally started with horus heresy and why AT restarted with HH as well.
Does GW feel like commiting to huge line right away...
Yes I think this is the most likely scenario. 2 sprues which contain a mix of a few infantry types, rhino and landraider. Maybe an expansion or two with small boxsets but thats it. Otherwise the SKUs for a full range would go out of control (remember that Epic blisters used to cover 1/3 of a GW store wall, it was a main range!)
Rules-wise just copy Armageddon, then 'borrow' some of the fan made customisations* for Heresy-era - job done.
*this is the best case scenario, at least we will then know they will have been playtested
But regular 40k wouldn't need to go that small, really. 15mm 40k looks amazing already, with nary a rule change (well, other than going back to old sized tables):
2 sprues? Optimistic. 1 sprue with a couple Rhinos, a Land Raider some infantry is more likely. Cram 8 or so said sprues in a box with dice, counters and rulebooks. Sounds like a low hanging fruit for GW
I have the old rules from Space Marine and the original Adeptus Titanicus and its supplement. Never went beyond that, unfortunately, before the line ended.
Which versions of the rules for Epic are the ones most people play with, and are they the ones that were available for free on GW's site before they dropped all the old game rules? I've downloaded the latter, but never really looked into them, as I didn't have anyone to play with.
Stormonu wrote: I have the old rules from Space Marine and the original Adeptus Titanicus and its supplement. Never went beyond that, unfortunately, before the line ended.
Which versions of the rules for Epic are the ones most people play with, and are they the ones that were available for free on GW's site before they dropped all the old game rules? I've downloaded the latter, but never really looked into them, as I didn't have anyone to play with.
There's a lot of variation, I asked a few months back on the Specialist Games subforum, and you'll find people like different editions for different reasons.
Basically, I think Epic Armageddon and fan versions of Epic Armageddon are probably the most popular, but 2nd edition (early 90's version) also has some followers and is the basis of the NetEpic fan rules.
I'm partial to 3rd edition (the one that came out in 1997), it was the one I played as a kid, but many people don't like it because it simplifies the rules a lot... that's the entire reason I do like it though because I think it plays well as a game and allows you to play anything from small games to very large games quite quickly, and the entire rulebook can easily be read in a single sitting which helps with explaining to other people how the game plays (though there are optional rules and rules clarifications scattered through the battles book and magazines which came out in the late 90's that can now be found online). The fan rules for 3rd edition are probably the least fleshed out though, so you can't easily just download a copy of the fan rules (you can find the original rulebooks without too much effort though).
That said, even though I like 3rd edition, I'm building armies that could easily be adapted to the other versions of the game, and am basing my models in a way that would be legal in other versions of the rules. The different editions aren't too fussy in terms of models, so you can jump from edition to edition, the only thing that I think you need to watch out for is 3rd edition has the most flexible army selection options, so by building an army specifically for 3rd edition you may not be able to reform it into a legal army for other editions without having to add some units.
If you can find an existing local community, they could potentially be playing any version or any fan adaption of that version.
I am hopeful that there will be a new version of Epic (defined as any sort of game that includes GW-produced AT-scaled infantry and tanks) in the near future.
GW has already future-proofed the AT and AI model lines for that possibility, given the existence of weapon models in those games that don't actually have any function in those games. GW has also shown that it is willing to continue to support low-volume games like Necromunda with extensive product lines.
I don't necessarily think Valrak is wrong on this one, but it does seem like a situation where he is playing the odds. With Ash Wastes releases still trickling out slowly, Gorka Morka is unlikely to be next in the cue (as it would likely use similar rules to the Ash Wastes vehicle scenarios). Mordheim will likely have to wait until the Warhammer: The Old World game is released (assuming they don't make a similar game set in the AoS realms). That really just leaves Battlefleet Gothic or Epic. I figure that, eventually, Valrak has a 50% chance of being right. Or 100% chance half of the time, since I'm pretty sure he has predicted the return of BFG as well, at some point in the past.
Anyway, if Epic does return, I hope it uses a similar rules set as Epic: Armageddon, and not 2nd Ed Epic or Epic:40k. I find the latter is too abstract (and I hate using the firepower chart) and I don't have time to play the former. Epic: Armageddon was a nice mix of speed and strategy, even if I never felt like my army had enough personnel or vehicles to really be considered 'epic' in the colloquial sense.
And if it is set in the HH-era instead of the 40k one, I guess I'll just be playing a knights list (black shield). That will at least allow me to feel authentically epic-old-school.
Am torn between thinking this needs to go to Dakka Discussions, as the 'rumour' seems to be based off of nothing more than logical observation, and wanting it to stay here as it means 'Epic' stays near the top of the busiest part of the forum
Anyway another opportunity to link to the great Epic projects thread we have running down in the specialist games sub forum. No need to wait like poor little Timmy stood outside of Scrooge's window for GW to throw you one over-priced sprue, you can play Epic right now!
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/791159.page
Given what the fan communities and 3D sculptors have done for Epic since Specialist Games closed shop, I strongly suspect GW getting involved with releasing the game would only be a detriment at this point.
semajnollissor wrote: Anyway, if Epic does return, I hope it uses a similar rules set as Epic: Armageddon, and not 2nd Ed Epic or Epic:40k. I find the latter is too abstract (and I hate using the firepower chart) and I don't have time to play the former.
I had a quick think about this, I think it'd be pretty easy to house rule the firepower chart away if you don't like it.
In Epic 40k, you only need 1 dice roll to kill an enemy with a shooting attack... the purpose of the firepower table is kind of to allow that.
So you could replace the firepower chart just by making it "to hit" and "to wound" instead of just "to hit". You'd just need a table where infantry marching, mobile war engine in open, or immobile war engine in cover is 3+ to hit, infantry in open or mobile war engine in cover is 4+ to hit, infantry in cover is 5+ to hit, and immobile war engine in open is an auto-hit.
If you don't like tables at all, you could just make it 4+ to hit and have modifiers (+1 to hit marching, +1 to hit war engines, -1 to hit units in cover, auto hit immobile war engine in open).
Then what is currently called "to hit" in Epic 40k would be renamed "to wound" and you just follow the rules as written.
It'd only slightly change the statistics by making cover a hair moire effective and marching units a hair less vulnerable, but it'd be pretty close and wouldn't really change how the game plays, just an extra dice roll instead of looking up the firepower chart.
Pacific wrote: Am torn between thinking this needs to go to Dakka Discussions, as the 'rumour' seems to be based off of nothing more than logical observation, and wanting it to stay here as it means 'Epic' stays near the top of the busiest part of the forum
Anyway another opportunity to link to the great Epic projects thread we have running down in the specialist games sub forum. No need to wait like poor little Timmy stood outside of Scrooge's window for GW to throw you one over-priced sprue, you can play Epic right now!
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/791159.page
THATS IT! AFTER A WHOLE YEAR OF WAITING FOR NOTHING WE NOW HAVE TO ENDURE THESE "OLD SPICE MAN" INSULTS!!!!
Last year we were Titan princeps commanding entire maniples! High Kings leading our Houses towards their glorious demise like Klingons on a pub crawl!!!
Not even 40K could match the might and power of the Warmaster heavy battle titan! NOW WE'RE THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE ENTIRE TABLETOP GAMING COMMUNITY!!!!
Spoiler:
Crablezworth! Sherrypie! All of you! SOUND THE WARHORNS! WE'RE GOING TO NOTTINGHAM AND WILL REMIND GAMES WORKSHOP OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES!!!!!
GW have moved on from Epic, their models if anything get bigger not smaller, so doubtful GW would revist this part of their history... which is for the best, as it means the community that has grown up around the 6mm scale 40K has developed the game and models. GW would only increase it to 8mm, and ruin the rules.
Oh and Epic 40,000 is the best set of rules GW ever made for Epic.
The difference between 6mm 'heroic' scale and 8mm 'true' scale is probably negligible enough that you would not immediately notice it.
We've had this discussion many many times. AT and AI are 1/4 of 40k scale. Old Epic was ballpark 1/5 of 40k scale, but with massive variation (some infantry models were as small as 5mm, some models were approaching 8mm, the aircraft were probably closer to 3mm scale, etc).
A Space Marine is currently 32mm to the eyes, so if that's your reference point, then 1/4 of 32mm = 8mm. But 40k scale itself is inconsistent, so naturally if 40k is inconsistent scale then a game based off 1/4 of that is also going to be inconsistent.
But we won't know unless GW actually release some infantry, the closest thing we have at the moment are the Grot gunners on the Bommers, and they're about 5mm, but they're sitting down and no one uses Grots as their reference unit of measurement
We've done this song and dance multiple times already. Short answer is "no, it's not", while the long answer could be "if marines are 8mm, the scale itself it's 6mm, and the real scale is 1/4th of 40k, not any particular mm count" but it's actually "Noooooooooooooooo".
So, will it be "Epic" reborn as 30K/40K, or just a new revised edition of Adeptus Titanicus that will incorporate a few troops and tanks?
Nobody knows anything but the vaguest rumours about it atm, so that question is up in the air with all others one might have. I guess if we're really, rellay lucky we may get a single picture or some other kind of tease on the 31st/1st of January as a treat if it is true that we'll see Epic in 2023, but i doubt it.
I feel that you can get away with human models anywhere between 5.5mm and around 7.5mm. Once you go beyond 7.5mm, you’re entering genetically modified power armoured super soldier territory
stonehorse wrote: Oh and Epic 40,000 is the best set of rules GW ever made for Epic.
That's a strange way of saying "Epic: Armageddon", mate.
It's really not, no. E:A is... ok, but it's just 40k writ larger, and it really plays very much like that. E:40k's whole focus is on playing large conflicts in a reasonable amount of time. It gives a totally different vibe, in play. But of course it's less "flavorful".
There is stuff to like in both, sure... but it is what it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: There are people who think AT/AI is 6mm scale and then there are people who can divide by four.
Normal humans in 40k are about 32mm. 32/4=8. Not hard.
Then you have the designer's own words, which says both that it's 17$th of 40k and that a marine would be 8mm tall
But I agree that the only meaningful scale is 1/4th of 40k, here. Infantry scale is pretty flexible at that size, too.
Lets not get too hung up on scale when you consider that GW does not make "truescale games."
Tanks and buildings are often woefully undersized for what they are; meanwhile infantry and such can be oversized. And that's in the regular 40K game and before you consider the heroic proportions that oversize certain details which makes scale even more wonky.
MajorWesJanson wrote: No love for Apocalypse 2.0? It was just 40K scale Epic rules after all.
I liked it, but there was zero support for it.
I'm sure the global pandemic arriving ~6 months after release didn't help to inspire support for a game reliant on getting multiple players together at once.
It's a shame it never got a reprint though. We had an end of year Apoc game at my local club just this week and it went great.
stonehorse wrote: Oh and the game designers have said that Epic 40,000 is the best version of Epic they have made.
I think I've heard a couple of GW designers from back then say Epic 40k was the best game GW put out at the time.
Andy Chambers has said he thought Epic was one of the best games he's worked on, but also in a recent interview, Andy Chambers also lamented that Epic 40k killed the game because it was too big of a change for a single edition which meant too many fans didn't like it and because the people in charge at GW were looking for an excuse to kill Epic, that was kind of it for Epic.
Kind of like if GW stopped supporting AoS after so many people complained about it on release, except GW was dedicated to AoS so kept pushing it.
So the lesson Andy learned from Epic 40k was that it's important to cater to the fans, even if you write the dogs bollocks of rules it needs to cater to the fans.
But what I've gathered from rules writers, they don't dwell on games as much as the fans do. The good game writers will write a game, play it for a while, then write another game and play that. It's the fans that want a single good ruleset that doesn't change for a long time and they can play over and over and over again.
MajorWesJanson wrote: No love for Apocalypse 2.0? It was just 40K scale Epic rules after all.
I liked it, but there was zero support for it.
I'm sure the global pandemic arriving ~6 months after release didn't help to inspire support for a game reliant on getting multiple players together at once.
It's a shame it never got a reprint though. We had an end of year Apoc game at my local club just this week and it went great.
Does it play well at 6mm scale? Better than actual Epic rules?
I've never really had a desire to play Apocalypse at 40k scale, one of the big benefits of Epic scale is that the armies can start a distance apart that makes more sense without having to occupy a basketball court sized gaming table Then the other big benefit is I can paint 100 Epic scale models in a weekend, whereas even speed painting I can only paint half a dozen or so models at 40k scale in a weekend.
SamusDrake wrote: So, will it be "Epic" reborn as 30K/40K, or just a new revised edition of Adeptus Titanicus that will incorporate a few troops and tanks?
AT18 is quite a few years old now, and a new edition one of these days wouldn't be all that surprising.
They did do their Loyalist and Traitor summary books not so long ago...
I think for the different Epic rulesets they each provide something different. I like both Epic Space Marine/Titan Legions and Armageddon, but they give a surprisingly varied play experience. For SM, I love the feeling of operational (strategic) oversight, of having to plan ahead with orders against what you think your opponent will do and then revealing the orders, and trying to move in on objectives. It's amazing how the game can swing one way and then the other with a late gambit, which I think is missing from a lot of modern GW games, where you often know who will win after the first or second turn. And armies like Orks and Chaos are just so much fun if you play those factions, really characterful. But, I also really enjoy Armageddon. My one criticism of it is that it can feel a bit dry (one of my playing friends described it as a range measuring exercise, which I don't entirely disagree with) but it is so tactical in the way that you have to plan assaults and cross-fires. It's razor-tight too, and has had so many years now of playtesting by the community for balance that its a really great tournament set. In this way it is probably the most balanced and I think the easiest to use (less open to abuse by dirty lists) and good for pick-up games.
Sadly I still haven't played Epic 40,000 as it came along while I was on a hobby hiatus, but would love to give it a go someday.
I wonder if GW could dip one or two toes into epic first.
IMHO they've pushed the Titan Civil War as far as they can. OK there's room for the Imperiator Titan walking castle/cathedral, yeah they could do something smaller than a Warhound, but now they're just adding thinner slices of the same roast.
Xenos I believe have been conclusively ruled out.
But adding fortifications and guns would bring something new in.
Then adding superheavies from Shadowswords up to Leviathans and Colossi would keep in the theme but add a new type of vehicle. Aircraft would be the one addition and are ready to go.
Scale doesn’t matter to me. I just want the models. I’ve a near complete set of 2nd Ed Epic rules, so provided both players are using the same era of models, the exact scale matters not one jot.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Scale doesn’t matter to me. I just want the models. I’ve a near complete set of 2nd Ed Epic rules, so provided both players are using the same era of models, the exact scale matters not one jot.
3rd edition Epic doesn't really even care what era the models are from. The models don't even have to be based the same way (though smaller bases make a unit easier to get into cover, they also make it easier to hit them with blast templates). You can only fit 2 units into combat with 1 enemy, which stops players basing for advantage to get either more or less units in combat, and snap firing (where you have to halt 10cm away from the enemy unless it's the assault phase) means even a unit on a small base has some area that they can deny the enemy passage.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Scale doesn’t matter to me. I just want the models. I’ve a near complete set of 2nd Ed Epic rules, so provided both players are using the same era of models, the exact scale matters not one jot.
3rd edition Epic doesn't really even care what era the models are from. The models don't even have to be based the same way (though smaller bases make a unit easier to get into cover, they also make it easier to hit them with blast templates). You can only fit 2 units into combat with 1 enemy, which stops players basing for advantage to get either more or less units in combat, and snap firing (where you have to halt 10cm away from the enemy unless it's the assault phase) means even a unit on a small base has some area that they can deny the enemy passage.
Also a fair point. And one can always, if necessary, rescale Blast Templates to compensate?
MajorWesJanson wrote: No love for Apocalypse 2.0? It was just 40K scale Epic rules after all.
I liked it, but there was zero support for it.
I'm sure the global pandemic arriving ~6 months after release didn't help to inspire support for a game reliant on getting multiple players together at once.
It's a shame it never got a reprint though. We had an end of year Apoc game at my local club just this week and it went great.
Eh, the way they released it feels more like a splash release that was never planned to get updates rather than something curtailed by the pandemic. If they planned on supporting it like a "normal" release, I doubt we'd have gotten literally everything in the month of release like we did rather than spread out. The way it was done, updates would only need to have been PDF updates rather than books and we got none of those.
Apoc is often going to be a one and done because its so heavily niche in how many people can often play it. I'm glad its a thing GW have continued to support each edition, but its only ever going to be a super niche thing for 40K.
Heck even just getting feedback for it would take ages considering how few games will be played with it compared to regular editions
tauist wrote: We can bet on a new Epic getting announced as soon as Doc finally completes his 2nd ed Epic rules collection
If anyone wants to chip in on a complete copy of Titan Legions, we can summon New Epic!
No really. That’s the only one I need.
And don’t forget, the day I travelled to Orkney, the last wave of Orks was revealed.
I are the magik
Well, I do have a complete set of Space Marine/Titan Legions (GW's epic scale game that is actually the most fun!) and...still no new version of Epic has arrived.
I suspect that will happen once I get it all painted up - a goal of mine for the '23/'24 season!
I think that, while it feels inevitable that GW will eventually get an Epic Scale game out there again, I also feel that it is mostly my nostalgia/desire fueling this, and if anything comes out it will basically be AT with tanks and planes. Maybe?
stonehorse wrote: Oh and the game designers have said that Epic 40,000 is the best version of Epic they have made.
Andy may have been happy with his design for Epic 40,000, but when your game design alienates the existing player base and doesn't bring in sufficient new players, you've not actually done a good job in designing a new version of the game - something which seems to have been recognised, even by Mr. Chambers. As shown by BFG, the same framework can be completely fine as a new game, but not as a new version of an existing game.
E:A, on the other hand, sold well enough to be 400% (or more) to target upon release, and got positive feedback from the existing player base, as well as bringing in new players. I'll agree that the core book needed another proof-reading pass before release - I should know, I effectively did one post-release - but the work was underway to design the factions that hadn't seen a full release, including the likes of Necrons and Dark Eldar. Unfortunately, despite the strong sales, someone at HQ had it out for the game, and knee-capped it before it could get all the core armies out.
Dysartes wrote: E:A, on the other hand, sold well enough to be 400% (or more) to target upon release
That could just be that they had bad targets, lol. GW frequently either under or over predict by large margins.
They probably just projected that sales would be in line with the trickle of Epic sales they'd been getting previously (when the game was barely being kept alive by the likes of Andy Chambers, Jervis Johnson, Gav Thorpe, Warwick Kinrade and a dedicated group of fans around the world) but when it released it got 4x whatever that trickle was.
All games have a spike in sales at release and that spike is pretty difficult to predict, and then it's similarly hard to predict how the size of that spike translates to longer term sales. Look at the number of limited releases GW have had that are still sitting on shelves now... or the number of limited releases that didn't last the first hour of being up for preorder. GW doesn't intentionally do that, they just can't predict the initial spike.
Unfortunately, despite the strong sales, someone at HQ had it out for the game, and knee-capped it before it could get all the core armies out.
I think that's the key problem. GW wanted AoS to succeed badly enough that they rode out the massive amount of negative publicity from killing WHFB and turned it into a popular game.
If GW wanted Epic 40k to succeed, and had a mindset of "well, the customers didn't like it because it was too big of a change, but we think this is a solid game so are going to put some effort into making it popular" then it could have been quite different. Instead it seemed to be more like "Well, that release didn't go as well as expected... we never liked Epic anyway so lets kill it".
Epic 40k was far from universally hated, there was a pretty strong community that kept it going and the original creators liked it enough to keep writing publications on it, but unless those publications were being announced widely and sold through stores it was never going to be enough.
I think that might also have coincided with the era when bean counters who knew nothing about gaming first took over release planning, rather than the design studio. There is a fascinating story about that stage of GW's growth in, I think, some interview about Gorkamorka.
By fascinating obviously I mean frustrating and sad.
I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.
tauist wrote: I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.
That depends on a lot of factors in customer behaviour that no one can predict atm because 20 years have passed and the whole market as well as GWs offerings are totally different than they were long ago. It might play out that way, but a good Epic game might as well lead people to pick up a small force for 40k, or branch out into another army, or even just to buy some of the BL novels and books which are in general absurdly profitable. The pessimistic view is that Epic would 'cannibalize' 40k sales, the optimistic outlook is that you'd make sales with Epic where you'd otherwise have made no sale at all, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. Overall, i'd wager that Epic would probably be a net positive, but we have no real way to know until they try.
tauist wrote: I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.
Looking at Aeronautica frames I think GW has nothing to fear on that front this time round, with the... embiggening... of the scale and cranking up the detail level we-re getting just 2-3 multipart vehicle models per frame where they would previously be single 1-2 inch pieces.
tauist wrote: I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.
Looking at Aeronautica frames I think GW has nothing to fear on that front this time round, with the... embiggening... of the scale and cranking up the detail level we-re getting just 2-3 multipart vehicle models per frame where they would previously be single 1-2 inch pieces.
Yeah, these days I think GW would make Epic as expensive as just collecting a 40k army, lol.
But yeah, maybe back in the day Epic was too cheap of a game for GW. But it was only really cheap to get into, if you wanted to expand your force a lot of it was metal, titans were pretty expensive also, you could certainly still spend a lot on a army, still not as much as a full 40k army, but I'd suggest many of GW's customers don't build full on large 40k armies anyway.
tauist wrote: I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.
Looking at Aeronautica frames I think GW has nothing to fear on that front this time round, with the... embiggening... of the scale and cranking up the detail level we-re getting just 2-3 multipart vehicle models per frame where they would previously be single 1-2 inch pieces.
Yeah, these days I think GW would make Epic as expensive as just collecting a 40k army, lol.
But yeah, maybe back in the day Epic was too cheap of a game for GW. But it was only really cheap to get into, if you wanted to expand your force a lot of it was metal, titans were pretty expensive also, you could certainly still spend a lot on a army, still not as much as a full 40k army, but I'd suggest many of GW's customers don't build full on large 40k armies anyway.
Even if Epic were cheaper than 40k in its reincarnation, that would offer a cheap route to get people 'in the loop' with the 40k universe and lead to further sales down the road, or even allow existing 40k players to have an Epic version of their army as a 'cheap' side project. I don't see it substituting 40k really, it's still a vastly different game and probably fun for a set of people with substantial, but not total overlap. Anyway, just getting more people near to the 'GW universe' has to be worth something, they make money by selling paints, magazines, novels, licensed games etc. too, not only with the main line games. Every wargamer who gets his 'fix' by playing a couple of games with his finished Epic army, but still picks up a novel now and then, a Necromunda gang for some quick skirmishes or a 40k character just for painting still is a net-positive and potentially a customer for Warhammer+ or even a mainstream game in the future.
tauist wrote: I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.
Looking at Aeronautica frames I think GW has nothing to fear on that front this time round, with the... embiggening... of the scale and cranking up the detail level we-re getting just 2-3 multipart vehicle models per frame where they would previously be single 1-2 inch pieces.
Yeah, these days I think GW would make Epic as expensive as just collecting a 40k army, lol.
But yeah, maybe back in the day Epic was too cheap of a game for GW. But it was only really cheap to get into, if you wanted to expand your force a lot of it was metal, titans were pretty expensive also, you could certainly still spend a lot on a army, still not as much as a full 40k army, but I'd suggest many of GW's customers don't build full on large 40k armies anyway.
Even if Epic were cheaper than 40k in its reincarnation, that would offer a cheap route to get people 'in the loop' with the 40k universe and lead to further sales down the road, or even allow existing 40k players to have an Epic version of their army as a 'cheap' side project. I don't see it substituting 40k really, it's still a vastly different game and probably fun for a set of people with substantial, but not total overlap. Anyway, just getting more people near to the 'GW universe' has to be worth something, they make money by selling paints, magazines, novels, licensed games etc. too, not only with the main line games. Every wargamer who gets his 'fix' by playing a couple of games with his finished Epic army, but still picks up a novel now and then, a Necromunda gang for some quick skirmishes or a 40k character just for painting still is a net-positive and potentially a customer for Warhammer+ or even a mainstream game in the future.
Yep, I think more options are a good thing.
I've never really seen the logic in one GW game "cannibalising" another. If people want a 40k army, they'll build a 40k army, if they want an Epic army, they'll build an Epic army, if GW doesn't sell Epic, they'll buy it elsewhere or just not spend any money at all.
For years I spent nothing on GW games because I didn't like the last edition of WHFB and 40k doesn't appeal to me as a game (the models are cool, the game I haven't enjoyed since the 90's and early 00's). The only reason I've spent any money at GW the past few years is that they brought back BB, AI and AT... if they brought back Epic I'd have more reason to buy GW product, not less.
Even if Epic were cheaper than 40k in its reincarnation, that would offer a cheap route to get people 'in the loop' with the 40k universe and lead to further sales down the road, or even allow existing 40k players to have an Epic version of their army as a 'cheap' side project. I don't see it substituting 40k really, it's still a vastly different game and probably fun for a set of people with substantial, but not total overlap. Anyway, just getting more people near to the 'GW universe' has to be worth something, they make money by selling paints, magazines, novels, licensed games etc. too, not only with the main line games. Every wargamer who gets his 'fix' by playing a couple of games with his finished Epic army, but still picks up a novel now and then, a Necromunda gang for some quick skirmishes or a 40k character just for painting still is a net-positive and potentially a customer for Warhammer+ or even a mainstream game in the future.
This is precisely how I started with Warhammer. Read a White Dwarf issue in 1995 and decided Titans & tiny tanks were the most interesting thing, so started on collecting Epic stuff. The smaller scale made it easier to put together Imperial & Ork armies at the same time and play games.
It wasn't until about some time later that I ended up with a copy of Necromunda as my first 28mm scale purchase, then eventually got some cheap 40k models.
lord_blackfang wrote: I think that might also have coincided with the era when bean counters who knew nothing about gaming first took over release planning, rather than the design studio. There is a fascinating story about that stage of GW's growth in, I think, some interview about Gorkamorka.
By fascinating obviously I mean frustrating and sad.
There was all through the Kirby era a growing sense of bean counters and managers who were ever more distant from their actual customers and ever more focused on the metrics and numbers of the company. Now lets not be silly, Kirby did do good things in his early days and GW's management financially has a very good proven track record of giving them stability. Even their policy of never taking out loans or big investors has proven to give them a powerful level of robustness over the years. Plus they've never had to contend with a big name or other firm taking out massive loans and investment to muscle into the wargaming market. So GW never had to rapidly deploy or grow, it could grow naturally and steadily and with the safety net of being the biggest in their market.
That said the bean counter view certainly did result in a view of games being quick turn arounds on investment. We got a whole slew of GW starting games and killing them pretty quickly along with more and more focus on big selling model lines and cutting investment to lower selling ones even within strong games - eg old world and 40K. You just have to look at things like Dark Eldar and Sisters of Battle getting no investment for long periods; at Marines getting insane levels of investment; or how Old World got left out entirely for a time; or the insane choice to end Old World and create AoS rather than just invest into Old World.
These were all choices made by people looking at returns on investment as their data and not polling customer feedback; not understanding the context of actual choice in the market. They didn't understand "why" customers were buying what they were, they just saw the sales patterns and tried to maximise them. Which for a time does work. Investing more in marines does produce more profit; cutting side games that profit slower and not as well as marines so that they've more money for marines makes sense. It does work but its not sustainable. It also ends up weakening their product and image.
Heck look at how many smaller firms started up just making alternate versions of GW games. Many of them generating hundreds to millions in Kickstarter campaigns.
I think GW has moved on from those times. Not only have they a solid amount of profit and money to invest right now; but they are also more aware of niches and that getting a good return on investment doesn't mean just going for the best return on investment every time. That there is strength in diversifying their product portfolio. Heck that within a product line, eg 40K, diversifying actually helps bolster sales of their biggest selling line - marines. Giving Xenos and other factions updates and regular updates generates more hype and attention and opponents for hteir marine customers. It also respects that many people might only have one or two armies they collect so if GW doesn't invest into those armies, those customers are free to choose other product lines and might well use that to invest outside of GW, instead of just starting another GW army (another good reason to diversify the GW portfolio of games)
As my FLGS manager puts it, as disconnected as Kirby was from the customer base, his legacy is a production and distribution network that is unrivalled in all the world, not just in the tabletop gaming industry. Nobody else delivers new product on the same day every week in every store on every continent.
Not only that, but they've also steadily bought up more and more of their production machinery and skills. You look at their cuts with plastic and the poses and detail they can do now and its really fantastic stuff.
Many other firms working in plastics often need to have loads of insanely small parts to achieve the same as one or two cuts on a GW model part.
For all their weaknesses in things like rules writing, GW has some undeniably highly talented model makers. Plus having everything from CAD to mould production to casting to production in-house means that they can streamline and communicate very effectively through the production system. Designers can talk to the mould makers; to the cutters, to the production - that level of quick back and forth internally builds in a lot of failsafes.
Other firms hiring other companies to make moulds and even do production have much slower processes of communication and that's before you factor in potential language and culture communication issues. There's more than a few horror tales of companies hiring factories in china only to find that whilst the demo models were fine, the actual production ones have legions of problems that don't become apparent until they were shipped. Or just the slower aspects of different timezones, working hours and languages making feedback slower to process.
GW are in a very powerful and robust position, heck the fact they can produce all that they do in the UK on UK wages is another massive feather in their cap when so many other firms just design something and then have a factory in india/china make it for them.
lord_blackfang wrote: As my FLGS manager puts it, as disconnected as Kirby was from the customer base, his legacy is a production and distribution network that is unrivalled in all the world, not just in the tabletop gaming industry. Nobody else delivers new product on the same day every week in every store on every continent.
lord_blackfang wrote: As my FLGS manager puts it, as disconnected as Kirby was from the customer base, his legacy is a production and distribution network that is unrivalled in all the world, not just in the tabletop gaming industry. Nobody else delivers new product on the same day every week in every store on every continent.
Yeah... not even GW, really . Not even with their own stores, I can attest personally to that. But they really tried. Usually UPS fethed it up somewhere.
I recall multiple FLGS complaining they weren't getting stock in time long before covid made things worse. I don't think I ever preordered anything though the local official GW store to know if they are reliable, if I'm gonna preorder something at full price I'll just order direct and at least get it delivered to my door, lol.
Source 
Source 
