Hey guys, know there are a fair few existing Epic gamers down in these nether regions of the forums. What are your plans now that it looks like a new 'official' version of the game is coming, via the announcement at Warhammerfest yesterday?
First of all - as much as I get a bit saddened at the number of people who seem unwilling to get free rules from NetEpic/Net Armageddon, cheaper prints/proxies and are only willing to buy shrink-wrapped and new from GW.com, I think this can only be a positive for the existing Epic community - it will mean more players and growth of communities. And even if the game is only supported for a few years, a bunch of (what I assume will be) quality plastics that people who just follow the latest fads will have bought and then put on eBay, helping to lower the insane official mini prices that exist at the moment.
One of the main fears I have read about are that the official rules will suck and this will fracture the existing community, between those who will keep playing existing versions and others who will go with the new rules regardless of quality. I don't think this fear is unfounded as this arguably happened with Necromunda, and took a real period of time and effort from communities like Yaktribe to find some sort of equilibrium. But, I would say in the case of Epic, the community is already pretty fractured, as people tend to use whichever ruleset they like and are pretty rules agnostic. So again, although I'm hoping for a solid ruleset (and really, my grognard's choice would be they just follow the route of Blood Bowl and pretty much copy an old ruleset wholesale), again I don't think it would be the end of the world if the new rules are poor. Although it will be a lost opportunity and we can be angry that this will put off new players coming in (and really, a spectacular miss of an open goal from 6 yards out, given the existing rulesets they could just re-use).
Finally, other concerns I have read are about GW legal going after proxy mini producers (Vanguard, Onslaught etc) and the 3D files for STLs being wiped, now that official minis are coming. I genuinely don't know how much danger there is of this happening. I would like to think Vanguard at least would be safe, as the owner makes so much effort to differentiate names and his designs have their own spin.
Anyway - interested to hear thoughts of the existing Epic community and what your plans, hopes and fears are.
Feeling positive. At the worst it'd be a bunch of neat models bringing awareness of the scale to a wider audience and the established fanbase will keep chugging on like before.
The game can very well be a solid ruleset or a dud, there's potential for both in GW writers. Regardless, the existing editions aren't going anywhere and more players means more eyes on them, too.
I'd like to add a footnote regarding IP and my view on Epic (for context. My daily job involves respecting established IP & copyright laws):
Games Workshop is the originator of all the original Epic games. Therefore, every time there is a way for me to get into the game using official GW products, I will do so. It's no different than preferring to play Monopoly with the official board game rather than a DIY or 3rd party version. Or alternatively, buying genuine Nike footwear instead of "Neki".
Why having such a preference would make anyone sad?
As for GW hunting 3rd party makers for infringing on their IP, why is this again a bad thing? 3rd party makers are always free to make their own 6mm scale scifi wargames with unique IP. From what I've heard, GW only goes after cases where very distinct aspects of their IP has been copied verbatim.
tauist wrote: I'd like to add a footnote regarding IP and my view on Epic (for context. My daily job involves respecting established IP & copyright laws):
Games Workshop is the originator of all the original Epic games. Therefore, every time there is a way for me to get into the game using official GW products, I will do so. It's no different than preferring to play Monopoly with the official board game rather than a DIY or 3rd party version. Or alternatively, buying genuine Nike footwear instead of "Neki".
Why having such a preference would make anyone sad?
Mostly if the case is, as it has been for the last two decades, that there are perfectly playable games out there with rich third party and fan-made model ranges but folks categorically refuse to play them because official GW stores haven't carried model lines for them. While gatekeeping is dumb, it can also be perplexing to see people outright refuse to have fun if said fun isn't Official(tm).
Not to say this would be so in your case, a pure GW preference is fine when that option exists at all.
That's a very good point Tauist and I think a completely valid reason for not getting into Epic previously, or not wanting to support 3rd party producers.
Me being sad is because I think Epic is (and has been) a wonderful game. It's like a great piece of music, or a good film, when you enjoy something a lot you want other people to enjoy it too. So, because I feel people are missing out on a great game by not wanting to travel off-piste at all with their hobby, that's why I feel it's a shame. That was all that was meant by that comment.
I suppose regarding the support of official products, remember that for many years Epic has not been available officially. Other than buying AT minis and terrain (which actually a good number of the Epic community do) there was no way of really supporting GW even if you wanted to. Contrast with something like Monopoly, which AFAIK has never really left store shelves since it has been created.
Looking forward to decent rules to run a Knight House, but if Epic turns out to be as disappointing as Adeptus Titanicus then I'll be happy to stick with Horizon Wars.
I don't believe the hype coming from warhammerfest. Its a large amount of people seeing what they want to see. There is nothing in that 2 second clip that says its a miniatures game. Faeit has been spouting the same nonsense rumours since the year after GW killed of specialist games. People are imprinting the BS from those rumours on to that video.
The only thing that has me reasoning that it could be a new version of Epic is that gargant box behind Louise on her new painting channel, coupled with Duncan putting out a painting video on Epic the week before. That felt more like a hint from those that might know but couldn't say, than anything thats been put out so far!
To me it looks more like a promo shot for a video game, probably a mobile game at that. I'll believe that its a 'proper' version of Epic when we see the first pictures of actual miniatures. (And even then, it better come with a release date as well. They've been teasing models for the old world over the weekend, and from that awful preview the game doesn't sound like that even exists! )
But if it should be new version of Epic:
If the model scale matches the AI/AT stuff, and mixes in with what would be classed as the 'current' scale for Epic (Vanguard, Onslaught, Perfect Six etc) then I would buy things like starter sets or value boxes (Like the knight one they did a few Christmases ago) and use them along side the Epic 40k rules.
I've zero interest in new rules, or FOMO DLC type content (Like custom dice, cards, forge world add on packs 'but only until stocks run out 3 mins into preorders') None of that holds any interest to me. I brought a couple of the AT campaign books, a whole bunch of models but never brought any of the rulebooks or grandmaster sets they did.
I don't see GW having any way of being able to stop 3rd parties now, I suspect they would be laughed out of court. Third party minis have been around years, if they could have done something about it before they would have done. If they tried to take them to court, they could probably be counter sued as their new Epic minis would be the 'newer' copies. I don't think court would care that GW used to make a similar model in that scale back in 1989.
I don't care about any fracture of the community- and I'm sure it will. Look at the awful attitudes on the "Official" AT group. That is going to carry over to a new version of Epic for sure. I've no time for people like that in this hobby. To be honest, I only care that I can continue to enjoy my own collection of minis and anyone caught complaining about other people using 3rd party minis, older rule sets or generally bringing 'corporate' attitudes into the hobby don't interest me in the slightest. The only time I'd take notice is if it was someone local, cause then I'd add them to the (very small) list of people that would not be welcome at anything ever put on my by my group.
I do see it being the decline of things like vanguard though. Some people clearly buy his minis as a 'stop gap' as nothing official has been available for a decade now. I've brought a few big bundles in the last couple of years, just to make sure I have some spare bits should he shut up shop anytime soon, and a new version of Epic would probably make me grab a couple thousand more bases from him just to be safe!
I've seen some comments across the groups of people looking forward to 'official' epic minis, so they can play in official settings. But other than perhaps one tournament at warhammer world a year, I highly doubt we will much in the way of official support outside of mini releases. A good percentage of stores have trouble putting on main line games, I doubt we will be seeing people playing Epic in warhammer stores at all. So I don't get this mad wanting for playing in 'official' capacity at all.
One last personal thing- if it is new Epic then its obviously going to be HH only. I have zero interest in more HH games from GW. Firstly I prefer orks. Secondly, they could easily release the HH as a supplement to be played within a 'all races' version of Epic. But making it HH only just stops people that want to play Xenos or even other human factions from jumping in to the game. Even if they were the best rules ever, in the best ever value boxset, in the greatest version of Epic ever seen, I'd not want to buy in big for a game that might have xenos added at a later date- sales pending.
Current GW rules design ethos makes a point to have you playing "gotta catch them all" with the rules, and tend to have books that are woefully overwritten and at the same time extensively incomplete... so I'll probably take a look at the rules if and only if they come bundled with a very good value starter.
Otherwise, I don't really need anything from them.
Definitely looking forward. Should hopefully see lots of plastic and the smaller scale will allow them to try creating new vehicles and backgrounds. New Epic could and should be the place where new superheavies and new war engines appear (such as the Warmaster and warbringer titans for Titanicus). Here’s hoping the rules are close to Epic:A though the space marine engine was alright and I had a lot of fun with it
Never played Epic but played and loved Warmaster. Just love the scale, huge armies and vast battlefields!
Im looking forward to collect two armies but it will all depend on if I fancy the ruleset or not.
I have too much stuff already just for the collecting part of the hobby to justify any more, if I buy into Epic it will be to play
But I sure do hope I will, the idea of huge armies with these glorious AT and AI models present has me all warm inside!
I don't have a dog in this fight as I've never been interested in playing Epic. However I can say that my favourite third party Patreon has had to take down several high-quality STLs following legal threats and I would be *extremely* surprised to see the new edition being:
A: Cheaper than home-printing.
B: A better ruleset than whatever the most commonly accepted fan rules are.
C: Supportive of as wide a range of factions, subfactions and unit types, both in rules and availability of models.
I play Warmaster Revolution and would much prefer GW to keep away for the same reasons.
New models and community excitement is great, but on balance it is much better for the players when its managed by the players.
Gw would never catch up to the community in the amount of playable factions or rules quality. Only way that could happen is if gw lawyers destroys the current epic community.
And i bet after a year, gw will not really support the game, like aeronautica and titanicus.
I'll stick to netEA and epicUk so i can play my orks and eldar.
had Space Marine when it was a thing, really loved 1st edition, 2nd was ok, lacked some of the feel of it and simplified things that didn't really need it but was fine
wasn't gaming when the other versions came out
half suspect the issue here will be GW wanting to make damned sure this doesn't detract from 40k sales, i.e. has to appeal to "new" players not existing ones. Will have to see, it being HH doesn't bother me as HH came out of the first edition needing to be done with a single plastic frame so had to be marine v marine
though I do hope they decide its easier to work with a community on existing rules and focus more on the models side of it where they can actually add value
not holding my breath, but a decent boxed set with models that I like the look of and would consider it
Mozzamanx wrote: I don't have a dog in this fight as I've never been interested in playing Epic. However I can say that my favourite third party Patreon has had to take down several high-quality STLs following legal threats and I would be *extremely* surprised to see the new edition being:
A: Cheaper than home-printing.
B: A better ruleset than whatever the most commonly accepted fan rules are.
C: Supportive of as wide a range of factions, subfactions and unit types, both in rules and availability of models.
.
I think it would be a reasonable assumption that none of those things will be the case.
The counter to this will be the large new numbers of players that an official release will bring to the community. And, even after the fad passes, and GW stop new releases for it, hopefully some of those will stick around and still want to play and take part in events. That's my big hope for a new release (assuming there is one! As there are a fair few challenges about it being a computer game, or even a completely different game other than Epic, which could certainly be possible).
That's interesting with the STLs being removed. Were they Epic-specific, or just ones that had come too close to the wire in copying GW sculpts?
If it indeed is based on the most boring part of the setting (Horus Heresy aka marines vs marines vs more marines) it would be a pass from me.
If I could play Orks or Eldar on the other hand... I have always wanted to try out E:A but there were absolutely no people playing or interested in starting.
That's interesting with the STLs being removed. Were they Epic-specific, or just ones that had come too close to the wire in copying GW sculpts?
I'm not an IP lawyer but they were pretty obvious in their intentions.
I recognize that IP is a difficult area to navigate and obviously GW deserve the credit for creating Epic. However these were also extremely high quality sculpts for a game that had, at that point, been discontinued and so it seemed to be fairly victimless. That these STLs have now been removed from easy circulation and further works seem unlikely can only be a bad thing for the player.
That's interesting with the STLs being removed. Were they Epic-specific, or just ones that had come too close to the wire in copying GW sculpts?
I'm not an IP lawyer but they were pretty obvious in their intentions.
I recognize that IP is a difficult area to navigate and obviously GW deserve the credit for creating Epic. However these were also extremely high quality sculpts for a game that had, at that point, been discontinued and so it seemed to be fairly victimless. That these STLs have now been removed from easy circulation and further works seem unlikely can only be a bad thing for the player.
Spoiler:
The interesting point here is that the marines have been C&Ded... but the Armageddon Steel Leggionaires from the same designer, of the same scale, haven't.
Spoiler:
I feel that might telll something about their plans.
I would assume those stls could be scaled up and printed for 28mm too. The marines would then contest the current horus heresy range. But the steel legions are not for sale so lawyers could do nothing.
Gitdakka wrote: I would assume those stls could be scaled up and printed for 28mm too. The marines would then contest the current horus heresy range. But the steel legions are not for sale so lawyers could do nothing.
Any STL can, and GW was literally selling Steel Legion in the timeframe of the C&D, in MTO format. And it's on the same storefront, from the same designer, so I don't buy that they didn't see them.
Plus, issuing a C&D usually has little to do with the actual rights of a company, and in this case GW has the exact same rights to the HH marines as to Steel Legion, as they still sell both, even if by different methods (...and also, you don't lose the rights of a thing because you don't sell it at this very moment, you know).
tauist wrote: I'd like to add a footnote regarding IP and my view on Epic (for context. My daily job involves respecting established IP & copyright laws):
Games Workshop is the originator of all the original Epic games. Therefore, every time there is a way for me to get into the game using official GW products, I will do so. It's no different than preferring to play Monopoly with the official board game rather than a DIY or 3rd party version. Or alternatively, buying genuine Nike footwear instead of "Neki".
Why having such a preference would make anyone sad?
Mostly if the case is, as it has been for the last two decades, that there are perfectly playable games out there with rich third party and fan-made model ranges but folks categorically refuse to play them because official GW stores haven't carried model lines for them. While gatekeeping is dumb, it can also be perplexing to see people outright refuse to have fun if said fun isn't Official(tm).
Not to say this would be so in your case, a pure GW preference is fine when that option exists at all.
Ultimately the games you're describing, however perfectly playable they may be, are not a product that people can buy into. They are an assortment of homebrew rulesets and garage kits coming from disparate sources, which raises the barrier to entry for newcomers and acts as an obstacle for players to get into as theres no real "one stop shop" option to buy from - likewise most local gaming stores will never stock any of those product.
Likewise, theres a certain convenience factor to having "one ruleset to rule them all" that you can show up to your local shop and say "hey, anyone up for a game of epic?" and not have to go through the rigamarole of "great, I love netepic", "no, I was interested in NetArmageddon", "oh, 2nd edition or revised edition?", etc.
Its not about things not being "official", its that its pretty much DIY gaming and that takes a lot more effort from people to get involved in.
Soulless wrote: Never played Epic but played and loved Warmaster. Just love the scale, huge armies and vast battlefields!
Im looking forward to collect two armies but it will all depend on if I fancy the ruleset or not.
I have too much stuff already just for the collecting part of the hobby to justify any more, if I buy into Epic it will be to play
But I sure do hope I will, the idea of huge armies with these glorious AT and AI models present has me all warm inside!
Just wanted to point out warmaster and epic are different scales (warmaster was 10mm, epic was 6mm-ish and now is maybe more like 8mm-ish depending on who you ask). MIght seem like a trivial size difference but in actuality you're talking a 20-40% difference in size.
About your statements, you could say pretty much the exact same thing about napoleonics or ACW wargaming. Many different rules sets and miniatures manufacturers. Inconsistent scales etc. Yet wide communities exist for such wargaming despite those limitations.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think epic can be bought into by players even if GW don't commit.
It's not that people can't buy into them, they certainly can especially in this online era, but there certainly is an entry barrier of first becoming aware of such things in absence of corporate advertising. Getting into Napoleonics is easy if your area already has people interested in Shako or the like, just like getting into Epic is easy if your area already has folks who know where to shop or print their stuff.
I'm not disagreeing with the notion that it is a bit DIY and thus less trivial to have new players stumble into by themselves, but that's a separate issue from the also extant phenomenon of already well-established miniature gamers shying away from "unsupported" games. When the psychological barrier has been surpassed, buying into the games themselves isn't really that difficult. Instead of going into GW store to buy rulebooks and minis, one can read rules freely online and buy or print minis from any one place just as well.
Gitdakka wrote: I get your point, but as I recall the whole chapter approved lawsuit ended up with GW not winning in cases where they did not provide a product.
It was that GW cannot claim copyright for models if there is only an artwork (not 3d renders)
once there are models they can make their claims
hence a 1:1 copy of existing models, no matter if they are currently sold or not is a problem and the steel legion are carbon copies of old models, even if they are sold for a smaller scale, and not new models with the same theme so GW can make a copyright claim
if the models would be based of an artwork, GW can do nothing about it
About your statements, you could say pretty much the exact same thing about napoleonics or ACW wargaming. Many different rules sets and miniatures manufacturers. Inconsistent scales etc. Yet wide communities exist for such wargaming despite those limitations.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think epic can be bought into by players even if GW don't commit.
The communities for those wargames aren't any wider than the community for "unofficial epic". Select historicals (Napoleonics and ACW included) have seen a surge in popularity as a result of Warlord and Perry Miniatures efforts to market them as "product", otherwise those games were for many years just as invisible outside of very small and exclusive clubs meeting in dark dusty rooms and at large conventions.
Really? That's odd. Firstly I didnt think perry or warlord did that much for the popularity, as napoleonics and ACW settings are mostly played in smaller scales.
Secondly I would assume those historical settings are the most popular after ww2 and possibly ancients.
Gitdakka wrote: I get your point, but as I recall the whole chapter approved lawsuit ended up with GW not winning in cases where they did not provide a product.
Thing is, GW still keeps issuing C&Ds with no product, or where the things they want down are not copies, but proxies.
Honestly, it's mostly the timing that makes it suspect, in this case.
Will buy but hope the rules are like armagedon like those rules the best. Its a shame when its only 30k would like to own eldar and ork models from gw. i do have a 3d printed ork army for EA.
missing onlu some stompas and supper stompas, i did make some stompas on my own and they look like those from the book but would like to have the real ones.
I think in the case of those beakie STL's, the models are too distinctively looking to not be "beakie inspired", whereas the Steel Legion look isn't really something GW can easily claim as their IP. Brown uniform, gasmasks, rifles resembling some sort of AK-47 type of rifle, sounds wayy too generic for GW to try to claim as being exclusive to their IP. Those beakies OTOH.. I mean, just look at them. Esily identifiable as not some generic scifi soldiers in space suits, but as MKVI Corvus Armoured Adeptus Astartes.
I'm not sure what the exact legal standing is on it.
There was an interesting video (The Painting Phase channel) where they interview Bob Naismith, who is *literally* the person that came up with the first Space Marine designs. He said it was from a combination of influences; a world war 2 soldier (the back-pack is a sci-fi version of a WW2 carry pack) and the powered armour from Starship Troopers (the book concept).
Apparently he got brought back in by GW to give testimony during the Chapterhouse case.. I think his words were, it perhaps wasn't what they wanted to hear, but it was the truth.
My own thoughts are that the Beakie is something distinctively '40k' - it was the very first marine plastic boxset and on the first rulebook cover. Perhaps that is why something like the STLs are being taken down, but someone like Vanguard minis (who AFAIK have avoided legal challenge) do not get warnings over their variations on a theme.
I don't believe the hype coming from warhammerfest. Its a large amount of people seeing what they want to see. There is nothing in that 2 second clip that says its a miniatures game. Faeit has been spouting the same nonsense rumours since the year after GW killed of specialist games. People are imprinting the BS from those rumours on to that video.
To me it looks more like a promo shot for a video game, probably a mobile game at that. I'll believe that its a 'proper' version of Epic when we see the first pictures of actual miniatures. (And even then, it better come with a release date as well. They've been teasing models for the old world over the weekend, and from that awful preview the game doesn't sound like that even exists!
This warrants repeating - people seem to be treating that video clip as an official announcement of Epic when it is nothing of the sort. I'd lay money on it being a computer game, and if it's yet another thing set in the bloody Horus Heresy then it can bugger off.
Not only is Epic a satisfying game to play, but it’s easy to paint up your army.
The rules I genuinely couldn’t care less about, for under my bed, in my boudoir, I have most of the rules for 2nd Ed Epic.
That being said, it will of course depend upon the models. I don’t expect them to be a radical departure in scale. And even if they are? Provided both players use the same era of models, there wont be a problem.
I have a LOT of Epic models, from all eras, going back from beetleback plastic Warlords through an entire Space Marine box, Epic 40kSM army and Epic Armageddon. During the wilderness years I even managed to find out the person who was making tiny epic copies of FW models and got myself a bunch of Spartans and things from them.
I am heavily invested in the 6mm epic ecosystem at this point
So if they bump the scale up to 8mm there's really no way to view it *other* than a deliberate middle finger to people with older collections. the difference in scale between 6mm and 8mm is huge (a full third of a model, so imagine if GW bumped 40k from 28mm to 37mm)
Rules I really don't care about, but it would be nice if things like base sizes took into account older models as well. Armageddon did this with very loose sizing rules that allowed you to use both E40k and SM bases without issue
I have enough land raiders and rhinos to last me a lifetime, so any newer models would be useless to me if they're out of scale, i'd probably just print more at 6mm (and 6mm ground models next to 8mm titans does look Epic)
Aslong as there aint an article on the community, a new version is NOT coming! Rumour mill for epic and armageddon is just instant click generators, allways has been.
Rules can go eitherway. They can be bad like AI or good like AT, GW has proven they are only doing consistently good what they have allways done: making and selling models.
That's interesting with the STLs being removed. Were they Epic-specific, or just ones that had come too close to the wire in copying GW sculpts?
I'm not an IP lawyer but they were pretty obvious in their intentions.
I recognize that IP is a difficult area to navigate and obviously GW deserve the credit for creating Epic. However these were also extremely high quality sculpts for a game that had, at that point, been discontinued and so it seemed to be fairly victimless. That these STLs have now been removed from easy circulation and further works seem unlikely can only be a bad thing for the player.
Spoiler:
The interesting point here is that the marines have been C&Ded... but the Armageddon Steel Leggionaires from the same designer, of the same scale, haven't.
Spoiler:
I feel that might telll something about their plans.
I don't think GW made a melta gun or autocannon for the steel legion, so I suspect that might have something to do with it. Although I printed these out at 28mm for a friend and they scrub up pretty well.
I don't believe the hype coming from warhammerfest. Its a large amount of people seeing what they want to see. There is nothing in that 2 second clip that says its a miniatures game. Faeit has been spouting the same nonsense rumours since the year after GW killed of specialist games. People are imprinting the BS from those rumours on to that video.
To me it looks more like a promo shot for a video game, probably a mobile game at that. I'll believe that its a 'proper' version of Epic when we see the first pictures of actual miniatures. (And even then, it better come with a release date as well. They've been teasing models for the old world over the weekend, and from that awful preview the game doesn't sound like that even exists!
This warrants repeating - people seem to be treating that video clip as an official announcement of Epic when it is nothing of the sort. I'd lay money on it being a computer game, and if it's yet another thing set in the bloody Horus Heresy then it can bugger off.
Ya I think it's either a mobile game or a some silly apoc for 30k expansion to push the 28mm plastic knight lancer.
tauist wrote: There is no precedent of GW teasing a computer game like that. Make no mistake, its a new boardgame, at the very least.
It has relaxed a tiny bit in recent times, but usually GW are very very strict to keep third party/licensee stuff separate from their core lineup, so a computer game is a very very low probability.
There are just so many hints in that Warhammer Fest preview, I am not sure how they could be any more frank other than by writing "Look, we are bringing back Epic, the miniature wargame!"
The video being called 'Battle on a new Scale', the Titan unit next to them, the design even looked like an old Epic battle report and the way those used to be illustrated in WD.
It ties in with the original release format, the current trend of GW bringing back the classic games..
Honestly, if this turns out to be a computer game, I will hollow out a turnip and wear it as a hat at all times for the next month.
Charax wrote: The sticking point for me will be the scale
I have a LOT of Epic models, from all eras, going back from beetleback plastic Warlords through an entire Space Marine box, Epic 40kSM army and Epic Armageddon. During the wilderness years I even managed to find out the person who was making tiny epic copies of FW models and got myself a bunch of Spartans and things from them.
...
So if they bump the scale up to 8mm there's really no way to view it *other* than a deliberate middle finger to people with older collections. the difference in scale between 6mm and 8mm is huge (a full third of a model, so imagine if GW bumped 40k from 28mm to 37mm)
Epic)
I agree. I think the only negative outcome for me that could come out of this is if they decide to up the scale significantly. I'm thinking 10-12mm would be unacceptably large compared to older ranges and most proxies
The issue is (and I know this is a point of contention in the Epic 3D printing community) where designers get carried away with detail and that keeps necessarily pushing the scale up - but I would argue there is a point at which, when you are having to paint belt buckles, it stops being Epic!
Although, I think it would then push them out of scale with AT (and the video in the preview did show a Titan unit) which should hopefully stop that happening.
Yeah, the argument about the size and shape of the icons is not particularly strong - these square icons with flags or arrows denoting facing have been the norm in mil-hist and military wargaming publications for ages, and have been standard for a lot of GW systems as well, e.g. WHFB, for quite a long time in the 90s and early 2000s at least. It's just a reasonable cartographic convention when you're largely dealing with regimented blocks of some sort. Several real-world militaries still use them as official, standardized markers on staff maps as well.
keep in mind though in the days of Napoleon they took it seriously, I mean they did actually form up into rectangular blocks with a few blokes out front like an arrowhead
leopard wrote: keep in mind though in the days of Napoleon they took it seriously, I mean they did actually form up into rectangular blocks with a few blokes out front like an arrowhead
I mean it was the done thing
Modern militaries still use rectangular unit designators on situational maps. Turns out rectangles are just really good ways of marking both unit type and general facing.
Here's an example list from WW2:
Spoiler:
GW used to use the same conventions in older battle reports for other games like WHFB (I'm assuming, I haven't read a White Dwarf in years. Do they still do battle reports like this?):
I'd say those rectangles with arrows in them point towards a more strategy-oriented game is all.. Which IMO means either Epic scale game ("Adeptus Astartes: Horus Heresy") that includes titans ("Adeptus Titanicus: Horus Heresy") and flyers ("Aeronautica Imperialis: Horus Heresy"), or something like the Battle of Armageddon game, which was more like a WWII strategy game. Can't see other options tbh
tauist wrote: There is no precedent of GW teasing a computer game like that. Make no mistake, its a new boardgame, at the very least.
It has relaxed a tiny bit in recent times, but usually GW are very very strict to keep third party/licensee stuff separate from their core lineup, so a computer game is a very very low probability.
Also, this seems false? I can find articles talking about Shootas, Blood & Teef, Darktide, World of Warships, Mechanicus, Chaosbane, Warhammer Underworlds: Online, Inquisitor: Martyr, and Total War: Warhammer III. So there's plenty of computer game talk on the Community site.
GW won’t give a fig if they upset folks wanting to 3D Print their army.
Changing the scale won't do anything to people who 3D print new stuff. It would have a huge effect on people who have lots of stuff left over from previous editions.
Hopefully they just keep the simple rule "A stand may be no less than 5mm across in any direction." and then square bases, rectangle bases and any new scale stuff will be okay.
Back in the day we were so taken with GW's symbols for the Epic battle reports, we did exactly that and inhabited the board with painted wooden tokens. It looked great!
War on a new scale doesn't necessarily refer to model scale, just as likely it's referring to the scale of the battle. So while it likely isn't a mobile game, it probably is just silly apoc expansion for 30k no one wants so they can push the plastic knight lancer. If it was epic they'd probably say epic, if it was epic they'd show something more imo. I can hope that I'm wrong, but this all feels like wishful thinking until we see more.
Brother Glacius wrote: I'm just curious if GW will scale up the new epic to 8mm to match Titanicus. Would seem smarter than to introduce 6mm again.
The long and short of it is that the various variants of old Epic had no consistent scale anyway, and thus calling it 6mm or 8mm is more like an opinion... however, modern AT and AI is 1/4th of 40k scale, which leads one to assume that an new version of Epic would be as well, which would mean that Space Marine figures would be around 8mm tall. Anyway, due to the old scale not being terribly consistent at all, 8mm and 6mm epic models would not look too out of place next to each other unless they were the exact same models, and if they go for a more sliding-scale approach and keep standard humans at around 6mm it would work out just fine overall.
Crablezworth wrote: War on a new scale doesn't necessarily refer to model scale, just as likely it's referring to the scale of the battle. So while it likely isn't a mobile game, it probably is just silly apoc expansion for 30k no one wants so they can push the plastic knight lancer. If it was epic they'd probably say epic, if it was epic they'd show something more imo. I can hope that I'm wrong, but this all feels like wishful thinking until we see more.
The current theory is the game will be called Adeptus Astartes: The Horus Heresy, not Epic
Crablezworth wrote: War on a new scale doesn't necessarily refer to model scale, just as likely it's referring to the scale of the battle. So while it likely isn't a mobile game, it probably is just silly apoc expansion for 30k no one wants so they can push the plastic knight lancer. If it was epic they'd probably say epic, if it was epic they'd show something more imo. I can hope that I'm wrong, but this all feels like wishful thinking until we see more.
Giving The Horus Heresy rules for large armies would be like giving Adeptus Titanicus rules for titan maniples.
Crablezworth wrote: War on a new scale doesn't necessarily refer to model scale, just as likely it's referring to the scale of the battle. So while it likely isn't a mobile game, it probably is just silly apoc expansion for 30k no one wants so they can push the plastic knight lancer. If it was epic they'd probably say epic, if it was epic they'd show something more imo. I can hope that I'm wrong, but this all feels like wishful thinking until we see more.
Giving The Horus Heresy rules for large armies would be like giving Adeptus Titanicus rules for titan maniples.
In fairness giving 40kapoc rules was just as useless, they still did it.
Crablezworth wrote: War on a new scale doesn't necessarily refer to model scale, just as likely it's referring to the scale of the battle. So while it likely isn't a mobile game, it probably is just silly apoc expansion for 30k no one wants so they can push the plastic knight lancer. If it was epic they'd probably say epic, if it was epic they'd show something more imo. I can hope that I'm wrong, but this all feels like wishful thinking until we see more.
Giving The Horus Heresy rules for large armies would be like giving Adeptus Titanicus rules for titan maniples.
It's possible, if it is indeed marine on marine I think that's probably a good thing RE AT, as much as people want more factions, gw's ability to allot time to that is suspect, better not to bite off more than they can chew.
Crablezworth wrote: War on a new scale doesn't necessarily refer to model scale, just as likely it's referring to the scale of the battle. So while it likely isn't a mobile game, it probably is just silly apoc expansion for 30k no one wants so they can push the plastic knight lancer. If it was epic they'd probably say epic, if it was epic they'd show something more imo. I can hope that I'm wrong, but this all feels like wishful thinking until we see more.
The current theory is the game will be called Adeptus Astartes: The Horus Heresy, not Epic
Me. I comically mentioned it on the other thread, but I must own up to giving it my best deduction before posting.
I mean, it's not the worst name to pick I'd theorized before that calling it Space Marine something something was too risky due to 'Granny Factor' with the video game coming around... (There's a popular saying in marketing departments that your product name needs to be unambiguous enough that a clueless granny that picks a present for her grandson would be likely to get the right one if she knew things like 'It's got little toy soldiers')
Crablezworth wrote: War on a new scale doesn't necessarily refer to model scale, just as likely it's referring to the scale of the battle. So while it likely isn't a mobile game, it probably is just silly apoc expansion for 30k no one wants so they can push the plastic knight lancer. If it was epic they'd probably say epic, if it was epic they'd show something more imo. I can hope that I'm wrong, but this all feels like wishful thinking until we see more.
The current theory is the game will be called Adeptus Astartes: The Horus Heresy, not Epic
I spent a whole evening pretty much overthinking it, pretty much along the lines of this...
Such a good clip
If it marine on marine, hoping they don't bring titans into it too much, knights maybe but if the contents of the box isn't fun to play on its own or quickly overshadowed by larger units it'll feel like missed opportunity. Still think it's a book/expansion to push the lancer.
Well there is a new HH campaign book with a fabulous image of the Cerastus Lancer on the front cover. Not as fabulous as the Cerastus Lancer on the front cover of Doom of Molech - House Devine is insanely fabulous to behold - but fabulous all the same.
The N&R thread has been locked so thought might be a good time to come back to this thread, continue the discussion and talk about what people's plans are?
I am - at the very least - going to get the new rulebook. I don't need the Legionnaires as I already have a ton and burnt out on painting tiny marines, but I will have a look at the new Imperial Army stuff. It might be that I use some or all of them and there are a few cool human regiment proxies in Vanguard (I've always liked the idea of doing an airborne force) but will see.
Will definitely try and give the new game a thorough go and I know a few guys at my local club are really interested - that for me is the big benefit of the new game, a lot of people will only play a currently available game. It will also be a chance to help out my FLGS too, which obviously you couldn't really do with the community supported legacy editions.
Got to read it and give it a fair try, see if new people like it and keep on chugging while nudging people to try Armageddon on the side as well now that they've got the forces.
Personally I'm going in for the Auxilia, so I'll finally have some regular human meat sacks to go along with my superhuman, cyborg and mech armies
Pacific wrote: The N&R thread has been locked so thought might be a good time to come back to this thread, continue the discussion and talk about what people's plans are?
I am - at the very least - going to get the new rulebook. I don't need the Legionnaires as I already have a ton and burnt out on painting tiny marines, but I will have a look at the new Imperial Army stuff. It might be that I use some or all of them and there are a few cool human regiment proxies in Vanguard (I've always liked the idea of doing an airborne force) but will see.
Will definitely try and give the new game a thorough go and I know a few guys at my local club are really interested - that for me is the big benefit of the new game, a lot of people will only play a currently available game. It will also be a chance to help out my FLGS too, which obviously you couldn't really do with the community supported legacy editions.
What are people's plans?
I'll be piling in at full tilt. My spending on GW these days is pretty much Titanicus, Necromunda and that's it. I'm pleased that the game that got me into wargaming is coming back with piles of plastics and a familiar ruleset.
Crablezworth wrote: War on a new scale doesn't necessarily refer to model scale, just as likely it's referring to the scale of the battle. So while it likely isn't a mobile game, it probably is just silly apoc expansion for 30k no one wants so they can push the plastic knight lancer. If it was epic they'd probably say epic, if it was epic they'd show something more imo. I can hope that I'm wrong, but this all feels like wishful thinking until we see more.
The current theory is the game will be called Adeptus Astartes: The Horus Heresy, not Epic
I spent a whole evening pretty much overthinking it, pretty much along the lines of this...
Such a good clip
If it marine on marine, hoping they don't bring titans into it too much, knights maybe but if the contents of the box isn't fun to play on its own or quickly overshadowed by larger units it'll feel like missed opportunity. Still think it's a book/expansion to push the lancer.
How's them crow taste son
I'm hella hyped for Legiones Imperialis and want the rules in epub + 3000 points of IXth and a maniple of Titans
Yes I am keeping a close eye on the new Warpath too Kodos. Firstly to see that game as it sounds promising, but also I like the sound of 12mm plastic Plague - I am thinking of using them as 'giants' of some sort of Alien encountered by the Great Crusade. Perhaps of the sort that Mortarion had on his homeworld, of which we never got to see?
Crablezworth wrote: War on a new scale doesn't necessarily refer to model scale, just as likely it's referring to the scale of the battle. So while it likely isn't a mobile game, it probably is just silly apoc expansion for 30k no one wants so they can push the plastic knight lancer. If it was epic they'd probably say epic, if it was epic they'd show something more imo. I can hope that I'm wrong, but this all feels like wishful thinking until we see more.
The current theory is the game will be called Adeptus Astartes: The Horus Heresy, not Epic
I spent a whole evening pretty much overthinking it, pretty much along the lines of this...
Such a good clip
If it marine on marine, hoping they don't bring titans into it too much, knights maybe but if the contents of the box isn't fun to play on its own or quickly overshadowed by larger units it'll feel like missed opportunity. Still think it's a book/expansion to push the lancer.
How's them crow taste son
I'm hella hyped for Legiones Imperialis and want the rules in epub + 3000 points of IXth and a maniple of Titans
I am going to build an Epic force parallel to my HH 2.0 marines. So every unit in the HH force will at least have an Epic counterpart not the other way around of course.
I've got some Civitas scenery unmade that I can crack on with while we wait for the revised release date. I'll probably repaint my FW Baneblades and shadowswords, 'cause they look close-ish to the new sizes. apart from that I'm pondering that if titans are a 30% allied contingent, how big a game I need to play to field my entire titan collection.
When Epic first came out (AT and Space Marine), the person who taught me the game was...maybe not someone who should ever teach a game. I was fairly put off by Epic after only a few games. As a result, I've never owned anything Epic. No rules. Not a single model.
LI will likely be my first Epic purchase. I'll probably paint up blue loyalists vs red renegades. I don't know if that means needing 2 starter boxes. A box of Rhinos, a box of Land Raiders. I'll hope that Orks and Eldar follow eventually, but I'm not expecting it and I'll guess I'll have to go to 3rd parties for them.
Those are my rough plans. I'm excited to finally get into Epic properly after all these years. Whether it's through the new LI rules or NetEpic or another community rule book, who knows.
I am a small-scale-only player, really into Epic Armageddon.
But I am going to get the starter, try the rules, switch some minis around (not interested in SM vehicles), and decide it I invest further in the game (economically and local-community wise).
skeleton wrote: Will buy but hope the rules are like armagedon like those rules the best. Its a shame when its only 30k would like to own eldar and ork models from gw. i do have a 3d printed ork army for EA.
missing onlu some stompas and supper stompas, i did make some stompas on my own and they look like those from the book but would like to have the real ones.
Sadly the rules are 2nd ed based, not 4th.
Which is probably the right decision for them. 2nd ed was the simplified game version of 1st and 4th was for all the grown up epic players who liked wargames. The rules require too much testing when doing new stuff for a company like GW, plys 2nd ed was more of a game and that is more of their market.
I will get it, play, suspect I will then go back to E:A.
Personably will not be going to going to rebuy my collection in a different scale. (Space Marine Scout scale ) If people want to play it lots and its an OK game will just print it.
skeleton wrote: Will buy but hope the rules are like armagedon like those rules the best. Its a shame when its only 30k would like to own eldar and ork models from gw. i do have a 3d printed ork army for EA.
missing onlu some stompas and supper stompas, i did make some stompas on my own and they look like those from the book but would like to have the real ones.
Sadly the rules are 2nd ed based, not 4th.
Which is probably the right decision for them. 2nd ed was the simplified game version of 1st and 4th was for all the grown up epic players who liked wargames. The rules require too much testing when doing new stuff for a company like GW, plys 2nd ed was more of a game and that is more of their market.
I will get it, play, suspect I will then go back to E:A.
Personably will not be going to going to rebuy my collection in a different scale. (Space Marine Scout scale ) If people want to play it lots and its an OK game will just print it.
Can you elaborate more on 2nd vs 4th, I've got very little frame of refference having never played any of them. People are already complaining about weapons being too crunchy/detailed in the previews, which I'm not sure I understand.
They have said the game is going to be based on 2nd edition, but I think given the amount of special rules for units, weapons profiles, types of weapons and key words, I actually wonder if it will end up more like 4th.
From the LI Terminator profile we have seen it was something like 8 USRs to describe it. 4th/Armageddon had 4 USRs for a terminator (I think?) while Epic SM 2nd had 1 if you counted their invulnerable save, although I appreciate the rules were written in a different way.
Crablezworth - it would be a fairly long description of how different Epic SM and Armageddon are if you included everything, they play as very different types of games. In summary, SM 2nd is more abstract, less granular, much faster playing. You secretly put down orders for units at the start of a turn and have to guess what your opponent will do for theirs, then you reveal. One side moves then the other, although firing is alternating.
Armageddon using alternating activations making it much more fluid. You try and shoot at the enemy to put blast markers on them, but closing in to melee or 'firefight' (shooting at very close range) and ideally then the unit breaks. Weaponry is a lot more granular (you have anti-infantry and anti-tank type weapons which only work on either) - it's actually a lot closer to some WW2-type games I have played, in terms of how it tries to replicate real life warfare, than it is compared to a lot of GWs other games.
Although for some reason this complexity is reversed for Titan damage tracking: SM 2nd has a wonderful scattering shot mechanic and damage tables, while Armageddon essentially has an HP bar for Titans and 'Lords of War'.
Granular is the wrong choice of words to use for describing Armageddon's weaponry, it's very much not that in the context of typical GW-like games. You have guns that hit infantry or vehicles which can be saved against and big guns that hit both while negating saves, skipping a lot of regular Warhammer faff with reduced steps. There are a handful of special rules, but they are very universal and potent instead of little shifts in probabilities. They are also doled out rather sparingly, with most units having very few if any.
I really can't decide whether I'm happy for nuEpic or not...
I had just recently started and was on my way to building an oldEpic pair of armies to try and kickstart some games. GW releasing nuEpic does two things...
- It means it's probably going to be harder to kickstart a legacy ruleset group, so I'll probably end up locked into the new rules even if I preferred the older editions.
- Secondly.... 3D printing made up a large portion of my Epic stuff, and I don't like 3D printing models that can be bought directly from the manufacturer. Soooo, now I have to decide if I'm going to keep 3D printing my armies for pennies, or pay whatever insane price GW sets for their models. We haven't heard anything about prices yet, but I can't imagine it's going to be anything less than insanely expensive.
In many ways, I would have rathered just go on my merry way 3D printing up my 8mm hordes and trying to kickstart a local gaming group.
I think of Aeronautica Imperialis, where GW releasing version 2 of it provided us some great new models... but simultaneously the rules sucked enough that they might as well have not released it.
So, as big as a fan as I am of Epic, I dunno if I'm going to buy big into this. I'll definitely grab some models coz I love tiny tanks, but whether I get the boxed set/rules/full army/etc, dunno, maybe. Also I spent way too much money on Aeronautica crap recently because it was being discontinued, so my GW budget is already way over for this year.
Only thing that makes me a bit concerned about it at the moment is if the pasetbin list of units for SM and the normies is all we get for now with the rest being spoon fed DLC.
If they go down the DLC rute i'll hold of and wait untill more units exists and get the "real" book later on.
I'm not really interested in having to get a new bookshelf for just unit rules.
They've done the DLC method for AI, AT, and NEC so they'll definitely do it here. You can wait if you want to, but it will likely be a few years before you get what you want.
Breotan wrote: They've done the DLC method for AI, AT, and NEC so they'll definitely do it here. You can wait if you want to, but it will likely be a few years before you get what you want.
Or potentially never. I'm not on top of all the current GW games, but isn't it standard practice these days for them to spread rules over as many books as possible and never release a single book that contains everything?
Not like the olden days when an Epic boxed set came with all rules necessary to play the game with both what's in the box and anything you might buy.
Can you elaborate more on 2nd vs 4th, I've got very little frame of refference having never played any of them. People are already complaining about weapons being too crunchy/detailed in the previews, which I'm not sure I understand.
So 2nd ed was simple statlines, massive armies, crowded deployment zones and a game style of 'surprise' with hidden orders, and funky special rules for a few units given flavour. The gameplay in practice was grinding into each other around the objectives. Morale reflected that with when you hit your break point testing to have the remainder of the formation removed (so a formation of 10 tanks was more fragile than 11, and so on).
4th ed was fewer units (rarely more than a hundred per side and normally far less), more detailed units with differentiation between weapon and target types, and many units got a lot tougher. The gameplay started with a more varied deployment instead of simply being in each zone, and the possibility for rapid movement and not starting in 2 long lines tended to make for a more freewheeling battle. Formations would routinely break through the enemy line, go round the flanks, etc. Gameplay was a lot more trying to assault in optimal ways or getting enemies in crossfires. Morale was completely different, using blast markers to supress enemy fire and stop activations and when you broke rather than be removed it was again rapid movement.
In general in 2nd ed you wanted to hit something until it broke, in 4th ed there was an advantage to firing wildly in all directions to put blast markers everywhere and stop the enemy activating reliably.
Can you elaborate more on 2nd vs 4th, I've got very little frame of refference having never played any of them. People are already complaining about weapons being too crunchy/detailed in the previews, which I'm not sure I understand.
So 2nd ed was simple statlines, massive armies, crowded deployment zones and a game style of 'surprise' with hidden orders, and funky special rules for a few units given flavour. The gameplay in practice was grinding into each other around the objectives. Morale reflected that with when you hit your break point testing to have the remainder of the formation removed (so a formation of 10 tanks was more fragile than 11, and so on).
4th ed was fewer units (rarely more than a hundred per side and normally far less), more detailed units with differentiation between weapon and target types, and many units got a lot tougher. The gameplay started with a more varied deployment instead of simply being in each zone, and the possibility for rapid movement and not starting in 2 long lines tended to make for a more freewheeling battle. Formations would routinely break through the enemy line, go round the flanks, etc. Gameplay was a lot more trying to assault in optimal ways or getting enemies in crossfires. Morale was completely different, using blast markers to supress enemy fire and stop activations and when you broke rather than be removed it was again rapid movement.
In general in 2nd ed you wanted to hit something until it broke, in 4th ed there was an advantage to firing wildly in all directions to put blast markers everywhere and stop the enemy activating reliably.
I think the blast marker thing would have driven me nuts as it did with battflelfeet. I appreciate the comparison. Would it be fair to say for both version's army building forced some level of combined arms or was it possible to field armies that were like entirely one unit type like tanks/flyers ect? One thing I'm sorta hoping for is no matter what the detachments will have some forced variance like armoured company still having to take mechanized infantry and other sections ect.
I have a bunch of titans but am honestly hoping to do more of a straight forward force with a bit of everything if possible/viable. Maybe a titan to round out points.
Can you elaborate more on 2nd vs 4th, I've got very little frame of refference having never played any of them. People are already complaining about weapons being too crunchy/detailed in the previews, which I'm not sure I understand.
So 2nd ed was simple statlines, massive armies, crowded deployment zones and a game style of 'surprise' with hidden orders, and funky special rules for a few units given flavour. The gameplay in practice was grinding into each other around the objectives. Morale reflected that with when you hit your break point testing to have the remainder of the formation removed (so a formation of 10 tanks was more fragile than 11, and so on).
4th ed was fewer units (rarely more than a hundred per side and normally far less), more detailed units with differentiation between weapon and target types, and many units got a lot tougher. The gameplay started with a more varied deployment instead of simply being in each zone, and the possibility for rapid movement and not starting in 2 long lines tended to make for a more freewheeling battle. Formations would routinely break through the enemy line, go round the flanks, etc. Gameplay was a lot more trying to assault in optimal ways or getting enemies in crossfires. Morale was completely different, using blast markers to supress enemy fire and stop activations and when you broke rather than be removed it was again rapid movement.
In general in 2nd ed you wanted to hit something until it broke, in 4th ed there was an advantage to firing wildly in all directions to put blast markers everywhere and stop the enemy activating reliably.
I think the blast marker thing would have driven me nuts as it did with battflelfeet. I appreciate the comparison. Would it be fair to say for both version's army building forced some level of combined arms or was it possible to field armies that were like entirely one unit type like tanks/flyers ect? One thing I'm sorta hoping for is no matter what the detachments will have some forced variance like armoured company still having to take mechanized infantry and other sections ect.
I have a bunch of titans but am honestly hoping to do more of a straight forward force with a bit of everything if possible/viable. Maybe a titan to round out points.
The blast markers were great as 2nd Ed didnt really deal with moral much.
In 2nd ed you could go full tank, full flyer, full infantry, and once Titan Legions came out you could go full Titan.....It was a fool that usually did though. Infantry were needed to secure objectives. Titans on their own could quickly get overwhelmed. The balance of the game made forced requirements mostly unneeded, but it also allowed for flexability....sometimes all you wanted to do was play Titians vs Titans, or a huge armored battle...you could do that.
That being said, it was a different time, competitive gaming wasn't a thing, power gaming didn't really exist, the internet was in infancy so meme armies didn't exist. I'm sure now 2nd ed would be easy to "Break", but back then "Breaking" a game wasn't really a thing. I won a lot of Rogue Trader/ 1st ed era 40k games simply because I actually used grenades. It baffled me that people didn't take advantage of them.
Sherrypie wrote: Granular is the wrong choice of words to use for describing Armageddon's weaponry, it's very much not that in the context of typical GW-like games. You have guns that hit infantry or vehicles which can be saved against and big guns that hit both while negating saves, skipping a lot of regular Warhammer faff with reduced steps. There are a handful of special rules, but they are very universal and potent instead of little shifts in probabilities. They are also doled out rather sparingly, with most units having very few if any.
Yes that is very true. Despite the level of detail in the rules, I can never remember Armageddon games taking that long to play. Most of the criticism I have read of the rules revolve instead around them being 'cold' - look at the way War Machine/Titan damage are handled in each system for example, and factions with more mental special rules in 2nd/TL, such as Orks or Chaos, became far less fun in Armageddon. A friend of mine described the game as a "range measurement exercise". As much as I enjoy Armageddon (and think it is very well suited as a tournament game) I probably agree with him.
Anyway - What concerns me a little with the new rules, and making me think they may be bloated unnecessarily, is things like the LM Vanquisher having one special rule called 'Armour piercing' and another 'Armourbane'.. I mean, aren't those things quite literally a synonym of each other? Under what circumstances would that need a special-special rule?
Agreed on that front, Armageddon is very much a "grounded" WW II wargame with bits of 40k theming compared to the zaniness of SM 2nd's shenanigans
I might raise an eyebrow at the "range measurement exercise" comment, though, as from all Epics it is Armageddon where maneuver and changing plans on the fly wins the day while 2nd at times had the tendence to devolve into dice rolling from afar until one side dies so... horses for courses.
Anyway - What concerns me a little with the new rules, and making me think they may be bloated unnecessarily, is things like the LM Vanquisher having one special rule called 'Armour piercing' and another 'Armourbane'.. I mean, aren't those things quite literally a synonym of each other? Under what circumstances would that need a special-special rule?
Ya true, could be one of the things that get dealt with in the re-write/re-printing of the LI book.
I can't stand the idea of say a knight household list in 30k/40k, great models but I still remember that as the beginning of the end of 40k, pretending there's nothing like morally wrong about expecting knights to work at 1500pts. I just remember thinking what complete farce it was to plop down an army and my opponent 3 models. Knowing nothing about epic but a lot about 40k, I really miss stuff like the force org being relevant and the idea of everyone list having troops/hq some sort attempt at combined arms. Using titan legions as an example, that seems like the easiest gentlemans agreement conceivable in terms of my regular AT opponents because we all have the titan models already and its building up the tank/infantry side that will likely be slower going for us. I feel like we can all sense that first expansion where gw gives us "permission" to run titan legions/knight households as primary forces. I get ptsd when i hear stuff like "oh they whipped up a special detachment/formation just for the starter box to make it legal" my fear is a game tugging at two ends, one where it's trying to compell combined arms and another with a gw marketing exec saying "naw screw that, all these rules are no fun, lets sell some models".
Even if the game is still well conceived/balaned and the rules make taking a balanced force with a lot of infanty a real incentive in terms of holding objectives, if the ability to make silly jank lists still exists people will do it sadly. Like with 10th 40k, when you see people post actual legal lists and you're like "how?" "oh god, this is a joke right?". Not a good feeling, and I don't even think its as simple as waaac or any of that, plenty of narrative players have awful tastes and their lists choices just as abrasive in different ways. Just hoping no matter what detachment you have to "eat your brocoli" so to speak and perhaps have to take some less than ideal tax units, that would be my hope even for a titan/household expansion book, make me have to take skitarii and other stuff too.
The thing is you bake the tax into the rules without mandating units. Taking all Titans was legal....it was hard to pull off a win with it though. Infantry taking and holding objectives was key in 2nd ed. Also the idea that a non Titan army was helpless against an all Titan army is a non starter. Squats didnt have a true Titan, they had super heavy Titan killers though. The Tyranid Bio Titans were not at the same level as other factions Titans.....didn't stop that faction from downing Titans though. Eldar didn't have a Titan on the scale of the Mega Gargant or the Imperator....didn't stop them. If the rules are balanced you don't need to mandate that kind of limiting structure, the game basically forces it.
I think the big take away should be don't make "Broccoli" units. If a unit is essentially useless whats the point in having it? Gretchen even in epic can serve a purpose if the rules and points are right. 1Oth ed has kind of figured that out, giving some of the less glamorous units better objective control, which gives them a useful function now.
Andrew1975 wrote: The thing is you bake the tax into the rules without mandating units. Taking all Titans was legal....it was hard to pull off a win with it though. Infantry taking and holding objectives was key in 2nd ed. Also the idea that a non Titan army was helpless against an all Titan army is a non starter. Squats didnt have a true Titan, they had super heavy Titan killers though. The Tyranid Bio Titans were not at the same level as other factions Titans.....didn't stop that faction from downing Titans though. Eldar didn't have a Titan on the scale of the Mega Gargant or the Imperator....didn't stop them. If the rules are balanced you don't need to mandate that kind of limiting structure, the game basically forces it.
I think the big take away should be don't make "Broccoli" units. If a unit is essentially useless whats the point in having it? Gretchen even in epic can serve a purpose if the rules and points are right. 1Oth ed has kind of figured that out, giving some of the less glamorous units better objective control, which gives them a useful function now.
I think you're misunderstanding me on the broccoli thing, I agree making it so those units also are needed to cap objectives should be part of making them core to list building. But I also mean eating one's brocoli in terms of suspension of disbelief, and i think this a core difference between fantasy game/setting and a more modern wargame setting. Like I can't conceive of even an ork stompa mob of being 100% stompas without a massive supply train and a lot of supporting units that trail behind them. This is the same way I feel about a combined arms force fighting 3 knight army in 40k, it just shouldn't be possible in the rules. An entire army of knights with literally no other units shouldn't exist is what I'm getting at. Doing whatever one wants with no limitation isn't a rule set, people are always free to do that. And I agree it's probably fine to do in the context of a mirror match, like knight household vs knight household or titan legion vs titan legion. Even then I think I'd get bored of that after a few games, bit I'd never wish to totally warp a games meta just to suit boring edge cases. I'd rather army construction be tight and balanced in terms of suspension of disbelief. I don't like brocoli but I've seen the opponents who expect to subsist only on cake, metaphorically speaking, in terms of always getting what they want. GW rewarding that is what destroyed 40kIMO.
Just to zero in on one of the comments you made "If the rules are balanced you don't need to mandate that kind of limiting structure, the game basically forces it." I'd like to agree with you and I would say most of the time that's probably correct, but I do think some structure is important, if anything because breaking or ignoring said structure is so much easier than creating it to begin with. Like whether or not troops scored or exclusively scored objectives would not factor in to me thinking every army should have at its core some basic frontline troops, period. This can be seen as a great idea or tax/burden/how dare you idea, but it will also weed out the people who are fundamentally inflexible in their wanting to run exclusively 1 unit type like flyers or tanks while also making things more believable and immersive. At this scale a list comprising of only one model type should rarely be possible outside of edge cases, and even then. Titan on titan seems more entertaining that someone trying to port aeronautica into LI and do all planes.
I hate broccoli. It's a vile vegetable that ruins an otherwise good meal. Likewise, if someone wants to have an army completely of Terminators, super-heavy tanks or giants robots in an army where red ones go faster - then I can safely assume that if the army commander wanted to field it the necessary logistics were pushed to make it happen. It's a fun game after all.
MarkNorfolk wrote: I hate broccoli. It's a vile vegetable that ruins an otherwise good meal. Likewise, if someone wants to have an army completely of Terminators, super-heavy tanks or giants robots in an army where red ones go faster - then I can safely assume that if the army commander wanted to field it the necessary logistics were pushed to make it happen. It's a fun game after all.
Fun is subjective. I just remember a time when army building wasn't synonymous with whatever happened to be in one's online shopping cart at any given time.
My current plan army wise is to start slow, I don't want to jump right to 3000pt games, I wanna see how it scales. Curious if anyone has found any leaks that may have referenced any other board size other than 4x5.
I wonder if the 3000pt thing is going to turn out to be accurate. Some people in the community have done miniature volume calculations and it is a *lot* of miniatures. Fair enough you say, it's Epic, but looking at the number of granular special rules I cannot see this new game being faster than Epic SM (2nd) to play, and that game had less miniatures on the tabletop, based on the new points calculations.
GW have always had a 'playable in one evening' ethos to their games, and even the ones that push this (Necromunda, I am looking at you) have stayed within that as a concept. So, if the 3000pt thing is accurate, then either the points values we have seen are incorrect, or there must be some real effeciencies within the game mechanics that haven't yet been revealed.
I think WarComms have been known to be wrong with things before though right?
Out of interest what is the playing time for a 'standard' 40k game these days?
LI might be 4+ hrs, but to me that is for a day's (afternoon) play, not an evening's. Most people finish work 5-6, an hour to get home and back out, eat some food (being optimistic) until they can get to a club or friend's house to play. By the time you get towards 10pm people with early starts then next day are thinking about finishing, so realistically 3 hours is the most you will get and less if there is a lot of setup time.
5-6 hours in an evening is for people who are either very fortunate with their jobs, students, unemployed or I guess games developers who are doing nothing else and can play until 1am (which I am beginning to wonder may be the case here, if 3000pts is actually the standard).
Pacific wrote: I wonder if the 3000pt thing is going to turn out to be accurate. Some people in the community have done miniature volume calculations and it is a *lot* of miniatures. Fair enough you say, it's Epic, but looking at the number of granular special rules I cannot see this new game being faster than Epic SM (2nd) to play, and that game had less miniatures on the tabletop, based on the new points calculations.
GW have always had a 'playable in one evening' ethos to their games, and even the ones that push this (Necromunda, I am looking at you) have stayed within that as a concept. So, if the 3000pt thing is accurate, then either the points values we have seen are incorrect, or there must be some real effeciencies within the game mechanics that haven't yet been revealed.
Well I think it's two things, the first being that part of the re-printing of book was a lot of points costs and upgrade costs were either wrong or missing. So that at least explains the point disparity people were seeing between infantry and vehicles. The other factor is, they've only mentioned 3000pts and 4x5 board but I have to think that's a marketing decision more than an accurate portrayal of how the game will scale. Still speculation that lower point games will be viable and perhaps on a smaller than 4x5. The starter box looks like it sits sort of in the middle at approx 2000 ish points and they've said they're going to release a special detachment/formation thing just for the content of the box. So I feel like after release we might see a warcom article mentioning lower or entry level LI games but I I can see not leading with that if the goal is to push starter boxes/big armies out the gate.
Is it possible they will have written and now published this game without getting it played by focus groups? I'm not taking about the guys who have written the game and have the rules imprinted on the inside of their eyelids, but how long it takes to play by a new player in their first game and then 2nd - 5th games or so, when players are starting to get the hang of it. If the games take 4+ hrs to play and marked index notes to play, that will do as much to kill it as a £200+ starter set.
On a separate note, looking at the Titan killer rules it looks like titans will have wounds/an HP bar. So the game has added a ton of granular detail, but they have removed the one bit of extra detail from 2nd (hit charts and damage tables) that was pretty much universally loved by everyone who played that edition. FFS
Well, that is what modern GW games are and why certain games that need less investment gets praised
But if you want fast games were beginners can handle it in 2 hours with a core box, than you should not buy into that
For the game size, how well it scale depends on rules/formations we don't know yet
Might be a 1000 point work well, or might be that everything below 2500 needs houserules
For the size itself, 2 core boxes + something extra to replace units you cannot double was the standard size in the past
Crablezworth wrote: I think the blast marker thing would have driven me nuts as it did with battflelfeet. I appreciate the comparison. Would it be fair to say for both version's army building forced some level of combined arms or was it possible to field armies that were like entirely one unit type like tanks/flyers ect? One thing I'm sorta hoping for is no matter what the detachments will have some forced variance like armoured company still having to take mechanized infantry and other sections ect.
2nd ed revolved around companies, but nothing stopped you taking only one type of company. Most didn't though as didn't have the models Also different units were good at different things.
4th ed varied by army. Most had core formations that were the gateway to supporting formations. Only Marines were different I think, having the ability to get whatever they wanted (outside of titan and imperial navy support).
The new game seems to be a halfway house with a core formation that does seem to be somewhat mixed, though I haven't paid enough attention to leaks to figure it out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Well I think it's two things, the first being that part of the re-printing of book was a lot of points costs and upgrade costs were either wrong or missing. So that at least explains the point disparity people were seeing between infantry and vehicles. The other factor is, they've only mentioned 3000pts and 4x5 board but I have to think that's a marketing decision more than an accurate portrayal of how the game will scale.
Bigger models (twice as big it seems with stuff like SHTs), smaller table. Probably get deployment like 40k (deployment zone, infiltrate style moves). Anticipate a lot more crowded deployment, but seemingly higher firepower and lower saves, so things get removed faster. So 2nd ed in effect
Crablezworth wrote: I think the blast marker thing would have driven me nuts as it did with battflelfeet. I appreciate the comparison. Would it be fair to say for both version's army building forced some level of combined arms or was it possible to field armies that were like entirely one unit type like tanks/flyers ect? One thing I'm sorta hoping for is no matter what the detachments will have some forced variance like armoured company still having to take mechanized infantry and other sections ect.
2nd ed revolved around companies, but nothing stopped you taking only one type of company. Most didn't though as didn't have the models Also different units were good at different things.
4th ed varied by army. Most had core formations that were the gateway to supporting formations. Only Marines were different I think, having the ability to get whatever they wanted (outside of titan and imperial navy support).
The new game seems to be a halfway house with a core formation that does seem to be somewhat mixed, though I haven't paid enough attention to leaks to figure it out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Well I think it's two things, the first being that part of the re-printing of book was a lot of points costs and upgrade costs were either wrong or missing. So that at least explains the point disparity people were seeing between infantry and vehicles. The other factor is, they've only mentioned 3000pts and 4x5 board but I have to think that's a marketing decision more than an accurate portrayal of how the game will scale.
Bigger models (twice as big it seems with stuff like SHTs), smaller table. Probably get deployment like 40k (deployment zone, infiltrate style moves). Anticipate a lot more crowded deployment, but seemingly higher firepower and lower saves, so things get removed faster. So 2nd ed in effect
I'm just hoping no matter what formation it's more about the theme/concept/potential composiiton of units than over arching special rules that could be abrasive. I never like titanicus's maniple system because although it did encourage a bit of variety in list building, because the overall benefit for the maniple existed outside of point cost it was a bit of a race to the bottom.
What are your plans now that it looks like a new 'official' version of the game is coming[...]?
I'm looking forward to it. Epic scale gaming is by far my favourite way of playing – the smaller size just feels more engaging and (whisper it low) realistic within the confines of the setting. I've played every version of Epic, with Armageddon (E:A) being by far my favourite owing to its manoeuvre-led gameplay and the visuals of the blast marker mechanics.
For the past a couple of decades, GW haven't provided anything I could use, so I've happily picked up third-party sculpts and proxies to play my games. In my opinion, they often looked better than the old Epic models – but I'm still likely to pick up the new game and models.
Why? Well, first and foremost, I like the look of the new models. Whatever the reasons for the increase in size (and personally, I don't think it's entirely cynical; I'm willing to give GW the benefit of the doubt that they wanted a good, consistent scale across their new models), I'm delighted that this game will be properly compatible with my existing terrain, Titans and flyers.
Secondly, unfortunately for me, I haven't got reliable and regular gaming opportunities at the moment, so when I do get a chance to play, anything that minimises 'friction' – that is, the need for pre-game explanations about what things are, or misunderstandings during play – are welcome. I'll likely be able to get a couple of games in – and the convenience of a single professional physical rulebook/references, and everything looking as it appears in the pictures is invaluable to making things easier for infrequent or totally new players. My gaming group has tried lots of games over the years, and there's something
Thirdly, a new 'official' edition always helps to revitalise interest amongst the broader community, and bring in some new blood – in terms of players, models, terrain and events. The old editions aren't going anywhere, so I don't think Epic: Legions is necessarily going to cannibalise the existing community. It'll do that if it's genuinely a better game – but to be honest, I'm sceptical on whether it's going to scratch the same itch for me as E:A.
Is that a problem? No, not really. I'd love for this game to have been the equivalent of E:A being given the 'Blood Bowl treatment' – but it's not. For that reason, I'm treating it as something new. Epic: Space Marine 2nd edition (SM2) was a game I played only as a nipper, and never quite 'got it'. I'm looking forward to giving it a chance now I'm older – and to see whether the bits that E:A couldn't do – that grand scale that was so visually appealing – can be done justice today.
I love the current rules, and have an 6/8mm IH army with Knights and Titans in progress.
I intend to buy the LI set and try those rules too. Suspect I prefer blast markers morale and true alternating activations over 2nd ed orders and CAF. But you never know, guess we'll choose after a few games.
With the 8mm stuff I intend to paint another Legion, and maybe some Solar to run with Knights.
What are your plans now that it looks like a new 'official' version of the game is coming[...]?
I'm looking forward to it. Epic scale gaming is by far my favourite way of playing – the smaller size just feels more engaging and (whisper it low) realistic within the confines of the setting. I've played every version of Epic, with Armageddon (E:A) being by far my favourite owing to its manoeuvre-led gameplay and the visuals of the blast marker mechanics.
For the past a couple of decades, GW haven't provided anything I could use, so I've happily picked up third-party sculpts and proxies to play my games. In my opinion, they often looked better than the old Epic models – but I'm still likely to pick up the new game and models.
Why? Well, first and foremost, I like the look of the new models. Whatever the reasons for the increase in size (and personally, I don't think it's entirely cynical; I'm willing to give GW the benefit of the doubt that they wanted a good, consistent scale across their new models), I'm delighted that this game will be properly compatible with my existing terrain, Titans and flyers.
Secondly, unfortunately for me, I haven't got reliable and regular gaming opportunities at the moment, so when I do get a chance to play, anything that minimises 'friction' – that is, the need for pre-game explanations about what things are, or misunderstandings during play – are welcome. I'll likely be able to get a couple of games in – and the convenience of a single professional physical rulebook/references, and everything looking as it appears in the pictures is invaluable to making things easier for infrequent or totally new players. My gaming group has tried lots of games over the years, and there's something
Thirdly, a new 'official' edition always helps to revitalise interest amongst the broader community, and bring in some new blood – in terms of players, models, terrain and events. The old editions aren't going anywhere, so I don't think Epic: Legions is necessarily going to cannibalise the existing community. It'll do that if it's genuinely a better game – but to be honest, I'm sceptical on whether it's going to scratch the same itch for me as E:A.
Is that a problem? No, not really. I'd love for this game to have been the equivalent of E:A being given the 'Blood Bowl treatment' – but it's not. For that reason, I'm treating it as something new. Epic: Space Marine 2nd edition (SM2) was a game I played only as a nipper, and never quite 'got it'. I'm looking forward to giving it a chance now I'm older – and to see whether the bits that E:A couldn't do – that grand scale that was so visually appealing – can be done justice today.
Bravo! I could have written that myself.
For me, the most important aspect is that Epic is again a "commercial" and "official" game, bringing new player to this wonderful scale.
Typically, how big (number of infantry and tanks) have people historically recommended for combined arms forces in Epic for say (1) a space marine force and (2) an IG force?
I realize I'm asking for a very rough number. I'm just trying to get an understanding for the size of game people felt worked best. 100 marines w/ rhinos and 4 land raiders and a thunderhawk? 300 IG with chimeras and 8 leman russes with a few valkyries? or what?
Maybe there's a better way to phrase my question?
edit: I realize there's so much context missing from my question, like, does this combined arms force include any warlords etc. It's also possible the answer is points rather than models, e.g. "2000 points per side are typically the most fun because..."
Apologist - what a great post, and I 100% agree. My concern now is that the new game won't do 'grand battle' nearly as well as 2nd edition did (just looking at the amount of special rules and weapon profiles/options involved I can't imagine it will be as quick to play) and it will therefore remove one of the main strengths of that game. But, of course I will reserve judgement until I have rulebook in hand and have played a few games. If the new version stinks, we have three other great versions to fall back on, and hopefully a whole torrent of fresh blood coming into Epic scale off the back of the new game.
Fugazi - it's very hard to say as comments so far have been based on the community page releases and the leaks document (if you search through the News & Rumours Imperialis thread there are some leaked points values there, with the general consensus being that the leaks are genuine).
It looks like from the points values that there will be a significantly increased miniature count compared to previous versions of the game, if the 3000pt value for a 'standard' game given by the Warhammer Community page article is accurate.
If I were in your position, if you want a head start with some proxies or 3D prints, I would just get going with some things that are definitely going to be in the new game; rhinos, Land Raiders, tactical and support infantry. I don't think we know the exact format in terms of volumes of infantry in a company yet (please someone correct me if this has been revealed and I have missed it), but you won't be able to go wrong with 15 or so stands of tactical infantry for example, or half a dozen support or Terminator stands. Worst case scenario is that these are split across companies or detachments.
There was a post by someone on one of the FB pages who has made an army using the leaked point values and community posts, although with some guess work, if you wanted something more specific.
Spoiler:
Based on leaks and official posts here is my SOH epic 23 army.
Had to guess on transports and pts on some of the tanks.
Biggest question are the rhinos!!!! Leak shows detachment size as variable and 10pts. So I have gone with 10pts per rhino
2 x demi company's
Hq Legion command plus rhino 35pts
Support missile launcher det plus rhinos 65pts
2 x core tactical det with rhinos 150pts
Battle tank squad predators 115pts
Vanguard terminator det Spartan (120 for 2) 170pts
Cost for each company.... 535pts
Thunderhawk squadron × 2 Thunderhawks (one being built) 300 pts
Sicaron squadron 6 tanks 315 pts
Made up units (pts guessed)
Land raider squadron 4 tanks (110 for 2) 220pts
Typhoon heavy siege tank squadron (75 each) 225pts
Super heavy tank squadron 2 fellblades (125 each) 250pts
So those makes 2380pts..... with a bit of guess work.
Edit. Sicaron 110 for 2, Krytos 150 for 2. So Spartans and land raiders need to slot between them
So 700pts left for support.
Armageddon 30k points 4680pts
In lieu of Epic getting released this week I decided to put more work into my flyers. Was never a fan of the short flying stands having them lower than buildings & titans, so...
And yes the long playtime for GW games is a problem they try to solve for a long time now
Then stop making me roll so many dice. I have to roll to see how many shots I get, roll to hit, do my rerolls, roll to wound, roll for my random damage weapon, roll to see if the vehicle blew up. My enemy has his armor save, can choose to reroll, maybe a FNP roll. If they eliminated the ridiculous amount of random shots/damage weapons, and all sources of rerolls except the 1CP strat, the game would instantly be 10-20% faster. GW seem to think people play 40k just for an excuse to watch dice roll around in a tray...
It is impossible for me to overstate how strongly I support that sentiment.
GW seems to get it with some games (Warcry for example) but then you seem to hear games taking the micky out of 40k 2nd edition for its complexity on the one hand, and then quite happily roll five or six sets of dice and refer to three separate rulebooks to remove a few miniatures on the other hand.
And yes the long playtime for GW games is a problem they try to solve for a long time now
Then stop making me roll so many dice. I have to roll to see how many shots I get, roll to hit, do my rerolls, roll to wound, roll for my random damage weapon, roll to see if the vehicle blew up. My enemy has his armor save, can choose to reroll, maybe a FNP roll. If they eliminated the ridiculous amount of random shots/damage weapons, and all sources of rerolls except the 1CP strat, the game would instantly be 10-20% faster. GW seem to think people play 40k just for an excuse to watch dice roll around in a tray...
I can certainly say that in Epic 40k resolving attacks is quite fast, particularly in comparison, no matter how obtuse some people like Mad Doc wants to make it look
And yes the long playtime for GW games is a problem they try to solve for a long time now
Then stop making me roll so many dice. I have to roll to see how many shots I get, roll to hit, do my rerolls, roll to wound, roll for my random damage weapon, roll to see if the vehicle blew up. My enemy has his armor save, can choose to reroll, maybe a FNP roll. If they eliminated the ridiculous amount of random shots/damage weapons, and all sources of rerolls except the 1CP strat, the game would instantly be 10-20% faster. GW seem to think people play 40k just for an excuse to watch dice roll around in a tray...
I can certainly say that in Epic 40k resolving attacks is quite fast, particularly in comparison, no matter how obtuse some people like Mad Doc wants to make it look
Although I generally like Epic 40k the most, I would actually advocate for adding an extra dice roll to that system
A lot of people seemed to hate the Firepower table, but the Firepower table was effectively "simulating" a dice roll and could easily be replaced by one, and it might have made people hate Epic 40k less.
The system is basically...
Add up firepower -> consult table to see how many dice you roll -> roll "to hit" -> successful hits = kills.
Buuuuut, it could be this, and I think it wouldn't add much time, and would open the door for some new rules...
Add up firepower -> roll a number of dice equal to firepower -> collect successes and roll "to wound" -> successful wounds = kills.
That way you just roll 1 dice per firepower prior to the "kill" roll and don't have to look up the firepower table.
Then instead of the firepower table, you just roll a 4+ to hit, with modifiers of +1 for marching, +1 for war engine, -1 for in cover.
Seeing as the dice rollers have other editions to choose from and Epic 40k is not going to be back officially anytime soon... nah man, keep the extra rolls out of it
Albertorius wrote: Seeing as the dice rollers have other editions to choose from and Epic 40k is not going to be back officially anytime soon... nah man, keep the extra rolls out of it
I'd say rolling an extra set of dice is roughly as time consuming as consulting the firepower table, and the firepower table is a bit of abstraction a lot of people disliked about Epic 40k.
It also means that your kills can be linked to specific units (e.g. with the firepower table if you had 2 units with 1 firepower each, you'd roll 1 dice "to hit" so the roll wasn't linked to a specific unit). By adding the extra roll, each unit rolls its own dice, which allows for new special rules like your hero could be +1 to hit or something like that and you just roll a different coloured dice for him, or for War Engines you could add different armour for different faces (I'm not a big fan of facings for regular units as it seems silly to worry about the facing of a single tank when you're commanding 10's of tanks, that's the job of the tank or squadron commander, not the general... but for War Engines it could be interesting to add side/rear armour bonuses).
I know in Epic Remastered there was discussion around shields having bonuses against only front shots.... which is an idea I don't particularly like but if you're someone who does like that idea then having dice rolls attributable to specific units makes it easier to figure that stuff out.
But play however you like, as you say, GW are extremely unlikely to revisit the Epic 40k rules.... I only came up with the extra dice roll because of the number of people who attributed their dislike of E40k specifically to the Firepower table.
Albertorius wrote: Hm.... I always thought of void shields as more bubbles than anything else, so I can't really say I'd like that very much, myself ^^
I think the discussion was more on things like breacher shields.
Although the lack of a release date is frustrating, I'm still excited about this as my first dedicated foray into Epic. I'm hoping the Civitas buildings and spires will be rereleased, as I really like that look and style.
I know this is wishlisting, but I really, really hope Eldar, Orks and Tau will get some releases down the line, even if it's far down the line.
My personal hope is that a looser homebrewing epic can always exist along side GW's official output. looser rule sets for introducing new factions and units was always a divisive issue anyway, since some insisted on rigidly adhering to the 1990s rules and units (for example) and others willing to introduce all manner of canon friendly but currently ruleless units and rules. I hope homebrewers can develop a set of rules which allow introducing new units without breaking the game (by, for example, maintaining set rules for weapon types and making the cost of homebrewed units higher costed than their abilities might predict)
my local group, for example, allows me to feild an all cultist army so long as the rules are within the realm of canon sense. this 'cult leader' is feilded as having the stats of a defiler but also has the hq rule (etc.)
tauist wrote: There is no precedent of GW teasing a computer game like that. Make no mistake, its a new boardgame, at the very least.
It has relaxed a tiny bit in recent times, but usually GW are very very strict to keep third party/licensee stuff separate from their core lineup, so a computer game is a very very low probability.
Also, this seems false? I can find articles talking about Shootas, Blood & Teef, Darktide, World of Warships, Mechanicus, Chaosbane, Warhammer Underworlds: Online, Inquisitor: Martyr, and Total War: Warhammer III. So there's plenty of computer game talk on the Community site.
Anyone into Shootas, Blood & Teef? Thinking about getting the physical version of this game.
)
