Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That seems unlikely, though.

I imagine the expansion board will probably just have some different hexes with alternate rules, or can be combined with the starter one for multiplayer games. I am much more concerned with a partial rulebook.

Partial rulebook? Could be anything like the old mini books that left out all the fluff sections to a book with the rules to play but not additional missions and campaign rules.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think I'm most interested in the campaign book. It probably won't be much more than a roster and a few small upgrades, but even that is enough to make me take a second look at the game. Did the original Aeronautica Imperialis have a campaign system? If so, what was it like?

It's interesting that it is getting a campaign book right out the gate. I think GW (and the industry as a whole) is definitely swinging more to narrative/campaign style gaming these days than competitive play. The pendulum of player interests has started to swing back...

Yes, it actually had two systems, one was a linked game and the other was around controlling resources. They were pretty fun.

The ability for aircraft and pilots to level up was limited. In the old Airspace forum we expanded it to better pilot skills than just an improved dice roll for special pilot tests.

Just zipping back through the posts but can't find links to confirm the £55 price nor the contents of the game. Would it be alright to have them again?

lord_blackfang wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Yeah, this doesn't seem like a good value at all, even compared with other GW stuff. Nightvault is $60. Warlord Games has a historical fighter combat game, and that starter set is $50 with 12 planes (though admittedly those are much less detailed miniatures). I'm not seeing a good value here, except maybe in comparison to Adeptus Titanicus.

Just looked in on that. It doesn’t come with a board or terrain. So you’d need to factor that in,

Might come out even worse for GW if the starter only has a demo board and you're supposed to buy a bigger one as day 1 DLC.

It'll be interesting to say the least.
We know AM & Orks are in the starter but I wonder what the first batch of aircraft will be? Eldar v Deldar maybe, or chaos stuff(I'm looking forward to hel-drake/talon)?

SamusDrake wrote:
Just zipping back through the posts but can't find links to confirm the £55 price nor the contents of the game. Would it be alright to have them again?

 zedmeister wrote:
Spotted on B&C - note comment about being the same scale as AT - Epic, here we come!

Cheers for that.

Folks upset at the pricing should look at GHQ aircraft:

http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/nato-aircraft-fixed-wing.html

About the same scale, metal, not plastic. Yes, you can get them at a discount sometimes. And yes, there are other companies with cheaper (but typically less detailed) versions.

All in all though, I think the price is decent if the game included in the box is fun. The planes included may not be dirt cheap, but compared to similar historical figures they are not over the top expensive either.

Now, how do I hide the fact I'm buying yet another game system from my wife...

Folks upset at the pricing should look at GHQ aircraft

Someone was upset over it?

Cronch wrote:

Folks upset at the pricing should look at GHQ aircraft

Someone was upset over it?

Yes! Its £5 cheaper than I predicted it would be! How dare they!

If anyone's a member of the facebook group with the year in the name, someone there's local store apparently has their demo copy - can you ask for proper measurements of the length & wingspan of the various planes please?

few odd pics :

Man, I am pretty excited about this.

I may have to dig out my old Bommerz over da Sulphur River game to hold me over!

Ooh, they got a nice size to them, can't wait for next week now.

Oh well that's a shame, looks like they're too large to match the Titans properly - in 1:260 a Thunderbolt wingspan should be ~62mm, and that indicates it's about 70mm.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Oh well that's a shame, looks like they're too large to match the Titans properly - in 1:260 a Thunderbolt wingspan should be ~62mm, and that indicates it's about 70mm.

Are you sure about that? They said it is in the same scale than AT (whatever scale that is) so certainly they used the same ratio for 'downscaling' these planes from their 40K sizes than they did with the titans, thus an AI plane would be relatively the same size compared to an AT titan than their 40K counterparts are to each other.

Wow, I love the size of the ships!! Was coming to post the pics but Ninja'ed by red

Darn those are really a nice size! Also remember don't glue them to the flight sticks - you want them ready to jump onto rounds or whatever shape they end up having if Epic ever makes a return - or if GW just adds aircraft to AT

 Yodhrin wrote:
If anyone's a member of the facebook group with the year in the name, someone there's local store apparently has their demo copy - can you ask for proper measurements of the length & wingspan of the various planes please?

I've done so, and so has another group member. Let's see if that penetrates past the 6mm / 8mm waffling that's already clogging the thread.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
If anyone's a member of the facebook group with the year in the name, someone there's local store apparently has their demo copy - can you ask for proper measurements of the length & wingspan of the various planes please?

I've done so, and so has another group member. Let's see if that penetrates past the 6mm / 8mm waffling that's already clogging the thread.

Why does the difference of a few mm even matter?

 Crimson wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Oh well that's a shame, looks like they're too large to match the Titans properly - in 1:260 a Thunderbolt wingspan should be ~62mm, and that indicates it's about 70mm.

Are you sure about that? They said it is in the same scale than AT (whatever scale that is) so certainly they used the same ratio for 'downscaling' these planes from their 40K sizes than they did with the titans, thus an AI plane would be relatively the same size compared to an AT titan than their 40K counterparts are to each other.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're the "correct" size in absolute terms, because 40K's relative scaling is wonky. The AT Titans are about 1:260, and at 16.06m that puts the wingspan of a Thunderbolt at about 62mm, and as I say that image there appears to show the AI model with a wingspan of about 7cm or roughly 1:230. Plenty of people are happy with "close enough" and will find these adequate, I'm glad for them, but I prefer things to be more consistent especially at GW prices.

Ah well, more money in the Sisters kitty.

puzzledust wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
If anyone's a member of the facebook group with the year in the name, someone there's local store apparently has their demo copy - can you ask for proper measurements of the length & wingspan of the various planes please?

I've done so, and so has another group member. Let's see if that penetrates past the 6mm / 8mm waffling that's already clogging the thread.

Why does the difference of a few mm even matter?

It doesn't(to me).

FTFY.

I've already got four Thunderbolts, and I expect Yodhrin has some too. If it wasn't for that, minor size differences wouldn't matter at all, but I'd like to know what the differences are (if any). It doesn't necessarily mean I won't get this, but it does mean I'd consider selling on my old planes if they differ.

The 40k plane has a wingspan of 280mm. The resin model has a wingspan of 54mm (one fifth the size, as previously stated on FB by Will Hayes). If the plastic models are scaled like the titans at one quarter the 40k size, then the new Thunderbolts will be 70mm. Of course, that's assuming they use the same 40k-to-epic scaling that they've used for Adeptus Titanicus; that's likely, but perhaps not guaranteed.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I've already got four Thunderbolts, and I expect Yodhrin has some too. If it wasn't for that, minor size differences wouldn't matter at all, but I'd like to know what the differences are (if any). It doesn't necessarily mean I won't get this, but it does mean I'd consider selling on my old planes if they differ.

The 40k plane has a wingspan of 280mm. The resin model has a wingspan of 54mm (one fifth the size, as previously stated on FB by Will Hayes). If the plastic models are scaled like the titans at one quarter the 40k size, then the new Thunderbolts will be 70mm. Of course, that's assuming they use the same 40k-to-epic scaling that they've used for Adeptus Titanicus; that's likely, but perhaps not guaranteed.

Hah.

I actually don't have any of the Epic ones either, but I didn't spend ages faffing about measuring up the Titans and harassing Will Hayes on FB to confirm the "8mm Marine" thing to settle for "close enough". I'd been planning to 3D print myself some planes in the "correct' scale to play with using the old rules prior to this new version being announced, so I'll just go back to that plan.

If you're looking to match the OOP titan stuff, this won't work for you at all, but it looks fine next to the new titan in the pic above, imo.

I'm personally really glad they're chunky - I had expected them to look a lot smaller so this is a pleasant surprise!

 Yodhrin wrote:

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're the "correct" size in absolute terms, because 40K's relative scaling is wonky.

Compared to what?

The AT Titans are about 1:260, and at 16.06m that puts the wingspan of a Thunderbolt at about 62mm, and as I say that image there appears to show the AI model with a wingspan of about 7cm or roughly 1:230. Plenty of people are happy with "close enough" and will find these adequate, I'm glad for them, but I prefer things to be more consistent especially at GW prices.

On what you're basing these calculations? If the relative sizes of AI/AT models is the same than 40K vehicles, then that is as 'correct' as we're going to get. There literally are pilot models in 40K versions of these models, and as those pilots are same scale with each other, so are the vehicles. If there is some fluff which states the sizes of these vehicles that does not correspond with the model sizes then it is that fluff that is wrong, not the models.

 Yodhrin wrote:

I actually don't have any of the Epic ones either, but I didn't spend ages faffing about measuring up the Titans and harassing Will Hayes on FB to confirm the "8mm Marine" thing to settle for "close enough". I'd been planning to 3D print myself some planes in the "correct' scale to play with using the old rules prior to this new version being announced, so I'll just go back to that plan.

I'd say the 1/4 40k size is most likely to be correct for any new epic models going forward (after all, there's a couple of crashed Xiphons on the AT terrain boards and they'll be 1/4 sized; makes sense for them to stick to that in IA '19).

I'm not sure what choice came first - to scale to 1/4 of 40k size or to scale so a Marine is 8mm tall - but the two are equivalent after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
If there is some fluff which states the sizes of these vehicles that does not correspond with the model sizes then it is that fluff that is wrong, not the models.

No, it just means that Games Workshop doesn't make exact scale models - which we already know. The "real" sizes of 40k aeroplanes were printed in the Imperial Armour and Aeronautica Imperialis books, produced at the same time as the miniatures. I wouldn't place any bets over what came first.

 Crimson wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're the "correct" size in absolute terms, because 40K's relative scaling is wonky.

Compared to what?

Compared to basic maths?

The AT Titans are about 1:260, and at 16.06m that puts the wingspan of a Thunderbolt at about 62mm, and as I say that image there appears to show the AI model with a wingspan of about 7cm or roughly 1:230. Plenty of people are happy with "close enough" and will find these adequate, I'm glad for them, but I prefer things to be more consistent especially at GW prices.

On what you're basing these calculations? If the relative sizes of AI/AT models is the same than 40K vehicles, then that is as 'correct' as we're going to get. There literally are pilot models in 40K versions of these models, and as those pilots are same scale with each other, so are the vehicles. If there is some fluff which states the sizes of these vehicles that does not correspond with the model sizes then it is that fluff that is wrong, not the models.

I'm basing them on Forge World, so it would be odd if the fluff was wrong given it came at the same time as the model. Given how wonky scale in 40K is generally(Rhino, anybody?), I find it easier to believe the model was built larger for some reason than they just randomly decided to pull a number out of their backsides.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

I actually don't have any of the Epic ones either, but I didn't spend ages faffing about measuring up the Titans and harassing Will Hayes on FB to confirm the "8mm Marine" thing to settle for "close enough". I'd been planning to 3D print myself some planes in the "correct' scale to play with using the old rules prior to this new version being announced, so I'll just go back to that plan.

I'd say the 1/4 40k size is most likely to be correct for any new epic models going forward (after all, there's a couple of crashed Xiphons on the AT terrain boards and they'll be 1/4 sized; makes sense for them to stick to that in IA '19).

I'm not sure what choice came first - to scale to 1/4 of 40k size or to scale so a Marine is 8mm tall - but the two are equivalent after all.

Well they said the Marine came first in the pre-release teasing/event stuff, but as you say chicken or egg doesn't really matter, either way it means any scale discrepancies from the 40K models will be ported across 1:1. At least these days there's a way to fix it ourselves if one is so inclined.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're the "correct" size in absolute terms, because 40K's relative scaling is wonky.

Compared to what?

Compared to basic maths?

The AT Titans are about 1:260, and at 16.06m that puts the wingspan of a Thunderbolt at about 62mm, and as I say that image there appears to show the AI model with a wingspan of about 7cm or roughly 1:230. Plenty of people are happy with "close enough" and will find these adequate, I'm glad for them, but I prefer things to be more consistent especially at GW prices.

On what you're basing these calculations? If the relative sizes of AI/AT models is the same than 40K vehicles, then that is as 'correct' as we're going to get. There literally are pilot models in 40K versions of these models, and as those pilots are same scale with each other, so are the vehicles. If there is some fluff which states the sizes of these vehicles that does not correspond with the model sizes then it is that fluff that is wrong, not the models.

I'm basing them on Forge World, so it would be odd if the fluff was wrong given it came at the same time as the model. Given how wonky scale in 40K is generally(Rhino, anybody?), I find it easier to believe the model was built larger for some reason than they just randomly decided to pull a number out of their backsides.

Sorry, this is just bonkers. The models are in correct scales, some obscure old background numbers are totally irrelevant. They're not gonna make the models in AI/AT relatively differently scaled that their 40K counterparts because some intern who was tasked with coming up some page filler for FW book failed at maths. It was even perfectly possible that at the moment of writing the writer didn't have a model at hand as they were just going into production, so they were just estimating. Oh, and according to similar FW numbers the Rhino model is correctly scaled.

Do you know that in BL books one exact same ship doubles in length between books? I'd love to see you do maths on how a BFG model for that ship should be scaled!

This has definitely hit ‘auto buy’ for me.