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.

Well, you're not asking for much then, are you? I still think it's entirely a fool's errand and the demand for Epic is simply not there for them to do it. Nothing I've seen in this misguided thread has changed my mind.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Well, you're not asking for much then, are you? I still think it's entirely a fool's errand and the demand for Epic is simply not there for them to do it. Nothing I've seen in this misguided thread has changed my mind.

Given that GW has already demonstrated the ability to do what I want, nope, not asking for much. Just treating Epic like a real game and not having the intern's kid throw some models together over the weekend.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Some things are genuine lightning-in-a-bottle moments that could never occur again. I'm sure that modern gaming culture, for example, with its emphasis on optimization and competitive play, would mean that the play experience of any potential future edition of Epic would be far different (and IMO far inferior) to past ones, no matter how cunning the artifice used in its creation.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Some things are genuine lightning-in-a-bottle moments that could never occur again. I'm sure that modern gaming culture, for example, with its emphasis on optimization and competitive play, would mean that the play experience of any potential future edition of Epic would be far different (and IMO far inferior) to past ones, no matter how cunning the artifice used in its creation.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? My comments were strictly about the models (specifically simple models on compact sprues vs. complex models with full detail, multiple pieces to handle undercuts, etc) and had nothing to do with the rules.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
If you like low-detail lumps of plastic that come in fewer pieces I guess you have the right to poor taste.

Sure, thanks! I'll leave you to your plastic gunk-encrusted fingers due to having to glue way too many minuscule parts on minuscule vehicles

Personally I tend to just print them in a single piece nowadays , or maybe with the turret separate.

 Albertorius wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
If you like low-detail lumps of plastic that come in fewer pieces I guess you have the right to poor taste.

Sure, thanks! I'll leave you to your plastic gunk-encrusted fingers due to having to glue way too many minuscule parts on minuscule vehicles

Get better at building models I guess? It's not that hard.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
If you like low-detail lumps of plastic that come in fewer pieces I guess you have the right to poor taste.

Sure, thanks! I'll leave you to your plastic gunk-encrusted fingers due to having to glue way too many minuscule parts on minuscule vehicles

Get better at building models I guess? It's not that hard.

You might wanna 1) check your sarcasm meter, it seems to be broken and 2) take another look at the post

Also, you might want to take into account one fact: vehicles, and more specifically, Epic scale vehicles, don't really need any kind of detail whatsoever on the underside. That allows for a lot of detail in the side that matters without needing that many parts. If they so choose.

Flying planes and titans are one thing, tanks another altogether. But I'm sure there's only insanely detailed with millions of pieces and unformed plastic blobs, and nothing at all in between, so what do I know.

 Albertorius wrote:
You might wanna 1) check your sarcasm meter, it seems to be broken and 2) take another look at the post

Oh hey, you do understand the point of high-detail models. I'm not sure why you're complaining about GW making models like those instead of vaguely tank-shaped blobs of plastic?

PS: it's pretty dishonest to edit your post after someone has replied to it and then pretend they missed the thing you edited in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:
Also, you might want to take into account one fact: vehicles, and more specifically, Epic scale vehicles, don't really need any kind of detail whatsoever on the underside. That allows for a lot of detail in the side that matters without needing that many parts. If they so choose.

It's not just the bottom (and in fact the AI kits don't need many additional parts to cover that), it's the top and sides that are difficult. Parts like the exhaust pipes on the Rhinos and Predators would have to be separate pieces, and even the detail on the armor plates would require doing the base hull in multiple pieces.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
You might wanna 1) check your sarcasm meter, it seems to be broken and 2) take another look at the post

Oh hey, you do understand the point of high-detail models. I'm not sure why you're complaining about GW making models like those instead of vaguely tank-shaped blobs of plastic?

PS: it's pretty dishonest to edit your post after someone has replied to it and then pretend they missed the thing you edited in.

Is it? I did not infer you missed it, just that I edited it

As to the point, such as it is, you might want to take into account one fact: vehicles, and more specifically, Epic scale vehicles, don't really need any kind of detail whatsoever on the underside. That allows for a lot of detail in the side that matters without needing that many parts. If they so choose.

Flying planes and titans are one thing, tanks another altogether. But I'm sure there's only insanely detailed with millions of pieces and unformed plastic blobs, and nothing at all in between, so what do I know.

Just to be clear, what I'm "complaining" about is to the idea that you need to have tens of pieces to get that level of detail. You do not. Most of those details are on a single plane, and the underside is completely bare. You don't need that many pieces unless you're insanely scared of missing a single undercut.

 Albertorius wrote:
As to the point, such as it is, you might want to take into account one fact: vehicles, and more specifically, Epic scale vehicles, don't really need any kind of detail whatsoever on the underside. That allows for a lot of detail in the side that matters without needing that many parts. If they so choose.

 Albertorius wrote:
Also, you might want to take into account one fact: vehicles, and more specifically, Epic scale vehicles, don't really need any kind of detail whatsoever on the underside. That allows for a lot of detail in the side that matters without needing that many parts. If they so choose.

It's not just the bottom (and in fact the AI kits don't need many additional parts to cover that), it's the top and sides that are difficult. Parts like the exhaust pipes on the Rhinos and Predators would have to be separate pieces, and even the detail on the armor plates would require doing the base hull in multiple pieces.

Flying planes and titans are one thing, tanks another altogether. But I'm sure there's only insanely detailed with millions of pieces and unformed plastic blobs, and nothing at all in between, so what do I know.

You don't seem to know much about injection molded plastic kit design. Simple kits like you're describing would look like garbage next to those 3d printed models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Most of those details are on a single plane

Some are. Some aren't. Just to do that basic Rhino you'd need two side hull parts, two track parts, a front plate, four exhaust parts, two bolter parts. That's 11 parts already and I'm accepting a slight loss of detail for things like the holes in the exhaust pipes getting warped into oval shapes to avoid undercuts. I suspect that if an actual mold designer started trying to break down that tank the number would go up considerably.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
You don't seem to know much about injection molded plastic kit design. Simple kits like you're describing would look like garbage next to those 3d printed models.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I do. But carry on.

Most of those details are on a single plane

Some are. Some aren't. Just to do that basic Rhino you'd need two side hull parts, two track parts, a front plate, four exhaust parts, two bolter parts. That's 11 parts already and I'm accepting a slight loss of detail for things like the holes in the exhaust pipes getting warped into oval shapes to avoid undercuts. I suspect that if an actual mold designer started trying to break down that tank the number would go up considerably.

That tells me everything I need to know about your position. 11 parts at the very least per single Rhino. Noted. Carry on.

 Albertorius wrote:
Oh, I'm pretty sure I do.

And yet somehow you can't recognize undercuts and places where a model would need to be separated into multiple pieces.

11 parts at the very least per single Rhino.

If you want models that look good, yes. If you want garbage then you can do it in 1-2 pieces but I have no idea why anyone would want to buy them when even low-end 3d printed stuff looks better.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
Oh, I'm pretty sure I do.

And yet somehow you can't recognize undercuts and places where a model would need to be separated into multiple pieces.

11 parts at the very least per single Rhino.

If you want models that look good, yes. If you want garbage then you can do it in 1-2 pieces but I have no idea why anyone would want to buy them when even low-end 3d printed stuff looks better.

11 parts for an Epic scaled Rhino... are you serious?

The old Epic Rhinos were 1 piece, and they look fine. A good paint job and they look fantastic.

 stonehorse wrote:

11 parts for an Epic scaled Rhino... are you serious?

The old Epic Rhinos were 1 piece, and they look fine. A good paint job and they look fantastic.

Those are very old casts with very old sprue tech, though. Pretty sure they would do them better nowadays.

I did paint a number of them not so long ago, though, and they still paint up good

I'll put my vote in for "make some design compromises so that the sprue can be packed full of models."

The old ones were done in 1996, I imagine if they were done now even using the exact same method the detail would be a bit sharper, the models would also be larger which would allow better detail (these Rhinos were 22mm long, using the 1/4 40k scale they'd be ~29mm long).

But these look pretty much fine to me, maybe the sides of the tanks could be separate, but having 2x Land Raiders 2x Whirlwinds and 4x Rhinos on a single small sprue that wasn't as densely packed as modern sprues was a big plus and meant most of a Space Marine army could be made with multiples of the infantry and vehicle sprues, which was less moulds than what is typical of a single squad these days.

 stonehorse wrote:
11 parts for an Epic scaled Rhino... are you serious?

The old Epic Rhinos were 1 piece, and they look fine. A good paint job and they look fantastic.

They look fine if you have low standards. I don't.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
It doesn't matter if they are in the background of the setting, they are out of scope.

Background defines the scope of the game.

No it doesn't. Not even remotely. GTFO with that. Tau, Necrons, Tyranids, Astartes, etc. all exist in the background of Necromunda, it does not mean that those are in scope for Necromunda.

PS: guess what the most common reason I've seen for people not playing 30k is: "Why do I want to play a boring marines-only game".

Guess what the common sense solution to that problem is: "Play Warhammer 40k".

Go read the original rulebooks then. It was common enough that GW even included suggestions on how to do it in the 30k books.

I wouldn't consider statements saying "we don't recommend doing this but if you must you should probably make these changes" to really be "suggestions". They certainly made no statements and offered no "suggestions" about which 40k factions would be era appropriate nor how to field them in a manner that would be reflective of their status in the 31st millennium.

Primaris marines and their associated retcons were "senior leadership"? Ugly model designs with no ambition are "senior leadership"? Codices with 90% of the lore stripped out and all of the paintings replaced with copies of the GW website pictures is "senior leadership"?

Uh, yeah. Actually. Everything that you described is basically directed by senior leadership and upper management. Go read James Hewitts interviews for a rundown of how GW operates and how these decisions get made. These aren't things coming out of the design studio.

Then why did GW publish the Badab War books, which included a campaign with a specific set of armies in it? Was there no point to those books?

I'm really not understanding what point you're trying to make by repeatedly invoking 40k expansions in this discussion. The Badab War books might have been a themed campaign, like all Imperial Armour publications, but the rules were 100% intended and compatible for general use in 40k. This is an entirely different story from 30k which is and always has been intended as an entirely separate game.

And yet 30k was so similar to 40k that GW didn't even bother to include rules for playing the game in the books, they just said "use your 40k rulebooks like any other 40k expansion".

You keep saying that, but that isn't entirely true. The "Age of Darkness Battles" section of Betrayal included the necessary modifications to the core rules and - imagine that, includes a list of all the factions available to play... none of them are from 40k.

In any case, its irrelevant. One game spinning off of another is not a justification for a forced linkage of the two in perpetuity. Early Rogue Trader rules were based on Warhammer Fantasy, a number of publications (like the old Realm of Chaos books) included rules for both games, and a number of models/factions were available for use in both WHFB and 40k. Clearly then, I should be allowed to take a Leman Russ to battle against my friends Dark Elf army. Hell, AoS (and by extension WHFB/The Old World) are linked to the 40k galaxy via the warp, ergo I should be free to bring Tyranids against my friends Stormcast, and I can't wait for my Necrons to tear it up versus everyones armies for the Old World once GW gets around to it.

No, because once again the missing factions are present in the background.

You mean like how the missing factions in 30k are present in the background? Glad we're on the same page finally, thanks for finally acknowledging that you don't need Eldar and Orks in Horus Heresy because they are out of scope for the game, in much the same way that various nations and factions are out of scope in Flames of War and Team Yankee because of their non-belligerent/neutral status, etc.

That does not mean however that we have to give in. No matter what the company is currently doing we can play 40K any way we like -old editions, 30K, epic etc....we do not need upper management for rules sets to use.

If thats the case then go grab your old 6th edition Ork Codex or whatever and go find someone that wants to play against you with their Horus Heresy Space Marine Legion army. I mean the other guy insists that Horus Heresy is just 6th or 7th edition anyway, so clearly there shouldn't be any issues and you don't need GW to produce anything for you if you have everything you need.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Stuff.

That's a lot of words to say "all I care about is my boring as hell red marines fighting blue marines and you don't deserve to play my game". Sorry, but the reality is that the vast majority of what made 30k popular was playing it as a 40k expansion and using the models in 40k armies. If it had been a separate game with no compatibility with normal 40k it would have died on release and that would have been the end of it.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
11 parts for an Epic scaled Rhino... are you serious?

The old Epic Rhinos were 1 piece, and they look fine. A good paint job and they look fantastic.

They look fine if you have low standards. I don't.

Have you actually played a game of Epic? The models are tiny and you have tons of them, you aren't counting rivets on individual Rhinos.

I like detailed models, but detail should marry up with the scale of the game being played. A 6mm or 8mm scale mass combat game isn't the place for expensive models that are time consuming to assemble and paint.

If we were talking about a 15mm game or hell even a 10mm game, or an 8mm game with larger but fewer models (AT or AI for example) then it's a different story.

Of course you're welcome to like what you want to like, more power to you. I, for one, am happy if they release it in a way that doesn't cost a fortune to build an army, and we actually get more than 1 army to play with.

Might I suggest if you want a high detail Epic army, 3D printing might be the better answer, that way you can have things like circular vent holes all the way around your Deimos Rhino exhaust stacks without needing them to be made from 4 pieces each

In my experience, 3d printed anything Epic looks fantastic

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I like detailed models, but detail should marry up with the scale of the game being played. A 6mm or 8mm scale mass combat game isn't the place for expensive models that are time consuming to assemble and paint.

*looks up from my pile of individually converted legionaires and dioramic bases*

... oi! :'D

 Pacific wrote:
I think the handicap for Epic Armageddon was that it wasn't treated like a main game (it was the only edition of Epic not to come with a box set release IIRC) - you get out what you put in from a marketing and sales perspective, and so the game performed accordingly. It not being cheap either meant one of Epic's historic big advantages over 40k (large volumes of infantry and tanks at a very cheap cost) was lost as well.

In conversation with Jervis he said they were taken aback at the popularity. At launch it sold 400% of what Warmaster did total.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sherrypie wrote:


*looks up from my pile of individually converted legionaires and dioramic bases*

... oi! :'D

It is all about the diorama bases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want the whole Space Marine codex options, that is loads. Hell just Primaris or tinys is loads. Buuuut actual fielded units are a lot less.

Even if you want to make the current Epic A force in plastic you have a lot of rarely taken or redundant options.

Currently all the options are

Marine with bolter
Marine with heavy weapon
Marine with jump pack
Scout
Terminator
Officer
Chaplain
Librarian

Attack Bike (not often used)
Bike
Dreadnaught (Ranged OR close)

Rhino
Rhino - Razorback
Rhino - AA
Rhino - Predator AT
Rhino - Predator AP
Rhino - Vindicator
Rhino - Whirlwind

Land Raider
Land Speeder
Land Speeder alt weapon fits (rarely used)
Landing Craft
Spaceships (as BFG isn't in production)

Then of course you can add sergeants, special weapons etc etc.

But with todays tech no reason why every tiny guy can't have different poses and weapons.


I would love an Epic A release with pre-set 4000 point ish balanced armies that you could pick 2000-3000 point forces from. So complex manufacturing codes potentially, but stocking wise limited Skus and a defined shelf life when the average collector will have got them all. Then make a bunch direct only, keep the 2 main sellers in stock and rotate the third one through and stick it back on life support.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
11 parts for an Epic scaled Rhino... are you serious?

The old Epic Rhinos were 1 piece, and they look fine. A good paint job and they look fantastic.

They look fine if you have low standards. I don't.

I don't have low standards, I just have a limited amount of time to devote to hobbying.

Quite a while ago, FW produced a limited-release set of epic-scaled 3-part gray knight space marines (in resin). They were much more detailed than the stock epic marines (not hard to do because those hadn't changed since 2nd edition), but they were totally impractical as gaming pieces. They function as collector's pieces, but not much else.

I am of the opinion that the current AT and AI models [and current 40k and AoS models] are too detailed. Assembling each individual model takes forever and the functionality of the models as game pieces is actually decreased due to all of the small protrudy-bits that are prone to breakage. If epic infantry are multi-part and epic vehicle consist of 6+ parts just for the main chassis, then the amount of time that it would take to assembled the required number of infantry stands and assorted vehicles necessary for a normal-sized epic army would be prohibitive.

GW has the ability to produce sufficiently detailed 2- or 3-part push-fit 28-mm scale models for their specialist box games, I don't see why doing the same for Epic-scale vehicles would be out of the question.

I should point out the lead vehicles were often 5 parts - hull, track, track, turret, hatch.

semajnollissor wrote:
I don't have low standards, I just have a limited amount of time to devote to hobbying.

That's low standards. You have a severe time constraint so you're willing to accept poor quality models if it means you can build them faster.

Quite a while ago, FW produced a limited-release set of epic-scaled 3-part gray knight space marines (in resin). They were much more detailed than the stock epic marines (not hard to do because those hadn't changed since 2nd edition), but they were totally impractical as gaming pieces. They function as collector's pieces, but not much else.

Nah, those marines were 100% practical as gaming pieces. The only issue was FW's inability to cast the epic stuff without major flaws on ever piece, if I could guarantee flawless casting on everything I'd be perfectly happy to build an entire army with those multi-part marines.

GW has the ability to produce sufficiently detailed 2- or 3-part push-fit 28-mm scale models for their specialist box games, I don't see why doing the same for Epic-scale vehicles would be out of the question.

It should be out of the question because those push-fit models look like garbage next to real models. They're tolerable in an intro game meant for children, they're not something I'm ever going to spend money on in a real game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Have you actually played a game of Epic?

I haven't played Epic but I've painted a few of the models, and I've played Aeronautica Imperialis which used the same models. High detail models work just fine and a good painter can absolutely make use of that detail.

Might I suggest if you want a high detail Epic army, 3D printing might be the better answer, that way you can have things like circular vent holes all the way around your Deimos Rhino exhaust stacks without needing them to be made from 4 pieces each

It shouldn't be the answer. If GW can't match the quality of amateur 3d printing with all the money and design expertise they have it's time for them to quit and hand the industry over to someone else.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Have you actually played a game of Epic?

I haven't played Epic but I've painted a few of the models, and I've played Aeronautica Imperialis which used the same models. High detail models work just fine and a good painter can absolutely make use of that detail.

I specifically mentioned AI as an exception because aircraft models are large and the game doesn't need many of them to play.

An Epic army you'll be rocking up with 10's of tanks, 100's of infantry, etc.

Might I suggest if you want a high detail Epic army, 3D printing might be the better answer, that way you can have things like circular vent holes all the way around your Deimos Rhino exhaust stacks without needing them to be made from 4 pieces each

It shouldn't be the answer. If GW can't match the quality of amateur 3d printing with all the money and design expertise they have it's time for them to quit and hand the industry over to someone else.

That wasn't really my point, what GW "can" do and "should" do are two separate things. GW "can" make 20 piece Rhinos that are superdetailed and all the undercuts modelled that are expensive and difficult to build and require them to manufacture 20 sprues to make a single army. Should they do that? Yeah, nah, I don't think so.

Also, FW Aeronautica masters ARE 3D printed, and they don't look massively better than amateur printed ones (which you can either take as a compliment to the high quality of amatuer printed ones or an insult at the poor quality of FW Aeronautica models ).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sherrypie wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I like detailed models, but detail should marry up with the scale of the game being played. A 6mm or 8mm scale mass combat game isn't the place for expensive models that are time consuming to assemble and paint.

*looks up from my pile of individually converted legionaires and dioramic bases*

... oi! :'D

Dioramic bases are cool... but how are you converting individual epic scale legionaries? If you're hacking up and gluing back together 6mm models you may have missed your calling as a neurosurgeon

Regarding the multipart models, there’s a difference between doing them as part of a diorama or base decoration for Titanicus, and having to do an entire army of them consisting of hundreds of individual models. I feel that this is also one of the things that kinda killed WHFB and that game was in “28mm” scale.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sherrypie wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I like detailed models, but detail should marry up with the scale of the game being played. A 6mm or 8mm scale mass combat game isn't the place for expensive models that are time consuming to assemble and paint.

*looks up from my pile of individually converted legionaires and dioramic bases*

... oi! :'D

Dioramic bases are cool... but how are you converting individual epic scale legionaries? If you're hacking up and gluing back together 6mm models you may have missed your calling as a neurosurgeon

...with a knife ? It's not that much harder despite the scale, though putting too much glue in and drowning the details is a risk. For example:

A librarian with a head and arm swap.


Deathshroud terminators (okay, these were fiddly as f...).


Some Rhino-based Vindicators.


And so on up to army scale, #ConvertEverything

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Nah, those marines were 100% practical as gaming pieces. The only issue was FW's inability to cast the epic stuff without major flaws on ever piece, if I could guarantee flawless casting on everything I'd be perfectly happy to build an entire army with those multi-part marines.

The grey knights? You are insane. I have an army of them, I doubt any have their halberds still attached.

....hm. Separate pices for Epic infantry on anything other than maybe characters and the like looks like a fast way to turn insane.

But what do I know, if I want to kitbash Epic models I usually kitbash the 3d files.