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.

Epic 40k is my favourite because it's fun to build an army, but when it actually comes to playing the game each model feels as inconsequential as it should for a game of that scale.

It just wasn't the game the community wanted unfortunately.

Anyway, I can't decide whether I'm excited or not.

1. Mould lines, argh, I can't imagine how much of a nightmare they'll be. Back as an 11 year old building my Epic force back in the 90's I didn't care enough to bother cleaning off the mould lines. 30-something me will not be able to endure the mould lines, but I can already feel my hands cramping.

The model detail doesn't seem any better than the 3D prints I have sitting here on my desk, and the 3D prints require so little clean up, just clip off the base support and maybe 1 or 2 supports on each squad and it's ready to paint.

2. 2x Warhounds in the box? Really? They couldn't have given us more new Epic stuff instead?

3. It's probably going to be insanely priced.

4. I just don't trust modern GW not to screw up the rules.

5. If it sucks, I hope it doesn't splinter the already small community.

6. Did we really want to see Solar Auxilia? Of all the options of a starter set, they never even crossed my mind. Not saying they should never have done them, but probably would have preferred them flesh out the Marines more. I don't really know the fluff behind Solar Auxilia, did a lot of them turn to Chaos such that they can be used in either loyalist or traitor armies?

7. For all my half-completed armies, do I start basing them with the new (25mm?) round bases or stick to the 40mm strips... I'll probably put my armies on halt until it comes out and I decide whether to go with the new rules or stick with the old rules.

I dunno, I'll probably buy it unless it's insanely expensive because I'm a sucker for the tiny dudes, but I'm reserving my excitement for now.

Looks like they're swapping to inches


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zedmeister wrote:
Looking again, it's hard to pin down exactly, but seems like a Hybrid edition:

- Alt Activation - that's a given
- Hidden orders - 1st/2nd edition
- Terrain rules with roads being faster - 3rd edition
- Detachment and army building rules sound like 4th edition
- Weapon rules sound like 4th (Anti-Infantry, Anti-Tank, Macro Weapons)

Meh, not a fan of alternating activations. I liked the idea in Epic 40k with initiative for each phase, seemed like a good middle ground to me.

lurch wrote:
I have been waging the scale battle online in various places and the sheer number of people convinced that this is in 8mm despite the evidence for it being 6mm is amazing,
I really think part of the problem is that a lot of people don't realize how under scaled a lot of the old models where.

Wait, what? Who are we saying was right and who was wrong?

By my pixel counting, assuming these models are on 25mm bases, I get 7 to 7.5mm to the eyes for the Solar Auxilia, and about 7.5 to 8mm overall height. The Marines are mostly around 7.5mm to the eye and 8mm to the top of the head with some of the more upright ones being closer to 8.5mm. The Termies I get 8 to 8.3mm to the eye and up to about 9mm overall height.

Admittedly it's slightly hard to tell because the models are all viewed at a slight downward angle, so there's a bit of judgement required on where to place the limits when counting pixels. But those are the numbers I got.

That sure sounds like what most people were saying, which was that Epic would be 1/4 of 40k scale and 40k scale somewhere in the 7 to 8mm range (I tended to argue closer to 8mm because I think 40k these days is closer to 32mm than it is to 28mm, depending on how it's measured).

I've probably oversized my 3D prints a bit, because I preferred a slightly larger scale and made my regular Marines 8mm to the eye, though my oomies are probably about right as I made them 7 to the eye.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
Those look great Judgedoug I think those certainly mix well.

Kid Kyoto - yes this got posted a few pages ago, courtesy of Ian Wood in the FB community group. He used some trigonometry based on the known base and Warhound size and came to this conclusion.

Spoiler:

Only just saw this picture, I think Ian is slightly off on this one, by my count all the models are about 0.5mm taller than what he got, which is odd because he drew fancy little boxes and everything, lol. I literally just loaded them into paint, drew a selection box around them, and in the bottom left corner of paint it tells you how many pixels the box you just drew was and I got about 0.5mm taller than those measurements across the board. It's just (size of base x pixels model / pixels base) = size in mm.

Maybe if he used trigonometry he did it the wrong way around.

 Pacific wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
Those look great Judgedoug I think those certainly mix well.

Kid Kyoto - yes this got posted a few pages ago, courtesy of Ian Wood in the FB community group. He used some trigonometry based on the known base and Warhound size and came to this conclusion.

Spoiler:

Only just saw this picture, I think Ian is slightly off on this one, by my count all the models are about 0.5mm taller than what he got, which is odd because he drew fancy little boxes and everything, lol. I literally just loaded them into paint, drew a selection box around them, and in the bottom left corner of paint it tells you how many pixels the box you just drew was and I got about 0.5mm taller than those measurements across the board. It's just (size of base x pixels model / pixels base) = size in mm.

Maybe if he used trigonometry he did it the wrong way around.

Having known Ian for quite some years now (he was running demos of Infinity in the early '10s and very active in that community along with Epic) he is a smart guy, so I'm trusting his judgement. I've not done any maths on it myself, but based on what he and others have shown (another chap on FB has done some prints at different measurements alongside the WHs), just 'going by eye' it feels about right for me.

If it's half a mil out though, I won't lose any sleep over it

Don't really need to "trust" anyone, just count some pixels. Coz I'm a nerd, I loaded them up in matlab and drew some grids over them to show my working, the only tricksy thing is the angle that the photos are taken at. I did use the angle of the bases as a reference to calculate the angle then squished the lines, however I haven't included those images as I think they're a bit deceptive unless you know what you're looking at and the difference wasn't huge (also they act to make things look taller, not shorter). So the below images are just a straight grid scaled so that the base is 25mm.

The only one I maybe overstated in my previous post was the oomies, which I said were "7 to 7.5mm to the eyes for the Solar Auxilia, and about 7.5 to 8mm overall height", most are probably on the lower end of those scales, though some of the more upright ones do come up to the upper end of it.

Eumerin wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Wait, what? Who are we saying was right and who was wrong?

By my pixel counting, assuming these models are on 25mm bases, I get 7 to 7.5mm to the eyes for the Solar Auxilia, and about 7.5 to 8mm overall height. The Marines are mostly around 7.5mm to the eye and 8mm to the top of the head with some of the more upright ones being closer to 8.5mm. The Termies I get 8 to 8.3mm to the eye and up to about 9mm overall height.

What was stated ages ago was that the new titans for Adeptus Titanicus were scaled so that they would match up with an 8mm marine. That matches with your comments above. Marines aren't normal humans, however, and are quite a bit taller. Since the scale is based off of the height of a normal human, the scale shouldn't be 8mm.

Except Marines have never been significantly taller than normal humans except in the fluff. In the models, Marines are only a touch larger than normal humans (and some models are just as tall, like the Kasrkin).

But yeah, in the rest of my post I did say 7 to 8mm scale but leaning closer to 8 than 7. Certainly not 6mm.

I guess we'll get better measurements when the box comes out, lol.

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


By my pixel counting, assuming these models are on 25mm bases, I get 7 to 7.5mm to the eyes for the Solar Auxilia, and about 7.5 to 8mm overall height. The Marines are mostly around 7.5mm to the eye and 8mm to the top of the head with some of the more upright ones being closer to 8.5mm. The Termies I get 8 to 8.3mm to the eye and up to about 9mm overall height.

Admittedly it's slightly hard to tell because the models are all viewed at a slight downward angle, so there's a bit of judgement required on where to place the limits when counting pixels. But those are the numbers I got.

That sure sounds like what most people were saying, which was that Epic would be 1/4 of 40k scale and 40k scale somewhere in the 7 to 8mm range (I tended to argue closer to 8mm because I think 40k these days is closer to 32mm than it is to 28mm, depending on how it's measured).

If marines are 8mm tall and game is 8mm then it's huge retcon to have marines 6feet tall. Ie human size.

6mm scale refers to human height after all. So you are claiming gw retconned marines be average　human height...

GW has never made Marines significantly taller than humans in actual physical models. But just have a look at the pics I posted and decide for yourself, the humans don't look 6mm to me, they look 7 to 7.5mm in the "to the eye" scale and 7.5 to 8mm in the "overall height" scale.

 Malika2 wrote:
So what does this mean? Nothing really...I think you can get away with your old Space Marine models, or go for the newer ones. It's similar to the scale creep we see in 40k generally.

In the end people can just use whatever that want, some of us will find it irksome if half of our army is 5mm tall (like the old Marines) and others (like new Marines) that are closer to 8mm, lol.

I think my 8mm 3D printed marines will be close to these ones, maybe a hair taller, it won't make a huge difference with infantry though, it's going to be the vehicles where scale differences are more noticeable. While I have some old 3rd edition models I don't mix them with my 3D prints anyway, I loved those little models when I was a kid and have a lot of nostalgia, but they don't look right next to the modern models.

I don't know if I'll mix my 3D printed armies with these new models, depends how well they blend in I guess, but the round bases will probably be a bigger annoyance for my OCD than any slight scale difference, lol.

Probably I'll buy this box and unless I really love the rules and/or it's cheap I won't buy any more after that. Don't really feel like paying a fortune to create a plastic duplicate of armies I can (or already have) 3D printed with less effort than it is to clean the mould lines off plastics.

I realised there's some better pics to judge the scale in the video rather than the static pics on WarCom. I tried to align the Y=0 line with the feet of the Marines that are near the middle of the base to reduce perspective errors.

The Marines that are standing upright look to be every bit of 8mm to the eye, but the ones with the splayed legs are maybe 7.5ish to the eye.

 xttz wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/04/small-but-perfectly-formed-a-closer-look-at-the-incredible-legions-imperialis-miniatures/

Spoiler:

I'm disappointed they didn't take the opportunity to use a model that's in the exact same pose for that picture.

 Malika2 wrote:
So a LI Space Marine is 1/4th of a regular Space Marine on a base? This might mean that the miniatures aren't 8mm, but closer to 7mm?

I'm not convinced they scaled those images correctly, but the new Beakie Marines are 32mm to the eye NOT including the base, I think GW bases are about 4mm, so 36mm to the eye? But the image shows the 4 Epic models being as tall as the backpack, which is probably another few mm on top of that, so perhaps 36 to 40mm overall height?

1/4 of 36 to 40mm comes out at 9mm to 10mm... but based on the other pictures we've seen I don't think they're quite that tall, I reckon it's more likely that WarCom threw that picture together in a way that isn't super accurate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:
So a LI Space Marine is 1/4th of a regular Space Marine on a base? This might mean that the miniatures aren't 8mm, but closer to 7mm?

Your second sentence asks a question that is already answered by your first sentence It's 1/4 of 40k scale, this will give you a better answer than pointlessly bickering about 1-2 mms. Space Marines in 40k have huge size differences already (especially when taking vintage models in account), i don't really get why people need to have this discussion

1-2mms is a big difference at this scale and quite noticeable.

i don't really get why people need to have this discussion

Why have any discussions about plastic toys at all?

But as someone who has 3D printed a bunch of "Epic scale" stuff and thus had to decide on a scale that's more meaningful than "40k divided by 4" and also as someone who has an engineering background, I simultaneously enjoy thinking about numbers, have already thought about it too much and am irked when people get things wrong

 RexHavoc wrote:
Not very scientific, but I shrunk warcom article down until the marine pretty much matched the closest based mini I had to hand (A necromunda bounty hunter)

I'm giving a little leeway as this is an old 28mm mini, and the heresy marines are bigger (And presumably on 32mm bases) so left marine bigger than the necromunda chap.

My closest to hand Epic mini was a vanguard human, and he comes about to the chest of the new marine. The new marines are about 3/4 times wider though. The vanguard mini does look like a pixie compared to the super human marine!

I'm sure someone with the actual HH mini to hand can come along soon and do a proper scale photo now. I don't have any of the larger scale stuff, so I can't match it exactly myself.

From your post I imagine you intended to attach a picture to that?

Vanguard sell a couple of different scaled humans. Their not-DKOK are very much 6mm, so look tiny next to my 3D printed 8mm-to-the-eye Space Marines. But I think their not-Catachans are taller than their not-DKOK.

Zenithfleet wrote:
It's funny that everyone is worrying about the new infantry possibly being out of scale with the old infantry ... while the thing that bothers me more, and has bothered me since the new Adeptus Titanicus came out, is the old infantry being correctly in scale with the new Titans. I'm used to the Epic Titans being too small. It's burned into my brain. Properly scaled Titans with infantry look wrong, wrong I tell you!!!!!

GW could have used Epic to fix all the scale oddities in 40k, since the smaller scale allows for bigger variation in model sizes without becoming too big to be practical for gaming purposes.

But instead they just chose to 1/4 scale 40k


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:
We've now entered the twilight zone of 15mm gaming, wherein the scale is 1/144 to 1/87 and infantry are anywhere from 12 to 20mm tall

What about 1/72 scale, where models exist between about 20mm and 26mm?

 lord_blackfang wrote:

The miniatures in the core box for this new game are just a thin slice of the overall Horus Heresy range, but the groundwork is now laid for many other tanks, walkers, and war machines to make the transition from full-sized to bite-sized.

I fully expected there to be more than what's in the starter box, question is just how much more.

Based on the images we have and assuming the bases are 25mm, 10mm seems a bit of a stretch, maybe the termies will be close to that though.

But if the bases aren't actually 25mm then it throws off all the scale images I uploaded, so perhaps they're 28mm or something like that.

 kodos wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
"No model no rules" is a customer experience issue, not a legal issue. The current generation of games aimed at veterans never adhered to it.

IIRC, there was a legal battle with one third party that basically devolved down to the court stating, "You can't claim they're infringing on your IP if their model shares the same name as a unit that you never released a figure for."

the case was that GW claimed to have the copyright on models others released if they are based on an artwork or fluff text from GW and the court ruled that GW only owns copyright on models if there is already a model
this caused that GW would not release a Codex with missing models as anyone could make those based on the artworks given

the no model no rules itself has nothing to do with it as rules alone do nothing in that case except that people hunt down 3rd party manufacturer to get those if the rules are good
and GW wants to avoid people being forced to leave their ecosystem because they don't provide the models

for games aimed at veterans, this does not matter as they already know that other companies exist and are not buying exclusive from GW anyway

Even in "games aimed at veterans" I don't think GW have left a large amount of time between releasing rules and releasing the models. The Eldar aircraft were given rules mid to late Jan, but then the models were shown mid-March, so that's not even 2 months gap, and it wouldn't surprise me if that gap was unplanned because it seemed a bit odd of GW to "announce" new models in a book rather than on their website.

Whenever there's been a bit of a gap, GW has withheld the rules, for example the Mega Bommer didn't get rules in the book that it came out after, I think that was roughly 3 or 4 months.

I imagine for the "legal" side they likely only need to tease the models on their website rather than actually releasing it to have copyright grounds to take action against people making knock offs.

So I'd suspect that we won't get rules for more than what is released/teased within a couple of months of August. Although, perhaps the existence of the models in 30k/40k is enough to lock down copyright for Epic too.

In any case... this is GW we're talking about. I'll be surprised if all the rules needed to play come in the boxed set, far more likely it'll be spread across multiple books. Maybe GW learned their lesson from AI and won't do the stupid campaign book style, but I'll still be surprised if everything you need is in the boxed set, that would be a very un-GW-like thing to do.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

twentypence wrote:
What “factions” are there in Horus Heresy that are likely to make their way to LI?

Anything produced as part of Forge World's 28mm Horus Heresy line will show up and anything else won't.

Kind of. Old Epic of course had stuff and gubbins 40K didn’t. And even a few (now very few) 40K still has had. So we may see stuff entirely new on the tabletop.

This is my hope to. One of the main benefits of Epic scale is that you can have some mental stuff that just isn't really practical in 28mm scale.

Remembering how Squats used to differ as an Epic faction, really they were far better represented in Epic than in 40k with their Land Trains and giant super-heavies. Even within the HH setting, some sort of giant Leviathan or Capital Imperialis would be super cool.

Indeed, looking forward to some entries and experiments in Epic. Though, judging from some select Facebook comments, some people aren't happy that Epic is getting miniatures that aren't in 32mm yet. Expect that to increase as new stuff is put out for Epic

I know there's always going to be someone unhappy, but that's a stupid thing to be unhappy about and people making that argument should be made to feel bad about themselves for thinking it

chaos0xomega wrote:

warl0rdb0b wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
So for anyone who thought AI wouldn't go away, everything except SM and Imperial Army flyers is on last chance to buy

Which is not remotely surprising, but certainly disappointing. Sales never seemed particularly great based on slowly starter sets sold out on discount sites like Element, and I had planned on picking up a small Air Caste fleet when I was done with main game armies for a while. Hopefully this isn't a sign of things to come for other SG systems.

Weird thing is that all AI releases were stock allocated to retailers, at least locally, and I'd say 90% or more of it sold out on release. One would think that would be an indicator of healthy sales, if the majority of your first production run seems to be selling out, etc.

In Australia, the Horus Heresy book sold out almost immediately and has never come back in stock. I don't get why the decision making sometimes.

Locally (based on talking to different stores) it seems like the initial AI release was really popular, selling out quickly and being restocked and selling okay at least initially. Then after that it stagnated, which is why I tend to blame the rules, but whether that's representative of the rest of the world I'm just guessing. There was also covid, which maybe stopped the 2nd and 3rd waves from catching on.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xttz wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

warl0rdb0b wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:
So for anyone who thought AI wouldn't go away, everything except SM and Imperial Army flyers is on last chance to buy

Which is not remotely surprising, but certainly disappointing. Sales never seemed particularly great based on slowly starter sets sold out on discount sites like Element, and I had planned on picking up a small Air Caste fleet when I was done with main game armies for a while. Hopefully this isn't a sign of things to come for other SG systems.

Weird thing is that all AI releases were stock allocated to retailers, at least locally, and I'd say 90% or more of it sold out on release. One would think that would be an indicator of healthy sales, if the majority of your first production run seems to be selling out, etc.

Wings of Vengeance was discounted by 30% as part of an overstock sale on GW's own website, something they very rarely do these days.

I also remember seeing some 3rd-party UK retailers unloading some of the aircraft boxes (particularly Tau ones) as part of Black Friday sales.

Pretty sure the Thunderhawk sold very well though.

Wings of Vengeance didn't go on sale until well after the 2nd starter was released (can't remember if it was before the 3rd starter). I think Wings of Vengeance sold well initially, was restocked, but the demand didn't come back.

Really not liking the big turds between the feet of all the infantry models, hoping they aren't too hard to remove.

beast_gts wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Really not liking the big turds between the feet of all the infantry models, hoping they aren't too hard to remove.

Why - don't you want every model to have their own tactical rock? /s

Haha, if they were actually standing on the rock it might be less offensive.

I'm guessing they either had issues with legs breaking when they're clipped out of the sprue, or they want to have it so they can be glued down with superglue without constantly falling off. I imagine if the models are plastic, and they're glued down with plastic cement, the tactical turd will be unnecessary from the strength perspective.... but maybe it's hard to remove without breaking a leg off.

 xttz wrote:
They've done it to increase surface area contact between the model and base so that any glue is stronger. Quite often models like Tyranid or Chaos daemons which have thin claws dug into the ground have bits of debris / junk attached for the same reason.

If it's glued with plastic cement, the attachment point will be as strong as the rest of the model, so the model will probably be more likely to break at the knee than the foot.

I wonder why they didn't just use the old Epic recessed-style infantry base design instead.

I'm guessing because they wanted the moulded detail on the bases.

Maybe they were also trying to save some money by having the same base for everything. If they used recessed bases, the infantry would need different bases to the dreadnoughts, which would be different from the monstrous infantry.

I noticed they've also done bases for the Knights. I wonder if all the AT stuff is going to get reboxed with new bases. A lot of the AT range is "No longer available Online", hopefully just a reboxing.

I reckon a big thing will be price and quality of the rules. Also how they handle the rules, if they pull a typical GW and spread the rules across multiple expensive books, that's not going to encourage a big uptake. It might work for 40k because people are plastic crack addicts when it comes to 40k and 40k already has the massive benefit of being ubiquitous, but with this side games that need to establish themselves and it's very off putting when you realise how much you need to spend to get all the rules.

I'll prooobably buy the starter... killing AI has simultaneously made me salty, burned out my hobby budget in the "last chance to buy" FOMO, and also increased my pile of shame far more than I'd have liked. I'm already regretting buying Leviathan, so as much as I love Epic and want it to succeed, I might observe from the sidelines this time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I kinda expect "Epic" to go the same way, massive sales of the starter and then a realization that the model range isn't large enough for fully functional games and there isn't even a backlog of Forgeworld resins in the right scale. Existing players will be divided between those who switch and those who don't but in the end Epic will still be largely played only by the same people who played it before the reboot.

It's way, way easier to 3D print stuff at Epic scale, so even if you don't have a printer yourself there's going to be a glut of alternative minis available for sale.

Especially infantry. I'm mainly interested in GW's new Epic from the perspective of vehicles, because I've never managed to get vehicles that don't have print lines on them.

But infantry is sooooo easy to print. Can print several hundred infantry models in a weekend and they come out ready to paint with zero mould lines to clean up. From the close up images, I don't think GW's plastics are any better quality than what I printed on my cheap 50 micron printer, let alone what people do on high res printers.

Remembering the Epic 40k boxed set with its 12 Rhinos, 6 Land Raiders, 6 Whirlwinds, 3 Stompas, and 12 Battlewagons.

Vorian wrote:
The are 2 Warhounds in this one, to be fair.

Which is going to bump up the price unnecessarily, would much rather see more tanks/infantry in the main boxed set and buy Warhounds separately than the other way around (especially since I, and I imagine many others, already have Warhounds from AT anyway ).

Tsagualsa wrote:

Vorian wrote:
The are 2 Warhounds in this one, to be fair.

On the one hand, that's something not everybody is going to need, on the other, nobody is getting excited over a bunch of rhinos

IMHO it's an attempt to have most major 'foodgroups' of the game in the starter box: light infantry, heavy infantry, some specialists, walkers, tanks, titans. Only thing missing would be lynchpin characters like Primarchs (understandable not to put in the starter, as it locks you into a legion), air power and non-titan superheavies, so essentially it's a complete-ish overview of the system.

Leaving transports out is still a pretty big omission from a tactics and 'How is this played' point of view, but they may be relatively ubiquituous in the force-specific boxes, we don't know that yet.

I'd get excited over a bunch of Rhinos.

I think the more likely thing is they know people will need more tanks so they don't want to include them in the starter set, they want people to spend more money on buying them separately.

It's the old game of upping the monetary value of the starter set while minimising the value of it and minimising the impact on the sales of other kits, and it's that sort of nickel and diming attitude that pushes people away.

2x Warhounds are probably close to a quarter of a medium sized army, and maybe people do want Titans but want a Reaver, or a Warlord, or maybe they don't want Titans at all, and many people are already going to own Warhounds from their inclusion in the AT starter set.

The way the Epic40k boxed set got around it was to include the Mega Gargant cardboard cut out, and have a scenario written around a Mega Gargant so people could try it out. But modern GW would never do something like that.

 Albertorius wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:
They could show us the Sprue...?

That'd spill the beans too early, maybe. Like, how many vehicles can we expect to see per box and all. They might want to keep it "secret" for the moment.

Although most probably the stuff in the launch box is a pretty good indicator of what to expect.

The cost/model is what I'm mostly interested in. If Predators come 3 to a sprue, 6 to a box, and a box costs the same as 6 Lightnings do for Aeronautica Imperialis.... then I think GW will have priced me out of it.

 Albertorius wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:
They could show us the Sprue...?

That'd spill the beans too early, maybe. Like, how many vehicles can we expect to see per box and all. They might want to keep it "secret" for the moment.

Although most probably the stuff in the launch box is a pretty good indicator of what to expect.

The cost/model is what I'm mostly interested in. If Predators come 3 to a sprue, 6 to a box, and a box costs the same as 6 Lightnings do for Aeronautica Imperialis.... then I think GW will have priced me out of it.

You do know that's the most probable case, right? Or even the most favorable... I would expect them to go the way of knights: 3 per sprue, one sprue per box.

Maybe, but the Knights are quite complex, and Predators are going to be physically smaller than Lightnings once constructed, so I'm hoping against hope that they're at least 9 per box and perhaps slightly cheaper than AI boxed sets.

Honestly, there's a good chance GW just kills Epic for me completely

 vadersson wrote:
So what are the chances they go back to metric for IL? I actually like the idea of centimeters instead of inches.

One of the pictures on the new Epic website showed red whippy sticks, metric whippy sticks were traditionally blue, so looks like new Epic will be Imperial.

I prefer cm... however Epic mostly used increments of 5cm, which is ~2", so it's not like they were using the granularity afforded by centimetres anyway.

 xttz wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.

It also means you can throw spare infantry models onto other unit bases & terrain much easier, which I suspect is intentional.

I do think a big part of the issue is that these studio models have recessed shading right on the joins for some reason. If that's the same colour as the rest of the base and viewed a bit further out than this zoomed-in photo, you won't really notice during a game.

I actually think they're going to be more noticeable in real life, because photos are static the not-so-tactical-rocks can be hidden by just painting them the same colour as the base, but in real life where your view of the models is constantly changing, I think it'll stand out more.

I'll certainly be looking to trim them off. If the models are plastic, I don't see why gluing the feet to the base without the lump would be a problem. My experience with 3d printed Epic models is they tend to break at the knees or hips/thighs rather than the foot-ground connection anyway.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Frankly I just don't buy into the notion that they'd be impossible to hide. Or even difficult to hide. Would I just clip them off in some instances? Sure. I can't though, see why it makes it any more or less difficult to disguise them with basing decoration/texture between their legs as opposed to underneath them.

The tactical turds are about ankle height, so to "hide" them in basing it'd take relatively large basing material (whereas most people use very fine basing material when basing Epic to match the scale).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:

 kodos wrote:

it is not about that you need slots, but that there is plastic that you cannot hide because someone though it is a good idea to put the tabs between the legs and not underneath
and you cannot put the models freely around that why either because you will see the tab if they are not on the ground

people go crazy with models having tabs that are easy to hide with base decoration, but with tabs that are impossible to hide, it does not matter.....

Still, this new version is far better than the old one with round base under the feet. Because it was a bigger PITA to remove and it was even more noticeable if you dared not use sloted bases for the infantry units. Meaning restricting choices on how to put them on their unit bases.

But because it was below their feet, you could build up basing material/filler to the same height and the model would stand on top of it, the tactical turds stick up ankle high so when you build up the basing material high enough to hide them, it'll be like they're wading through the basing material.

I also agree with the others with it not being that eye-catching at the level of a game (unless you do paint them with contrasted colors in comparison to the base). You don't do zoomed close-ups like in the picture most of the time. It's only a matter for nitpicking.

I don't think it's "zomg!1!11 ThIs iS unUsaBle" levels of bad... but these are going to be premium priced models so they deserved to be nitpicked.

At this point, I reckon 3D printed models are winning over GW's plastics when it comes to infantry at a fraction of the price. I fully expect the Galactic Crusaders line will start getting take down notices soon.

 schoon wrote:
On the "plastic turd" between the legs issue:

While not ideal, this just doesn't seem like that big a deal to alter/remove. If you're a perfectionist about your minis, you likely have the skill to do this. No worse than the old slotta bases.

We'll have to see, because it attaches to the sides of the legs it might be fiddly to get it off.

I'd rather they just didn't have it, I imagine it's there because it's tricky to get them off the sprue without the legs being joined, but the trick is to not use clippers but rather use a sharp fresh blade. Either that or I'd rather they just did it like the old ones that had a circular base, those genuinely could be hidden easily by basing materials.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
Remember even SM 2nd had Chapter-specific companies and detachments (Dark Angel Deathwing etc.)

I wouldn't be surprised if they have taken a leaf from the community ruleset Imperialis Dominatus - that system has basically re-made all of the Heresy-specific units into equivalent Epic companies and detachments
https://imperiusdominatus.org/#Army%20Books%20&%20Cards

I actually would have guessed detachments are going to be more flexible in terms of their content. Maybe it means nothing, but the picture of the starter set box contents has grouped the infantry into 9 base groups. One has a command + 6 tactical bases + 2 heavy weapons bases, the other SM group has command + 4 tacticals + 2 Terminators + 2 Assault Marines. The Solar Auxilia are 1 command + some mix of assault-looking-dudes and rifle-looking-dudes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Snord wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't think it's "zomg!1!11 ThIs iS unUsaBle" levels of bad... but these are going to be premium priced models so they deserved to be nitpicked.

You are wildly overstating the issue. The blobs around their feet only show up because the unit bases that GW have designed for them are so flat and featureless (although you can see that the GW painters have tried to make the blobs look like tactical rocks). I think what they did makes sense from a model design perspective - you want these small models to have decent point of contact on the base. Just put a few bits of gravel (rubble) around the feet, and some staticgrass, and the blobs will disappear.

Overstating? You literally quoted the part where I said they're premium priced products therefore deserve to be nitpicked

If these were bargain basement models I'd hold them to a different standard, but given GW's history you're likely going to be selling you first born to play Epic