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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Every time I see someone post something to the effect of "non-imperium players shouldn't be unhappy because they can just buy Space Marines instead", my mind imagines them approaching a game like Flames of War or Bolt Action and going "what do you mean there are no xenos? I demand to be accommodated!".

Not everything needs to have xenos.

The "I don't play Imperium"/"I only play xenos" thing is a self-imposed rule and a self-assumed label. Theres no such thing as a "xenos player" or a "non-Imperium player", especially not for a game that doesn't presently exist. What there is, are people who prefer to play non-Imperium and xenos armies, but if you take that to an absolute and will only play non-Imperium factions, then that is wholly 100% a "you problem".

I don't play Napoleonic or Ancients armies. Know what I do when I encounter a Napoleonics or Ancients game?

I don't play.

I also don't insist that the developer needs to add Pike & Shotte armies or American Civil War armies into the game because I am a "Pike & Shotte player" or an "ACW player".

There really is no justification for the insistence that every vaguely 40k related thing needs the inclusion of xenos or whatever your favorite faction is. This isn't an expansion to 40k, this isn't something that you use your existing miniature collections for. You don't need to be catered to, you don't lose anything or miss out or get screwed over if GW produces a whole new game with a whole new miniatures range that doesn't suit your tastes or interest you. Its okay to not play all their games, its okay to not like everything they do.

Its also okay to *WISH* that your favorite faction is included in the game - but theres a fine line between wishing it to be included and acting like you are being screwed over or victimized by GW.

I think this may be one of the most utterly absurd nonsensical comparisons I've seen. You're doing the same thing as the other guy and basically going "Non-imperium armies don't matter, what everyone really wants are Space Marines" as if an arbitrary decision to include a large portion of players and the setting would be a good thing.

Oh my god, seriously? Talk about utterly absurd nonsensical things. Thats like saying every book, movie, animation, etc. needs to have representation of every single faction in 40k, just to make sure every possible player is fully "included", because apparently something is only interesting to someone if - and only if - it includes their one specific favorite faction.

Thats like saying you need Tau and Necrons in Necromunda or you're excluding a portion of players from what is essentially another game.

Thats like saying Kill Team needs to include Knights or you're excluding a portion of players from what is essentially another game.

Thats like saying that Age of Sigmar or Warhammer Fantasy needs Space Marines or you're excluding a portion of players from what is not just another game, but another setting.

Horus Heresy is another game in what is essentially another setting, though one which shares a common universe. Theres no obligation or justification to "include a large portion of players" of ANOTHER GAME. If they release a game and its just Imperium and Chaos, then there aren't any xenos players, because that game is NOT 40K and those factions are out of the scope of the setting and the game designed around it.

This should not be a difficult concept to understand. In the context of Horus Heresy you are NOT a Tau player (or whatever), because in Horus Heresy TAU DO NOT EXIST FOR YOU TO PLAY. Its that simple. If you want to play Tau - too bad, you can't. Pick something else. If nothing appeals to you - don't play it.

GW - any creator or publisher for that matter - is allowed to produce things that do not cater to your specific interests. If you don't like it or aren't interested in what it is they are offering you, THEN DON'T BUY IT OR PLAY IT. Its very straightforward.

Space Marines/Imperium vs Chaos only is a perfectly valid and reasonable choice for GW to make. If you are such a damned xenos/Tau/Eldar/whatever purist that you cannot bring yourself to play one of the "appropriate" factions for the game and setting that GW designed - then that is your own damned choice and problem to live with. Nobody has held a gun to your head and said "you're a Tau player now, you can never play anything else". This decision has no impact on your current collection of models, it does not invalidate your purchases to date or make them any less functional, etc. You are free to continue using them in 40k as you have always done and they are not any lesser for it.

There is no obligation for anyone to twist and reform their creative vision and output in order to accommodate your specific tastes and interests, especially when you have zero skin in the game. You are not the target audience for this product, ergo your viewpoint is not one that needs to be taken into consideration. If GW wanted your money, then they would have made the decision to incorporate xenos into the game - that they haven't incorporated xenos indicates that they are perfectly okay catering to what is probably still an overwhelmingly large subset of their community who are willing to explore and play in a more limited and niche sandbox. Likewise, they likely understand that this product has a stronger and more distinct brand and identity by purposefully excluding xenos from it, and that this also preserves the brand and identity of their flagship product line which does include xenos.

Again, not hard to comprehend, 30k is not an attempt to reinvent the wheel and make a replica of 40k but with minor changes. It is its own separate and distinct thing - its own game in its own setting with its own separate players. And thats okay - live with it, accept it. There is no "include a large portion of players" here, because those players you're talking about are 40k players, not Horus Heresy players. While there are people who will play both, there are also plenty who will only play one. Again - that is okay. Not everything or everyone is "for all markets" as they say, nor does it need to be.

Given a lot of thought, I think it would make more sense to release the odd tank and infantry kit for Adeptus Titanicus. It allows GW to test the waters before committing fully to Epic. Also it doesn't hurt that its called "Adeptus Titanicus: The Horus Heresy", and Scale 1 is yet to receive a model, along with Scale 7 and 11.

With a single book expansion they could do this pretty much now; a knight kit sprue's worth of infantry, and an Aeronautica-sized kit for some baneblades, with the option for shadowswords. If not, off load them onto Forgeworld and have them as support-only units, if they don't want the hassle of publishing a new book. All they have to do is avoid a Porphyrion fiasco with the rules( the armigers, at Scale 2, have already been well received ) and they would be best sellers as base decorations alone.

It would also keep the release schedule free to possibly introduce another game in demand; Battlefleet Gothic...

chaos0xomega wrote:
In the context of Horus Heresy you are NOT a Tau player (or whatever), because in Horus Heresy TAU DO NOT EXIST FOR YOU TO PLAY.

Tau don't, but Eldar and Orks do exist. And Tau are a good representation for the various minor xenos factions that existed at the time. Plus, let's not forget that a big part of the success of the original 30k game was that it was fully compatible with 40k and you could play 30k marines vs. 40k Tau. If 30k had been marines-only I doubt it would have seen anywhere near as much success.

There is no obligation for anyone to twist and reform their creative vision

GW has no creative vision. Their rules exist for the sole purpose of selling models and providing good quarterly reports to the shareholders. If GW believes that retconning Tau into 30k will give a 1% increase in shareholder value then Tau will be in 30k without any hesitation at all. Just look at how much GW's "creative vision" mattered when they ended WHFB, retconned primaris marines into 40k, etc.

If non-Imperial factions are not in this (or any other) game it is only because GW is calculating the revenue from the xenos products vs. the cost to make them vs. the opportunity cost of not making another space marine box and concluding that the money says no. Any "creative" excuses are nothing more than an after the fact rationalization to justify the business decisions to people like you and convince you to keep buying.

Again, not hard to comprehend, 30k is not an attempt to reinvent the wheel and make a replica of 40k but with minor changes.

That's funny, because in the world the rest of us live in 30k was just the 40k rules with some new units added, exactly as the Badab War books had been previously. It only diverged from 40k at all when GW launched 8th edition at a point when 30k was a dead game, up until that point it was absolutely standard practice to play 30k vs. 40k armies and treat 30k as nothing more than a set of additional codices for 40k. And TBH I expect 30k will probably get updated to the standard 40k rules once people realize that their nostalgia for armor facings and blast templates has nothing to do with reality and those things were removed for good reasons.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


That's funny, because in the world the rest of us live in 30k was just the 40k rules with some new units added, exactly as the Badab War books had been previously. It only diverged from 40k at all when GW launched 8th edition at a point when 30k was a dead game, up until that point it was absolutely standard practice to play 30k vs. 40k armies and treat 30k as nothing more than a set of additional codices for 40k. And TBH I expect 30k will probably get updated to the standard 40k rules once people realize that their nostalgia for armor facings and blast templates has nothing to do with reality and those things were removed for good reasons.

What are you talking about? None of that is true at all.

Would be great to see some RT-inspired orks and eldar, a specific 30k take on the races could form an entire subfaction to also have rules for 40k.

Something like exodites for eldar could be perfect, orks could have a list filled with the wonders in the old 'ere we go' book (bazillion different weird squigs and stuff).

CadianSgtBob wrote:


GW has no creative vision. Their rules exist for the sole purpose of selling models and providing good quarterly reports to the shareholders. If GW believes that retconning Tau into 30k will give a 1% increase in shareholder value then Tau will be in 30k without any hesitation at all. Just look at how much GW's "creative vision" mattered when they ended WHFB, retconned primaris marines into 40k, etc.

If non-Imperial factions are not in this (or any other) game it is only because GW is calculating the revenue from the xenos products vs. the cost to make them vs. the opportunity cost of not making another space marine box and concluding that the money says no. Any "creative" excuses are nothing more than an after the fact rationalization to justify the business decisions to people like you and convince you to keep buying.

Making money is the aim of every company. If that was not their aim, then they would not exist as a company for very long.

That being said, this stuff about being completely shackled to shareholders and profit is just nonsense. If it were true then we would have had female ultramarines in the noughties, all the extreme stuff would have been culled from 30k and 40k as it was written so it was more suitable for a younger audience, and none of the primarchs would have died. That is what shareholders would want. But that is not what happened.

Any "creative" excuses are nothing more than an after the fact rationalization to justify the business decisions to people like you and convince you to keep buying.

Is it? Because there are genuine creative reasons to do what they do alongside financial reasons. We've heard from insiders how sometimes a designer or writer or artist will show an idea or design to a higher up and then the higher up will get on board, and sometimes the higher up will ask for x and the team will make it, and sometimes it will be a collaboration.

It's a testament to the fact that they do have creative vision that Warhammer 40,000 is currently the best popular pulp science-fiction universe.

caladancid wrote:
What are you talking about? None of that is true at all.

It's absolutely true and it's revisionist history to suggest otherwise.

The first 30k books were just army lists and scenarios like any of the 40k Imperial Armour books, they used the core 40k rules as-is. Even as late as the very end of 7th there was only minimal divergence from 40k, with 30k rejecting the widely hated formation nonsense and invisibility psychic power but otherwise making very few changes.

30k vs. 40k was common enough that GW even printed official suggestions for how to do it (using the 30k FOC and banning formations), and outside of formation nonsense you could easily play a game of 30k vs. 40k with no compatibility issues. And you can't deny that it's a major selling point for a "new" game when you can use the models in your existing 40k armies and can play your 30k lists against your friends' 40k lists even if nobody else invests in 30k.

Whether or not 30k will be updated is a matter of opinion and speculation, not truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

derpherp wrote:
Making money is the aim of every company. If that was not their aim, then they would not exist as a company for very long.

Well yes, I'm not saying GW is unique here. But GW is clearly running their games as a business and freely retconning away anything that gets in the way of making money.

That being said, this stuff about being completely shackled to shareholders and profit is just nonsense. If it were true then we would have had female ultramarines in the noughties, all the extreme stuff would have been culled from 30k and 40k as it was written so it was more suitable for a younger audience, and none of the primarchs would have died. That is what shareholders would want. But that is not what happened.

Is it really what shareholders would want? Or is it what you would want? Because from my point of view a game targeting 14 year old boys (as GW openly admitted was their goal) in the days when "nerd hobbies" openly excluded women absolutely wouldn't have been making a smart business decision by introducing female marines. The only thing that market would have wanted would have been female marines in power bikinis instead of armor, and overtly sexualizing the models would have had angry parents throwing a riot and killing future sales. And targeting an even younger market wouldn't have worked well, an expensive war game with complex and delicate models isn't something you can successfully sell to 5-10 year olds.

Now, of course, things are different and I won't be at all surprised when GW retcons everything and introduces female marines just like they retconned everything to introduce primaris marines.

Is it? Because there are genuine creative reasons to do what they do alongside financial reasons. We've heard from insiders how sometimes a designer or writer or artist will show an idea or design to a higher up and then the higher up will get on board, and sometimes the higher up will ask for x and the team will make it, and sometimes it will be a collaboration.

Sure, but in all of that rule #1 is "will this make money for the company". Maybe occasionally you'll see a vanity project get company support to keep an important employee happy but GW has been aggressively cutting niche products that don't make enough money and retconning away anything that stands in the way of a new release.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Every time I see someone post something to the effect of "non-imperium players shouldn't be unhappy because they can just buy Space Marines instead", my mind imagines them approaching a game like Flames of War or Bolt Action and going "what do you mean there are no xenos? I demand to be accommodated!".

Not everything needs to have xenos.

The "I don't play Imperium"/"I only play xenos" thing is a self-imposed rule and a self-assumed label. Theres no such thing as a "xenos player" or a "non-Imperium player", especially not for a game that doesn't presently exist. What there is, are people who prefer to play non-Imperium and xenos armies, but if you take that to an absolute and will only play non-Imperium factions, then that is wholly 100% a "you problem".

I don't play Napoleonic or Ancients armies. Know what I do when I encounter a Napoleonics or Ancients game?

I don't play.

I also don't insist that the developer needs to add Pike & Shotte armies or American Civil War armies into the game because I am a "Pike & Shotte player" or an "ACW player".

There really is no justification for the insistence that every vaguely 40k related thing needs the inclusion of xenos or whatever your favorite faction is. This isn't an expansion to 40k, this isn't something that you use your existing miniature collections for. You don't need to be catered to, you don't lose anything or miss out or get screwed over if GW produces a whole new game with a whole new miniatures range that doesn't suit your tastes or interest you. Its okay to not play all their games, its okay to not like everything they do.

Its also okay to *WISH* that your favorite faction is included in the game - but theres a fine line between wishing it to be included and acting like you are being screwed over or victimized by GW.

GTFO with your imperium or nothing bs. If people are calling for xenos why exacrly can't they be added? Ya there is none so get off your lame horse and realize 40k wouldn't be anywhere near as seccesfull today without xenos and the same will be true for any game released in the 40k setting.

RazorEdge wrote:

Johanxp wrote:
Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.

I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.

I think this is it exactly. HH would allow the game box to be 2-3 sprues; Few types of infantry, land raiders and rhinos. I think one of the biggest barriers to Epic ever returning is that it would be a BIG investment in resources for GW, both number of SKUs and the rules writers having to create that content. A HH era box lets them ignore that risk, tap into the Epic nostalgia, few expansions and campaign books and boom job done.

Not saying this is ideal, but I'm afraid if you want xenos the chances are you will need to take the little training wheels off your bicycyle and get into NetEpic, Epic Armageddon etc. and those existing communities.

SamusDrake wrote:
Given a lot of thought, I think it would make more sense to release the odd tank and infantry kit for Adeptus Titanicus. It allows GW to test the waters before committing fully to Epic. Also, it doesn't hurt that its called "Adeptus Titanicus: The Horus Heresy", and Scale 1 is yet to receive a model, along with Scale 7 and 11.

There's also precedent for this idea. In the Fanatic days, Epic 40,000 Magazine featured rules for an updated Adeptus Titanicus game to return the focus to the big robots (since successive editions of Epic had relegated them to a support role in armies). Alongside the Titans, it included rules for superheavy tanks such as Baneblades and Shadowswords.

I'm surprised we haven't seen something similar for modern AT by now.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Is it really what shareholders would want? Or is it what you would want? Because from my point of view a game targeting 14 year old boys (as GW openly admitted was their goal) in the days when "nerd hobbies" openly excluded women absolutely wouldn't have been making a smart business decision by introducing female marines. The only thing that market would have wanted would have been female marines in power bikinis instead of armor, and overtly sexualizing the models would have had angry parents throwing a riot and killing future sales. And targeting an even younger market wouldn't have worked well, an expensive war game with complex and delicate models isn't something you can successfully sell to 5-10 year olds.

Now, of course, things are different and I won't be at all surprised when GW retcons everything and introduces female marines just like they retconned everything to introduce primaris marines.

Yes, sanding down the rough bits is what shareholders want. It's for the same reason so many movies that should have been R rated instead have their scripts edited and trimmed and made PG13. It makes more money. There are tons of things in the 40k universe that are just unsuitable for a mainstream IP such as the daemonculuba, or even just servitors being used by the 'good guys', and if it were up to the shareholders they would never ever have been made or they would have been retconned by now.

The things that make the 40k IP what it is also make 40k an extremely difficult IP to turn into a mass market IP. Starwars is easy mode for making billions of dollars, 40k is extreme hard mode. Most big time media investors are going to take one look at 40k and run away screaming at the top of their lungs, which is exactly what shareholders do not want.

Yes, killing off primarchs is objectively bad for business. Period. Primarch models sell like hotcakes. The fact that there are dead primarchs means that there is less money to be made. Every dead primarch is a huge financial loss for GW. If shareholders were in control not a single primarch would be dead.

Yes, the addition of female marines would make them more money, if not as head swaps on the sprue, then as their own cover-hero Ultramarine detachment with boob armour. That has been the case now and since at least the 00s when the sisters of battle became their own army. But GW recently Officially re-confirmed male marines only as being the standard when they had ample opportunity to retcon it.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
"Sure, but in all of that rule #1 is "will this make money for the company". Maybe occasionally you'll see a vanity project get company support to keep an important employee happy but GW has been aggressively cutting niche products that don't make enough money and retconning away anything that stands in the way of a new release."

Looking to make money =/= no creative vision.

By your logic nothing ever created in the creative industry has ever had any creative vision because everything the creative industry does is sold to make money and a profit. No one in the industry makes anything for free mate.

If a creative comes up with a COOL idea, then more often than not that COOL idea is also going to sell well because it is a COOL idea. The creative vision is the primary and not the secondary here. We know from insiders that this does happen and is not "occasional" but happens all of the time.

The "GW kicked my dog!!!!" crowd really seem to have an unreasonable view of GW as a company.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

Johanxp wrote:
Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.

I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.

Yep, I hope they think along this way. Furthermore the argument of GW would infuriate xenos players by avoiding the 40K setting in Epic is not valid because Epic is so cheap in comparison to other systems that players naturally own several armies. Therefore only a minority of the player base would be adversely affected as most players would have some kind of space marines at their disposal anyway. So Epic HH could contain these factions:

- SM Legions
- Mechanicum
- Solar Auxilia
- Daemon Ruinstorm

Four factions (or maybe even five) would be a sensible approach to avoid the 40K faction bloat madness.

It being cheap is debatable: does anyone else remember Epic's prices back when they moved everything to Specialists Games? Because cheap they were'nt.

And don't expect it to be any cheaper than that now, if they ever actually reboot it.

I played Space Marine (Epic 2nd) and several armies were in my collection. And no, I wasn´t filthy rich in order to collect them back in the day.

I think one of the issues that makes bringing back Epic harder (especially in a post heresy setting) is the big increase in the number of vehicles available in 40K proper,

all they really needed initially was landraiders and rhinos and a bunch of wee marines (and there are more varieties of those too), but now there a whole bunch more and players will expect them to be available too (with all their different weapon options as well)

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

Johanxp wrote:
Epic set in HH era would be an incredible wasted chance.
And that's not for HH itself. Because a new Epic full of different races and game style IF the rules are good would be a great game, offering something different from the usual skirmish or msd battle game based in infantry.

I doubt GW would Start reboot Epic with such a big investment - they will start with HH because it's cheaper to produce only "one" faction.

Yep, I hope they think along this way. Furthermore the argument of GW would infuriate xenos players by avoiding the 40K setting in Epic is not valid because Epic is so cheap in comparison to other systems that players naturally own several armies. Therefore only a minority of the player base would be adversely affected as most players would have some kind of space marines at their disposal anyway. So Epic HH could contain these factions:

- SM Legions
- Mechanicum
- Solar Auxilia
- Daemon Ruinstorm

Four factions (or maybe even five) would be a sensible approach to avoid the 40K faction bloat madness.

What? "Non-imperium players shouldn't be unhappy because they can just buy Space Marines instead"?

As I have said before most people in the hobby own several armies. Therefore they don´t identify themselves as "Imperium" or "Xenos" players. They are just collectors interested in the 30K/40K setting. I own myself regarding to xenos Bad Moonz Orks, Ulthwe Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tyranids/GSC. Am I unhappy that those factions are not included in HH? Absolutely not.

Just imagine GW would recreate the second or the third war for Armageddon with releasing new models for said armies. Everybody would expect to see only orks and imperial troops as it is another historic event. You can´t shoehorn in any other xenos just to accomodate a salty, vocal minority as it would diminish the overall enjoyment of the main target audience.

Potentially a barrier is that 90's GW was happy to put a bunch of different tanks on one sprue, I doubt if modern GW will do that.

Also 90's GW used metal to fill gaps, so they could get away with just a couple of sprues per faction.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I think one of the issues that makes bringing back Epic harder (especially in a post heresy setting) is the big increase in the number of vehicles available in 40K proper,

all they really needed initially was landraiders and rhinos and a bunch of wee marines (and there are more varieties of those too), but now there a whole bunch more and players will expect them to be available too (with all their different weapon options as well)

This is one of the many reasons why faction bloat is a bad thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Potentially a barrier is that 90's GW was happy to put a bunch of different tanks on one sprue, I doubt if modern GW will do that.

Also 90's GW used metal to fill gaps, so they could get away with just a couple of sprues per faction.

Space Marine starter box was great back in the day. You had SM Tacticals, Rhinos, Land Raiders, Ork Boys, Battlewagons, Eldar Guardians, Falcon Grav Tanks, a Warlord Titan and multiple tall buildings.

Do it right and weapon options simply don’t matter. Epic is not the place for that level of granularity. In “Space Marine” the Bolters profile covered everything from Bolt Pistols to Heavy Bolters and it worked wonderfully.

Someone wanting to select their loadouts at Epic scale and have it be anything other than cosmetic invites rules nonsense.

Any actual Epic rumours lately or is it just wishlisting/reacting to one YouTuber who has no actual sources?

 Strg Alt wrote:
I played Space Marine (Epic 2nd) and several armies were in my collection. And no, I wasn´t filthy rich in order to collect them back in the day.

I mean.. ok, but I was talking about the last time GW was selling stuff, so your answer it's kind of a non sequitur.

I mean, it's as if I'd say that 40k is cheap because the RTB01 box was cheap.

And back when E.A was around in the Specialist Games range, the minis were anything but cheap... and I can't believe for one minute they would be cheaper now. Because GW is gonna GW (and also, AT scale is generally bigger).

For Units like Devastors / Heavy Support Squads there could be a distinction between "Anti Vehicle" and "Anti Infantry" weapon profiles.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Do it right and weapon options simply don’t matter. Epic is not the place for that level of granularity. In “Space Marine” the Bolters profile covered everything from Bolt Pistols to Heavy Bolters and it worked wonderfully.

Someone wanting to select their loadouts at Epic scale and have it be anything other than cosmetic invites rules nonsense.

That's actually one of the things I liked about Epic. The fluffy differences between an Ultramarine and a Grey Hunter and a whatever or a Bolter and a Plasma Gun were outside of the scale of the game, so you were free to do or imagine whatever you wanted for your force but in the end it was just the number on the detachment sheet that mattered... Speed, Range, Firepower, Assault, and Armour.

Any actual Epic rumours lately or is it just wishlisting/reacting to one YouTuber who has no actual sources?

Just seems to be wishlisting.

Zenithfleet wrote:

There's also precedent for this idea. In the Fanatic days, Epic 40,000 Magazine featured rules for an updated Adeptus Titanicus game to return the focus to the big robots (since successive editions of Epic had relegated them to a support role in armies). Alongside the Titans, it included rules for superheavy tanks such as Baneblades and Shadowswords.

I'm surprised we haven't seen something similar for modern AT by now.

Yes, sadly so.

I wouldn't want Titanicus to be overloaded with such units, but the odd unit here and there would add just enough flavour to the game.

Not sure why anyone thinks Epic will be cheap when we already have a price benchmark to look at, Aeronautica.

The balance of likely risk and likely reward will probably keep any future epic to space marines for a while. The risk of marines vs xenos is lower, since marines only need one faction rather than two of xenos vs someone. The likely reward will be higher given the popularity of marines and the already existing players doing loyalist vs rebels.

Could xeno turn a profit? Probably, but that probability is lower than marines whilst the costs are higher due to needing two factions. Also, even if xeno was likely to be a profit, that tooling time needs be compared to likely profit from tooling something for AoS or 28mm 40k. Again, marines are likely to more favourably compare.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Not sure why anyone thinks Epic will be cheap when we already have a price benchmark to look at, Aeronautica.

Thread winnah!

Also you can all but guarantee that they would do things like go after folks like onslaught.

So any actual rumours?

 Malika2 wrote:
So any actual rumours?

Nope. All a load of bollocks, I'm afraid.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Not sure why anyone thinks Epic will be cheap when we already have a price benchmark to look at, Aeronautica.

The price of Aeronautica is what made me wonder if it's best GW leave Epic be

Aeronautica models look great, and the price is somewhat palatable because you only need a few models to play a game, but buying 10's of tanks, dreadnoughts, etc, at Aeronautica prices could be a bit hurty.

I'm pretty sure that some of the Epic 40k minis - Land Raiders and the like - were worth their weight in silver (not quite gold) they were so damned expensive.

 Samsonov wrote:
The balance of likely risk and likely reward will probably keep any future epic to space marines for a while. The risk of marines vs xenos is lower, since marines only need one faction rather than two of xenos vs someone. The likely reward will be higher given the popularity of marines and the already existing players doing loyalist vs rebels.

Could xeno turn a profit? Probably, but that probability is lower than marines whilst the costs are higher due to needing two factions. Also, even if xeno was likely to be a profit, that tooling time needs be compared to likely profit from tooling something for AoS or 28mm 40k. Again, marines are likely to more favourably compare.

Counter-point: a game where the only factions are different colors of marines is boring as hell and, unlike 28mm 30k, won't sell a bunch of boxes to 40k marine players who want them for their 40k armies. Only having one faction makes it less likely that the game will ever have any success. So yes, xenos releases may not make as much per kit sold but they're still an important part of having a functioning game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Just imagine GW would recreate the second or the third war for Armageddon with releasing new models for said armies. Everybody would expect to see only orks and imperial troops as it is another historic event. You can´t shoehorn in any other xenos just to accomodate a salty, vocal minority as it would diminish the overall enjoyment of the main target audience.

Sure, but that target audience would be what, three people? Four? It would certainly be a much less successful game than one with a wider range of factions and a setting that can be generalized to other conflicts.