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.

I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.

AT is the toe in the water.

Just Titans isn’t a particularly scalable game type. Much of the strategy is resource management and manouvering, over simply shooting something with the right gun.

And it’s not really a game one can just add infantry to.

Do a separate game, allow the Titans to port over? And you’ve a ready made partial player base.

And hey, go for a grander scale of battle than classic Epic. Being set during the Heresy, up the numbers of tanks and infantry (classic Epic being largely set in 40K).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


And hey, go for a grander scale of battle than classic Epic. Being set during the Heresy, up the numbers of tanks and infantry (classic Epic being largely set in 40K).

Tanks in 40k are about 20% too small anyway, so the 'solution' to embiggen the scope of the game is pretty simple: leave titans, planes and tanks scaled as they are and reduce the size of infantry a little bit, and everything looks much better and truer to fluff immediately. So if e.g. infantry in Titanicus scale should be 8mm, just go to 6mm anyway, but do the tanks in 8mm. That would also account for the slightly higher level of detailling that's needed to make the tanks look good while not overburdening infantry with unnecessary details.

Mr.Pickels wrote:
I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.

It does work because quite a few of us are already doing it
This is my Crusade-era World Eaters force. It is made up of Vanguard Miniatures proxies, some 3d prints and GW classics (as well as AT titans). I have a choice of rulesets, all of which are free to download, and are expertly balanced/playtested from many years with the community.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
Model creep has definitely made 40k boards look worse, too cramped, like someone poured a bucket of their toys on the table and started bashing them together.

I guess the scales kind of made sense back in the 90's, when 2nd edition 40k was mostly games of a few squads and a vehicle or two, WHFB was a game of a handful of blocks of infantry/cav with maybe 1 big impressive monster-type-thing, and Epic was a game hundreds of models but at a smaller scale so it kind of made sense.

Well the last version cut down the numbers somewhat. A tourney winning marine army was:-
6 squads tactical marines,
4 squads terminators
4 squads of scouts
8 rhinos/droppods (as required for each mission)
30 marines on bikes (whats that, 6 bike squads? 3? How many bikes to a squad now?)
5 Landspeeders
4 Predators
1 Hunter
4 Whirlwinds
Thunderhawk
4 Thunderbolt fighters

I have seen that in 40k scale on a table...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:


One of the weaknesses of old Epic was that they were still pretty stuck in their ''5 dudes per Stand''-rule for infantry for all races, i.e. a 40k combat squad per stand. Even with the technology of the early 2000s, they could have gone and made ''horde stands'' for some of the hordier armies and units, like they did for the short-lived ''Fantasy Epic'' Warmaster. With the current technology, you could go even further and do really impressive horde blobs as opposed to sculpting every single infantry model as detailled as possible.

Yes, it would ahve been cool if a stand was a combat squad of marines, aspect warrior team, etc, or a 10 man squad of guardsmen, or horde of chitin etc. Would have further emphasised elite options over other races.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
Model creep has definitely made 40k boards look worse, too cramped, like someone poured a bucket of their toys on the table and started bashing them together.

I guess the scales kind of made sense back in the 90's, when 2nd edition 40k was mostly games of a few squads and a vehicle or two, WHFB was a game of a handful of blocks of infantry/cav with maybe 1 big impressive monster-type-thing, and Epic was a game hundreds of models but at a smaller scale so it kind of made sense.

Well the last version cut down the numbers somewhat. A tourney winning marine army was:-
6 squads tactical marines,
4 squads terminators
4 squads of scouts
8 rhinos/droppods (as required for each mission)
30 marines on bikes (whats that, 6 bike squads? 3? How many bikes to a squad now?)
5 Landspeeders
4 Predators
1 Hunter
4 Whirlwinds
Thunderhawk
4 Thunderbolt fighters

I have seen that in 40k scale on a table...

Back in the day when Epic 40k was released they did a battle report with some sort of 'designers notes' for each phase, and one of the key concepts that they mentioned was that a single firefight/close combat between epic detachments would cover about the same type and extent of engagement as a typical 40k game of the time. So by that logic, a typical force of a handful of detachments and support groups would cover what would be about 4000 - 5000 points in 40k at the time, which would be closer to maybe 2500 pts today.

 Snord wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A picture like that shows me exactly why I'm getting back into Epic and not 40k It just looks like someone has taken a bunch of vehicles and infantry, set them up on the long edges of a football field, and are about to mash them together like some chaotic game of dodgeball.

Epic lets you assemble something that actually looks like it could be an army, have everything from gretchin to warlord titans on the table, play a game on a 4x4, 6x4 or 8x4 table and have space to move, realistic looking ranges, a chance for fast troops to exploit their speed because there's enough space on a table, and play a fun game that doesn't take multiple days to finish.

That photo looks awesome. Sure, everyone started off lined up like a football game, but once everyone got moving there would be a lot of maneuvering. Does it replicate modern combined-arms combat? No. But it looks like WH40k. I bet that was a fun game once the Orks got stuck in.

I don't agree that Epic looked any better or was any more realistic. It was fun because you could mix massive war machines with infantry, but it didn't look much different from the WH40k game in the photo. And it was even more abstract than WH40k.

You're of course welcome to think it looks awesome, but I doubt there was a lot of movement manoeuvring and I'm sure the Orks did get stuck in, lol.

But I think the idea that Epic didn't look much different from that 40k photo is just factually wrong.

Of course what you think looks good is entirely subjective, I just said that for me, personally, games that look like that in 40k I find entirely unappealing. Less of a game and more of an excuse to line up all your models before removing them and packing them back away again, lol.

Tsagualsa wrote:


Back in the day when Epic 40k was released they did a battle report with some sort of 'designers notes' for each phase, and one of the key concepts that they mentioned was that a single firefight/close combat between epic detachments would cover about the same type and extent of engagement as a typical 40k game of the time. So by that logic, a typical force of a handful of detachments and support groups would cover what would be about 4000 - 5000 points in 40k at the time, which would be closer to maybe 2500 pts today.

Yes Epic 40k (3rd edition) had the concept of being able to do your 40k army in miniature. It was neat, and you could do it with the right players. Most though very quickly moved to mono type detachments moving at similar speeds with AP or AT firepower as the enemy were likely doing the same and it was the most 'efficient'.

Tsagualsa wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
Model creep has definitely made 40k boards look worse, too cramped, like someone poured a bucket of their toys on the table and started bashing them together.

I guess the scales kind of made sense back in the 90's, when 2nd edition 40k was mostly games of a few squads and a vehicle or two, WHFB was a game of a handful of blocks of infantry/cav with maybe 1 big impressive monster-type-thing, and Epic was a game hundreds of models but at a smaller scale so it kind of made sense.

Well the last version cut down the numbers somewhat. A tourney winning marine army was:-
6 squads tactical marines,
4 squads terminators
4 squads of scouts
8 rhinos/droppods (as required for each mission)
30 marines on bikes (whats that, 6 bike squads? 3? How many bikes to a squad now?)
5 Landspeeders
4 Predators
1 Hunter
4 Whirlwinds
Thunderhawk
4 Thunderbolt fighters

I have seen that in 40k scale on a table...

Back in the day when Epic 40k was released they did a battle report with some sort of 'designers notes' for each phase, and one of the key concepts that they mentioned was that a single firefight/close combat between epic detachments would cover about the same type and extent of engagement as a typical 40k game of the time. So by that logic, a typical force of a handful of detachments and support groups would cover what would be about 4000 - 5000 points in 40k at the time, which would be closer to maybe 2500 pts today.

That was written in the Appendix of the Battles Book. They said 15cm in Epic is roughly equivalent to 24" in 40k, which is the typical distance starting distance between forces in a game of 40k, and why "Firefights" in Epic occur over a distance of 15cm, and one assault phase in Epic is equivalent to a four-turn 40k game.

So the idea I guess is that the Assault phase = game of 40k, while the Shooting and Movement phases = long ranged posturing and shooting that occurs at ranges beyond the scope of a typical 40k game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:


Back in the day when Epic 40k was released they did a battle report with some sort of 'designers notes' for each phase, and one of the key concepts that they mentioned was that a single firefight/close combat between epic detachments would cover about the same type and extent of engagement as a typical 40k game of the time. So by that logic, a typical force of a handful of detachments and support groups would cover what would be about 4000 - 5000 points in 40k at the time, which would be closer to maybe 2500 pts today.

Yes Epic 40k (3rd edition) had the concept of being able to do your 40k army in miniature. It was neat, and you could do it with the right players. Most though very quickly moved to mono type detachments moving at similar speeds with AP or AT firepower as the enemy were likely doing the same and it was the most 'efficient'.

Yeah, it's kind of also what makes the most sense, real militaries bundle groups of similar units together because it makes sense to put all your artillery together, a bunch of similar tanks together, a bunch of cavalry together, etc. Whereas 40k might have a single artillery piece next to a tank next to a short ranged assault squad next to a cavalry unit which for some reason is supported by a single aircraft that flies no further than 100m away, lol. Not really how you'd organise a force for a real battle, unless maybe you had some very specific mission that required a small number of troops with a weirdly diverse range of capabilities.

But I do still like the way 3rd edition gave you a lot of freedom in how detachments were constructed.

I find it funny reading here that Valrak gets nothing right, then turn around and find a thread on Reddit about how accurate he is.

Although that thread is about SM, The Lion, Dante, etc, and all the new marines coming next year.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:
While I agree that GW would see a new Epic as an incentive to sell more (Epic-scale) minis, history has shown that Epic scale minis just don't sell that much in comparison to 40k scale minis. There will always be the GW whales that buy anything "new" from GW but I just don't see a new Epic doing any better than its previous iterations.

Also, it seems several people are under the illusion that all games using the new Apocalypse system must be massive all-day sessions with tables turned into congested "parking lots" of figures. The game actually plays quite well at the size of large standard 40k battles (roughly 2000 points of minis each side using 40k's points system) and such games can be played in less time than a 2000 point 40k match.

This matchup was roughly 2500 points each side in standard 40k terms of points on a 6'x4' table (not "niche" IMO as many players have armies of that size or more). A little cramped for an Ork horde but perfectly playable:

A picture like that shows me exactly why I'm getting back into Epic and not 40k It just looks like someone has taken a bunch of vehicles and infantry, set them up on the long edges of a football field, and are about to mash them together like some chaotic game of dodgeball.

Epic lets you assemble something that actually looks like it could be an army, have everything from gretchin to warlord titans on the table, play a game on a 4x4, 6x4 or 8x4 table and have space to move, realistic looking ranges, a chance for fast troops to exploit their speed because there's enough space on a table, and play a fun game that doesn't take multiple days to finish.

Agreed. Too crammed. Two mats would make matters better in that regard.

Random thought. 40K set games and Classical Music.

40K is the finale or chorus (sorry, not a musical sort, using the best terms I know). Think the end of the 1812 Overture.

Yet, the 1812 Overture is far more than the finale. Like, waaaaay long. There are bits of the finale throughout.

That? That is what I want Epic to be. The whole concerto. The whole of the thing. Then early turns being the quieter jostling for position and advantage with the odd relative skirmish of violence, before the tension builds into the last couple of turns, where the player that has, aha, conducted their forces to the superior position unleashes hell and carries they day.

I’m not claiming a given incarnation of Epic ever achieved that. Just that…..I really really want it!

I got into epic with Epic 40K. I really should read the 2e rules someday to see why there was so much disappointment with what I thought was an amazing game. I did pick up Renegades, Warlords, and Hive War for a song, just for the extra fluff. I think I still have the cards stuck in a box somewhere, but I'm not sure about the books...

But even when I got into 40K 3e, I always felt like what 40K tries to do is best expressed in Epic scale. It always felt grander, more involved than the Parking Lot Blitzkrieg 40K eventually finished devolving into.

Mr.Pickels wrote:
I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.

They could but I really, really, really, really doubt random new custom-made-for-epic race is going to attract that much attention as providing good quality epic orks, tyranids and eldars would. Those have existing fanbase. Sort of like how it's cheaper to keep customer than get a new one.

It could be interesting idea once epic is running but to start with it would be risk. Not impossible one but risk.

Also in terms of playstyle what new ones you could come up with that isn't just reskinned orks/eldar/tyranids/IG/space marines? Sure you COULD come up with 100 races but can you come up with 100 distinct ones?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:

Mr.Pickels wrote:
I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.

It does work because quite a few of us are already doing it

Uh. How is that different to having heresy army?

Where's the new never heard xenos he mentioned? Are you fighting against xenos forces that haven't been covered before? Or vs orks/ig/chaos/other marines/tyranids?

Closest thing you could get with current gw models to crusade is marines vs orks but he's talking about bringing in new xenos armies never mentioned before or maybe referenced once or twice in BL/FW books

tneva82 wrote:

Mr.Pickels wrote:
I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.

They could but I really, really, really, really doubt random new custom-made-for-epic race is going to attract that much attention as providing good quality epic orks, tyranids and eldars would. Those have existing fanbase. Sort of like how it's cheaper to keep customer than get a new one.

It could be interesting idea once epic is running but to start with it would be risk. Not impossible one but risk.

Also in terms of playstyle what new ones you could come up with that isn't just reskinned orks/eldar/tyranids/IG/space marines? Sure you COULD come up with 100 races but can you come up with 100 distinct ones?

Crusade era would still have Orks, Eldar and Imperial Army, but yeah, the others would be missing.

I love the idea of GW delving into some of the Crusade factions, but I feel like it'd be better done at 40k scale (even though I don't currently play 40k and have no intention of getting back into it).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psychopomp wrote:
I got into epic with Epic 40K. I really should read the 2e rules someday to see why there was so much disappointment with what I thought was an amazing game. I did pick up Renegades, Warlords, and Hive War for a song, just for the extra fluff. I think I still have the cards stuck in a box somewhere, but I'm not sure about the books...

But even when I got into 40K 3e, I always felt like what 40K tries to do is best expressed in Epic scale. It always felt grander, more involved than the Parking Lot Blitzkrieg 40K eventually finished devolving into.

I started with Epic 40k back in '97, so I'm probably biased, actually had an Epic 40k army before I had a regular 40k army, back in the day one friend bought the 5th ed WHFB set, another bought the 2nd ed 40k set, and Epic came about a year after I started so I bought that set when it came out.

But I think it was likely because Epic 40k simplified the game, which people saw as removing depth, and maybe they were right.

But Epic 40k was built from the ground up to be a good game, not necessarily a good representation of the 40k universe on the table top, but a good game. It was super simple and the designers on occasion spoke about how they worked to trim it back to the bare minimum. That let it scale well from relatively small games to huge games, without becoming tedious affairs that would take multiple weekends to play. From memory, Rick Priestly said in an interview that he thought it was the best game GW have made purely as a game... though I can't find that interview now so maybe my brain just dreamt it up




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


And hey, go for a grander scale of battle than classic Epic. Being set during the Heresy, up the numbers of tanks and infantry (classic Epic being largely set in 40K).

Tanks in 40k are about 20% too small anyway, so the 'solution' to embiggen the scope of the game is pretty simple: leave titans, planes and tanks scaled as they are and reduce the size of infantry a little bit, and everything looks much better and truer to fluff immediately. So if e.g. infantry in Titanicus scale should be 8mm, just go to 6mm anyway, but do the tanks in 8mm. That would also account for the slightly higher level of detailling that's needed to make the tanks look good while not overburdening infantry with unnecessary details.

Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but at Epic scale the difference between tanks and infantry scales bothers me less than it does in 40k scale. So when I printed my Epic Marines I went with 8mm scale to the eye (which was about 8% bigger than the STLs out there), and yeah, they look a bit big next to the tanks, but IMO they still look good and to my eye an 8mm Marine looks better on the table than a 6mm one.

Here was one of my early test prints where I was deciding on the scale...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:

Mr.Pickels wrote:
I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.

It does work because quite a few of us are already doing it

Uh. How is that different to having heresy army?

Where's the new never heard xenos he mentioned? Are you fighting against xenos forces that haven't been covered before? Or vs orks/ig/chaos/other marines/tyranids?

Closest thing you could get with current gw models to crusade is marines vs orks but he's talking about bringing in new xenos armies never mentioned before or maybe referenced once or twice in BL/FW books

We have started with Orks, but are currently planning at & looking at the following: Squats (Demiurg/Votann - basically short guys), non-Imperium humans (with high-tech base), arachnid world (meant to be bugs/spiders but now thinking crabs ), then as a longer term goal looking at Rangdan and going back further into the Crusade. Some of these have rules already but we just adapt existing rules, elements of the Tyranid lists for the bugs, subbing in some Eldar rules for the 'hi-tech' humans.

There is a massive amount of miniature ranges at 6-8mm too, loads of sci-fi minis and bugs from other companies and for other games, and this is before you even look at the new 3D printed stuff.

Anyway, I was just trying to make the point that if you wanted to do something more unusual (which the GC is, like Unification wars, unlikely to get any sort of official release in the near or midterm future) most of the components are already there, and there is a really active and supportive community that will help you out and get involved too.
I do agree with you as an official release something like this would be so far down the pecking order of importance for GW and we will probably never see!

tneva82 wrote:

Mr.Pickels wrote:
I'm curious, could a "Great Crusade" release for Epic work? You have the space marines front and center, Primarchs getting found, weird/wild technology, new Xenos (or at least factions that never got models), and then later on have a Horus Heresy supplement with new missions like Istavaan, and so forth. For the Xenos, GW could use this as an opportunity to test new models/factions and see what's popular and what's not, and then transition that to the normal 40k scale. Limit shelf space to just starter sets for each faction and have split-up contents to come later as a drip-feed release.

They could but I really, really, really, really doubt random new custom-made-for-epic race is going to attract that much attention as providing good quality epic orks, tyranids and eldars would. Those have existing fanbase. Sort of like how it's cheaper to keep customer than get a new one.

It could be interesting idea once epic is running but to start with it would be risk. Not impossible one but risk.

Also in terms of playstyle what new ones you could come up with that isn't just reskinned orks/eldar/tyranids/IG/space marines? Sure you COULD come up with 100 races but can you come up with 100 distinct ones?

One option that might do well in a new 40k Epic - as we haven't seen an official line of them there before, off the top of my head - would be Epic Necrons. Maybe Epic AdMech, too.

The complaints were around taking the flavour out, which they addressed by adding some of it back in for Epic Armageddon.

If you want flavour or streamlined rules will determine which version of epic you like.

Jervis in 1998 wrote:The last thing I'd like to go on about isn't so much a rumour, so much
as
some of the nonsense I've seen written about Epic 40K. First of all, I
should point out that I designed the Epic game system (though Andy and
Gav
did most of the development work and army lists), and that it is the
game
system I am most proud of out of all those I've designed. This makes it
upsetting to see people saying that GW is disappointed with Epic and
that
it's been a failure. In fact we're very pleased with the game and will
keep
on supporting it. More to the point, what we're finding now is that,
contrary to popular opinion on the net, Epic has become something of a
'cult
game' and is becoming more and more popular as time goes along (i.e. the
percentage it makes up of total GW sales is _increasing_ as time goes
along,
and is now _higher_ than percentage sales were for the old system). One
final point about Epic, just in case some of you are tempted to
speculate
wildly (I know, as if you would : )); simply because the rules system
worked
so well for Epic, it does _not_ mean we're going to 'lift it' and use it
as
the basis of a new 40K game - OK!

Hope that helps,

Jervis

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but at Epic scale the difference between tanks and infantry scales bothers me less than it does in 40k scale. So when I printed my Epic Marines I went with 8mm scale to the eye (which was about 8% bigger than the STLs out there), and yeah, they look a bit big next to the tanks, but IMO they still look good and to my eye an 8mm Marine looks better on the table than a 6mm one.

Here was one of my early test prints where I was deciding on the scale...

Grats, your prints look great.

In my ''Mind Epic'' i'd still go with 6mm, and forego individual miniatures for most types of infantry anyway, in favor of some sort of 'swarm base' that represents a literal wave of gaunts, ork mobs or a rabble of cultist. Individual troopers would be reserved for more elite and high-profile types of units like marines, terminators or eldar. For tyranids, think of stuff like these:

Source https://anvilindustry.co.uk/rat-swarm

Source https://mierce-miniatures.com/index.php?act=pro&pre=mrm_dkl_vrs_tcw_bst_600_003

Source: http://www.splinteredlightminis.com/batswarm.html

Clearly you haven't seen my Ultramarines swarm



That's just a placeholder because I didn't have any bases on hand, so I just blutacked them down to a couple of bigger bases to keep them together.... but I find it oddly appealing nonetheless.

I think 10 man bases could be a possible change for a new version of Epic, probably a 32mm round might fit 10 marines.

Vorian wrote:
The complaints were around taking the flavour out, which they addressed by adding some of it back in for Epic Armageddon.

Interestingly enough, although the individual units might have lost detail and "flavor", the actual armies where one of the best representations of the factions in any 40k game.

Vorian wrote:
The complaints were around taking the flavour out, which they addressed by adding some of it back in for Epic Armageddon.

If you want flavour or streamlined rules will determine which version of epic you like.

Jervis in 1998 wrote:The last thing I'd like to go on about isn't so much a rumour, so much
as
some of the nonsense I've seen written about Epic 40K. First of all, I
should point out that I designed the Epic game system (though Andy and
Gav
did most of the development work and army lists), and that it is the
game
system I am most proud of out of all those I've designed. This makes it
upsetting to see people saying that GW is disappointed with Epic and
that
it's been a failure. In fact we're very pleased with the game and will
keep
on supporting it. More to the point, what we're finding now is that,
contrary to popular opinion on the net, Epic has become something of a
'cult
game' and is becoming more and more popular as time goes along (i.e. the
percentage it makes up of total GW sales is _increasing_ as time goes
along,
and is now _higher_ than percentage sales were for the old system). One
final point about Epic, just in case some of you are tempted to
speculate
wildly (I know, as if you would : )); simply because the rules system
worked
so well for Epic, it does _not_ mean we're going to 'lift it' and use it
as
the basis of a new 40K game - OK!

Hope that helps,

Jervis

I love how this is displayed as some sort of poem or ode/saga, passed down from antiquity. Words of wisdom from the game's creator

If anything I think GW are moving away from small miniatures, their ranges tend to be getting bigger. Yes they may have AT and AI, but those are centered around large vehicles, GW suddenly adding in 6-8mm infantry is very unlikely.

Either way Wpic is in safe hands within the fan communities, and the many alternative 3d party model manufacturers.

GW doing Epic again would only damage it, as it would be a flash in the pan, and more than likely be centrered around the HH.

Edit.
Epic 40,000 is the best version of Epic ever. Really like what Jercis said about it back in 1998.

Epic, more than most other scales, is also really well suited to 3D printing. You can have most of your supports on the bottom of the integral base, maybe 1 or 2 supports on the model itself that are easy to clean up and can't be seen once you've assembled them on their base.

I'd say it's preferable to moulded plastic, where you'd have to clean mould lines off insanely small details.

On bigger scale models you end up with little pock marks over much of the model from the supports that can be worse to clean up than mould lines.

I'd agree with that. Have been on a Warmaster printing binge lately.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Epic, more than most other scales, is also really well suited to 3D printing.

That's why I'm sceptical believing this rumour. I don't think 3d printing will hurt their normal 28mm+ stuff but Epic is the kind of thing anyone could very easily mimic pretty much all the detail of a model designed for 6-15mm and have an exact replica of, except maybe for a few larger kits like Titans. Why would they bring a specialist game back that COULD possibly be overtaken by 3d printed 'fakes' in a way their other lines don't have to worry about?

 Dysartes wrote:
One option that might do well in a new 40k Epic - as we haven't seen an official line of them there before, off the top of my head - would be Epic Necrons. Maybe Epic AdMech, too.

That would be sweet thing but runs into issue of loads of SKU's needed. Horus Heresy avoids that one which is why AT and epic originally started with horus heresy and why AT restarted with HH as well.

Does GW feel like commiting to huge line right away...

tneva82 wrote:

Does GW feel like commiting to huge line right away...

At the moment they are firing on all cylinders supporting the two main games, a handful of skirmish games -Kill Team, Warcry, Underworlds, Necromunda- and the occasional boxed standalone like Cursed City or Blackstone fortress. They could probably support a third main line after one of the skirmishes had run its course, if they also reduced the amount of standalones, the question is if they'd find it advisable to put their eggs in that basket.

In the coming year, we'll have 10th edition 40k, probably some new waves for their most important product line - Space Marines - and probably Cities of Sigmar for AoS late in the year, which is said to be a very big release that will stretch to much of 2024. On the ''We know it's coming, but have no idea when'' front we have Fulgrim and his faction for 40k, but that may be years off.

There are a lot of open questions about their longer term plans that can't be answered without insider knowledge. Most importantly, we do not know how long GW will hold the licenses for the assorted LotR Brands and produce the battle game, and how much production capacity is tied up in it. But we also do not know how long they expect to support the skirmishes, how well these are doing and what the long-term plans around that are. At the moment, there is a steady trickle of support for all of them, but that may change after the current expansion of e.g. Necromunda is furnished with the stuff that it's still missing.

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
One option that might do well in a new 40k Epic - as we haven't seen an official line of them there before, off the top of my head - would be Epic Necrons. Maybe Epic AdMech, too.

That would be sweet thing but runs into issue of loads of SKU's needed. Horus Heresy avoids that one which is why AT and epic originally started with horus heresy and why AT restarted with HH as well.

Does GW feel like commiting to huge line right away...

Yes I think this is the most likely scenario. 2 sprues which contain a mix of a few infantry types, rhino and landraider. Maybe an expansion or two with small boxsets but thats it. Otherwise the SKUs for a full range would go out of control (remember that Epic blisters used to cover 1/3 of a GW store wall, it was a main range!)

Rules-wise just copy Armageddon, then 'borrow' some of the fan made customisations* for Heresy-era - job done.

*this is the best case scenario, at least we will then know they will have been playtested

 Albertorius wrote:

But regular 40k wouldn't need to go that small, really. 15mm 40k looks amazing already, with nary a rule change (well, other than going back to old sized tables):

Spoiler:

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.