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.

Scale doesn’t matter to me. I just want the models. I’ve a near complete set of 2nd Ed Epic rules, so provided both players are using the same era of models, the exact scale matters not one jot.

We can bet on a new Epic getting announced as soon as Doc finally completes his 2nd ed Epic rules collection

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Scale doesn’t matter to me. I just want the models. I’ve a near complete set of 2nd Ed Epic rules, so provided both players are using the same era of models, the exact scale matters not one jot.

3rd edition Epic doesn't really even care what era the models are from. The models don't even have to be based the same way (though smaller bases make a unit easier to get into cover, they also make it easier to hit them with blast templates). You can only fit 2 units into combat with 1 enemy, which stops players basing for advantage to get either more or less units in combat, and snap firing (where you have to halt 10cm away from the enemy unless it's the assault phase) means even a unit on a small base has some area that they can deny the enemy passage.

 tauist wrote:
We can bet on a new Epic getting announced as soon as Doc finally completes his 2nd ed Epic rules collection

If anyone wants to chip in on a complete copy of Titan Legions, we can summon New Epic!

No really. That’s the only one I need.

And don’t forget, the day I travelled to Orkney, the last wave of Orks was revealed.

I are the magik


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Scale doesn’t matter to me. I just want the models. I’ve a near complete set of 2nd Ed Epic rules, so provided both players are using the same era of models, the exact scale matters not one jot.

3rd edition Epic doesn't really even care what era the models are from. The models don't even have to be based the same way (though smaller bases make a unit easier to get into cover, they also make it easier to hit them with blast templates). You can only fit 2 units into combat with 1 enemy, which stops players basing for advantage to get either more or less units in combat, and snap firing (where you have to halt 10cm away from the enemy unless it's the assault phase) means even a unit on a small base has some area that they can deny the enemy passage.

Also a fair point. And one can always, if necessary, rescale Blast Templates to compensate?

 xttz wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
No love for Apocalypse 2.0? It was just 40K scale Epic rules after all.

I liked it, but there was zero support for it.

I'm sure the global pandemic arriving ~6 months after release didn't help to inspire support for a game reliant on getting multiple players together at once.

It's a shame it never got a reprint though. We had an end of year Apoc game at my local club just this week and it went great.

Eh, the way they released it feels more like a splash release that was never planned to get updates rather than something curtailed by the pandemic. If they planned on supporting it like a "normal" release, I doubt we'd have gotten literally everything in the month of release like we did rather than spread out. The way it was done, updates would only need to have been PDF updates rather than books and we got none of those.

Apoc is often going to be a one and done because its so heavily niche in how many people can often play it. I'm glad its a thing GW have continued to support each edition, but its only ever going to be a super niche thing for 40K.

Heck even just getting feedback for it would take ages considering how few games will be played with it compared to regular editions

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 tauist wrote:
We can bet on a new Epic getting announced as soon as Doc finally completes his 2nd ed Epic rules collection

If anyone wants to chip in on a complete copy of Titan Legions, we can summon New Epic!

No really. That’s the only one I need.

And don’t forget, the day I travelled to Orkney, the last wave of Orks was revealed.

I are the magik

Well, I do have a complete set of Space Marine/Titan Legions (GW's epic scale game that is actually the most fun!) and...still no new version of Epic has arrived.

I suspect that will happen once I get it all painted up - a goal of mine for the '23/'24 season!

I think that, while it feels inevitable that GW will eventually get an Epic Scale game out there again, I also feel that it is mostly my nostalgia/desire fueling this, and if anything comes out it will basically be AT with tanks and planes. Maybe?

 stonehorse wrote:
Oh and the game designers have said that Epic 40,000 is the best version of Epic they have made.

Andy may have been happy with his design for Epic 40,000, but when your game design alienates the existing player base and doesn't bring in sufficient new players, you've not actually done a good job in designing a new version of the game - something which seems to have been recognised, even by Mr. Chambers. As shown by BFG, the same framework can be completely fine as a new game, but not as a new version of an existing game.

E:A, on the other hand, sold well enough to be 400% (or more) to target upon release, and got positive feedback from the existing player base, as well as bringing in new players. I'll agree that the core book needed another proof-reading pass before release - I should know, I effectively did one post-release - but the work was underway to design the factions that hadn't seen a full release, including the likes of Necrons and Dark Eldar. Unfortunately, despite the strong sales, someone at HQ had it out for the game, and knee-capped it before it could get all the core armies out.

 Dysartes wrote:
E:A, on the other hand, sold well enough to be 400% (or more) to target upon release

That could just be that they had bad targets, lol. GW frequently either under or over predict by large margins.

They probably just projected that sales would be in line with the trickle of Epic sales they'd been getting previously (when the game was barely being kept alive by the likes of Andy Chambers, Jervis Johnson, Gav Thorpe, Warwick Kinrade and a dedicated group of fans around the world) but when it released it got 4x whatever that trickle was.

All games have a spike in sales at release and that spike is pretty difficult to predict, and then it's similarly hard to predict how the size of that spike translates to longer term sales. Look at the number of limited releases GW have had that are still sitting on shelves now... or the number of limited releases that didn't last the first hour of being up for preorder. GW doesn't intentionally do that, they just can't predict the initial spike.

Unfortunately, despite the strong sales, someone at HQ had it out for the game, and knee-capped it before it could get all the core armies out.

I think that's the key problem. GW wanted AoS to succeed badly enough that they rode out the massive amount of negative publicity from killing WHFB and turned it into a popular game.

If GW wanted Epic 40k to succeed, and had a mindset of "well, the customers didn't like it because it was too big of a change, but we think this is a solid game so are going to put some effort into making it popular" then it could have been quite different. Instead it seemed to be more like "Well, that release didn't go as well as expected... we never liked Epic anyway so lets kill it".

Epic 40k was far from universally hated, there was a pretty strong community that kept it going and the original creators liked it enough to keep writing publications on it, but unless those publications were being announced widely and sold through stores it was never going to be enough.

I think that might also have coincided with the era when bean counters who knew nothing about gaming first took over release planning, rather than the design studio. There is a fascinating story about that stage of GW's growth in, I think, some interview about Gorkamorka.

By fascinating obviously I mean frustrating and sad.

I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.

 tauist wrote:
I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.

That depends on a lot of factors in customer behaviour that no one can predict atm because 20 years have passed and the whole market as well as GWs offerings are totally different than they were long ago. It might play out that way, but a good Epic game might as well lead people to pick up a small force for 40k, or branch out into another army, or even just to buy some of the BL novels and books which are in general absurdly profitable. The pessimistic view is that Epic would 'cannibalize' 40k sales, the optimistic outlook is that you'd make sales with Epic where you'd otherwise have made no sale at all, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. Overall, i'd wager that Epic would probably be a net positive, but we have no real way to know until they try.

 tauist wrote:
I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.

Looking at Aeronautica frames I think GW has nothing to fear on that front this time round, with the... embiggening... of the scale and cranking up the detail level we-re getting just 2-3 multipart vehicle models per frame where they would previously be single 1-2 inch pieces.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 tauist wrote:
I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.

Looking at Aeronautica frames I think GW has nothing to fear on that front this time round, with the... embiggening... of the scale and cranking up the detail level we-re getting just 2-3 multipart vehicle models per frame where they would previously be single 1-2 inch pieces.

Yeah, these days I think GW would make Epic as expensive as just collecting a 40k army, lol.

But yeah, maybe back in the day Epic was too cheap of a game for GW. But it was only really cheap to get into, if you wanted to expand your force a lot of it was metal, titans were pretty expensive also, you could certainly still spend a lot on a army, still not as much as a full 40k army, but I'd suggest many of GW's customers don't build full on large 40k armies anyway.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 tauist wrote:
I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.

Looking at Aeronautica frames I think GW has nothing to fear on that front this time round, with the... embiggening... of the scale and cranking up the detail level we-re getting just 2-3 multipart vehicle models per frame where they would previously be single 1-2 inch pieces.

Yeah, these days I think GW would make Epic as expensive as just collecting a 40k army, lol.

But yeah, maybe back in the day Epic was too cheap of a game for GW. But it was only really cheap to get into, if you wanted to expand your force a lot of it was metal, titans were pretty expensive also, you could certainly still spend a lot on a army, still not as much as a full 40k army, but I'd suggest many of GW's customers don't build full on large 40k armies anyway.

Even if Epic were cheaper than 40k in its reincarnation, that would offer a cheap route to get people 'in the loop' with the 40k universe and lead to further sales down the road, or even allow existing 40k players to have an Epic version of their army as a 'cheap' side project. I don't see it substituting 40k really, it's still a vastly different game and probably fun for a set of people with substantial, but not total overlap. Anyway, just getting more people near to the 'GW universe' has to be worth something, they make money by selling paints, magazines, novels, licensed games etc. too, not only with the main line games. Every wargamer who gets his 'fix' by playing a couple of games with his finished Epic army, but still picks up a novel now and then, a Necromunda gang for some quick skirmishes or a 40k character just for painting still is a net-positive and potentially a customer for Warhammer+ or even a mainstream game in the future.

Tsagualsa wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 tauist wrote:
I can only think of one thing going against Epic from a manufacturer's POV: Player's financial investment level. IIRC, getting into Epic was super cheap compared to getting into 40K or WFB of the time. You bought one (small) plastic kit, maybe two blisters of tanks/artillery, and one larger titan, and you would be set for a while. A lot of the game was about learning to "play your army", so it would be some time before you'd start to think you'd need more models. Such a framework doesn't encourage amassing a big pile of shame, and lets face it, those piles of shame are what keep GW happy.

Looking at Aeronautica frames I think GW has nothing to fear on that front this time round, with the... embiggening... of the scale and cranking up the detail level we-re getting just 2-3 multipart vehicle models per frame where they would previously be single 1-2 inch pieces.

Yeah, these days I think GW would make Epic as expensive as just collecting a 40k army, lol.

But yeah, maybe back in the day Epic was too cheap of a game for GW. But it was only really cheap to get into, if you wanted to expand your force a lot of it was metal, titans were pretty expensive also, you could certainly still spend a lot on a army, still not as much as a full 40k army, but I'd suggest many of GW's customers don't build full on large 40k armies anyway.

Even if Epic were cheaper than 40k in its reincarnation, that would offer a cheap route to get people 'in the loop' with the 40k universe and lead to further sales down the road, or even allow existing 40k players to have an Epic version of their army as a 'cheap' side project. I don't see it substituting 40k really, it's still a vastly different game and probably fun for a set of people with substantial, but not total overlap. Anyway, just getting more people near to the 'GW universe' has to be worth something, they make money by selling paints, magazines, novels, licensed games etc. too, not only with the main line games. Every wargamer who gets his 'fix' by playing a couple of games with his finished Epic army, but still picks up a novel now and then, a Necromunda gang for some quick skirmishes or a 40k character just for painting still is a net-positive and potentially a customer for Warhammer+ or even a mainstream game in the future.

Yep, I think more options are a good thing.

I've never really seen the logic in one GW game "cannibalising" another. If people want a 40k army, they'll build a 40k army, if they want an Epic army, they'll build an Epic army, if GW doesn't sell Epic, they'll buy it elsewhere or just not spend any money at all.

For years I spent nothing on GW games because I didn't like the last edition of WHFB and 40k doesn't appeal to me as a game (the models are cool, the game I haven't enjoyed since the 90's and early 00's). The only reason I've spent any money at GW the past few years is that they brought back BB, AI and AT... if they brought back Epic I'd have more reason to buy GW product, not less.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Even if Epic were cheaper than 40k in its reincarnation, that would offer a cheap route to get people 'in the loop' with the 40k universe and lead to further sales down the road, or even allow existing 40k players to have an Epic version of their army as a 'cheap' side project. I don't see it substituting 40k really, it's still a vastly different game and probably fun for a set of people with substantial, but not total overlap. Anyway, just getting more people near to the 'GW universe' has to be worth something, they make money by selling paints, magazines, novels, licensed games etc. too, not only with the main line games. Every wargamer who gets his 'fix' by playing a couple of games with his finished Epic army, but still picks up a novel now and then, a Necromunda gang for some quick skirmishes or a 40k character just for painting still is a net-positive and potentially a customer for Warhammer+ or even a mainstream game in the future.

This is precisely how I started with Warhammer. Read a White Dwarf issue in 1995 and decided Titans & tiny tanks were the most interesting thing, so started on collecting Epic stuff. The smaller scale made it easier to put together Imperial & Ork armies at the same time and play games.

It wasn't until about some time later that I ended up with a copy of Necromunda as my first 28mm scale purchase, then eventually got some cheap 40k models.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I think that might also have coincided with the era when bean counters who knew nothing about gaming first took over release planning, rather than the design studio. There is a fascinating story about that stage of GW's growth in, I think, some interview about Gorkamorka.

By fascinating obviously I mean frustrating and sad.

There was all through the Kirby era a growing sense of bean counters and managers who were ever more distant from their actual customers and ever more focused on the metrics and numbers of the company. Now lets not be silly, Kirby did do good things in his early days and GW's management financially has a very good proven track record of giving them stability. Even their policy of never taking out loans or big investors has proven to give them a powerful level of robustness over the years. Plus they've never had to contend with a big name or other firm taking out massive loans and investment to muscle into the wargaming market. So GW never had to rapidly deploy or grow, it could grow naturally and steadily and with the safety net of being the biggest in their market.

That said the bean counter view certainly did result in a view of games being quick turn arounds on investment. We got a whole slew of GW starting games and killing them pretty quickly along with more and more focus on big selling model lines and cutting investment to lower selling ones even within strong games - eg old world and 40K. You just have to look at things like Dark Eldar and Sisters of Battle getting no investment for long periods; at Marines getting insane levels of investment; or how Old World got left out entirely for a time; or the insane choice to end Old World and create AoS rather than just invest into Old World.

These were all choices made by people looking at returns on investment as their data and not polling customer feedback; not understanding the context of actual choice in the market. They didn't understand "why" customers were buying what they were, they just saw the sales patterns and tried to maximise them. Which for a time does work. Investing more in marines does produce more profit; cutting side games that profit slower and not as well as marines so that they've more money for marines makes sense. It does work but its not sustainable. It also ends up weakening their product and image.
Heck look at how many smaller firms started up just making alternate versions of GW games. Many of them generating hundreds to millions in Kickstarter campaigns.


I think GW has moved on from those times. Not only have they a solid amount of profit and money to invest right now; but they are also more aware of niches and that getting a good return on investment doesn't mean just going for the best return on investment every time. That there is strength in diversifying their product portfolio. Heck that within a product line, eg 40K, diversifying actually helps bolster sales of their biggest selling line - marines. Giving Xenos and other factions updates and regular updates generates more hype and attention and opponents for hteir marine customers. It also respects that many people might only have one or two armies they collect so if GW doesn't invest into those armies, those customers are free to choose other product lines and might well use that to invest outside of GW, instead of just starting another GW army (another good reason to diversify the GW portfolio of games)

As my FLGS manager puts it, as disconnected as Kirby was from the customer base, his legacy is a production and distribution network that is unrivalled in all the world, not just in the tabletop gaming industry. Nobody else delivers new product on the same day every week in every store on every continent.

Not only that, but they've also steadily bought up more and more of their production machinery and skills. You look at their cuts with plastic and the poses and detail they can do now and its really fantastic stuff.

Many other firms working in plastics often need to have loads of insanely small parts to achieve the same as one or two cuts on a GW model part.


For all their weaknesses in things like rules writing, GW has some undeniably highly talented model makers. Plus having everything from CAD to mould production to casting to production in-house means that they can streamline and communicate very effectively through the production system. Designers can talk to the mould makers; to the cutters, to the production - that level of quick back and forth internally builds in a lot of failsafes.


Other firms hiring other companies to make moulds and even do production have much slower processes of communication and that's before you factor in potential language and culture communication issues. There's more than a few horror tales of companies hiring factories in china only to find that whilst the demo models were fine, the actual production ones have legions of problems that don't become apparent until they were shipped. Or just the slower aspects of different timezones, working hours and languages making feedback slower to process.



GW are in a very powerful and robust position, heck the fact they can produce all that they do in the UK on UK wages is another massive feather in their cap when so many other firms just design something and then have a factory in india/china make it for them.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
As my FLGS manager puts it, as disconnected as Kirby was from the customer base, his legacy is a production and distribution network that is unrivalled in all the world, not just in the tabletop gaming industry. Nobody else delivers new product on the same day every week in every store on every continent.

Wish that was true for the various nearby FLGS.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
As my FLGS manager puts it, as disconnected as Kirby was from the customer base, his legacy is a production and distribution network that is unrivalled in all the world, not just in the tabletop gaming industry. Nobody else delivers new product on the same day every week in every store on every continent.

Yeah... not even GW, really . Not even with their own stores, I can attest personally to that. But they really tried. Usually UPS fethed it up somewhere.

Lets be fair the last 2 years were royally messed up for absolutely everyone.

I recall multiple FLGS complaining they weren't getting stock in time long before covid made things worse. I don't think I ever preordered anything though the local official GW store to know if they are reliable, if I'm gonna preorder something at full price I'll just order direct and at least get it delivered to my door, lol.

 Overread wrote:
Lets be fair the last 2 years were royally messed up for absolutely everyone.

I'm more talking like 10 years ago when I was working there

Cross-posting, as I think this funding campaign could be of real interest to players of previous editions of Epic: https://www.myminifactory.com/frontier/full-spectrum-dominance-1309