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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, in terms of unit prices we may be able to form a guess based on Aeronautica.

Xiphon Interceptors are £30 for 6. So I think we might see the same model count and price point for roughly same sized tanks, like Rhinos.

Fire Raptors are £30 for 2, so we may see that for Land Raider and equivalent sized vehicles.

I think Epic will be slightly more competitive than that because Aeronautica has different economics behind it. IA is more like Necromunda or Blood Bowl, where you can buy 1-2 boxes of models and can have a 'completed' playable force.

Meanwhile Epic requires a much wider range of models to build a fully playable army. I think we'll see some relatively good deals for things like core troops and tanks, while rarer / specialist units like planes & superheavies fetch a premium cost.

Weep at the 2000 catalogue nostalgia bomb!




I suspect it won't be any where near these prices!

So that Warhound image they accidentally posted and took down a while back was indeed from Epic. Not looking forward to rebasing all my titans. I also wish they went with rounded square bases instead of circles.

But… no more print lines! Could not be more excited for what the future holds.

They did say you won’t have to rebase your Titans. Essentially the thinner (shallower?) bases are a design choice to prevent Infantry looking too wee.

Having taken a closer look at the infantry, I'm perplexed by the choice of putting a tab between the model's legs. You can see those even in the group photo, and it looks pretty damn strange up close.

The bases are clearly custom, they couldn't do the old Epic style slot system in them?

Is anyone really going to bother re-basing their titans for a few mm height difference?

Jesus wept I don't have any hope of getting through even a small part of my pile of shame before I die, let alone bothering with things like that

 Pacific wrote:
I wonder though if they will have moved the rules 'off base' enough to make them unusable though. They have already done that with both the scale of the new game and round basing, which I would estimate will invalidate about 80-90% of existing armies (if you are sensitive about that sort of thing), based on what I have seen within the community.

The scale is approximately 6.35mm, about the same as the old Epic infantry, and E:A had no hard requirements for base size. I don't see any reason why old Epic armies will be unusable; though the old armor and especially Titans will be on the small side.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Having taken a closer look at the infantry, I'm perplexed by the choice of putting a tab between the model's legs. You can see those even in the group photo, and it looks pretty damn strange up close.

The bases are clearly custom, they couldn't do the old Epic style slot system in them?

They have to be cognisant of the existing, proxy and 3D print options for things like basing.

Custom basing will be one other thing that can be sold as an extra, and especially if the minis are too big to fit the standard Epic basing which is already available and extremely cheap.

Even the round basing format itself is an outlier Epic-wise, I suspect we are going to see a lot more examples of that as more is revealed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
They did say you won’t have to rebase your Titans. Essentially the thinner (shallower?) bases are a design choice to prevent Infantry looking too wee.

So what you’re saying is, I have to rebase my titans

(Aesthetics is 99% of the reason I play this game)

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Having taken a closer look at the infantry, I'm perplexed by the choice of putting a tab between the model's legs. You can see those even in the group photo, and it looks pretty damn strange up close.

The bases are clearly custom, they couldn't do the old Epic style slot system in them?

That might not be there in the final product, GW production shots often are surprisingly shabby, sometimes they paint resin masters or early casts, or blue-tack stuff on, leave gaps on the models and so on, there are even a few store photos where stuff is actually broken off

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Having taken a closer look at the infantry, I'm perplexed by the choice of putting a tab between the model's legs. You can see those even in the group photo, and it looks pretty damn strange up close.

The bases are clearly custom, they couldn't do the old Epic style slot system in them?

Tab is there for structural integrity I reckon. Plus as you’re best off painting on sprue, it gives a better surface area to glue on to the base when ready.

The Solar Auxilia could sort of stand in for Guard.

Now where are the Xenos? I swear GW keeps leaving money on the table, like they did with Adeptus Titanicus.

Iracundus wrote:


Now where are the Xenos?

It's Legions Imperialis, the title of the game. No xenos, just Horus Heresy.

I'd be all for this and I am mentally pumped but with leviathan having just arrived they've got my big hobby spend for the foreseeable until the pile of potential is sorted. So sadly the timing means this will be a "down the line" for me, especially given it needs a whole table of other terrain.

Iracundus wrote:
The Solar Auxilia could sort of stand in for Guard.

Now where are the Xenos? .

It’s the Crusade.

They’re dead, Dave. They’re all dead.

Top marks for that reference there MDG

Yes they said quite clearly on the preview, this is just HH.

Eldar and Orks came for Epic relatively soon after. I waited for similar to happen with Adeptus Titanicus, but it didn't. So my wallet remained closed as I already had enough for Imperial vs. Chaos mirror matches.

That's what I meant when I said GW leaves money on the table. I am sure there was significant demand for Xenos forces for Adeptus Titanicus and that there would be similar for this as well.

Given that 10th edition seems to be all about the 4th Tyrannic War, Tyranids might also be a worthwhile faction to consider.

Xenos make more sense for Epic than AT.

In terms of a pure Titan game, the Xenos currently lack many options. Eldar have three, Orks have (hold on) four.

And both lack the variety of weapons the Imperium and Chaos enjoy.

Now there’s absolutely nothing preventing new Titans and Weapons being added of course. But the lack of matching variety is less an issue in Epic than it is AT.

So we might well get Xenos for Epic in due course.

Even if GW doesn't jump on 40K or xenos in the near-term, there's going to be a big resurgence of Epic-scale third-party minis.

I'm excited by a new ruleset, but I'm also excited to have new plastic minis to play E:A with.

Finally a weapon stronger than Plasma blastgun for warhound???

The warhound weapons gave me hope for armiger and Atropos in plastic. Maybe Dominus too.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Xenos make more sense for Epic than AT.

In terms of a pure Titan game, the Xenos currently lack many options. Eldar have three, Orks have (hold on) four.

And both lack the variety of weapons the Imperium and Chaos enjoy.

Now there’s absolutely nothing preventing new Titans and Weapons being added of course. But the lack of matching variety is less an issue in Epic than it is AT.

So we might well get Xenos for Epic in due course.

There was significant expansion in the kinds and subtypes of Imperial Titan weaponry with AT. If Xenos Titans were to be introduced, they could similarly expand out the range of options rather than just restricting to the existing already mentioned ones. GW can do more than simply re-do the past. Tyranid Titans would also be ripe for a "build your monster" rules/variety.

expect to see Codex: Imperial Administrators, with a wide range of options before "Codex: Xenos" where there is a titan choice, a large vehicle, a small vehicle and a single base of generic "Xenos infantry"

 catbarf wrote:
Even if GW doesn't jump on 40K or xenos in the near-term, there's going to be a big resurgence of Epic-scale third-party minis.

I'm excited by a new ruleset, but I'm also excited to have new plastic minis to play E:A with.

Definitely agree with this, although I would say I'm slightly frightened as well as excited by prospect of a new ruleset.

It would be so unfair, considering two of (IMO) best rulesets ever written by GW in the past were for Epic, if we got a stinker this time around.

There is a lot of weight of expectation on the authors to get it right, I can tell you.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tab is there for structural integrity I reckon. Plus as you’re best off painting on sprue, it gives a better surface area to glue on to the base when ready.

I know what they're for, I'm wondering why the previous, visually cleaner system wasn't used instead.

I'm really not looking forward to clearing those tabs from a hundred individual infantry models.

Tsagualsa wrote:

That might not be there in the final product, GW production shots often are surprisingly shabby, sometimes they paint resin masters or early casts, or blue-tack stuff on, leave gaps on the models and so on, there are even a few store photos where stuff is actually broken off

You can see even see it here with one of the Predator tanks. The turret on the right one is a bit crooked.
But most of the time that isn't because they are shabby its more so they only need to paint a single body while still showing all the options for the webstore. For example many heads are only bluetacked on so they can switch to a helmet for photos

So. Where are guys insisting its not epic. Board game for sure

Gw isn't subtle. When they tease at epic it's epic. They are about as subtle as icbm

 Matrindur wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

That might not be there in the final product, GW production shots often are surprisingly shabby, sometimes they paint resin masters or early casts, or blue-tack stuff on, leave gaps on the models and so on, there are even a few store photos where stuff is actually broken off

You can see even see it here with one of the Predator tanks. The turret on the right one is a bit crooked.
But most of the time that isn't because they are shabby its more so they only need to paint a single body while still showing all the options for the webstore. For example many heads are only bluetacked on so they can switch to a helmet for photos

Also keep in mind the ‘Eavy Metal team paint prints, not the end kit. So droopy barrel may be an artefact of that process.

Yea modern plastic GW sticks are straight unless someone sit on the box during transport or you bent it yourself.

About prices: I have the old German White Dwarf #17 from May 1997, when Epic 40.000 was released.

Issue has Mail Order Pages with Intro content.
EPIC, 40k 2nd & WHFB 5th Starter Set are all marked with 149 DM.

Also Epic was adviced as "5mm Scale".

artific3r wrote:
So that Warhound image they accidentally posted and took down a while back was indeed from Epic. Not looking forward to rebasing all my titans. I also wish they went with rounded square bases instead of circles.

But… no more print lines! Could not be more excited for what the future holds.

Indeed. Now you'll have mold lines and filled negative spaces instead