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.

 kodos wrote:
just remember the WC guys talking about the size of the Contemptor being Marine size, it will be a 16mm game tomorrow

These presenter people are the same ones that did some of the most wet-paper-baggish presentations ever at Warhammerfest, i think GW puts enthusiasm-reducing chemicals in their water to prevent them from building a fanbase and running of to Youtube

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:For someone with an old army, it may be as simple as basing their bases, just to raise the overall profile.

Tanks maybe not such a simple hypothetical solution.

I think it will be ok to just base older tanks. Bases can then be filled with extra models, bit of terrain etc.



YMMV of course. But the bases should take up about the same amount of space as an unbased new model.

If I end up with more than enough of the new models to run full armies, then I'll probably just reuse my older stuff as 'planetary defence forces', which would explain away why they don't need to be so big.

kodos wrote:just remember the WC guys talking about the size of the Contemptor being Marine size, it will be a 16mm game tomorrow

I can't believe they brought Epic back as a 25mm game. Scale creep!

 Tastyfish wrote:
Ooh, what's the recipe for that Krytos green? Just Sons of Horus over Lupercal?

Thanks. I went with a custom mix using Scale75 Fantasy and Games paints:

1 part Riff Green
2 to 3 parts Hellhound Flesh

Airbrushed. Gives a nice paleish green without it looking washed out

 kodos wrote:
just remember the WC guys talking about the size of the Contemptor being Marine size, it will be a 16mm game tomorrow

Well I have thought for a long time that 40k would work better at 15mm so I wouldn't be disappointed!

Not Online!!! wrote:
My issue is, GW already has logistics issues plaguing support for now what are supposed to be 3 mainline games. 40k, AoS and HH. This is another one and then we have ToW aswell.

Is this a mainline game? This seems like it will fall under the nebulous auspice of 'Boxed Games'.

Sarouan wrote:
This below is an 3000 points Imperial Guard army for Epic Armaggedon :



Doesn't feel Epic too, does it ?

There are over 30 tanks in that army, compared to the 5 in the Marine army in NuEpic. Were you trying to prove my point?

Sarouan wrote:
The point is, all of the armies shown in these pictures were never built from a single box, be it core, starter or launch. It's a collection built with time (and lot of money too).

Comparing it with that new box that will be obviously NOT the endgame of your collection is futile.

Was that your point? 'Cause it sure didn't feel like it when you made your first post. Hey! Wait a sec! how did those goal posts get way over there?

BTW, here's another starter box:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Spoiler:

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

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

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Epic may be a slow burn thing.

The feel of an Epic game is like nothing else I’ve played (not that I for one have a wide frame of reference). But it’s a visually spectacular one. Easy to paint too.

This is a killer combo. Personally I'm really liking how the new bases make titans feel larger.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


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

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

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

Yeah actually now that I look at it closer, I am also seeing the same discrepancies that Skink is seeing.

The first base in the image is 775px wide, which if 25mm means 31px = 1mm. But the Marine in the front left is 274px tall (to the top of the head, not the backpack) which means it's close to 9mm tall.

Still not big enough to be 8mm, but maybe it really is exactly one quarter the size of 40K; a 'heroic 7mm' if you will.

Gimme one of those new Leman Russes and in about ten seconds I'll give you a definite scale. Guess we'll just have to wait for release to finally put this question to bed.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
The psychology of pricing is so fascinating, and clearly isn't rational, rather highly subjective.

Just thinking about it personally, I love the look of this box (minus the frightful lack of transports), and as an Epic Armageddon fan, the "size" in volume of the box looks like a good army...

... but price will be a weird factor. At say $170-ish, I know I will buy two of these and give away the extra book...

... at $200 I would buy one...

... at $250-300, I won't buy any.

Just a funny observation that our brains create pretty arbitrary break points where a thing can go from "awesome" to "crap" quite suddenly.

I find the pricing of Warhammer equally fascinating and some people mentioned inflation, but I don’t think GW obeys outside forces like “inflation” or “exchange rates”.

So I came up with a GW specific metric, which I call the Rhino Price Index (or RPI, sure it’ll catch on).

In 1989 Space Marine was released for £19.99, at the same time you could by a 40K Rhino for £4.99.
Today the 40K Rhino is £32.50, which means the epic box should be £130, or $210.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Is this a mainline game? This seems like it will fall under the nebulous auspice of 'Boxed Games'.

It sure feels like a Boxed Games one.

Was that your point? 'Cause it sure didn't feel like it when you made your first post. Hey! Wait a sec! how did those goal posts get way over there?

Nope, my point was that your "Epic feeling" is simply totally subjective and depending of the rules you play with. The number "feels" different from your expectations, your vision and the actual number you played with said version. It's not the same if it 1st edition, Epic 40k, Epic Armaggedon or even Netepic.

Also, criticising the number on a "core box" is like criticising the number of models from "Warhammer 40,000: Introductory Set" and says it doesn't represent a full army played in Warhammer 40k. Of course it doesn't, it's not the full collection you'll end playing in regular games. Comparing with the number of miniatures on a different scale (6mm is definitely smaller than what we have here with the new game) and with different details (mind you, that box you show had a lot of monopose miniatures and there was no Titan as I said before) is also misleading, IMHO.


As for the "scale creep", I also thought they were bigger than what I saw in other "8mm" 3D printed models from my own experience. I don't mind, honestly : bigger means easier to paint.

And if there are less infantry models in a detachment, it's actually more encouraging to finish it for me.

scatter dice...

never understood this thing, 1st, and earlier 40k, had a better way.

the actual template had a 6 pointed clock face on it, numbered, roll a d6, scatter in the direction of the arrow on the template itself

no parallax issues

can also use a d12 which I have seen

beast_gts wrote:
10 Things You Need To Know About Warhammer: The Horus Heresy – Legions Imperialis (WarCom)...

I'm guardedly optimistic about the touted flexibility in force creation...

Combine that with the comprehensive force list in the main book...

leopard wrote:
scatter dice...

never understood this thing, 1st, and earlier 40k, had a better way.

the actual template had a 6 pointed clock face on it, numbered, roll a d6, scatter in the direction of the arrow on the template itself

no parallax issues

can also use a d12 which I have seen

The point of a scatter dice is that you simply roll the dice and look at the arrow. You don't have to place a scatter template or use a d12 while wondering with corner you'll take into account.

Nowadays, it's easy to make one. Hell even 3D printing one doesn't take a lot of ressources.

And if you really don't want to use one (like you don't want to buy anything GW), just use your own methods. Like you said, it works too.

RazorEdge wrote:

Looks like the orders are:
-- First Fire
-- Advance
-- March
-- Charge
-- Fall Back

Sarouan wrote:

leopard wrote:
scatter dice...

never understood this thing, 1st, and earlier 40k, had a better way.

the actual template had a 6 pointed clock face on it, numbered, roll a d6, scatter in the direction of the arrow on the template itself

no parallax issues

can also use a d12 which I have seen

The point of a scatter dice is that you simply roll the dice and look at the arrow. You don't have to place a scatter template or use a d12 while wondering with corner you'll take into account.

Nowadays, it's easy to make one. Hell even 3D printing one doesn't take a lot of ressources.

And if you really don't want to use one (like you don't want to buy anything GW), just use your own methods. Like you said, it works too.

oh I know the point on it, and in general its fine, its just so open to arguments when playing people who enjoy the argument phase above all else

it does help if people read the bit about rolling it close to the template, not the other side of the board, behind a building, or perhaps in a totally different building.

it does have one massive advantage though, as yet GW have not round a way to put a "modifier" on it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 schoon wrote:

RazorEdge wrote:

Looks like the orders are:
-- First Fire
-- Advance
-- March
-- Charge
-- Fall Back

all of these make perfect sense, and hopefully are quite intuitive in what they permit you to do. its also a good sign in another way if Titans still get the same orders they have now (flexibility of having appropriate orders for units)

looks like tokens for the orders, sadly not nice bright colours, but gladly nice sized ones. hopefully the sheet is available outside the box as well, no huge loss if not as can always make your own easily enough (heck 20mm MDF discs, splodge of colour on one side, job done)

also a good sign for me is the amount of text next to each order is quite small, so nice and simple

Still got Epic Armies and loads of terrain....sounds like this is bigger scale?

Shame that, was hoping to have battlefields ready to go (would still have got some new stuff).

Still got all the old Card/Plastic tower blocks too, plus loads of other cool stuff.

VAYASEN wrote:
Still got Epic Armies and loads of terrain....sounds like this is bigger scale?

Shame that, was hoping to have battlefields ready to go (would still have got some new stuff).

Still got all the old Card/Plastic tower blocks too, plus loads of other cool stuff.

to be honest I would have zero issues playing with or against a force that was in part or in whole older models, I used to have the old stuff, I wish I still had it

leopard wrote:
scatter dice...
never understood this thing, 1st, and earlier 40k, had a better way.
the actual template had a 6 pointed clock face on it, numbered, roll a d6, scatter in the direction of the arrow on the template itself
no parallax issues
can also use a d12 which I have seen

first of all it means that GW just copy&paste existing rules into a new book rather than making a new game or tried to improve it

having a template with numbers and using D6 (1D6 or 2D6) is not new and other games have used that for a while now, but the original rules come with that, so GW keeps it

 kodos wrote:

leopard wrote:
scatter dice...
never understood this thing, 1st, and earlier 40k, had a better way.
the actual template had a 6 pointed clock face on it, numbered, roll a d6, scatter in the direction of the arrow on the template itself
no parallax issues
can also use a d12 which I have seen

first of all it means that GW just copy&paste existing rules into a new book rather than making a new game or tried to improve it

having a template with numbers and using D6 (1D6 or 2D6) is not new and other games have used that for a while now, but the original rules come with that, so GW keeps it

Taking inspiration of previous games is not "copy and paste". We don't have enough details on the actual rules to state that. Besides, you really don't want to use that slippery slope given you're a big fan of Mantic Games and they kinda did exactly that with their recent games, you know.

I don't know if any templates in one of Mantic games, wo which slippery slope are you meaning?

and you really think that a scatter dice and a template without markings is less slippery than a template with numbers?
so I guess you never played any games using them

PS: if it is copy & paste or inspiration we will see when the rules are out
but given that the picture shows the GW standard templates we have for 20+ years now the chance that they got inspired by old rules and it just happened that they are identical is low

 kodos wrote:
I don't know if any templates in one of Mantic games, wo which slippery slope are you meaning?

Mantic Games: Armada litterally using the game system of Black Seas from Warlord Games as base.

So you really don't want to go that way, trust me.

It's not even a good argument, anyway. New game systems nowadays are rarely innovative and always have inspirations of what was made before and worked in some of their mechanisms. It's natural and logical given the sheer number that are released every year.

Wait for the full rules and see what is good and what is not in it. Using old templates isn't necessarily bad. If it doesn't satisfy you, you will always have the possibility to use older systems, or other ones from other sources.

Still slightly misty eyed at that second edition starter, remember it well - while I thought the rules from 1st were better (opinions vary naturally) the actual 2nd boxed set was way better in all but one regard, the varied terrain of the 1st one was nicer to look at. a minor point

getting basically three armies in the box was excellent

 Pacific wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

I think they look just fine, they look large enough its easy to tell unit types visually which is really all that matters

Sarouan wrote:

 kodos wrote:
I don't know if any templates in one of Mantic games, wo which slippery slope are you meaning?

Mantic Games: Armada litterally using the game system of Black Seas from Warlord Games as base.

So you really don't want to go that way, trust me.

well I don't think movement templates and blast templates with scatter dice are the same, but whatever

and there was a reason why templates with scatter dice were removed, although templates have a big advantage for such games and there are more options between "no templates at all" and "scatter dice"

Eumerin wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

tneva82 wrote:

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

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

Aren't Horus Heresy marines specifically different from 40k marines, in the way they were made ? I think in the background, HH marines are actually made from humans and don't have that "buffed up" constitution like in modern 40k. Or at least, that's how they justify the difference.