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.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Size comparisons from WarCom.

Spoiler:

Sigh... time to mute this thread for the next couple pages of scale discussion, i guess...

IMHO it's not too bad, the tanks are a lot more massive in side-by-side comparison, but i think it will not be too apparent on the actual tabletop unless you put them literally next to each other. The titans are another affair, but then the old metal ones have been universally panned for being wildly out of scale and much too small even if you take the lower-end estimates from the background as their canon size, so the new ones are more suitable in my opinion.

Yes me too, lol.

I'll just say, as someone that uses GW originals, Vanguard proxies and newer/bigger 3D prints, when they are at arms length on the tabletop, and not in front of a macro lense, for the infantry and tanks at least it is not that noticeable. This is something any historical gamer has been doing for decades, which is having disparate miniature ranges in one army from different manufacturers, and it's very rare that they all line up exactly. I wouldn't mount these new guys on the same base as the classics, and indeed for the titans it is very noticeable, but otherwise I can not sympathise at all with some of the (thankfully very few) people in the FB groups talking about dumping their existing armies and replacing it all with new.

huh the most surprising to me is the leman russ. the bane blade seems like it got a lot bigger but that's because they only showed it next to original space marine era baneblades. here is on of those next to a forgeworld bane blade from the Armageddon era from my personal collection.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Size comparisons from WarCom.

Spoiler:

Sigh... time to mute this thread for the next couple pages of scale discussion, i guess...

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a twist discussing a scale in a thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale Hell, GW themselves have now done 2 articles dedicated to the scale (aside from it being mentioned casually in basically every article).

We have to put up with Tyranid news discussion broken up across 2 threads, and page upon page of wishlisting/speculation/"I like that"/"I don't like that"/off topic discussion on every other N&R thread, but god forbid we discuss scale for a game that's interesting almost entirely because of its scale




Automatically Appended Next Post:

lurch wrote:
huh the most surprising to me is the leman russ. the bane blade seems like it got a lot bigger but that's because they only showed it next to original space marine era baneblades. here is on of those next to a forgeworld bane blade from the Armageddon era from my personal collection.

Is the green one in the bottom of the Warcom image the same one as in your pic?

I was fully expecting everything to grow a lot compared to even the FW stuff (which itself was bigger than the old Space Marine / Epic 40k era stuff).

Aeronautica Imperialis stuff grew about 25-35% relative to its FW incarnation. I have a FW Warhound and it's tiny next to the new plastic AT Warhound, probably comes up to roughly its waist and I think the feet are about half the size.

This article has cemented me in as buying into this in a big way. I don't really think there is a huge difference in size compared to my old collection. My classic marine army isn't exactly the biggest force in my entire collection, so I could replace almost all of it with these and not really loose much of an investment.

The biggest factor for me was if the models were much bigger than say vanguard skinners & ad mech, for which I have huge forces of.

The new bases are thicker than the ones I use/intend to keep using (By a good 1mm by the looks of it) so that will also help even the collection out overall.

I think the only thing that will be noticeable different that I might have issue with is my 1997 leman russes, compared to these new ones. But I will still stick to my plan of keeping things like that as 'planetary defence forces', and use the new ones as my 'proper' imperial force. The new super-heavies are huge, but again I'm not going to loose much sleep if the handful I have are retired from gaming. I've already got some 10/15mm tank I use for my space skaven force- I really can't wait to replace these with suped-up version made from these new kits!

I'm pleased to see the rhino is in a 10 pack (shocked even) and even more pleased to see that it is about equal to the vanagurd ones (Which again, I have waaaaay to many to want to replace) but the rhino is always one of my fav Epic models to paint. The new kit is likely to be the one to bankrupt me (I've already been discussing about getting 100-200 of them back onto a table top )

As far as I'm concerned, these are all just the super soldiers of the fluff, but its still 6mm enough. I do expect to end up with way to many of the rulebooks though, that is if GW can actually get the starter set in stock 🤣

Is it just me, or are the titan bases all quite thin? I worry they'll be prone to warping being such a large planform with such a small thickness.

I wish they'd remake this guy in the new scale:



That and the Great Gargant from the Epic40k era are some of my favourite models, but they're tiny compared to what we have now.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Is it just me, or are the titan bases all quite thin? I worry they'll be prone to warping being such a large planform with such a small thickness.

I wish they'd remake this guy in the new scale:



That and the Great Gargant from the Epic40k era are some of my favourite models, but they're tiny compared to what we have now.

Yeah those new bases and the tiles are going to be prone to be curved out of the box! I will be sticking with the strip bases + 2mm plastic card (and a couple of GW 40k round bases) than risk use the new wobble bases.

I'd love to see the old chunky guy remade as well, he's very iconic for epic! This is the biggest let down with it being the HH- no great gargant kit, or new stompa. I can build my own (and intend to put together a gorkanaut with a belly full of dismounting troops/trucks. But I'd love a proper plastic gargant kit)

 Mr_Rose wrote:


Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

I wouldn't expect the 5th as we still don't know anything about how it actually plays but the 12th is possible

5th will probably be the Cerastus knight with that article yesterday together with some smaller stuff,
12th for LI launch box and other stuff
19th could be the AoS Cities launch box
26th the rest of the LI stuff
with the 2nd of September for SM/Tyranid codex
at least that's my prediction

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Ignoring the scale thing: are those Charonite Ogryns entirely new? Or is this just the first time we’ve seen them zoomed in lie that?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
The two Leman Russ's they said are in plastic are actually resin FW pieces...

Well they did say they think they are plastic

They also called the Stormblade a Shadowsword.

Nah, that’s just what the shadow sword looked like back then, I’m pretty sure. It’s got the same elongated barrel in the fixed mount with the midpoint support/stabiliser.

Nope that's a Mk 1 Stormblade (it later lost all the missiles to become, basically, a Shadowsword with a plasma blastgun). It arrived on the scene during late-stage second edition. For third and fourth edition epic it was relegated to 'counts as' a Shadowsword. So they were sort of right, but really they were wrong.

The classic Shadowsword has changed little from its original model as a space marine 'falchion' (or was it 'glaive') at the tail end of first edition before becoming an Imperial Guard super heavy tank (which were named after something Elric might carry, rather than an historical weapon).

But what's with "the older warhounds were not available?" They've photographed them before, I'm sure. Did they drop them while setting up the photoshoot?

 Pacific wrote:

Yes me too, lol.

I'll just say, as someone that uses GW originals, Vanguard proxies and newer/bigger 3D prints, when they are at arms length on the tabletop, and not in front of a macro lense, for the infantry and tanks at least it is not that noticeable. This is something any historical gamer has been doing for decades, which is having disparate miniature ranges in one army from different manufacturers, and it's very rare that they all line up exactly. I wouldn't mount these new guys on the same base as the classics, and indeed for the titans it is very noticeable, but otherwise I can not sympathise at all with some of the (thankfully very few) people in the FB groups talking about dumping their existing armies and replacing it all with new.

Definitely - I play Napoleonics and mix 15s and 18s in all of my games. As long as they aren't based together you never notice.

MarkNorfolk wrote:

Nope that's a Mk 1 Stormblade (it later lost all the missiles to become, basically, a Shadowsword with a plasma blastgun). It arrived on the scene during late-stage second edition. For third and fourth edition epic it was relegated to 'counts as' a Shadowsword. So they were sort of right, but really they were wrong.

The classic Shadowsword has changed little from its original model as a space marine 'falchion' (or was it 'glaive') at the tail end of first edition before becoming an Imperial Guard super heavy tank (which were named after something Elric might carry, rather than an historical weapon).

But what's with "the older warhounds were not available?" They've photographed them before, I'm sure. Did they drop them while setting up the photoshoot?

I assume the Warhounds belonged to someone in the studio, who wasn't around when this latest article was done. Probably a lot of the early warhammer studio range has 'wandered off' for various reasons over the years.

Regarding stormblades:

 Matrindur wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:


Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

I wouldn't expect the 5th as we still don't know anything about how it actually plays but the 12th is possible

5th will probably be the Cerastus knight with that article yesterday together with some smaller stuff,
12th for LI launch box and other stuff
19th could be the AoS Cities launch box
26th the rest of the LI stuff
with the 2nd of September for SM/Tyranid codex
at least that's my prediction

They might show the book at GenCon form 08/03 to 08/06, fill the rest of the week with rules articles and stuff, and do a preorder on the 12th.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
But what's with "the older warhounds were not available?" They've photographed them before, I'm sure. Did they drop them while setting up the photoshoot?

The studio actually sold them on in some capacity or were given to staff members who later sold them on. Currently, they're owned by Carl Woodrow (Lost Exodite, formerly Dropship Studios):

You can see some photos of them here:
https://lostexodite.com/2023/07/02/epic-is-back-and-bigger-than-ever/

chaos0xomega wrote:
So infantry wise I think it's fair to say the new game is, in fact, 8mm and not 6mm. Unless I missed a lore snippet about the height/size of solar auxilia, they should be the height of the average human, and they appear about 2mm taller than what should be 6mm troops from the old game. The non superheavy vehicles are also scaling out about 30% larger than the originals which fits the pattern.

I have no dog in the race, up until now I've been in the 6mm camp as the rationale that an 8mm tall space marine meant 6mm scale made sense, but everything is clearly larger, so either old epic wasn't really 6mm or this is at a larger scale. Those space marines are also almost assuredly taller than 8mm themselves, which makes me wonder if titans a d such aren't actually slightly off scale.

I'm sure there's some folks really invested in the game continuing to be 6mm for whatever reason that want to continue the debate, share me - I don't care abd you won't change my mind unless you get your hands on a mini and run it through some calipers that show solar auxilia standing 6mm tall.

Frankly, none of this comes as surprise to anyone being capable of dividing by four. Normal humans in 40K are about 32mm. 32/4=8.

That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Please, for the love of Christ, let the Warhammer Community post something else quickly

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk.

Titans are the same size in relation to the infantry as they are in 40K, so if that ratio is "wrong" it was already "wrong" in the 40K. Personally I wouldn't pay much attention to the titan sizes given in the background material as they've been all over the place over the years.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a twist discussing a scale in a thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale Hell, GW themselves have now done 2 articles dedicated to the scale (aside from it being mentioned casually in basically every article).

Because arguing about the numerical scale (which GW have never mentioned) has absolutely no real world applications apart from satiating a deep need to sound clever on the internet.

Nathinho wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Nathinho wrote:
I'd play against anyone using the old models, but on the condition that they have to declare their forces as Space Hobbits!

Nice. That's not passive aggressive at all

Personally I don't really see a problem with anything but the titans, which always were entirely too small.

The only problem I see that will occur will be hiding vehicles in cover. Smaller vehicles will be easier to hide. Apart from that, there shouldn't be too many other problems, though I do think the size difference will be very noticeable (a lot more than people think). But if the game allows people to use their old models then that's good for everyone, as those of starting from scratch will have ready made opponents.

Don't think I've had that problem with anything other than titans. Which, yes, are a totally different scale. But it's not usually that much of a problem even there, as long as people are not being donkey-caves.

Other than that, yeah, not disallowing people to play with the stuff they already have is a positive for everyone.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a twist discussing a scale in a thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale Hell, GW themselves have now done 2 articles dedicated to the scale (aside from it being mentioned casually in basically every article).

Because arguing about the numerical scale (which GW have never mentioned) has absolutely no real world applications

Terrain size, compatibility with existing collections, compatibility with proxies, appropriate size for 3D printing, et cetera.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a twist discussing a scale in a thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale Hell, GW themselves have now done 2 articles dedicated to the scale (aside from it being mentioned casually in basically every article).

Because arguing about the numerical scale (which GW have never mentioned) has absolutely no real world applications apart from satiating a deep need to sound clever on the internet.

GW have said that it's 1/4 40k scale, 4 is a number, therefore 1/4 40k scale is a numerical scale

As for real world application, err, people have been comparing scale of Epic models since forever and on 3D printing forums there's always discussion of how tall things should be printed, how tall actual models are, how tall these new models will be relative to old prints, people printing new models to match the new scale. Seems more relevant than most N&R threads that amount to pages upon pages of stuff tangentially or barely or not at all related to news and rumours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Humans are only significantly smaller than marines in the fluff, in the miniatures they've never (at least by my memory) been far off the height of each other.

It seems like (just as people have discussed in the past) that Epic is based on 40k scale, not fluff scale.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I really don't understand why people get their knickers in such a twist discussing a scale in a thread about a game whose defining feature is its scale Hell, GW themselves have now done 2 articles dedicated to the scale (aside from it being mentioned casually in basically every article).

Because arguing about the numerical scale (which GW have never mentioned) has absolutely no real world applications apart from satiating a deep need to sound clever on the internet.

GW have said that it's 1/4 40k scale, 4 is a number, therefore 1/4 40k scale is a numerical scale

As for real world application, err, people have been comparing scale of Epic models since forever and on 3D printing forums there's always discussion of how tall things should be printed, how tall actual models are, how tall these new models will be relative to old prints, people printing new models to match the new scale. Seems more relevant than most N&R threads that amount to pages upon pages of stuff tangentially or barely or not at all related to news and rumours.

Actual, measured size of models has a real world application, scale (a model's relation to the real world object it represents, of which Epic has... Guardsmen I guess) is meaningless unless your digital sculpts are somehow starting at life size. By all means, measure the new models and size your prints to match. But statements such as "new Marines are Xmm tall therefore the game scale is Ymm" are utterly insane.

 Matrindur wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:


Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

I wouldn't expect the 5th as we still don't know anything about how it actually plays but the 12th is possible

5th will probably be the Cerastus knight with that article yesterday together with some smaller stuff,
12th for LI launch box and other stuff
19th could be the AoS Cities launch box
26th the rest of the LI stuff
with the 2nd of September for SM/Tyranid codex
at least that's my prediction

That’s what I meant; rules articles next week, preorder on the fifth, delivery on the twelfth. The Cerastus doesn’t need that bull-up because its rules are already available for both systems, so it could go on preorder tomorrow to arrive on the fifth.

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Makes you wonder how many 8mm tall humans would fit inside a Titan model's head...

 Malika2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Makes you wonder how many 8mm tall humans would fit inside a Titan model's head...

Chopped or mashed?

 Malika2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Makes you wonder how many 8mm tall humans would fit inside a Titan model's head...

Just as many as in the 40K version.

 Crimson wrote:

 Malika2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That means though either humans and titans are dlffering scale or huge retcon on size. Designer noted titans were made with 8mm marines in mind and actual measurements match up(measure titan height, compare to size given in technical manuals, about 1:290).

So either infantry is too tall related to titans, marines are now 6 foot tall or titan sizes in background shrunk. Aka warlords are more like under 30m tall losing several meters(25m actually vs 33m atm)

Makes you wonder how many 8mm tall humans would fit inside a Titan model's head...

Just as many as in the 40K version.

You would think that...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I wish they'd remake this guy in the new scale:

I really wish they would make the “Armageddon” titans again. I like the chunky look. But given this is HH timeline that seems unlikely. Maybe is Epic 40K returns. Of course they look a bit Battletech-y so maybe not.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Matrindur wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:


Anyway, is it just me or is the pace of LI articles picking up? Like I wouldn’t be that surprised anymore if the preorder date was the fifth of August, now.

I wouldn't expect the 5th as we still don't know anything about how it actually plays but the 12th is possible

5th will probably be the Cerastus knight with that article yesterday together with some smaller stuff,
12th for LI launch box and other stuff
19th could be the AoS Cities launch box
26th the rest of the LI stuff
with the 2nd of September for SM/Tyranid codex
at least that's my prediction

They might show the book at GenCon form 08/03 to 08/06, fill the rest of the week with rules articles and stuff, and do a preorder on the 12th.

If GW is smart they will actually run demos of LI at GenCon. Almost tempted to drive over and hit the dealer hall Sunday. I have friends going at the least. Maybe they can scope it out for me. I’ll let folks know if I hear anything from GenCon.

Interior of that Warhound model is not sculpted for purposes of containing the crew.

 Crimson wrote:
Interior of that Warhound model is not sculpted for purposes of containing the crew.

Sure, but look at the sizes still makes it a tricky one.

 Malika2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Interior of that Warhound model is not sculpted for purposes of containing the crew.

Sure, but look at the sizes still makes it a tricky one.

The picture with 3 pilots abreast is the Reaver, the Warhound seats 2 side by side with not a lot of spare room, once you account for the proportionally thicker cockpit walls on the Epic scale one, I think it'd fit some 8mm humans in roughly the same layout as the 40k one.

Where the princeps sits there isn't enough room for someone to walk around his chair.