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.

Boxes might be more than for AI, but you buy with discount and core box content s cheaper so overall the calculation is fine as a first guess

Hopefully be cheaper but might be more as well

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Is it just the angle, or is the vmb on the reaver titan look different from the resin kit?

It looks the same to me. Here is a frontal shot of the resin version:

 kodos wrote:
Boxes might be more than for AI, but you buy with discount and core box content s cheaper so overall the calculation is fine as a first guess

Hopefully be cheaper but might be more as well

I expect discounts will be the same as they always are, so the result would be a net increase (not taking into account the core box...did we have confirmation that it will be an evergreen product, or a limited run?)

On force size, worth bearing in mind that one of the first (possibly the first) battle report for 2nd edition SM was a 6000pt mega battle (marines against Eldar) - a force size way bigger than the 3000/4000 that most people used in regular games. So this might not be entirely indicative.
Also, GW can say "this is the standard games size", because they are trying to shift more boxes, but the community will decide on what a standard game is. Once the tournaments get going, if 3000pts takes 3-4 hours to play then I can tell you now it won't become the 'standard' game size. Especially with the level of granularity, weapons profiles and faction specific special rules we can see, all of which halt the flow of the game when you are looking up rules tables, the 'standard' size game will settle on what people can play in an evening, or the ability to fit 3 games into a day for a tournament.

So.. don't stress too much if you think you need to save £400-500 to play this game, is what I am saying.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I really hope we don't see £30 as a baseline for boxes. The game will be far too expensive although I think most of this will get sold as formations so may work out cheaper all bundled in?

I hope so too. I remember I got into Epic as a kid, rather than 40k, as it was much cheaper to play. My friends and I shared the same starter box set, and an extra box of plastics or so and you were ready to go. It is quite possible this game is now aimed at those kids now 'grown up' (haha) who have £300-400 to splurge on a force for this game, although I am not one of those lol.

Interesting they couldn't even make the inaugural battle report without using expansion book content. Almost like the core book isn't enough to play the full game

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Interesting they couldn't even make the inaugural battle report without using expansion book content. Almost like the core book isn't enough to play the full game

Could also be that since their plans for the game were messed up by the launch delay and they don't want to delay the first expansion by too long in order to regain some inventory space, this is a battle report showcasing the game with the expansion book, and not the launch box, but the launch box is definitely playable by itself as well.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Interesting they couldn't even make the inaugural battle report without using expansion book content. Almost like the core book isn't enough to play the full game

Actually, the White Dwarf nowadays doesn't exactly follows former editorial lines on that matter. "Inaugural" battle report of Warcry 2nd edition was on a custom-made terrain (beautifully converted, I must say) that's not really representative of the content of the box. But it was giving awesome pictures and still very inspiring.

I bet here the point was to make a report showing vastly different tactics / unit types. Both armies are also wildly different approaches based on how they're built and what units they have. That's the focus, I feel, more than just "selling the core box". It is here to show the game is still able to give you enough choice so that the enemy factions involved can be very different even though they basically both have the same tools / profiles / lists at their disposal.

 Pacific wrote:
On force size, worth bearing in mind that one of the first (possibly the first) battle report for 2nd edition SM was a 6000pt mega battle (marines against Eldar) - a force size way bigger than the 3000/4000 that most people used in regular games. So this might not be entirely indicative.
Also, GW can say "this is the standard games size", because they are trying to shift more boxes, but the community will decide on what a standard game is. Once the tournaments get going, if 3000pts takes 3-4 hours to play then I can tell you now it won't become the 'standard' game size. Especially with the level of granularity, weapons profiles and faction specific special rules we can see, all of which halt the flow of the game when you are looking up rules tables, the 'standard' size game will settle on what people can play in an evening, or the ability to fit 3 games into a day for a tournament.

So.. don't stress too much if you think you need to save £400-500 to play this game, is what I am saying.

Gw said 40k default is 2k. Players followed automatically while complaining armies got more expensive to collect. Idea of sticking previous sizes didn't occur.

Never underestimate people's desire to follow gw's decisions even when it's hurting players and only for gw's profit.

Gw says 3k is standard, that's where tournaments go even if half games are talked through in the end.

tneva82 wrote:
Gw said 40k default is 2k. Players followed automatically while complaining armies got more expensive to collect. Idea of sticking previous sizes didn't occur.

Never underestimate people's desire to follow gw's decisions even when it's hurting players and only for gw's profit.

Gw says 3k is standard, that's where tournaments go even if half games are talked through in the end.

Very true, but in large part this is probably based on the assumption that GW balances the game (kek) at their stated default level.

It's more a question of exploiting the tools / list choices at your disposal. Too small in points = not enough units you'd like to include and less combos you can build. In short : you feel too restricted. That's the real reason why "small games" are less popular.

A massive part of wargame list building though is exactly that Sarouan - trying to optimise it, guess the good units to use against your opponent or scenario and having to compromise on what you choose.
That has been part of every GW game for as long as I can remember. Mega battle 'spaff everything onto the table' are also fun, but I don't think thats the general experience people have when playing, especially for pick up games, events or tournaments.

More from White Dwarf:

Man, that just looks fun!

First and foremost it looks insanely crowded. How large is that board?

5x4 is the suggested standard size

It really isn't any more crowded than a game of 40k...

It's a 5x4 based on the mission map, and it looks to be 5x4 based on the images and generally looking at the page.

Yeah, I don't see how's that "crowded". In fact, I find the middle quite empty and lacking of line of sight blocking terrain.

The double page is badly folded on the pictures, so you don't see the full battlefield in the middle.

If you let a blood angel player drop a hundred trash cans all over your deployment zone it's gonna be a bit hard to move around

I would answer to that and say modern 40k games look insanely crowded too

It definitely does look more crowded than any other previous version of Epic (but that stands to reason as both the board size has become smaller and model count increased).

It will obviously take away some tactical agency from the players, for things like flanking attacks, but remember these are just recommended board size and points costs.. and even the most die-hard "GW has told me this so I must do durrrrr..." Is not going to saw a foot of length off their 6x4 gaming boards.

Saw no, cut felt yes. And soon n+1 5x4 felts available and you are looked badly if you don't play on that size.

Happens every time with gw games

 Pacific wrote:


It definitely does look more crowded than any other previous version of Epic (but that stands to reason as both the board size has become smaller and model count increased).

To be fair, previous versions of Epic typically didn't fill that many terrains in their official battle reports.

The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

Yea introducing a third sizing standard is odd af. I guess 5x4 is sort of a middle ground that's just a few inches short of nu40k size and also easy to adapt from 6x4? A compromise to kinda sorta work for both current 40k players and Specialist Games grognards at a cost of not exactly matching for anyone?

Are you not excited to buy not only new armies and terrain but also a new board?

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

Especially since the tiles come in packs of 6. You would need 20 for a 5x4 so you'd have 4 left over. Even better is that the 24 you'd have then would be the correct number for 6x4

Sarouan wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


It definitely does look more crowded than any other previous version of Epic (but that stands to reason as both the board size has become smaller and model count increased).

To be fair, previous versions of Epic typically didn't fill that many terrains in their official battle reports.

I think Lord_Blackfang is referring to the model count over the given space. Previous versions of epic that I played had a lot more space, so that the player had to decide where to commit stuff. This looks like two shoulder to shoulder battle lines that will advance into the middle and grind against each other. Not trying to say there is no skill, but just trying to indicate that manoeuvre and objective control looks different to previous versions.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

Yea introducing a third sizing standard is odd af. I guess 5x4 is sort of a middle ground that's just a few inches short of nu40k size and also easy to adapt from 6x4? A compromise to kinda sorta work for both current 40k players and Specialist Games grognards at a cost of not exactly matching for anyone?

Titanicus was 4x4 iirc so that makes 5x4 confusing again, as they could have stuck with that and a smaller game size.

It does not help that mins are now 8mm vs 6mm. Even if base sizes are similar they look like they take up more room now. Anyone else use 5x4 boars? SW:Armada is 3x6 I think. Bolt Action is still 4x6 IIRC. What is SW Legion using?

 Matrindur wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The decision to opt for a 5x4 standard board is mind boggling to me. Everyone either has 6x4 or whatever the monstrosity of a size 40k and AoS use these days (66x44 I think?) sized tables these days. I think i'll stick to 6x4 thanks.

Especially since the tiles come in packs of 6. You would need 20 for a 5x4 so you'd have 4 left over. Even better is that the 24 you'd have then would be the correct number for 6x4

Yay! It's like old Epic again, where vehicles were sold in packs of 3 or 4, but units were 5! lol

 Flinty wrote:

I think Lord_Blackfang is referring to the model count over the given space. Previous versions of epic that I played had a lot more space, so that the player had to decide where to commit stuff. This looks like two shoulder to shoulder battle lines that will advance into the middle and grind against each other. Not trying to say there is no skill, but just trying to indicate that manoeuvre and objective control looks different to previous versions.

No, it's the victory conditions of the scenario that push people to do that. In this specific scenario, before the picture was removed, the objective was to hold in the middle and kill a priority target chosen by each player. Having a big board doesn't really do that in itself. I've played enough Warhammer Battle "pitched battle" scenarios to know that it's not the size of the board that matter for moving your units in one particular direction.


Besides, it's just one battle report at 3000 points. If you want to play 2000 points or on a bigger board, feel free to do it. No GW police will stop you from doing so.