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.

Sarouan wrote:

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

They also tended to be played on custom 8x4 boards, which many players aren't going to be able to aim for.

Dudeface wrote:

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

I liked how the AT table layout gave you plenty of spare room for game accessories with a standard 6x4 table. Epic obviously doesn't need quite as much of that space without the terminal cards, so I wonder if 5x4 was meant to bring Epic closer in line to 40k while still being compatible with tiles measured in full feet.

Dudeface wrote:

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

Titanicus was the smaller size to accommodate the terminals. But even still, there's no harm in playing smaller if thats preferred.

 xttz wrote:


They also tended to be played on custom 8x4 boards, which many players aren't going to be able to aim for.

Last version of Epic still played by fan communities tend to be played at 3000 points, true, but most fan battle reports I've seen give an empty feeling when you look at a vast board with scare terrain here and there. A bigger board isn't especially fully exploited on that matter : most of the time, battles focus around objectives and if a part of the battlefield is devoid of one, most units have no real reason to be deployed there. There's no purpose of having more room to manoeuver if there is no reason to manoeuver there at all.

The fact it's a smaller scale actually reinforces that feeling of emptiness in that case. That's why I don't feel like it's crowded in the White Dwarf battle report.

seem to also remember that a lot of the time in 1st and also in 2nd edition infantry spent a lot of time in transports and only disembarked to actually "do" something

leopard wrote:
seem to also remember that a lot of the time in 1st and also in 2nd edition infantry spent a lot of time in transports and only disembarked to actually "do" something

Usually to capture an objective and trying not to die in the process.

Sarouan wrote:

leopard wrote:
seem to also remember that a lot of the time in 1st and also in 2nd edition infantry spent a lot of time in transports and only disembarked to actually "do" something

Usually to capture an objective and trying not to die in the process.

exactly, but the result of that was a lack of infantry walking across the board (except for Eldar aspect warriors because knife & fork them, they can walk)

Well I seem to remember E:A was played with 6 objectives and maneuver was important enough that you sometimes spend your activation doing a triple move. Probably not gonna be a lot of triple moves in Legions.

Actually, the main reason why infantry on foot wasn't that used in previous editions is precisely because of using bigger boards. Infantry on foot is slow, and vulnerable. Having to move through a wasteland under heavy enemy firepower (and the Emperor knows how deadly and long ranged firepower can be at Epic scale) is usually a death sentence.

Playing on smaller boards (and with buildings) is a whole another matter favoring this kind of infantry for sure. At least, that's what I learned from my experience of playing EA, even years after GW stopped official support.

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

What a dumb argument that people keep repeating ever since GW made the recommended tables smaller.

Just play with part of your existing board counting as "out of bounds"...

As for armies and terrain, well no gak, its a new game with a new scale....

Sarouan wrote:
Actually, the main reason why infantry on foot wasn't that used in previous editions is precisely because of using bigger boards. Infantry on foot is slow, and vulnerable. Having to move through a wasteland under heavy enemy firepower (and the Emperor knows how deadly and long ranged firepower can be at Epic scale) is usually a death sentence.

Playing on smaller boards (and with buildings) is a whole another matter favoring this kind of infantry for sure. At least, that's what I learned from my experience of playing EA, even years after GW stopped official support.

Agreed. Its easy to forget that many enjoy wargaming on the kitchen table, as well as at the more advanced venue that affords multiple tables pushed together.

 Albertorius wrote:

One of the reasons E:A didn't sell well was because it was insanely expensive. Just sayin.

Sold well compared to what? Sales were 400% of Warmaster, with Warmaster assumed to be the baseline it would sell as.

Somehow these tiny tanks don't evoke such positive response from me as the Epic ones.

They lack the cuteness.

Sarouan wrote:
Cool, a 3000 points game. Size of armies is relevant to what you fielded on the battlefield in a "regular" old Epic edition game. Without surprise, it uses a lot of boxes. It will be interesting to read.

Which edition? Looks a bit smaller than 2nd, with a similar footprint due to model and base size, but significantly larger than E:A (top of my head comparison there would be
6 Kratos - call them Land Raiders 600
11 Preds 600
3 planes 225
11 Sicarans - call them pred annihilators 750
12 speeders 475
6 bikes 250
12 jetbikes (call 'em bikes) 450
1 command 50
22 Tacs 1100
8 Devs 500
12 Terminators 1050
2 Raptors (pretend they are 'Hawks) 400
Reaver 650
So it was roughly 7000, now it is 3000, on a smaller table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:

Last version of Epic still played by fan communities tend to be played at 3000 points, true, but most fan battle reports I've seen give an empty feeling when you look at a vast board with scare terrain here and there. A bigger board isn't especially fully exploited on that matter : most of the time, battles focus around objectives and if a part of the battlefield is devoid of one, most units have no real reason to be deployed there. There's no purpose of having more room to manoeuvre if there is no reason to manoeuvre there at all.

But that is a consequence of decisions made in game. Do you want to concentrate the enemy with objectives in the same place, or make him spread out. That would depend on his army and yours. Also that space allows you to have depth to defences, have vulnerable long range units out of harms way and also to be able to flank and get round the enemy without fighting through. You know, manoeuvre warfare. Its taken to an extreme with a game like Blutcher, but here was a nice balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

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

What a dumb argument that people keep repeating ever since GW made the recommended tables smaller.

Just play with part of your existing board counting as "out of bounds"...

As for armies and terrain, well no gak, its a new game with a new scale....

Well, if it has been properly playtested, changing the board size will make a big difference to balance.

E:A was tested extensively for playing long edges or corners - playing using the short sides made things go out of balance for some armies too much.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
It really isn't any more crowded than a game of 40k...

...that is not the positive point you think it is. Current 40k looks horribly overcrowded, as if they were fighting on a small parking lot.

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Well, if it has been properly playtested,

Am I only only one that finds this statement funny?

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.

Yeah, after seeing that I think I'd go 2000 points and 6x4, that should look less crowded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

One of the reasons E:A didn't sell well was because it was insanely expensive. Just sayin.

Sold well compared to what? Sales were 400% of Warmaster, with Warmaster assumed to be the baseline it would sell as.

Compared to Epic: 40k. Which itself didn't sell so good in comparison with the previous edition.

Sarouan wrote:
Last version of Epic still played by fan communities tend to be played at 3000 points, true, but most fan battle reports I've seen give an empty feeling when you look at a vast board with scare terrain here and there. A bigger board isn't especially fully exploited on that matter : most of the time, battles focus around objectives and if a part of the battlefield is devoid of one, most units have no real reason to be deployed there. There's no purpose of having more room to manoeuver if there is no reason to manoeuver there at all.

The fact it's a smaller scale actually reinforces that feeling of emptiness in that case. That's why I don't feel like it's crowded in the White Dwarf battle report.

E:A is a game so heavily focused on maneuver, mobility, and board control that to suggest the standard board size is too big just because it isn't packed wall-to-wall like a 40K parking lot is frankly baffling.

That empty space gives things like artillery and transports reasons to exist, allows for defense-in-depth and offensive tactics beyond target priority, and permits factions like Marines to be the surgical instruments of force concentration they are in the lore.

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.

I thought those base tiles they showed a while back were 12" x 12" and you got 6 of them making 6x4?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/26/the-new-legions-imperialis-terrain-is-the-perfect-backdrop-for-an-epic-throwdown/

VAYASEN 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.

I thought those base tiles they showed a while back were 12" x 12" and you got 6 of them making 6x4?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/26/the-new-legions-imperialis-terrain-is-the-perfect-backdrop-for-an-epic-throwdown/

Yes to all but the last part. If you have 6 tiles, each one 1'x1', you have 6'x1' with a single pack. You'd need 4 packs for either 5'x4' or 6'x4'

Sarouan wrote:
Actually, the main reason why infantry on foot wasn't that used in previous editions is precisely because of using bigger boards. Infantry on foot is slow, and vulnerable. Having to move through a wasteland under heavy enemy firepower (and the Emperor knows how deadly and long ranged firepower can be at Epic scale) is usually a death sentence.

Playing on smaller boards (and with buildings) is a whole another matter favoring this kind of infantry for sure. At least, that's what I learned from my experience of playing EA, even years after GW stopped official support.

This highlights what is one of the main advantages of marines in previous epic versions. Their stats are not really any better than most other armies (other than morale) but it's their ability to manoeuvre and relocate forces; this is why I used to find their win rate was a lot better than their stats would suggest.

Having massive chunks of infantry and tanks hammer each other within a parking lot board arrangement might make a cool visual appeal, but you're then losing some of the appeal from the previous games; a flank attack, trying to strike undefended artillery, moving units so they can get a cross-fire on approaching enemies. All previous Epic versions had this - actually, I will say all wargames worth their salt generally.

 Albertorius wrote:

VAYASEN 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.

I thought those base tiles they showed a while back were 12" x 12" and you got 6 of them making 6x4?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/26/the-new-legions-imperialis-terrain-is-the-perfect-backdrop-for-an-epic-throwdown/

Yes to all but the last part. If you have 6 tiles, each one 1'x1', you have 6'x1' with a single pack. You'd need 4 packs for either 5'x4' or 6'x4'[/quote

Opps of course haha. I was half working while typing and had in my head they were 2x2 each.

Happens to the best of us ^^

If that's 3000pts, I'd suggest the "best" game size is going to be a lot less than 3000pts on a 5x4 table, because that just looks like the good old fashion 40k parking lot but in 8mm scale.

Having room to move by not overcrowding the table has always been one of the more appealing things about Epic for me. Forces you to think more about what troops if any you dedicate to protecting artillery, whether you want to go hard on a flank attack or stronger in the middle and compromise the flanks. If the board is too crowded it just ends up being an even spread of troops from one table edge to the other.

VAYASEN wrote:
I was half working while typing and had in my head they were 2x2 each.

To be fair the last version of tiles released for AT were 2x2 each. Only took a spare ~£500 to get a full table worth...

I'm not happy with that "A table full of Tanks" Batrep here....

Looks like the same overflooded Ghak like 40k to me.

 Pacific wrote:

This highlights what is one of the main advantages of marines in previous epic versions. Their stats are not really any better than most other armies (other than morale) but it's their ability to manoeuvre and relocate forces; this is why I used to find their win rate was a lot better than their stats would suggest.

Having massive chunks of infantry and tanks hammer each other within a parking lot board arrangement might make a cool visual appeal, but you're then losing some of the appeal from the previous games; a flank attack, trying to strike undefended artillery, moving units so they can get a cross-fire on approaching enemies. All previous Epic versions had this - actually, I will say all wargames worth their salt generally.

Then again having massiv chunks of infantry and tanks fits the 30k setting, marines isn't the same surgical strike force in that setting as they are in 40k.
That and we dont know the lethality of the game, if half of that is dead by the middle of the game the "manuvering" comes in later turns.
It might be split up in different phases, For example phase on is possitioning that then transitions into phase two that is target priority for what your goal is, then pase three which is manuvering, surgical strikes when there is less stuff and more space.

Personally im planing on playing this on a 6x4.

Bubbalicious wrote:

That and we dont know the lethality of the game, if half of that is dead by the middle of the game the "manuvering" comes in later turns.

That to me is a very grim thought!

RazorEdge wrote:
I'm not happy with that "A table full of Tanks" Batrep here....

Looks like the same overflooded Ghak like 40k to me.

Suspect once the game is in peoples hands it will quickly settle out to what size gives a decent game that takes only a reasonable amount of time. I suspect that and what GW think that is may not be quite the same

We’ve seen the Solar Aux troops, but do we think that regular Imperial Guard will get a release down the line?

 Fugazi wrote:
We’ve seen the Solar Aux troops, but do we think that regular Imperial Guard will get a release down the line?

Militia? No. Probably not this edition.

You've got a variety of forms of Mechanicum first - Taghmata, Tech Guard and Skitarii (the old fashioned tribals rather than rangers and vanguard).
Regular army just seem like they would be counts as anyway.