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.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


Can you elaborate more on 2nd vs 4th, I've got very little frame of refference having never played any of them. People are already complaining about weapons being too crunchy/detailed in the previews, which I'm not sure I understand.

So 2nd ed was simple statlines, massive armies, crowded deployment zones and a game style of 'surprise' with hidden orders, and funky special rules for a few units given flavour. The gameplay in practice was grinding into each other around the objectives. Morale reflected that with when you hit your break point testing to have the remainder of the formation removed (so a formation of 10 tanks was more fragile than 11, and so on).

4th ed was fewer units (rarely more than a hundred per side and normally far less), more detailed units with differentiation between weapon and target types, and many units got a lot tougher. The gameplay started with a more varied deployment instead of simply being in each zone, and the possibility for rapid movement and not starting in 2 long lines tended to make for a more freewheeling battle. Formations would routinely break through the enemy line, go round the flanks, etc. Gameplay was a lot more trying to assault in optimal ways or getting enemies in crossfires. Morale was completely different, using blast markers to supress enemy fire and stop activations and when you broke rather than be removed it was again rapid movement.

In general in 2nd ed you wanted to hit something until it broke, in 4th ed there was an advantage to firing wildly in all directions to put blast markers everywhere and stop the enemy activating reliably.

I think the blast marker thing would have driven me nuts as it did with battflelfeet. I appreciate the comparison. Would it be fair to say for both version's army building forced some level of combined arms or was it possible to field armies that were like entirely one unit type like tanks/flyers ect? One thing I'm sorta hoping for is no matter what the detachments will have some forced variance like armoured company still having to take mechanized infantry and other sections ect.

I have a bunch of titans but am honestly hoping to do more of a straight forward force with a bit of everything if possible/viable. Maybe a titan to round out points.

 Crablezworth wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


Can you elaborate more on 2nd vs 4th, I've got very little frame of refference having never played any of them. People are already complaining about weapons being too crunchy/detailed in the previews, which I'm not sure I understand.

So 2nd ed was simple statlines, massive armies, crowded deployment zones and a game style of 'surprise' with hidden orders, and funky special rules for a few units given flavour. The gameplay in practice was grinding into each other around the objectives. Morale reflected that with when you hit your break point testing to have the remainder of the formation removed (so a formation of 10 tanks was more fragile than 11, and so on).

4th ed was fewer units (rarely more than a hundred per side and normally far less), more detailed units with differentiation between weapon and target types, and many units got a lot tougher. The gameplay started with a more varied deployment instead of simply being in each zone, and the possibility for rapid movement and not starting in 2 long lines tended to make for a more freewheeling battle. Formations would routinely break through the enemy line, go round the flanks, etc. Gameplay was a lot more trying to assault in optimal ways or getting enemies in crossfires. Morale was completely different, using blast markers to supress enemy fire and stop activations and when you broke rather than be removed it was again rapid movement.

In general in 2nd ed you wanted to hit something until it broke, in 4th ed there was an advantage to firing wildly in all directions to put blast markers everywhere and stop the enemy activating reliably.

I think the blast marker thing would have driven me nuts as it did with battflelfeet. I appreciate the comparison. Would it be fair to say for both version's army building forced some level of combined arms or was it possible to field armies that were like entirely one unit type like tanks/flyers ect? One thing I'm sorta hoping for is no matter what the detachments will have some forced variance like armoured company still having to take mechanized infantry and other sections ect.

I have a bunch of titans but am honestly hoping to do more of a straight forward force with a bit of everything if possible/viable. Maybe a titan to round out points.

The blast markers were great as 2nd Ed didnt really deal with moral much.

In 2nd ed you could go full tank, full flyer, full infantry, and once Titan Legions came out you could go full Titan.....It was a fool that usually did though. Infantry were needed to secure objectives. Titans on their own could quickly get overwhelmed. The balance of the game made forced requirements mostly unneeded, but it also allowed for flexability....sometimes all you wanted to do was play Titians vs Titans, or a huge armored battle...you could do that.

That being said, it was a different time, competitive gaming wasn't a thing, power gaming didn't really exist, the internet was in infancy so meme armies didn't exist. I'm sure now 2nd ed would be easy to "Break", but back then "Breaking" a game wasn't really a thing. I won a lot of Rogue Trader/ 1st ed era 40k games simply because I actually used grenades. It baffled me that people didn't take advantage of them.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Granular is the wrong choice of words to use for describing Armageddon's weaponry, it's very much not that in the context of typical GW-like games. You have guns that hit infantry or vehicles which can be saved against and big guns that hit both while negating saves, skipping a lot of regular Warhammer faff with reduced steps. There are a handful of special rules, but they are very universal and potent instead of little shifts in probabilities. They are also doled out rather sparingly, with most units having very few if any.

Yes that is very true. Despite the level of detail in the rules, I can never remember Armageddon games taking that long to play. Most of the criticism I have read of the rules revolve instead around them being 'cold' - look at the way War Machine/Titan damage are handled in each system for example, and factions with more mental special rules in 2nd/TL, such as Orks or Chaos, became far less fun in Armageddon. A friend of mine described the game as a "range measurement exercise". As much as I enjoy Armageddon (and think it is very well suited as a tournament game) I probably agree with him.

Anyway - What concerns me a little with the new rules, and making me think they may be bloated unnecessarily, is things like the LM Vanquisher having one special rule called 'Armour piercing' and another 'Armourbane'.. I mean, aren't those things quite literally a synonym of each other? Under what circumstances would that need a special-special rule?

Agreed on that front, Armageddon is very much a "grounded" WW II wargame with bits of 40k theming compared to the zaniness of SM 2nd's shenanigans

I might raise an eyebrow at the "range measurement exercise" comment, though, as from all Epics it is Armageddon where maneuver and changing plans on the fly wins the day while 2nd at times had the tendence to devolve into dice rolling from afar until one side dies so... horses for courses.

 Pacific wrote:


Anyway - What concerns me a little with the new rules, and making me think they may be bloated unnecessarily, is things like the LM Vanquisher having one special rule called 'Armour piercing' and another 'Armourbane'.. I mean, aren't those things quite literally a synonym of each other? Under what circumstances would that need a special-special rule?

Ya true, could be one of the things that get dealt with in the re-write/re-printing of the LI book.


I can't stand the idea of say a knight household list in 30k/40k, great models but I still remember that as the beginning of the end of 40k, pretending there's nothing like morally wrong about expecting knights to work at 1500pts. I just remember thinking what complete farce it was to plop down an army and my opponent 3 models. Knowing nothing about epic but a lot about 40k, I really miss stuff like the force org being relevant and the idea of everyone list having troops/hq some sort attempt at combined arms. Using titan legions as an example, that seems like the easiest gentlemans agreement conceivable in terms of my regular AT opponents because we all have the titan models already and its building up the tank/infantry side that will likely be slower going for us. I feel like we can all sense that first expansion where gw gives us "permission" to run titan legions/knight households as primary forces. I get ptsd when i hear stuff like "oh they whipped up a special detachment/formation just for the starter box to make it legal" my fear is a game tugging at two ends, one where it's trying to compell combined arms and another with a gw marketing exec saying "naw screw that, all these rules are no fun, lets sell some models".

Even if the game is still well conceived/balaned and the rules make taking a balanced force with a lot of infanty a real incentive in terms of holding objectives, if the ability to make silly jank lists still exists people will do it sadly. Like with 10th 40k, when you see people post actual legal lists and you're like "how?" "oh god, this is a joke right?". Not a good feeling, and I don't even think its as simple as waaac or any of that, plenty of narrative players have awful tastes and their lists choices just as abrasive in different ways. Just hoping no matter what detachment you have to "eat your brocoli" so to speak and perhaps have to take some less than ideal tax units, that would be my hope even for a titan/household expansion book, make me have to take skitarii and other stuff too.

The thing is you bake the tax into the rules without mandating units. Taking all Titans was legal....it was hard to pull off a win with it though. Infantry taking and holding objectives was key in 2nd ed. Also the idea that a non Titan army was helpless against an all Titan army is a non starter. Squats didnt have a true Titan, they had super heavy Titan killers though. The Tyranid Bio Titans were not at the same level as other factions Titans.....didn't stop that faction from downing Titans though. Eldar didn't have a Titan on the scale of the Mega Gargant or the Imperator....didn't stop them. If the rules are balanced you don't need to mandate that kind of limiting structure, the game basically forces it.

I think the big take away should be don't make "Broccoli" units. If a unit is essentially useless whats the point in having it? Gretchen even in epic can serve a purpose if the rules and points are right. 1Oth ed has kind of figured that out, giving some of the less glamorous units better objective control, which gives them a useful function now.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The thing is you bake the tax into the rules without mandating units. Taking all Titans was legal....it was hard to pull off a win with it though. Infantry taking and holding objectives was key in 2nd ed. Also the idea that a non Titan army was helpless against an all Titan army is a non starter. Squats didnt have a true Titan, they had super heavy Titan killers though. The Tyranid Bio Titans were not at the same level as other factions Titans.....didn't stop that faction from downing Titans though. Eldar didn't have a Titan on the scale of the Mega Gargant or the Imperator....didn't stop them. If the rules are balanced you don't need to mandate that kind of limiting structure, the game basically forces it.

I think the big take away should be don't make "Broccoli" units. If a unit is essentially useless whats the point in having it? Gretchen even in epic can serve a purpose if the rules and points are right. 1Oth ed has kind of figured that out, giving some of the less glamorous units better objective control, which gives them a useful function now.

I think you're misunderstanding me on the broccoli thing, I agree making it so those units also are needed to cap objectives should be part of making them core to list building. But I also mean eating one's brocoli in terms of suspension of disbelief, and i think this a core difference between fantasy game/setting and a more modern wargame setting. Like I can't conceive of even an ork stompa mob of being 100% stompas without a massive supply train and a lot of supporting units that trail behind them. This is the same way I feel about a combined arms force fighting 3 knight army in 40k, it just shouldn't be possible in the rules. An entire army of knights with literally no other units shouldn't exist is what I'm getting at. Doing whatever one wants with no limitation isn't a rule set, people are always free to do that. And I agree it's probably fine to do in the context of a mirror match, like knight household vs knight household or titan legion vs titan legion. Even then I think I'd get bored of that after a few games, bit I'd never wish to totally warp a games meta just to suit boring edge cases. I'd rather army construction be tight and balanced in terms of suspension of disbelief. I don't like brocoli but I've seen the opponents who expect to subsist only on cake, metaphorically speaking, in terms of always getting what they want. GW rewarding that is what destroyed 40k IMO.


Just to zero in on one of the comments you made "If the rules are balanced you don't need to mandate that kind of limiting structure, the game basically forces it." I'd like to agree with you and I would say most of the time that's probably correct, but I do think some structure is important, if anything because breaking or ignoring said structure is so much easier than creating it to begin with. Like whether or not troops scored or exclusively scored objectives would not factor in to me thinking every army should have at its core some basic frontline troops, period. This can be seen as a great idea or tax/burden/how dare you idea, but it will also weed out the people who are fundamentally inflexible in their wanting to run exclusively 1 unit type like flyers or tanks while also making things more believable and immersive. At this scale a list comprising of only one model type should rarely be possible outside of edge cases, and even then. Titan on titan seems more entertaining that someone trying to port aeronautica into LI and do all planes.

I hate broccoli. It's a vile vegetable that ruins an otherwise good meal. Likewise, if someone wants to have an army completely of Terminators, super-heavy tanks or giants robots in an army where red ones go faster - then I can safely assume that if the army commander wanted to field it the necessary logistics were pushed to make it happen. It's a fun game after all.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
I hate broccoli. It's a vile vegetable that ruins an otherwise good meal. Likewise, if someone wants to have an army completely of Terminators, super-heavy tanks or giants robots in an army where red ones go faster - then I can safely assume that if the army commander wanted to field it the necessary logistics were pushed to make it happen. It's a fun game after all.

Fun is subjective. I just remember a time when army building wasn't synonymous with whatever happened to be in one's online shopping cart at any given time.








My current plan army wise is to start slow, I don't want to jump right to 3000pt games, I wanna see how it scales. Curious if anyone has found any leaks that may have referenced any other board size other than 4x5.

I wonder if the 3000pt thing is going to turn out to be accurate. Some people in the community have done miniature volume calculations and it is a *lot* of miniatures. Fair enough you say, it's Epic, but looking at the number of granular special rules I cannot see this new game being faster than Epic SM (2nd) to play, and that game had less miniatures on the tabletop, based on the new points calculations.

GW have always had a 'playable in one evening' ethos to their games, and even the ones that push this (Necromunda, I am looking at you) have stayed within that as a concept. So, if the 3000pt thing is accurate, then either the points values we have seen are incorrect, or there must be some real effeciencies within the game mechanics that haven't yet been revealed.

playable in one evening is 4-6 hours and ways of speeding up the game is taking more big guns

I would agree without the Titans being there, but it looks like this is designed around each force having the 30% allowed filled

The 3000pt thing came from WarCom as the recommended standard game size in the rulebook, so yes it's accurate.

I think WarComms have been known to be wrong with things before though right?
Out of interest what is the playing time for a 'standard' 40k game these days?

LI might be 4+ hrs, but to me that is for a day's (afternoon) play, not an evening's. Most people finish work 5-6, an hour to get home and back out, eat some food (being optimistic) until they can get to a club or friend's house to play. By the time you get towards 10pm people with early starts then next day are thinking about finishing, so realistically 3 hours is the most you will get and less if there is a lot of setup time.

5-6 hours in an evening is for people who are either very fortunate with their jobs, students, unemployed or I guess games developers who are doing nothing else and can play until 1am (which I am beginning to wonder may be the case here, if 3000pts is actually the standard).

40k suggested playtime from GW is 2 hours for 1000 points, 3 hours for 2000 points and 4 hours for 3000 points

Though most people would say this is off and at least 4 hours for 2k points are appropriate

And yes the long playtime for GW games is a problem they try to solve for a long time now

 Pacific wrote:
I wonder if the 3000pt thing is going to turn out to be accurate. Some people in the community have done miniature volume calculations and it is a *lot* of miniatures. Fair enough you say, it's Epic, but looking at the number of granular special rules I cannot see this new game being faster than Epic SM (2nd) to play, and that game had less miniatures on the tabletop, based on the new points calculations.

GW have always had a 'playable in one evening' ethos to their games, and even the ones that push this (Necromunda, I am looking at you) have stayed within that as a concept. So, if the 3000pt thing is accurate, then either the points values we have seen are incorrect, or there must be some real effeciencies within the game mechanics that haven't yet been revealed.

Well I think it's two things, the first being that part of the re-printing of book was a lot of points costs and upgrade costs were either wrong or missing. So that at least explains the point disparity people were seeing between infantry and vehicles. The other factor is, they've only mentioned 3000pts and 4x5 board but I have to think that's a marketing decision more than an accurate portrayal of how the game will scale. Still speculation that lower point games will be viable and perhaps on a smaller than 4x5. The starter box looks like it sits sort of in the middle at approx 2000 ish points and they've said they're going to release a special detachment/formation thing just for the content of the box. So I feel like after release we might see a warcom article mentioning lower or entry level LI games but I I can see not leading with that if the goal is to push starter boxes/big armies out the gate.

 Pacific wrote:
I think WarComms have been known to be wrong with things before though right?

They have been, yes. But I don't think this is one of the things that they got wrong (though I wouldn't be surprised if the 5x4 table was a typo...).

Is it possible they will have written and now published this game without getting it played by focus groups? I'm not taking about the guys who have written the game and have the rules imprinted on the inside of their eyelids, but how long it takes to play by a new player in their first game and then 2nd - 5th games or so, when players are starting to get the hang of it. If the games take 4+ hrs to play and marked index notes to play, that will do as much to kill it as a £200+ starter set.

On a separate note, looking at the Titan killer rules it looks like titans will have wounds/an HP bar. So the game has added a ton of granular detail, but they have removed the one bit of extra detail from 2nd (hit charts and damage tables) that was pretty much universally loved by everyone who played that edition. FFS

Well, that is what modern GW games are and why certain games that need less investment gets praised

But if you want fast games were beginners can handle it in 2 hours with a core box, than you should not buy into that

For the game size, how well it scale depends on rules/formations we don't know yet
Might be a 1000 point work well, or might be that everything below 2500 needs houserules

For the size itself, 2 core boxes + something extra to replace units you cannot double was the standard size in the past

 Crablezworth wrote:
I think the blast marker thing would have driven me nuts as it did with battflelfeet. I appreciate the comparison. Would it be fair to say for both version's army building forced some level of combined arms or was it possible to field armies that were like entirely one unit type like tanks/flyers ect? One thing I'm sorta hoping for is no matter what the detachments will have some forced variance like armoured company still having to take mechanized infantry and other sections ect.

2nd ed revolved around companies, but nothing stopped you taking only one type of company. Most didn't though as didn't have the models Also different units were good at different things.

4th ed varied by army. Most had core formations that were the gateway to supporting formations. Only Marines were different I think, having the ability to get whatever they wanted (outside of titan and imperial navy support).

The new game seems to be a halfway house with a core formation that does seem to be somewhat mixed, though I haven't paid enough attention to leaks to figure it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Well I think it's two things, the first being that part of the re-printing of book was a lot of points costs and upgrade costs were either wrong or missing. So that at least explains the point disparity people were seeing between infantry and vehicles. The other factor is, they've only mentioned 3000pts and 4x5 board but I have to think that's a marketing decision more than an accurate portrayal of how the game will scale.

Bigger models (twice as big it seems with stuff like SHTs), smaller table. Probably get deployment like 40k (deployment zone, infiltrate style moves). Anticipate a lot more crowded deployment, but seemingly higher firepower and lower saves, so things get removed faster. So 2nd ed in effect

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I think the blast marker thing would have driven me nuts as it did with battflelfeet. I appreciate the comparison. Would it be fair to say for both version's army building forced some level of combined arms or was it possible to field armies that were like entirely one unit type like tanks/flyers ect? One thing I'm sorta hoping for is no matter what the detachments will have some forced variance like armoured company still having to take mechanized infantry and other sections ect.

2nd ed revolved around companies, but nothing stopped you taking only one type of company. Most didn't though as didn't have the models Also different units were good at different things.

4th ed varied by army. Most had core formations that were the gateway to supporting formations. Only Marines were different I think, having the ability to get whatever they wanted (outside of titan and imperial navy support).

The new game seems to be a halfway house with a core formation that does seem to be somewhat mixed, though I haven't paid enough attention to leaks to figure it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Well I think it's two things, the first being that part of the re-printing of book was a lot of points costs and upgrade costs were either wrong or missing. So that at least explains the point disparity people were seeing between infantry and vehicles. The other factor is, they've only mentioned 3000pts and 4x5 board but I have to think that's a marketing decision more than an accurate portrayal of how the game will scale.

Bigger models (twice as big it seems with stuff like SHTs), smaller table. Probably get deployment like 40k (deployment zone, infiltrate style moves). Anticipate a lot more crowded deployment, but seemingly higher firepower and lower saves, so things get removed faster. So 2nd ed in effect

I'm just hoping no matter what formation it's more about the theme/concept/potential composiiton of units than over arching special rules that could be abrasive. I never like titanicus's maniple system because although it did encourage a bit of variety in list building, because the overall benefit for the maniple existed outside of point cost it was a bit of a race to the bottom.

What are your plans now that it looks like a new 'official' version of the game is coming[...]?

I'm looking forward to it. Epic scale gaming is by far my favourite way of playing – the smaller size just feels more engaging and (whisper it low) realistic within the confines of the setting. I've played every version of Epic, with Armageddon (E:A) being by far my favourite owing to its manoeuvre-led gameplay and the visuals of the blast marker mechanics.

For the past a couple of decades, GW haven't provided anything I could use, so I've happily picked up third-party sculpts and proxies to play my games. In my opinion, they often looked better than the old Epic models – but I'm still likely to pick up the new game and models.

Why? Well, first and foremost, I like the look of the new models. Whatever the reasons for the increase in size (and personally, I don't think it's entirely cynical; I'm willing to give GW the benefit of the doubt that they wanted a good, consistent scale across their new models), I'm delighted that this game will be properly compatible with my existing terrain, Titans and flyers.

Secondly, unfortunately for me, I haven't got reliable and regular gaming opportunities at the moment, so when I do get a chance to play, anything that minimises 'friction' – that is, the need for pre-game explanations about what things are, or misunderstandings during play – are welcome. I'll likely be able to get a couple of games in – and the convenience of a single professional physical rulebook/references, and everything looking as it appears in the pictures is invaluable to making things easier for infrequent or totally new players. My gaming group has tried lots of games over the years, and there's something

Thirdly, a new 'official' edition always helps to revitalise interest amongst the broader community, and bring in some new blood – in terms of players, models, terrain and events. The old editions aren't going anywhere, so I don't think Epic: Legions is necessarily going to cannibalise the existing community. It'll do that if it's genuinely a better game – but to be honest, I'm sceptical on whether it's going to scratch the same itch for me as E:A.

Is that a problem? No, not really. I'd love for this game to have been the equivalent of E:A being given the 'Blood Bowl treatment' – but it's not. For that reason, I'm treating it as something new. Epic: Space Marine 2nd edition (SM2) was a game I played only as a nipper, and never quite 'got it'. I'm looking forward to giving it a chance now I'm older – and to see whether the bits that E:A couldn't do – that grand scale that was so visually appealing – can be done justice today.

I love the current rules, and have an 6/8mm IH army with Knights and Titans in progress.

I intend to buy the LI set and try those rules too. Suspect I prefer blast markers morale and true alternating activations over 2nd ed orders and CAF. But you never know, guess we'll choose after a few games.

With the 8mm stuff I intend to paint another Legion, and maybe some Solar to run with Knights.

Some pics of my IH added.

More on IG @AllAlongTheHobbyTable if anyone is curious.

 Apologist wrote:

What are your plans now that it looks like a new 'official' version of the game is coming[...]?

I'm looking forward to it. Epic scale gaming is by far my favourite way of playing – the smaller size just feels more engaging and (whisper it low) realistic within the confines of the setting. I've played every version of Epic, with Armageddon (E:A) being by far my favourite owing to its manoeuvre-led gameplay and the visuals of the blast marker mechanics.

For the past a couple of decades, GW haven't provided anything I could use, so I've happily picked up third-party sculpts and proxies to play my games. In my opinion, they often looked better than the old Epic models – but I'm still likely to pick up the new game and models.

Why? Well, first and foremost, I like the look of the new models. Whatever the reasons for the increase in size (and personally, I don't think it's entirely cynical; I'm willing to give GW the benefit of the doubt that they wanted a good, consistent scale across their new models), I'm delighted that this game will be properly compatible with my existing terrain, Titans and flyers.

Secondly, unfortunately for me, I haven't got reliable and regular gaming opportunities at the moment, so when I do get a chance to play, anything that minimises 'friction' – that is, the need for pre-game explanations about what things are, or misunderstandings during play – are welcome. I'll likely be able to get a couple of games in – and the convenience of a single professional physical rulebook/references, and everything looking as it appears in the pictures is invaluable to making things easier for infrequent or totally new players. My gaming group has tried lots of games over the years, and there's something

Thirdly, a new 'official' edition always helps to revitalise interest amongst the broader community, and bring in some new blood – in terms of players, models, terrain and events. The old editions aren't going anywhere, so I don't think Epic: Legions is necessarily going to cannibalise the existing community. It'll do that if it's genuinely a better game – but to be honest, I'm sceptical on whether it's going to scratch the same itch for me as E:A.

Is that a problem? No, not really. I'd love for this game to have been the equivalent of E:A being given the 'Blood Bowl treatment' – but it's not. For that reason, I'm treating it as something new. Epic: Space Marine 2nd edition (SM2) was a game I played only as a nipper, and never quite 'got it'. I'm looking forward to giving it a chance now I'm older – and to see whether the bits that E:A couldn't do – that grand scale that was so visually appealing – can be done justice today.

Bravo! I could have written that myself.

For me, the most important aspect is that Epic is again a "commercial" and "official" game, bringing new player to this wonderful scale.

Typically, how big (number of infantry and tanks) have people historically recommended for combined arms forces in Epic for say (1) a space marine force and (2) an IG force?

I realize I'm asking for a very rough number. I'm just trying to get an understanding for the size of game people felt worked best. 100 marines w/ rhinos and 4 land raiders and a thunderhawk? 300 IG with chimeras and 8 leman russes with a few valkyries? or what?

Maybe there's a better way to phrase my question?

edit: I realize there's so much context missing from my question, like, does this combined arms force include any warlords etc. It's also possible the answer is points rather than models, e.g. "2000 points per side are typically the most fun because..."

Apologist - what a great post, and I 100% agree. My concern now is that the new game won't do 'grand battle' nearly as well as 2nd edition did (just looking at the amount of special rules and weapon profiles/options involved I can't imagine it will be as quick to play) and it will therefore remove one of the main strengths of that game. But, of course I will reserve judgement until I have rulebook in hand and have played a few games. If the new version stinks, we have three other great versions to fall back on, and hopefully a whole torrent of fresh blood coming into Epic scale off the back of the new game.

Fugazi - it's very hard to say as comments so far have been based on the community page releases and the leaks document (if you search through the News & Rumours Imperialis thread there are some leaked points values there, with the general consensus being that the leaks are genuine).

It looks like from the points values that there will be a significantly increased miniature count compared to previous versions of the game, if the 3000pt value for a 'standard' game given by the Warhammer Community page article is accurate.
If I were in your position, if you want a head start with some proxies or 3D prints, I would just get going with some things that are definitely going to be in the new game; rhinos, Land Raiders, tactical and support infantry. I don't think we know the exact format in terms of volumes of infantry in a company yet (please someone correct me if this has been revealed and I have missed it), but you won't be able to go wrong with 15 or so stands of tactical infantry for example, or half a dozen support or Terminator stands. Worst case scenario is that these are split across companies or detachments.

There was a post by someone on one of the FB pages who has made an army using the leaked point values and community posts, although with some guess work, if you wanted something more specific.

In lieu of Epic getting released this week I decided to put more work into my flyers. Was never a fan of the short flying stands having them lower than buildings & titans, so...

 kodos wrote:


And yes the long playtime for GW games is a problem they try to solve for a long time now

Then stop making me roll so many dice. I have to roll to see how many shots I get, roll to hit, do my rerolls, roll to wound, roll for my random damage weapon, roll to see if the vehicle blew up. My enemy has his armor save, can choose to reroll, maybe a FNP roll. If they eliminated the ridiculous amount of random shots/damage weapons, and all sources of rerolls except the 1CP strat, the game would instantly be 10-20% faster. GW seem to think people play 40k just for an excuse to watch dice roll around in a tray...

It is impossible for me to overstate how strongly I support that sentiment.

GW seems to get it with some games (Warcry for example) but then you seem to hear games taking the micky out of 40k 2nd edition for its complexity on the one hand, and then quite happily roll five or six sets of dice and refer to three separate rulebooks to remove a few miniatures on the other hand.

Toofast wrote:

 kodos wrote:


And yes the long playtime for GW games is a problem they try to solve for a long time now

Then stop making me roll so many dice. I have to roll to see how many shots I get, roll to hit, do my rerolls, roll to wound, roll for my random damage weapon, roll to see if the vehicle blew up. My enemy has his armor save, can choose to reroll, maybe a FNP roll. If they eliminated the ridiculous amount of random shots/damage weapons, and all sources of rerolls except the 1CP strat, the game would instantly be 10-20% faster. GW seem to think people play 40k just for an excuse to watch dice roll around in a tray...

I can certainly say that in Epic 40k resolving attacks is quite fast, particularly in comparison, no matter how obtuse some people like Mad Doc wants to make it look