Anyone going to Heresy with mini-marines? (new Epic HH game)

[Xenith]

14 minutes ago, Bung said:

The new Necromunda was killed in my area by GW, when they released a new Edition after one year.

 

Even the last Space Hulk Edition struggles with some Missions to be a balanced game.

 

Agree on Necromunda, even GW staff I spoke to didn't know what books I needed to start. Space Hulk, however was never meant to be balanced, it's always been heavily in favour of the stealers, as intended. Just remember the name of the first mission. 

[Sherrypie]

Space Hulk is not a Jervis game either, it's designed by Richard Halliwell who passed away couple of years back.

[Pacific81]

 I was referring to the original Necromunda sorry guys. That was still popular for years after being discontinued.

I agree about the new version, I have read a description of it, "for us, not for them" with respect of the amount of rules and time investment the game takes to play, which I think is a fair statement.

 

Blood Bowl still had tournaments in Europe with 4-500 people attending a decade after the game had stopped being sold.

Epic has FB groups with thousands of members, tournaments and events held internationally, and a sizeable cottage industry has grown selling proxies and 3d printing.

 

Saying these games is the equivalent to some straight-to-dvd video-game adaptation is a little unfair, lol.

[Gorgoff]

I may add that Necromunda really took off after the second re-launch in my town. We currently playing a campaign with like ten players. Really cool game with frightning amount of content 

[Pacific81]

It's a wonderful game if you have the capacity (time, money, effort) to completely get absorbed by it. For casuals it ain't.

[Bung]

4 hours ago, Pacific81 said:

 I was referring to the original Necromunda sorry guys. That was still popular for years after being discontinued.

I agree about the new version, I have read a description of it, "for us, not for them" with respect of the amount of rules and time investment the game takes to play, which I think is a fair statement.

 

Blood Bowl still had tournaments in Europe with 4-500 people attending a decade after the game had stopped being sold.

Epic has FB groups with thousands of members, tournaments and events held internationally, and a sizeable cottage industry has grown selling proxies and 3d printing.

 

Saying these games is the equivalent to some straight-to-dvd video-game adaptation is a little unfair, lol.

 

The i think we should agree to disagree.

For me letting Jervis Johnson do Something unsupervised isnt a mark quality.

 

I compare him to Uwe Boll cause that guy is the great elder abomination of german movie makers whos touch turns all to poo.

[General Zodd]

2 hours ago, Bung said:

 

The i think we should agree to disagree.

For me letting Jervis Johnson do Something unsupervised isnt a mark quality.

 

I compare him to Uwe Boll cause that guy is the great elder abomination of german movie makers whos touch turns all to poo.

Maybe you have privileged information about the development of some of these games? As far as I’m aware very few GW games are the vision of a single developer, all of them will have a lead designer because *someone* has to make decisions, but it’s always going to be a collaborative affair. The games I personally most associate with Jervis are Blood Bowl (2nd Ed onwards) and Epic Armageddon. If that was all he’d contributed (and he’s done far more that others love as well) I’d say it was a great contribution to tabletop gaming.

[Bung]

50 minutes ago, General Zodd said:

Maybe you have privileged information about the development of some of these games? As far as I’m aware very few GW games are the vision of a single developer, all of them will have a lead designer because *someone* has to make decisions, but it’s always going to be a collaborative affair. The games I personally most associate with Jervis are Blood Bowl (2nd Ed onwards) and Epic Armageddon. If that was all he’d contributed (and he’s done far more that others love as well) I’d say it was a great contribution to tabletop gaming.

 

I dont have any inside information.

But at the same time worked really great Game Designers at GW like Andy Chambers, Pete Haines and others i think did a way better job.o

For example look at the first DA and SW Codex in third Edition. Both with his name and which of those stayed on the top of tourney armies till end of fifth Edition.

 

As said, my personal opinion of that man's work after 20 years with GW.

 

 

[General Zodd]

4 hours ago, Bung said:

 

I dont have any inside information.

But at the same time worked really great Game Designers at GW like Andy Chambers, Pete Haines and others i think did a way better job.o

For example look at the first DA and SW Codex in third Edition. Both with his name and which of those stayed on the top of tourney armies till end of fifth Edition.

 

As said, my personal opinion of that man's work after 20 years with GW.

 

 

Ah! I think I get where you’re coming from if that’s a prime example. If your criticism is that Jervis failed to write codexes that were competitive in the meta environment they were released into, then your criticism is entirely justified in my view. That was never his strength. He wasn’t even that keen on points values full stop. That’s not what I value his contribution to our hobby for. His strength lay in writing rules that created cool moments and lent themselves to emergent stories. He was great at creating rules that brought out theme and flavour, and creating exciting high points. If his fingerprints are on the new Epic (and I don’t think we know if he started this before he retired, or it’s an update of his previous rules or something new) it will make for the kind of gaming experience that I’m valuing more and more as I get older. Maybe it won’t be a perfect tournament style game, I don’t know, but I’d imagine it’s likely to stretch strategic and tactical muscles that other games don’t, and hopefully do all the other cool stuff I mentioned already!

[Bung]

8 hours ago, General Zodd said:

Ah! I think I get where you’re coming from if that’s a prime example. If your criticism is that Jervis failed to write codexes that were competitive in the meta environment they were released into, then your criticism is entirely justified in my view. That was never his strength. He wasn’t even that keen on points values full stop. That’s not what I value his contribution to our hobby for. His strength lay in writing rules that created cool moments and lent themselves to emergent stories. He was great at creating rules that brought out theme and flavour, and creating exciting high points. If his fingerprints are on the new Epic (and I don’t think we know if he started this before he retired, or it’s an update of his previous rules or something new) it will make for the kind of gaming experience that I’m valuing more and more as I get older. Maybe it won’t be a perfect tournament style game, I don’t know, but I’d imagine it’s likely to stretch strategic and tactical muscles that other games don’t, and hopefully do all the other cool stuff I mentioned already!

 

Its not about tournament play.

If you look it up the the DA Codex im third Ed was the only one to get a rework and reprint to make that army playable, while the SW Codex stayed on top for nearly 3 Editions.

 

Thats the best example i can think of how inconsistent und full of failure hiscrules writting is in an Edition he was part of the rules team.

Second was Jervis Johnson in 4th Ed:

"We dont need FaQs our Games are perfect."

Which was dropped after a few months

 

In my eyes he is the Game Designer GW should have let go for over a decade but cant.

 

Then i look around seeing Andy Chambers doing Dropfleet Commander which is basically a BFG 2.0 Rules Set.

 

Sorry, compared to others that worked at GW Jervis Johnson cant hold a candle.

 

Therefore i hope there are other game Designers doing most of the Work when Jervis Johnson left the room.

 

 

[Captain Idaho]

=][= Let's refocus the discussion away from the quality of a games developer, which is something that should be discussed elsewhere.

 

Let's talk about tiny Marines blowing up tiny Marines, with lots of cute little tanks rolling around blowing stuff up. As the god-emperor intended. =][=

[WrathOfTheLion]

I think I'm going to do something different than my normal legions when it comes out.

 

Maybe Thousand Sons for traitors and Blood Angels or Ultramarines for loyalists?

 

I never played epic, so it's all new to me.

Edited May 14, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Captain Idaho]

I'm all over Epic and usually Ultramarines too, but you raise a good point... should I pull the trigger on another faction entirely with Epic?

 

Oh my...

[WrathOfTheLion]

1 minute ago, Captain Idaho said:

I'm all over Epic and usually Ultramarines too, but you raise a good point... should I pull the trigger on another faction entirely with Epic?

 

Oh my...

For me, I'm doing some TS for 40k, but haven't touched them in 30k. I'm thinking either them, NL or IW.

 

It's pretty open ground to do something new.

[Pacific81]

It's definitely an opportunity to try something new, and as they are fast to paint you can build up a force quickly (in the old days at relatively low cost too, fingers crossed for a reasonably priced starter set!)

 

I can never stay on piste so am tentatively thinking of doing something to do with the First Legion and the Rangdan genocide during the crusade. The marines will be straightforward, but the descriptions of the Rangdan are pretty varied (swarming maggot-kin and mind slaves, amongst other things!) so the challenge will be finding a concept and model range for them, before even worrying about rules!

Edited May 14, 2023 by Pacific81

[Pacific81]

Hey folks - now that the new Imperialis boxset and content has been revealed, is anyone planning a Legion or other force?

 

I like the look of the Solar Auxiliary units (imagining a big mechanised army!) and will probably split the set and give the marines to a friend, as they are already well accounted for in my collection.

[Cactus]

Until I see the rules I'm ambivalent. I would like a tank-focussed army, so maybe an Alpha Legion tank battalion with auxilia support. However I've been re-reading the Epic Armageddon rules and eyeing up the skinner range from Vanguard...

[Pacific81]

Yes it's been difficult trying to parse the rules format from the news releases so far; it sounds a bit like a mix of Armageddon and Space Marine, you can see elements of both.

I've got some apprehension, but the rules writers are sitting on (IMO) two of the best rulesets ever made with those two games, so hopefully they'll have the sense to just update one of them rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

I know the HH focus has been a source of annoyance for some wanting to play with Xenos factions. That's another reason to hope the rules are a re-publishing (or similar at least) to an earlier edition, as it will be a simple matter to port over the other faction rules for those games. I am in a similar position of wanting to order an Onslaught Grimm army (Squats), but waiting to see what comes from GW first!

[Gillyfish]

I will definitely get it. Space Marine (2nd ed) was the first GW game I got and I fell in love with the scale of the battles. I still have my Chapter's worth of marines somewhere (painted badly or not at all) and I am looking forward to seeing what they have done with the new ruleset.

 

It does sound like the hidden orders from second edition may be back in some way (will they still be Advance, First Fire and Charge though?). I am very much hoping that they keep the blast marker mechanism from the third and fourth editions though - having little explosions near your formations looked cool and was a nice visual way to measure morale. I also hope they retain the differentiation between anti-personnel and anti-tank weaponry, although they could take a leaf out of the Dropzone Commander book and just use a much wider range of Energy (Strength) vs. Armour (Toughness) than we are used to in GW games, which can make weaponry inherently more effective for clearing out infantry vs. tanks.

[Gorgoff]

So far the promo shots look very boring and I hope dearly that the rules doesn't force us to realy put 5 men each base but instead allow it to make proper 10 men squads. That just looks better and army-esk. And I want super heavy tanks and stuff and not just Rhinos and those russes. Give me Epic stuff or go home.

[Cactus]

25 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

So far the promo shots look very boring and I hope dearly that the rules doesn't force us to realy put 5 men each base but instead allow it to make proper 10 men squads. That just looks better and army-esk. And I want super heavy tanks and stuff and not just Rhinos and those russes. Give me Epic stuff or go home.

Epic has always been 5 infantry on a base so I think you'll be disappointed. I did my epic tactical marine units in pairs with a sergeant on one base and a heavy weapon on another. The two are equivalent in game terms but look great when ranked up as a company. Obviously 30k has less varied squads but I expect it will be possible to apportion the sergeants in the ratio you want for 10,15 or 20 man squads.

 

Edit - Having said all that the base size rules in Epic Armageddon were very flexible and a 40mm by 40mm infantry base was legal. Only the 'max 7 infantry' rule stopped you cramming the base with 10 men and I personally would be happy to house-rule that limit away.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Cactus

[Sherrypie]

19 minutes ago, Cactus said:

Epic has always been 5 infantry on a base so I think you'll be disappointed. I did my epic tactical marine units in pairs with a sergeant on one base and a heavy weapon on another. The two are equivalent in game terms but look great when ranked up as a company. Obviously 30k has less varied squads but I expect it will be possible to apportion the sergeants in the ratio you want for 10,15 or 20 man squads.

 

Edit - Having said all that the base size rules in Epic Armageddon were very flexible and a 40mm by 40mm infantry base was legal. Only the 'max 7 infantry' rule stopped you cramming the base with 10 men and I personally would be happy to house-rule that limit away.

 

The number of models on a base is basically irrelevant, as 99 % of sensible players have always played E:A from base to base instead of the utterly bonkers original suggestion to count from models to models. While the 3-7 infantry per base, usually 5, is a classic look and most people do that, it's not rare to see for example printed massed Tyranid swarms as huge waves of bodies on a single base.

 

I'm probably going to get a bunch of Auxilia models, check out if there's some interesting game design to be gleaned from the rules and use them as an IG army in E:A if the new game disappoints. I'm hopeful it'll just do its own thing and join the Epic family as another option for those who like whatever abstraction level and approach it takes.

[Gorgoff]

26 minutes ago, Cactus said:

Epic has always been 5 infantry on a base

Count again.

[Pacific81]

Cactus is correct that for many years (certainly first and second edition) it was 5 infantry per base. I think the same for Epic 40k also, and that was the only way you ever saw miniatures when they were sold officially - in fact it was the only plastic base you could get too, be they square or rectangular.

 

More recently a lot of community rulesets have gone off base dimensions rather than this requirement (I forget which way Armageddon ruled it) as really that is the important thing, as long as you can see what the base is meant to be. But this case it looks like Imperialis is continuing the official trend, I am sure in practice people will just base the infantry as they like, providing some base dimensions are maintained (the Warhammer community page already stated that the rules will be base shape agnostic, which is great news).

[Sherrypie]

11 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

Count again.

All infantry bases in that picture really do have five men to a base. The square ones at the front have five on a 20 x 20 mm base while the tacticals between the tanks are two rows of five on 40 x 12 mm strips pushed close to each other (you can see them staggered on the very left).