Just wondering if anyone has some insight into why GW released so many variants of its E40k range of models with many vehicles having multiple hull, side and turret variants.

Maybe they thought that having the variation on the table top would help visually as many players might balk at trying to personalize and convert their own models. But some of the variations are so minor that they are hard to spot (like the 2 MM speeder variants)

Personally i dislike it, it makes them harder to paint and get into a assembly line and also for armies such as marines I would think their rigid discipline would mean that each vehicle would be laid out exactly the same.

I would have also thought it would have increased GW cost to model and produce those mini's


So anyways, does anyone have some insight into their decision?

I'll answer that question with another question: why does GW make multiple variants of skaven clanrats or vanilla Space Marines?

The answer to both your question and mine is that more variants looks more realistic.

I doubt there was too great of a cost increase by having the multiple variants, either. I think that they simply made a baseline hull for each model first, then added the different details to that base part to make the masters for the variants.


Space Marines don't even have identical suits of power armor, so having slightly different vehicle hulls isn't that big of a stretch.

I used to know people who played WH fantasy and made their units entirely out of single models (i.e. every black orc in a unit would be the same sculpt). It certainly made it easier to tell formations apart, but it didn't look as cool to my eyes.

I'd argue that it was a massive waste of production capacity that meant the prices for E40k models had to go up considerably... And it consequentially helped kill E40k as a viable business.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

And I would have to second that argument. It's a constant battle to balance variety and costs. It's not just the cost of producing the prototype, you need to factor in the moulds, the sorting and the packaging.

With more variants you increase the complexity of the blister too which increases the risk of error when packaging up your blisters. Errors mean returns which also hit the bottom line.

On the other hand not enough variety impacts the visual quality of the formations, so you lose sales.

_________________
Tom Webb
Author Page: http://www.newtonwebb.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thewebb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thenewtonwebb
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thenewtonwebb

I think that it was also a deliberate effort to pull in the 28mm scale painters and gamers. While Epic actually have more tank variations than 40K does (!) I assume that it was a marketting thing - you are more likely to pull in current 40K players with tank armies that are individual. This decision was made when Epic was going to be a 'core game'.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

I think the answer is simple ... Mo' Money !!!! Profit ... you know ... $$$$$ ... Any business is in business to make profit = $$$$ ... But let their be no doubt ... all the stowage and such on the E40K models takes long to paint. Some guys just like models on the table ... some like a little more "style" on their gaming pieces ... Here's some of my E40K AFVs ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

In a White Dwarf from the era Jervis (I believe) said they wanted to make Epic armor as visually interesting as 40k armor and where applicable match the 40k offerings 'bits'.

Of course, just like any other miniature maker a goal was to hopefully earn more money.

Most miniature makers, both the pros and the amateurs, seem to like to offer some diversity of pose even in 6mm infantry since the market apparently desires this (I know I like it).

The variations are interesting to me, 3rd Edition minis are still my favorite Epic miniatures, I like all the bits and do find them visually appealing.

If you find them hard to paint in an assembly line fashion perhaps you should reconsider your painting technique. What I enjoy about 3rd edition minis is the sculptor did the work on making the minis look distinct instead of putting the burden on the painter (me).

I painted my IG assembly line, base coat, some camo, then painted the stowage (did all the boxes at one time, did all the tarps at one time, etc) then washed and maybe a little dry brush. I would group similar pieces, maybe three or five at a time (if you assemble third edition ones, and want them the same you can do so within reason) and paint them all at once.

The main thing with this scale and really almost all minis is to probably stick with just three or four basic colors for the entire army (except for special characters). It unifies the look of the army and simplifies painting.

I think it was an interesting and ambitious attempt to make epic far more visually interesting and varied, but was flawed because they tried too hard; rather than 8 piece tanks with 4 variants of each piece they should have just made 4 variants of each tank, which would have achieved the same thing without crippling the production.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

*nods in agreement*

_________________
Tom Webb
Author Page: http://www.newtonwebb.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thewebb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thenewtonwebb
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thenewtonwebb

My understanding was that they set the molds up as multi-model with all the variants. One mold corresponded to one package. One mold, no sorting, correspondingly fewer errors in packaging.

Is that not correct?

And, of course, even if that is true, those steps don't help in the slightest when it comes to bitz marketing and the related inventory control nightmare.


Personally, I'd speculate the bitz inventory control problems are why they started setting up sprues with lots of spare bitz for all the WFB and 40K minis. Sending out a little extra plastic with every product to let people customize was cheaper than running the bitz business. Also, pre-made "conversion" ability helps target their younger market demographic, who would like the customization but not have the patience (or maybe ability) to make their own.

Most of the SM and IG tanks had 4-5 hull and track variants while only having 2-3 models per pack. I've definitely bought multiple packs all with the same variants in them, but there's still an odd variant hull/track here and there that are hard to come by.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Well, chalk that up to my poor memory.

Maybe it was one model per mold. Or maybe I'm just getting senile.

Personally. I liked the variance. There's nothing more dull than all vehicles looking identical. But it's a moot point coz it's all done and dusted now anyway.

People seem to be under the impression that it was the organizational hassle resulting from model variants that doomed E:40k and therefore Epic in general. Frankly, I don't see how that could have been anything more than a drop in the bucket compared to the real cause, which is that GW simply didn't plan on supporting the game any further.

From what i can tell E:40k didn't sell as well as they'd hoped, so they closed up shop faster than they had with necromunda or gorka morka - but that wasn't because of the models. There is no evindence that they ever planned on supporting E:40k for more than a year. Also, one would think that if multiple variants had been such a huge hassle, GW wouldn't have repeated the mistake when BFG was released 2 years later.

People also seem to be under the impression that price went up due to the multiple variants, which seems unlikely given GWs tendency to regularly raise prices.

Personally, I think that GW hit a home run with the E:40k models. They were far superior to the preceding models, and hold up well compared to newer models. I don't recall anyone at the time ever complaining about there being to many variants, while the complaining about the rules oversimplification was common. The only real problem with them is that is many cases they no longer match their WH:40k analogues.

Some interesting opinions, its good to hear some different ideas on the subject and whether it was successful or not.



Its been awhile since I played BFG but IIRC each different entry in the army book only had 1 model back in the day. The cruisers had different plastic bits for different variations but all the metal ships only had 1 varient