Too many parts require a large inventory ... and that is a problem in itself ... again ... the botomline ... $$$ ...

_________________
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."

Not sure I'd agree that GW never intended to support Epic 40K. From what I remember they made a really big deal of the game upon its release, pushed it in stores and invested in lots of new miniatures (many of which they didn't really need to) over a relatively short space of time. Other hobby shops were corralled into stocking lots of box sets and setting up big displays. It seemed to me they were trying to give it the best chance they could of establishing it as a core game by making sure there was good model range coverage. I'd be very surprised if they went to all that effort for 1 year's worth of sales.

What I think happened is that sales fell far, far short of expectations. They were overexposed in terms of the investment in the game, and had to make a decision. Either keep making new models, or shut it down. Evidently they decided that they were flogging a dead horse. I was surprised that they shut it down so quickly, selling off all the miniatures in a fire sale as they did, it gave me the impression of a bit of a panic situation. Again, that is not the behaviour I'd expect if they planned to discontinue support in advance.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Not sure about the chaos ships, but there were three variants of each of the original metal Imperial navy escorts, and 2 variants of the IN light cruiser (after an inspection of my models). There were also at least two variants of each of the ork and Eldar escort types. Most of the escorts also had a choice of two "wing" parts as well.

I was just about to say that my brute ramships were all the same but I think there were some subtle differences but it was a long time ago that i last looked at the models.

The e40k models had alot more variants and different parts for each model though and alot of the bfg models were single piece. So they might have learnt the lessons of having too many variants.

some examples include marine predator
http://www.solegends.com/citcat1998/1998P437-02.htm

and leman russ
http://www.solegends.com/citcat1998/1998P440-02.htm

Nothing like watching a company sell you half the product they previously did for the same price while telling you they just changed ALL the rules and, by the way, you need to rebase your f...ing infantry... >:(



No kidding! I've seen repeat goofs in the Blood Reavers set where the Rhinos were shipped out with Predator sides.

_________________
WAAARGH!!
The Lost & the Dipped

E40k3rd minatures are generally thought of as an improvement, paying for it wasn't a big deal in my mind, I like quality.

Also, they never said you had to rebase anything, actually they said it didn't matter (pg 103 Green Battles Book, 'Vetern Epic gamers are likely to have infantry on the old bases but there is no need to rebase them".)

The changes to the game IMHO aren't that great, what changed more was the fact you had to organize and create your own detachments. This actually made the game more complex, not less. You have to actually do more work to get going, I think what people really didn't like about Epic 3rd is they had more work to do and more thinking, not less. EA, other than some additional steps is based quite a bit on E40k 3rd, but the work of structuring your forces is laid out in a more presentable fashion (which I think is the reason for it's 'success') As the E40k rules state, a player would be best off just making workable detachments and sticking with them.

Even though all the complaints and my defense are just the beating of a very dead horse the real thing that killed Epic was that compared to the demographic that makes GW money an Epic scale game with a focus on strategy rather than rule trick 'tactics' just doesn't appeal to the same number of customers. Add to this the visual draw of 28mm and Epic falls by the wayside. CAV died (or is in the same limbo Epic is), Battletech, pretty much the same fate. The scale just has limited appeal. Epic would make a fine 'niche' game just like Spartan Games offerings, but that will never happen, and even if it did it could turn out to be a disaster, much like what happened to Battletech.

I remember a blister of leman russ's was brought out of 3 different luggage loads this was just before the gearing up to the big new rules (3rd ed) and was an easy produced blister no side tracks etc just a body and turret to assemble. Think they had one for press too but can't remember.

As to the death of 2nd edition I had been expecting a lot yet when I brought WD with the new overview I was shocked like my mates. Totally could not believe the rebasing, which IMHO was just so we brought new infantry. And the new detachment formations just took away the choice and tactical options you had using the cards of soace marine.

The new models were great but the rules and basing just cut of so many who were established and had armies. I'm still adding to mine all the time.

They really should of done a whole rule consolidation and merged titan legions and space marine and plug the rule holes. Then they could of released updated army lists and expanded the cards (so many options for tech guard). As previous additional formations just poor like assault company with chimera variants, better a tg heavy company with them.

GW were treating sm/tl as they runt of their litter of games and when they thought time for rule revision (as all their games get) they didn't listen to any fans/players then dropped it as there was even less take up as they assumed the veteran players would all just take it up.

They don't even have sm/tl in their specialist games list even though EA there and all of the models can be used by all editions, only thing they could add would be square bases

Back to original topic.
I'm convinced that the variants are meant as a treat for players and are not cost relevant.

He, who has seen a GW miniatures mold, knows that there is nothing like a "single" mold. All molds are multi-model molds. Model in this case can be a complete miniature or just a part like a turret or a hull.

I do not know how many Epic models you get in a mold, but my guess would be above 50.

So what models to put into a mold ?

One of each is obviously silly. Because in each run you will have to produce all models in the mold, you would produce as many chaplains as Imperial guardsmen. Not only that you waste a lot of time, because you have to make 100 runs to produce 100 Guardsmen and have to melt in 4900 other models you might not need (some you might keep in stock, but you will never need as many Bike chaplains as Guardsmen), you will wear the mold out without getting much useful output.

So the models to put into a mold are selected in a way to find a balance between total number of molds needed and the least number of runs needed to produce the number of models you guess you will sell.

One mold might have 100 Guardsmen (which are small) and one of each Infantry character model, another mold just 25 chimera hulls and turrets and one all imperial aircraft variants and so on.

The mold with the Leman Russ parts on it will probably just consist of leman Russ parts, but it will surely have more than one Leman Russ in it.

The way the molds are made (or at least were made at that time) there is no advantage in using the same "shape" for the same model. It doesn't matter whether all Skaven have the same pose or not.
The only cost difference it will make, will be in the time needed to design the additional masters. Which might be less than you expect especially when changes are small, like a weapon swap.

A Leman Russ variant, with an added sandbag or such will be done in minutes and probably will be something done by a trainee to gain experience. The cost is negligible.

So why not give players a treat and give them more variants, as they come for free (at least close to free) ?

And of course when the edition changes, a product push is needed or production technology advances, there will be reasons to redo the product line - and I for one am thankful for that, because usually the models get better looking with each new generation - Rhinos being the exception (IMHO).

Regards
SH

My words.
I was shocked and pissed
especially the new bases were awful prices here in Germany doubled from 17,5 DM to 35 DM(about 11 Pounds 15 years ago) for a superheavy tank
Ruleset was crude
Inf.packsize reduced by 50%
Inf. bases were slightly bigger so they did not fit in the old square ones
and so one
the model were fantastic though

I really love the models from the Epic40k and the customisation that came with them era but the rules..

2nd edition Space Marine was full of character, it played a quick game with bucketloads of models and people playing (we used to regularly play with 4-6 people per side). Army creation could be done in a couple of minutes at the table and we always had enjoyable games. Sure, things got out of hand with the number of updates we used to get in WD but until Hive War we felt that it was just so well balanced as a game.

Epic40k was, in a word, bland. We all wanted to like it. My then group spent a month of weekends playing it, we even liked some of the rule changes, but it was just so.. bland.

The price of the models was a real stumbling block for new gamers in our group. Because SMv2 was so successful none of us really needed to by anything other than a few blisters of whatever took our fancy but new gamers in our group worked out how much a new Epic40k army, tiny 6mm models, would cost then compare that with how much a WHFB or 40k army would cost and every time they spent their money on WHFB or 40k instead.

Getting back to the why so many variants, SMv2 was always a very good seller as the third core game and I guess GW expected Epic40k to surpass the success of SMv2. Unfortunately GW completely misjudged what people actually wanted from the game, younger/new players felt it was too expensive compared to their other systems and the rest is history.

_________________
My tasty epic painting blog: Chewing Lead

I don't find E40K bland, I find it lacks the 'busy' details that belong at most in a skirmish level game (and which tend to make some skirmish level games near unplayable).

Anytime I consider playing EA and look through the rules all all the lists I end up thinking why? Why all the detail and fiddly requirements. Do some of the add ons like anti personal vs anti armor make sense? I suppose they have an appeal (one I have considered), but in the final analysis I find that those details don't significantly change the outcome of the game and to my mind function as unnecessay clutter in a game of this scale. I respect that if that is what the majority need to feel an interest it is a these extras are great for them. However, I appreciate having an alternative.

I have come to the conclusion that lots of named details, special exceptions, etc., are what most people that came to gaming via GW enjoy and seek. Since I love 40k fluff and have the least bit of interest in 40k the game I am greatful GW made Epic 3rd, a version I could appreciate.

The biggest mistake GW made was not including many more sample detachments, or even better yet a detachment card system like SM has. It's nice to have the freedom if one desires it but I personally find setting up the detachments to be onerous and have taken to just using lists out of fluff and Imperial Armor books from FW, then printing the detachments on cards and using them from game to game. Just taking that step has made Epic40k a much more likely event than when each side had to labor over picking an army.