More of a query than a suggestion, but is there any reason why we're holding on to the Hunter's name? Since the vehicle was introduced (Epic: 40,000-era, I believe), we've seen the release of the Whirlwind Hyperios – the only dedicated anti-aircraft vehicle in the current 40k-scale Marine armoury, and also the Space Marine Hunter spacecraft from Battlefleet: Gothic.

Is there space for the Hyperios as well, or could/should the name of the Hunter be updated?

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Well, there's no Hyperios model...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

IIRC, the hunter is strictly an epic creation.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

I'd have gone for the hyperious being the mark 2 hunter or equivalent. They are both built of the same whirlwind/rhino base and fill the same role

There's no model for quite a few things – just look at the Deathwheel.
(Hmm, actually, don't. It's a monumentally silly idea and totally ruins my point. )

Joking aside, the Hunter model works just fine as a Hyperios; in exactly the same way as the different marks of Predator, Whirlwind, Land Raider, Rhino etc.



Yes, I was basically suggesting that we rename it the Hyperios, to tie it in with the current 40k lists. I vaguely remember reading that the Hunter was a bit of a stop-gap measure to give the Epic-scale Astartes some anti-air ability in a period when the 40k game didn't have any aircraft (and hence anti-aircraft) rules.

I'm a big fan of Epic-scale and the skirmish-scale games tallying with each other.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Hunter is a cooler name than Hyperios

Plus, if fits the name better. Faux-latin/gothic names are given to specific patterns, vehicle classes have english names.

Also, I'm very much against slavishly following the current 40k rules. They change a lot quicker than epic stuff (mostly), and some of it is frankly silly. Use inspiration from 40k, by all means, keep it close even, but always think it over first.

Well, you know what the solution to that is...

The Hyperios looks way better than the trash can aesthetic of the Hunter and (as I've mentioned previously) I'd love to see a smaller model for it. I'd be happy re-naming the epic unit the Hyperios (which they obviously would have called it had it been around at the time) but others may object. Just using one to count as the other works fine and there's no need to come up with Hunter specific rules.

I don't think there's a need for both (at least not as separate entries). I would also disagree on any need for a name change - trying to keep pace with 40K is simply a bad idea due to the limited ability to keep up in models (though in this case, that has relatively little impact). More to the point, they're clearly not the same thing visually.

Besides, it's nice that Epic has a few things of its own. This and Decimators keep us a distinct society.

What might make sense is to mention the existence of the Hyperios in the Hunter unit entry, and then have a picture of each. The Hyperios does have the major advantage that it can be even-more-easily converted out of existing Whirlwinds, after all, and so should perhaps be embraced on that basis.

So, basically, if we add it, do it as a "and you can proxy this as a Hunter".

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

I think we should call the Hyperios a Hunter instead. Seriously, GW dropped the ball with this one. EA's been out for 8 years, you think they would have made a 40k Hunter by now.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

actually, the hyperios by FW was already out when Jervis made the hunter.
The problem is, at that time, the Epic Whirlwind model was looking like the FW hyperios, so it would have been confusing. Since then, the new plastic WW came out, looking like an Epic WW or a FW hyperios.

So, to avoid confusion at E:A release, confusion was created for the 10 next years.

This is of course only a very basic summary

edit : As an aside, I think the issue helps underline the inherent problems when going for strict adherence to a cannon that is both self-contradictory and evolving.

The Hyperios text in Imperial Armour I mentions the Hunter... implying they can both happily co-exist.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Can we not just say that Hunter is a popular name / nickname for the Hyperios?

We definitely don't need two units. You are duplicating functionality in the list.

_________________
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

Being as they're different vehicles and are noted as such in Imperial Armour I, no.

However it's easy enough to say that should a proxy appear, Hyperiosi should have the same stats as a Hunter.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Once there was a time where 40k copied Epic - not the other way around

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Those were the days. Sigh. The ordinatus were wonderful examples. So what is the dog and what is the tail ?