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.

 Albertorius wrote:

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

Although I generally like Epic 40k the most, I would actually advocate for adding an extra dice roll to that system

A lot of people seemed to hate the Firepower table, but the Firepower table was effectively "simulating" a dice roll and could easily be replaced by one, and it might have made people hate Epic 40k less.

The system is basically...

Add up firepower -> consult table to see how many dice you roll -> roll "to hit" -> successful hits = kills.

Buuuuut, it could be this, and I think it wouldn't add much time, and would open the door for some new rules...

Add up firepower -> roll a number of dice equal to firepower -> collect successes and roll "to wound" -> successful wounds = kills.

That way you just roll 1 dice per firepower prior to the "kill" roll and don't have to look up the firepower table.

Then instead of the firepower table, you just roll a 4+ to hit, with modifiers of +1 for marching, +1 for war engine, -1 for in cover.

Seeing as the dice rollers have other editions to choose from and Epic 40k is not going to be back officially anytime soon... nah man, keep the extra rolls out of it

 Albertorius wrote:
Seeing as the dice rollers have other editions to choose from and Epic 40k is not going to be back officially anytime soon... nah man, keep the extra rolls out of it

I'd say rolling an extra set of dice is roughly as time consuming as consulting the firepower table, and the firepower table is a bit of abstraction a lot of people disliked about Epic 40k.

It also means that your kills can be linked to specific units (e.g. with the firepower table if you had 2 units with 1 firepower each, you'd roll 1 dice "to hit" so the roll wasn't linked to a specific unit). By adding the extra roll, each unit rolls its own dice, which allows for new special rules like your hero could be +1 to hit or something like that and you just roll a different coloured dice for him, or for War Engines you could add different armour for different faces (I'm not a big fan of facings for regular units as it seems silly to worry about the facing of a single tank when you're commanding 10's of tanks, that's the job of the tank or squadron commander, not the general... but for War Engines it could be interesting to add side/rear armour bonuses).

I know in Epic Remastered there was discussion around shields having bonuses against only front shots.... which is an idea I don't particularly like but if you're someone who does like that idea then having dice rolls attributable to specific units makes it easier to figure that stuff out.

But play however you like, as you say, GW are extremely unlikely to revisit the Epic 40k rules.... I only came up with the extra dice roll because of the number of people who attributed their dislike of E40k specifically to the Firepower table.

Hm.... I always thought of void shields as more bubbles than anything else, so I can't really say I'd like that very much, myself ^^

 Albertorius wrote:
Hm.... I always thought of void shields as more bubbles than anything else, so I can't really say I'd like that very much, myself ^^

I think the discussion was more on things like breacher shields.

Although the lack of a release date is frustrating, I'm still excited about this as my first dedicated foray into Epic. I'm hoping the Civitas buildings and spires will be rereleased, as I really like that look and style.

I know this is wishlisting, but I really, really hope Eldar, Orks and Tau will get some releases down the line, even if it's far down the line.

Got some work in progress shots of the solar aux.





Thinking of going for a scheme like this, basically leadbelcher armour, cyan helmet, black bdu's

My personal hope is that a looser homebrewing epic can always exist along side GW's official output. looser rule sets for introducing new factions and units was always a divisive issue anyway, since some insisted on rigidly adhering to the 1990s rules and units (for example) and others willing to introduce all manner of canon friendly but currently ruleless units and rules. I hope homebrewers can develop a set of rules which allow introducing new units without breaking the game (by, for example, maintaining set rules for weapon types and making the cost of homebrewed units higher costed than their abilities might predict)

my local group, for example, allows me to feild an all cultist army so long as the rules are within the realm of canon sense. this 'cult leader' is feilded as having the stats of a defiler but also has the hq rule (etc.)

 infinite_array wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 tauist wrote:
There is no precedent of GW teasing a computer game like that. Make no mistake, its a new boardgame, at the very least.

It has relaxed a tiny bit in recent times, but usually GW are very very strict to keep third party/licensee stuff separate from their core lineup, so a computer game is a very very low probability.

Also, this seems false? I can find articles talking about Shootas, Blood & Teef, Darktide, World of Warships, Mechanicus, Chaosbane, Warhammer Underworlds: Online, Inquisitor: Martyr, and Total War: Warhammer III. So there's plenty of computer game talk on the Community site.

Anyone into Shootas, Blood & Teef? Thinking about getting the physical version of this game.