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.

Epic with 40k models is easy. 15cm = 24", and base up your non-vehicles.

jbunny wrote:
With Epic, I have to buy the rule book, buy the models, and those models can only be used in a game of Epic.

With Apoc, I have to buy a rule book. I can use the models I already have so no other purchases required on my part. So is no one else wants to play Apoc I am out a rule book. If no one wants to play, Epic, I am out a lot of money.

You can download all of the rules for free from the GW website (another well kept secret by them!)

Also, although models from the official site are rather expensive, spend a bit of time on ebay and you can get some amazing deals. I got about 30 tanks (combinations of rhinos and LRs) for less than $10! I'm sure you could get a pretty impressive force for the cost of your Apoc rulebook

I think this thread highlights really how the hobby has changed. Now the games are so expensive, that most players can really only afford to concentrate on one system. When I was a kid, I had 40k, WFB, Epic, and several BB teams. From reading this thread it seems there are a lot of people who only play one system, and aren't really willing to try Epic on that basis.

Pacific wrote:

I think this thread highlights really how the hobby has changed. Now the games are so expensive, that most players can really only afford to concentrate on one system. When I was a kid, I had 40k, WFB, Epic, and several BB teams. From reading this thread it seems there are a lot of people who only play one system, and aren't really willing to try Epic on that basis.

I've noticed that as well. Like you as a kid I played a range of different GW games as well as some from other manufacturers. I still do, but that's because I saved some of the kit I had (still not sure where my epic LR company went but hey ho) and because I've used cheep replacements to physrep the rest.

The flip side I'm seeing is that people are collecting multiple armies for the one system giving them a better idea of how the rules hinder / benefit different armies which is potentially turning out a better quality of player. When I played as a kid I had one army for 40k, one for Epic, one for necromunda and so on and so on.

It's like everything these days, people are forced to specialise. You can play one system but see different aspects of it or you can play a lot of different systems for your variety. I'm still a system whore. I like to try different systems and since I'm not competitive and will certainly never play in a tournament I can do so with the figures I already own as my friends don't care. It lets me play a range of 6mm, 20mm and 28mm for just the cost of a rule book (or a DL in some cases).

I wonder if tournament players are more prone to specialising in a single game while non-tournament players try a range of systems juts to see what's out there?

The Ghoma wrote:Epic is nice, but customizing the models is pretty limited, while for Apoc you can see that one captain you worked hard on kill everything around him (over exaggeration) or that bunch of tanks blowing apart that platoon of guards.

Er... You sure you're not confused there? You're *more* likely to see a bunch of tanks blowing apart a platoon of guard in Epic than you are in Apocalypse due to the number of figures involved. There are simply more platoons to destroy in Epic scale.

Also, people keep talking about customization this and customization that as if 40K had an advantage there. What they're forgetting is that there are plenty of models the same size as your 40K humans and walkers. Epic scale vehicles allow plenty of detail work to anyone who actually cares to put in the effort. And there are a lot more vehicles in an Epic game than you'd see in a 40K game. And Titans are roughly the same size as a 40K walker, meaning that a reasonable amount of effort on one of them can provide the same amount of satisfaction that you get from a well-painted dreadnought.

In short, it's not as if you're only playing with a bunch of 6mm marines. There are plenty of figures to go in the other size ranges, and they provide you with lots of opportunities to show off your painting skills if you choose to do so.



On an unrelated note, my understanding is that one of the reasons GW stopped supporting Epic was because it was less expensive to get started with an Epic scale army than it was to get started with a 40K army. Gotta keep the money rolling into the company.

Why don't you use Epic models for apocalypse games

I loved epic, it was what got me into the 40k universe years ago. Sad panda that it's no longer supported. :(

The point here I guess is that why would GW want you giving them £50 to have a huge clash of armies when you could be giving them £500+?

Yes I agree completely Capt_Bowman, I too love lots of systems made by GW, and also some non-GW stuff (FoW and Warmachine) but its amazing how many younger (less than 18) players only have one system and are completely ignorant of other games. It might also explain why the 'system x is better than y' culture and various keyboard-warrior arguments have sprung up, as army costs are now exceeding full price games consoles, the arguments are starting to emulate those found in those other pastimes.

Daedricbob wrote:I loved epic, it was what got me into the 40k universe years ago. Sad panda that it's no longer supported. :(

The point here I guess is that why would GW want you giving them £50 to have a huge clash of armies when you could be giving them £500+?

And that is why epic, and every other specialist game, is buried away in the corner of the website like an unwanted bastard child. Also why you can no longer play specialist games in the vast majority of LGS, younger players would realise how much fun they could have with a 30$ blood bowl team or Necromunda gang and would start questioning $300+ for a 40k or WFB army.

Look, it's part of GW's business plan. They had a long creative period where lots of games were produced, loved, and then sank without trace; Bloodbowl, Man'o'War, Gorkamorka, Battlefleet Gothic.....

GW were basically seeing what sold; it makes sound sense if you want to expand your business. They have concentrated on the core games for years and years, creating a loyal fanbase who want to experience something slightly different to those of us who spent hours playing Space Marine or Titan Legions-and Apocalyspe provides that experience.

I was just surprised that GW had returned to the idea of running huge armies, and even more surprised that they were doing it in 28mm. Epic was written specifically to cater for that without needing massive tables, you can use a "normal" gaming table and STILL field 5500 points of Kult of Speed. Part of me thinks that Epic was a compremise and that they wanted to use 28mm all along, but they couldn't make Titan models big enough; now model technology has caught up with them..

Still, I'm going to start BFG soon...and then maybe I'll shell out for "real" 40k......or maybe start Warmaster instead..

40K is still to fiddly to work with really big forces. If they streamlined the rules just a bit and went to 15mm miniatures, it would be perfect.

Hold on..Smaller figures? Streamlined rules?? Sounds "Epic" fun!!!

Son_Of _Deddog wrote:I went into my GW today for some stuff for my son. The Assistant was very happy to deal with my enquiries (although cagey about a new Grey Knights codex..). Sensing a sale he asked if I played myself. "Not much, but I've been playing Epic for a while now.."I replied. He launched into some spiel about Apocalypse allowing me to field masses of troops and armour and basically being the best thing since...well, ever..So I asked the fateful question "Why did GW have to write a whole set of rules, when it has Epic: Armageddon which, with 2-3 more forces, would do the job better???" He tried to convince me that fielding 5000 points in 28mm was "awesome", but just avoided the question really....

So, is Apocalypse better at representing REALLY large armies than Epic?? Is it simply a question of cost (producing a rulebook is cheap compared with launching Necrons, Tau and 'Nids in 6mm)? Is it a question of customer satisfaction (people are intimidated painting a 6mm Marine, people like more detail..) or is Apocalypse simply a better system?????

Answers on a postcard..or failing that, just hit reply.

I played Apocalypse twice. It bored me to tears. Wow lets jame 5,000 points on each side onto a table and just make pew pew noises!

Frazzled wrote:

Son_Of _Deddog wrote:I went into my GW today for some stuff for my son. The Assistant was very happy to deal with my enquiries (although cagey about a new Grey Knights codex..). Sensing a sale he asked if I played myself. "Not much, but I've been playing Epic for a while now.."I replied. He launched into some spiel about Apocalypse allowing me to field masses of troops and armour and basically being the best thing since...well, ever..So I asked the fateful question "Why did GW have to write a whole set of rules, when it has Epic: Armageddon which, with 2-3 more forces, would do the job better???" He tried to convince me that fielding 5000 points in 28mm was "awesome", but just avoided the question really....

So, is Apocalypse better at representing REALLY large armies than Epic?? Is it simply a question of cost (producing a rulebook is cheap compared with launching Necrons, Tau and 'Nids in 6mm)? Is it a question of customer satisfaction (people are intimidated painting a 6mm Marine, people like more detail..) or is Apocalypse simply a better system?????

Answers on a postcard..or failing that, just hit reply.

I played Apocalypse twice. It bored me to tears. Wow lets jame 5,000 points on each side onto a table and just make pew pew noises!

I get bored too when I play games where it's just jamming X points on each side. Objectives and coherent story-based campaigns make games far more interesting.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Son_Of _Deddog wrote:I went into my GW today for some stuff for my son. The Assistant was very happy to deal with my enquiries (although cagey about a new Grey Knights codex..). Sensing a sale he asked if I played myself. "Not much, but I've been playing Epic for a while now.."I replied. He launched into some spiel about Apocalypse allowing me to field masses of troops and armour and basically being the best thing since...well, ever..So I asked the fateful question "Why did GW have to write a whole set of rules, when it has Epic: Armageddon which, with 2-3 more forces, would do the job better???" He tried to convince me that fielding 5000 points in 28mm was "awesome", but just avoided the question really....

So, is Apocalypse better at representing REALLY large armies than Epic?? Is it simply a question of cost (producing a rulebook is cheap compared with launching Necrons, Tau and 'Nids in 6mm)? Is it a question of customer satisfaction (people are intimidated painting a 6mm Marine, people like more detail..) or is Apocalypse simply a better system?????

Answers on a postcard..or failing that, just hit reply.

I played Apocalypse twice. It bored me to tears. Wow lets jame 5,000 points on each side onto a table and just make pew pew noises!

I get bored too when I play games where it's just jamming X points on each side. Objectives and coherent story-based campaigns make games far more interesting.

Pah, again, play EPIC, its only about objectives and missions. Apocalype has no room for maneuver, or, well anything. Might as well just get out the $2 plastic army men from Walmart.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Son_Of _Deddog wrote:I went into my GW today for some stuff for my son. The Assistant was very happy to deal with my enquiries (although cagey about a new Grey Knights codex..). Sensing a sale he asked if I played myself. "Not much, but I've been playing Epic for a while now.."I replied. He launched into some spiel about Apocalypse allowing me to field masses of troops and armour and basically being the best thing since...well, ever..So I asked the fateful question "Why did GW have to write a whole set of rules, when it has Epic: Armageddon which, with 2-3 more forces, would do the job better???" He tried to convince me that fielding 5000 points in 28mm was "awesome", but just avoided the question really....

So, is Apocalypse better at representing REALLY large armies than Epic?? Is it simply a question of cost (producing a rulebook is cheap compared with launching Necrons, Tau and 'Nids in 6mm)? Is it a question of customer satisfaction (people are intimidated painting a 6mm Marine, people like more detail..) or is Apocalypse simply a better system?????

Answers on a postcard..or failing that, just hit reply.

I played Apocalypse twice. It bored me to tears. Wow lets jame 5,000 points on each side onto a table and just make pew pew noises!

I get bored too when I play games where it's just jamming X points on each side. Objectives and coherent story-based campaigns make games far more interesting.

Pah, again, play EPIC, its only about objectives and missions. Apocalype has no room for maneuver, or, well anything. Might as well just get out the $2 plastic army men from Walmart.

So...true-scale?

Are you playing on a "normal" sized table with your 5k point games?

I've seen far too many people do that, what with the common misconception of "we're not using Titans, so let's just use the same sized table but scale the points up by 200%!".

You can play a 5,000 point Epic game on an ordinary 4'x6'...

The only real problem I had with Epic when I played it was terrain - my brother and I had a lot of really good 40k terrain. Sure, we could use it in Epic, but it looked mighty stupid.

The model size never really bothered me - I would have liked it a little bigger, but I still liked playing with those tiny armies. But man, making a whole new set of terrain was annoying.

In my personal opinion apocalypse is better than epic simply because I can go to my local store and find somebody to play apoc with. I cannot, for the life of me find a single person in my area that plays epic, and if I can't find people to play the game with, well...

I have had an interest in epic for a while now though, its too bad GW stopped supporting it.

From a Business point of view, which game system is going to make mroe money? the one that sells small figures representing huge armies, or the one that sells figures numbering in the 100's in terms of price representing the same army?

From a player's point of view, it's just alot simpler. Try and remembering two sets of rules is usually a turn off for the casual gamer. I once tried to declare a march with my Chaos Space Marines before I realised I wasnt playing Fantasy. In addition, it allows the average player to expand their current army with new additions, rather than go out and start a whole new one in a different scale.

Apocalypse is like the girlfriend you know you shouldn't go out with, and know within your heart you need to dump, but carry on regardless - the experience is shallow, and every morning you wake up with a feeling of guilt. But, you keep on behaving in the same way because you can't be arsed to break up with her or make any effort in any other direction. After all, some of your mates behave in the same way.

To draw a comparison, Epic would be the slightly quirky girl who, although not as visually appealing, will be able to challenge you mentally and talk about something other than x-factor and her hair extensions. It would be a long-term relationship if you did take the plunge and ask her out though, and you'd definitely far happier than if you had gone after the bimbo - if the latter were true, you'd wake up one morning when you were 60 and wonder where the hell your life had gone wrong before embarking on an affair with your 20-year younger secretary who will end up wrecking your shambles of a marriage before you get screwed for child support.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:From a player's point of view, it's just alot simpler. Try and remembering two sets of rules is usually a turn off for the casual gamer. I once tried to declare a march with my Chaos Space Marines before I realised I wasnt playing Fantasy. In addition, it allows the average player to expand their current army with new additions, rather than go out and start a whole new one in a different scale.

I'm a really casual player, aside from the fact that I talk on message boards about the games (which is due to having too much free time at work). Remembering multiple game systems rules has never been a problem, but I guess I just have the right memory for it, since I rarely actually forget things.

Son_Of _Deddog wrote:Look, it's part of GW's business plan. They had a long creative period where lots of games were produced, loved, and then sank without trace; Bloodbowl, Man'o'War, Gorkamorka, Battlefleet Gothic.....

That's not why GW stopped supporting Epic. Or Bloodbowl.

Both games had multiple editions released. GW wouldn't have done that unless they were making money. The problem from GW's perspective is that they weren't making as much money as they were with 40K and Fantasy. Blood Bowl in particular is a fairly low monetary investment for players, since twenty figures is a pretty good-sized team (whereas it's not even a start in 40K).

Epic was one of the two games they altered drastically in its third edition (40k being the other), in both cases it alienated a large chunk of its formerly loyal player-base. 40k recovered fairly well, Epic did not. Unfortunately GW took from this lesson that large system alterations for its successful games are not to be done, rather then that they need to be done smartly.

I do miss Epic being a big game that I could drop into the club or game store and get a game any time though.

Jack

Eumerin wrote:

Son_Of _Deddog wrote:Look, it's part of GW's business plan. They had a long creative period where lots of games were produced, loved, and then sank without trace; Bloodbowl, Man'o'War, Gorkamorka, Battlefleet Gothic.....

That's not why GW stopped supporting Epic. Or Bloodbowl.

Both games had multiple editions released. GW wouldn't have done that unless they were making money. The problem from GW's perspective is that they weren't making as much money as they were with 40K and Fantasy. Blood Bowl in particular is a fairly low monetary investment for players, since twenty figures is a pretty good-sized team (whereas it's not even a start in 40K).

That's what I meant. They were loyally followed, then for business reasons they were lost. I never meant to imply otherwise. As for the dramatic restructuring, while I think that was a factor I suspect the writing had been on the wall for a while-at least as far as GW was concerned..

Id like to see epic revamped in FOW scale (15mm) I think this is the best compromise between model detail and playability

Jubear wrote:Id like to see epic revamped in FOW scale (15mm) I think this is the best compromise between model detail and playability

Even though this would invalidate my rather large epic collection I'd still love to see it (titan kits at about the same size as the Valkyrie/Land raider would be brilliant), plus there would be so many great conversion parts to go both ways with.

Seems pretty unlikely though, not different enough from the current game.

Jack

Son_Of _Deddog wrote:Hold on..Smaller figures? Streamlined rules?? Sounds "Epic" fun!!!

No, pay attention. The 6mm figs that are made for epic are too small. It's like trying to paint and game with grains of rice. And I'm saying less complex than 40K, but not as oversimplified as epic. Basically take everything from the 40K codexes, make the dice rolling quicker (And less dice, somehow, I don't know, perhaps take out the wound roll, which would make it more like epic) and retain some wargear options for characters, options for vehicles, etc.) Perhaps, since I don't like them, instead of sticking troops on multiple bases, use some sort of movement tray like they use for WFB. Oval shaped would be good, versatile and attractive. They had a good idea with the epic 40,000 rules, but once again they made them too abstract. Something like that, but with units separated out would really work.

warpcrafter wrote:
No, pay attention. The 6mm figs that are made for epic are too small. It's like trying to paint and game with grains of rice.

Its not that bad, if you can paint a shoulder pad or a face you can manage an epic infantryman. Plus the vehicles are plenty big enough for fancier stuff.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:Epic was one of the two games they altered drastically in its third edition (40k being the other), in both cases it alienated a large chunk of its formerly loyal player-base. 40k recovered fairly well, Epic did not. Unfortunately GW took from this lesson that large system alterations for its successful games are not to be done, rather then that they need to be done smartly.

I do miss Epic being a big game that I could drop into the club or game store and get a game any time though.

Jack

I could not have put this better myself, dead on the money.

warpcrafter - compare the size (in volume of miniatures) of an a 2000pt army now to how it was 2 or 3 editions ago. I think in 10 years time your comment might turn out to be a pretty accurate prediction, we will have 28mm miniatures mounted on trays to carry 5 of them, and will be removed with a single attacking and defending dice roll (because, the current system was deemed to be too slow and complicated!) and and army will set you back the same amount as a 2 week family holiday to the Bahamas, requiring at least 2 citadel battle boards to set up on due to the sheer volume of miniatures. ^_^