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.

I like Epic. I don't think that's a secret, and I don't think it's something we're getting back any day soon. So meanwhile, I would love to be able to at least use the rules, since they're both simpler and, from what I've heard, are more balanced.

So if you took the basic mechanics of Epic, but put them into 40k... A unit is a model, a formation is a unit, for example. What would need to be changed? I imagine the scale in general need to be toned down - A Land Raider would be more akin to a Titan or Heavy Tank rulewise, for example, and where most Infantry stands have a heavy weapon in Epic, a unit of 40k Infantry usually only has one or two.

What would need to be changed?

I have actually done this. I only have one army converted over (vanilla marines) and have yet to play test it. In theory it seems like it should work out fine, rules-wise. You have to treat vehicles like War Engines, and I ended up playing around quite a bit with rules for engagements (close combat and firefight) to make it slightly more like 40k. There's also a great deal of condensing 40k special rules (almost completely obliterating most of them, so much unnecessary clutter) but even after doing that I still found myself adding rules to what already existed in EA.

In practice I think the biggest obstacle would be balancing army lists, because they're so radically different from both the EA and 40k versions. I'd be willing to share what I have if you're interested.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
I have actually done this. I only have one army converted over (vanilla marines) and have yet to play test it. In theory it seems like it should work out fine, rules-wise. You have to treat vehicles like War Engines, and I ended up playing around quite a bit with rules for engagements (close combat and firefight) to make it slightly more like 40k. There's also a great deal of condensing 40k special rules (almost completely obliterating most of them, so much unnecessary clutter) but even after doing that I still found myself adding rules to what already existed in EA.

In practice I think the biggest obstacle would be balancing army lists, because they're so radically different from both the EA and 40k versions. I'd be willing to share what I have if you're interested.

I'd be happy to see it!

It doesn't come as a surprise that close quarters is difficult to create. Was it issues with range or with how to count melee?

I have been ruminating on how to do the "Every unit has a heavy, long ranged weapon" thing, and I think the best thing you can do is to make most regular "Small Arms" weapons have an alternative ranged profile. So where a stand of Tacs have Small Arms and an 5+ AP/ 6+ AT Missile Launcher, a Tactical Marine Model has Small Arms and an 5+ AP/6+ AT(?) Bolter.

It's the difference in detail that's the main problem with CC/FF. For long range shooting it's easy enough to give everyone's weapon appropriate stats, for instance I think bolters are AP5+. Now how do you handle firefight? Do you want everyone to use one basic FF value, even a guy with a flamer or meltagun vs. a heavy bolter? Even worse when you start looking at close combat. Does a second weapon give an extra attack? Etc. It's harder when each model is no longer a "smear" of a typical Epic unit, but has distinct wargear instead.

You could make a separate entry for every variation of every model, or you could separate the model from the weapons in some way like 40k.

I'm not entirely satisfied with what I settled on. It's pretty different from both Epic and 40k. What I ended up doing was pulling the weapon stats completely out of the unit profiles and putting them in a common location for that army (so more like 40k, but per army because WS and BS are now rolled up in the to hit too).

I then changed the CC/FF stats to be bonuses that are applied to the weapon stats when in CC or FF (so for example, a Captain might get +1 to hit in CC compared to an assault marine, but both would reference the space marine power sword stats to see the baseline attack they're making).

FF is similar, you reference the rules for the weapon and add any FF modifier. I give marines +1 to FF in virtually all cases to better represent their lethality in close quarters. Then you get into things like heavy weapons not being able to fire in FF, or pistols being able to add a bonus attack in CC.

Things like extra attacks for characters fall out naturally from their status as War Engines. Keeping vehicles from fighting in CC is as simple as not giving them CC weapons (no weapon, nothing to reference). It's all a bit messy still. When I get a chance I'll post what I've done (it's the entire rulebook in Google Docs).

All that plus other minor core rule changes, its not a straight port into EA. I'd be curious to see what a cleaner port would look like though, and I still have yet to play test what I've done.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
It's the difference in detail that's the main problem with CC/FF. For long range shooting it's easy enough to give everyone's weapon appropriate stats, for instance I think bolters are AP5+. Now how do you handle firefight? Do you want everyone to use one basic FF value, even a guy with a flamer or meltagun vs. a heavy bolter? Even worse when you start looking at close combat. Does a second weapon give an extra attack? Etc. It's harder when each model is no longer a "smear" of a typical Epic unit, but has distinct wargear instead.

You could make a separate entry for every variation of every model, or you could separate the model from the weapons in some way like 40k.

I'm not entirely satisfied with what I settled on. It's pretty different from both Epic and 40k. What I ended up doing was pulling the weapon stats completely out of the unit profiles and putting them in a common location for that army (so more like 40k, but per army because WS and BS are now rolled up in the to hit too).

I then changed the CC/FF stats to be bonuses that are applied to the weapon stats when in CC or FF (so for example, a Captain might get +1 to hit in CC compared to an assault marine, but both would reference the space marine power sword stats to see the baseline attack they're making).

FF is similar, you reference the rules for the weapon and add any FF modifier. I give marines +1 to FF in virtually all cases to better represent their lethality in close quarters. Then you get into things like heavy weapons not being able to fire in FF, or pistols being able to add a bonus attack in CC.

Things like extra attacks for characters fall out naturally from their status as War Engines. Keeping vehicles from fighting in CC is as simple as not giving them CC weapons (no weapon, nothing to reference). It's all a bit messy still. When I get a chance I'll post what I've done (it's the entire rulebook in Google Docs).

All that plus other minor core rule changes, its not a straight port into EA. I'd be curious to see what a cleaner port would look like though, and I still have yet to play test what I've done.

Yes - not to be rude, but that is a bit cluttered. There has to be a way to go about it, though.

In gameplay itself, I'd like to have as few modifiers as possible. I like how the E:A rules have specific values right on their card, so you never have to think too much about mechanics.

Taking your thoughts on how e.g a Marine Squad would be too complicated, I think that might be because you're wanting to add the complexity that 40k has, and which I don't think is necessary for a conversion. Lets say that a starting Tac unit is five models, all bolters. A Bolter is a range 24'' 5+ AP/6+ AT weapon (which automatically works as a Small Arms, since thats how Epic worked). Now, you can add up to five more models, and upgrade one to a Character (who has the Leader rule, and can otherwise choose to upgrade their weapons like we know), and one in every five to have a Heavy or Special Weapon. So essentially these are Upgrades, but instead of a Dreadnought or something like that, it's weapons.

Otherwise only a few rules from 40k need to be ported. Stealth could simply mean that a unit gains a -1 modifier to shooting when shooting at a Stealth unit that is not the closest unit to the shooting unit. Scouts and Infiltrators from Epic are directly translatable. Sniper too.

The interesting part'll be what heavy weapons will be like strengthwise. Heavy Bolters could easily have 4+ AP/5+ AT, for example. What about stuff like Melta, tho?

@TheWiseDane.
I think starting with Epic , and adding more detail is the way to go to get a better battle game rule set for 28mm minatures..
But rather than having fixed values to succeed, I think having opposed values on a single resolution chart, may be a way to get the granularity we need, without having to resort to too many special rules or modifiers.

I think a game turn sequence based on Epic Space Marine may be a better fit with 40k units though...

I can post up some example if you are interested?

Lanrak wrote:
@TheWiseDane.
I think starting with Epic , and adding more detail is the way to go to get a better battle game rule set for 28mm minatures..
But rather than having fixed values to succeed, I think having opposed values on a single resolution chart, may be a way to get the granularity we need, without having to resort to too many special rules or modifiers.

I think a game turn sequence based on Epic Space Marine may be a better fit with 40k units though...

I can post up some example if you are interested?

I would love to see some work I'm not a fan of tables, unless it's the fun, Orky kind, thoough, and would rather just be able to play my models as they are bought. I don't want to think about if my models are retroactively more or less powerful, because my opponnent brought something with high WS or whatever. It just clutters the game.

HI again.
The following ideas are just to get more detailed unit interaction in a 28mm battle game rule set.
A straight conversion of Epic rules to 40k leaves the unit interaction a bit 'generalized'.And so many players look at adding on rules to get more detail in the unit interaction.(EG special rules like 40k uses.)

Using opposed values for direct comparison means the units ability never changes .Just the effect they can have on the opposing unit does.

Here is a universal resolution chart showing active unit skill vs opposing unit skill.

A/D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,h,h,n,n
2....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.h.h.n.
3....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.h.h.
4....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.h.
5....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8....d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9....d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10..d.d.d.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.

Stat values run 1 to 10 to give a decent basic range.All results are a D6 roll you need to succeed.
d results meant you auto succeed and double up the success to count as 2 hits, 2 saves or 2 points of damage.(Wounds or structure.)
h result means you half the number of 6 rolled rounding down to count as sucesses.(Quicker than re rolling 6+ followed by 4+ for 7+ to hit.)
n means no effect.Not able to hit /save or wound.

(Rant alert)
I know some people want a grot being hit by a multimenta in the face from an inch away to have a 1 in 6 chance of survival.But I prefer to load the game with tactics over dumb luck.If you dont want the unit with the massive gun to obliterate your unit, flank it , or suppress it, or block LOS with the tactical use of smoke!(Rant ends!)

Stats are opposed in the following way.

Shooting Skill- Stealth skill(Ranged combat.)

Assault Skill - Dodge Skill(Close Combat.)

Armour penetration - Amour Value (Armour save.)

Weapon Damage Value- Target Resilience.( To damage rolls.)

This chart gives proportional results across all units in the game.This just adds more granularity at a core level so we can avoid a lot of special rules later!

Also if we resolve the combat as to hit , to save , to wound.
We can use a simple but more detailed suppression mechanic.

Any unit that fails more saves than it has models left , counts as suppressed.A suppressed unit looses one movement action,
SO can only move up to normal movement rate, OR shoot counting as having moved.
A suppressed unit can not launch an assault , bit may fight back if assaulted.

I understand this may be more detail than you want in EPIC 10mm.But is a bit closer to the level of detail people seem to expect in a 28mm scale game in my experience.

Are you familiar with Epic Space Marine game turn?

I am not, and I gotta say that you haven't convinced me on using tables - If anything, you've desuaded me from ever using them

I just don't care about wether or not the setting is precisely represented, as long as it's mostly accurate. Game balance and playability is my first concern. The setting is better represented through how your army is played, like the ATSKNF rule from Armaggedon - It makes the already decently elite Marines incredibly different to shift. It has nothing to do with their weapons or their armour, they don't have any specific rules for each stand. It's the army that plays different.

I thought of an example you could do in a E:A/40K conversion. If we say that an Assault Marine has CC 4+ and FF 4+, with a Bolt Pistol and the Jump Pack rule, as in E:A - Maybe he'd get (1+ EA) on his chainsword. A Vanguard Veteran, however, could have the Infiltrators USR, making them able to charge double range, and maybe upgrade their chainswords to a Power Weapon, which should propably just be (1+ MW) rather than having unique rules, plus of course CC 3+. This way, the Vanguard is still different, but works on the exact same framework as the Assault Marine, and requires no weird extra rules.

The problem is with fixed scores you are limited to a maximum of 6 results.
And so the variety of units in 40k can not be covered.(That's why 40k has over 70 special rules at last count, and separate rules for vehicles!)

When using 10mm figs on a base , a stat for close combat ,shooting ,armour save, movement and weapons range.Is fine for the 'blob unit'.

But when players are porting over 40k units, they seem to want to represent different weapon load outs and equipment and skills for each model in the unit.

Is comparing my sat vs your stat on ONE table that much more of a bind than having to learn 70+ special rules?(Most people learn a table after a few of games anyway.)

My units shooting skill is 4, you units stealth skill is 6.I need 5+ to hit them.
Your AV is 4 my weapon AP is 3 .You save on a 3+
My weapon damage is 5 your resilience is 3. I wound on a 3+.

This way is a unit is better at hiding/avoiding incoming fire , it gets a higher stealth value rather than a special rules.
A unit that has more devastating weapons gets higher weapon AP values,rather than special rules
A units with better armour, get better AV values rather than separate rules and special rules.
ETC...

Anyhow, just highlighting one option.

The game turn from Epic Space marine is a variant of alternating unit activation.

Command Phase.
Place orders face down next to units on good morale.

Orders.
'First Fire',stand still and shoot to full effect.
'Charge', move them move again, THE ONLY WAY TO LAUNCH AN ASSAULT!
'Advance', move up to movement rate and shoot move and fire weapons.
(Withdraw' move unit away from all visible enemy to recover from poor morale.)

First Fire Phase.
Alternate activating units on First Fire orders.

Charge Phase.
Alternate activating units on Charge orders.

Advance Phase.
Alternate activating units on a Advance/(or Withdraw) orders.

End of game turn.(Tidy up before next game turn.)

This breaks up the action quite effectively , and adds quite a bit of tactical depth.

Again its just an alternative option you may want to consider?

Lanrak wrote:
The problem is with fixed scores you are limited to a maximum of 6 results.
And so the variety of units in 40k can not be covered.(That's why 40k has over 70 special rules at last count, and separate rules for vehicles!)

When using 10mm figs on a base , a stat for close combat ,shooting ,armour save, movement and weapons range.Is fine for the 'blob unit'.

But when players are porting over 40k units, they seem to want to represent different weapon load outs and equipment and skills for each model in the unit.

Is comparing my sat vs your stat on ONE table that much more of a bind than having to learn 70+ special rules?(Most people learn a table after a few of games anyway.)

My units shooting skill is 4, you units stealth skill is 6.I need 5+ to hit them.
Your AV is 4 my weapon AP is 3 .You save on a 3+
My weapon damage is 5 your resilience is 3. I wound on a 3+.

This way is a unit is better at hiding/avoiding incoming fire , it gets a higher stealth value rather than a special rules.
A unit that has more devastating weapons gets higher weapon AP values,rather than special rules
A units with better armour, get better AV values rather than separate rules and special rules.
ETC...

Anyhow, just highlighting one option.

The game turn from Epic Space marine is a variant of alternating unit activation.

Command Phase.
Place orders face down next to units on good morale.

Orders.
'First Fire',stand still and shoot to full effect.
'Charge', move them move again, THE ONLY WAY TO LAUNCH AN ASSAULT!
'Advance', move up to movement rate and shoot move and fire weapons.
(Withdraw' move unit away from all visible enemy to recover from poor morale.)

First Fire Phase.
Alternate activating units on First Fire orders.

Charge Phase.
Alternate activating units on Charge orders.

Advance Phase.
Alternate activating units on a Advance/(or Withdraw) orders.

End of game turn.(Tidy up before next game turn.)

This breaks up the action quite effectively , and adds quite a bit of tactical depth.

Again its just an alternative option you may want to consider?

So how does that make your system simpler or better than the system we use now, for 40k? I couldn't keep up with your explanation at all - It just seems needlessly complicated for complication's sake.

If we absolutely want the system to be closer to the setting, we can just say that any army used with this system is just an assortment of veterans and heroes.

Epic: Space Marine doesn't use that table-system, does it?

Yeah I have to say, in a thread about converting 40k to Epic: Armageddon, wacky unrelated ideas aren't really helping anything. This is a conversion or port, not a "let's rewrite 40k" thread, and should probably be focused on the minimal changes needed to the E:A core rules to get 40k units working.

Fixed to hit on a D6 doesn't leave you with 6 results, it leaves you with somewhere between 6 and 36 results (your to hit dice, their armor/cover save dice). You basically double your design space when you consider there's an AT and AP value for each weapon. Counting AP and AT, with a 1 to hit always missing, right off the bat you're looking at 60 possible dice combinations. A handful of special rules extend these results a little further too (like re-rolls for reinforced armor, invulnerable saves, etc).

This works perfectly well in E:A. It would serve just as well for 40k if you want to fight big battles, not skirmishes (which I imagine is the point of doing this port). Sacrifice some detail to make the game faster, and 40k has a lot of weight to shed to make this possible without cutting all the flavor.

And changing the initiative/orders system, probably the best part of E:A, is totally unnecessary.


@The Wise Dane, point taken about my FF/CC system. It's a bit of a mess and now that you point it out it likely isn't necessary. I think we can do better by hewing closer to the original rules. I'll look at it tonight, I have a few ideas.

But some things you're saying (like bolters automatically having the small arms rule, and making bolter and heavy bolters AT5+/AT6+ and AT4+/AT4+) lead me to think you haven't thought this through, or are unfamiliar with Epic. You're saying bolters should be torrenting down Land Raiders, and heavy bolters are extremely effective antitank weapons.

Throwing some numbers out, a marine firing a krak missile would probably be AT4+ or 5+, and a lascannon would be MW4+ or 5+. This is also something I've done a little bit of math on, so I have some numbers figured out already back home. I'll send you what I have at some point.

Also making bolters small arms doesn't change anything about a tac marine's FF - the marine has the FF value, not the weapon. So your bolter is as effective in FF as your lascannon, unless you separate those FF values from the model's profile (which is what I originally did, and it works better than you think when you see the actual rules I wrote, but we can do better with less).

Or you clutter up each unit or weapon entry with more rules for every weapon that needs to replace the FF value. I'm leaning towards this option. I think we can resolve this while sticking much closer to Epic. But things are going to end up slightly more complicated than your average Epic formation. It's the nature of the beast when you try to represent even a fraction of the detail in 40k.

Hi folks.
There could be a bit of misunderstanding going on here.

IF you just want to replace the 10mm models in Epic Armageddon with individually based 28mm minatures from 40k.
The title should be 'Using 40k minis with Epic Armageddon rules.'

However, the title reads, 'Converting 40k to Epic Armageddon rules'.

To me this means transposing the units found in 40k with a LOT MORE DETAIL than units found in Epic Armageddon.
Into the basic rule set of Epic Armageddon.

Therefore looking at the diversity of units and lack of balance between units found in 40k.
And finding a better way to present them in a battle game ,rather than than relying on 40+ special rules, is a valid consideration.(IMO.)

Comparing opposed values is a simple way to increase the diversity of results without having to move from using a D6.

Moving to scheduled action sequence from the variable bound type activation in Epic Armageddon , helps cover the massive imbalance found in 40k units.

Epic Armageddon was written with a level of simplicity and abstraction specifically for the units covered by the Epic Armageddon rules.
Introducing the diversity found in 40k units to a simplified game like E.A usually result in players asking for lots of special snowflake rules from 40k

If you are happy with this fair enough.....

GW s 40k is the only battle game using 28mm minatures for a reason.(It causes a disconnect between the level of detail expected for the scale of the minatures, and the level of detail a large battle game can cope with comfortably.)

No offense but I think everyone here understands the idea behind the thread, and changing all of the core mechanics of E:A with little justification isn't what is intended.

We're not rewriting 40k. We're not even rewriting Epic. And we're not pointlessly using 28mm minis to represent Epic units (which are 6mm by the way).

This is a port, where the goal is to play one game using another game's engine. I firmly believe you can adequately represent every unit in 40k (bar perhaps the biggest superheavies) with very minimal changes to the E:A core rules. You would lose a lot of detail. This is intended; 40k has far more detail than it should.

The benefit of this is using the 28mm armies we already own and love with a superior set of rules that already exists and is better suited to the model count people use to play 40k. All that's missing after that is sufficient playtesting to get the army lists somewhat balanced.

And that balance is achievable. Lanrak, you keep saying 40k can't work the way Epic does because of huge power disparities between units. You've clearly never played Epic. A 100 point formation of four Imperial Guard Sentinels has just as much a place in that game as a 900+ point formation of a single Warlord titan, and an army of nothing but a handful of titans can be fielded against an army of mostly Ork infantry and armored vehicles. You can cover the range of units used in 40k quite easily using the core Epic: Armageddon rules, and they do function together.

(I do think the game would break down using anything larger than a 40k imperial knight, but 40k already breaks using knights in my opinion, so this is no issue).

And anyone upset because they lost their special snowflake unit rules could go write their own game, because they're missing the point of this effort.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
No offense but I think everyone here understands the idea behind the thread, and changing all of the core mechanics of E:A with little justification isn't what is intended.

We're not rewriting 40k. We're not even rewriting Epic. And we're not pointlessly using 28mm minis to represent Epic units (which are 6mm by the way).

This is a port, where the goal is to play one game using another game's engine. I firmly believe you can adequately represent every unit in 40k (bar perhaps the biggest superheavies) with very minimal changes to the E:A core rules. You would lose a lot of detail. This is intended; 40k has far more detail than it should.

The benefit of this is using the 28mm armies we already own and love with a superior set of rules that already exists and is better suited to the model count people use to play 40k. All that's missing after that is sufficient playtesting to get the army lists somewhat balanced.

And that balance is achievable. Lanrak, you keep saying 40k can't work the way Epic does because of huge power disparities between units. You've clearly never played Epic. A 100 point formation of four Imperial Guard Sentinels has just as much a place in that game as a 900+ point formation of a single Warlord titan, and an army of nothing but a handful of titans can be fielded against an army of mostly Ork infantry and armored vehicles. You can cover the range of units used in 40k quite easily using the core Epic: Armageddon rules, and they do function together.

(I do think the game would break down using anything larger than a 40k imperial knight, but 40k already breaks using knights in my opinion, so this is no issue).

And anyone upset because they lost their special snowflake unit rules could go write their own game, because they're missing the point of this effort.

Thank you, that's exactly what I wanted to say

When it comes to it, I did make up the stats for the Bolters on the fly, but I don't think that's so much of an issue, since the size of the game is going to be way small, and so, what constitutes as a "Vehicle" or "War Engine" changes. In my mind, any bike becomes a Vehicle in the traditional sense (one DC, no special rules), like, e.g. a Predator. So a Bolter would have 6+ against it (or maybe 5+, if we decide on them being Light Vehicles instead), and a Lascannon could, for example, have 3+.

A larger machine, like a Predator, would now basically become a War Engine of Warhound size, and have rules that fits that - In a large list, you could perhaps have two or three of them in a game. A Land Raider would be more akin to a Reaper.

So while the stats for the Bolter seem a bit too much as a start, it mirrors the fact that every other stand in E:A has a heavy weapon that is used at range, so on this smaller scale, we need to have something akin to that. Because of the smaller size, Bolters being 5+/6+ makes them good as ranged weapons, as they're supposed to be, but not so powerful that they'll hose a Land Raider alone.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

Thank you, that's exactly what I wanted to say

Good, I'm glad I wasn't alone there!

I do think we're on a different page regarding things like weapon stats though. I mean, I'm 100% in agreement that bikes are light vehicles and normal vehicles (really anything with multiple hullpoints or wounds) are War Engines. But I think if you give bolters AT6+ and heavy bolters AT4+ for instance and give it a play, you'll find the game has gotten extremely weird and far from what you'd expect from their 40k counterparts.

It's important to remember not every unit in Epic actually has an AT value, and just because a marine stand has a missile launcher doesn't mean a tactical marine needs the same ranged weapon. I think it's also important to remember that when all is said and done, these 40k lists would look very different from the typical Epic list (for instance, very few units that mix infantry and armor, instead lots of all infantry units plus independent 3-4 damage capacity War Engines).

So it's less "how do we explain away a tactical marine killing a Land Raider with a bolter" and more "how do we use the Epic game engine to get the results we would expect in 40k." I think what you end up with is a meta that's totally different from existing Epic lists but recognizable as 40k.

The best way to do this for weapon stats, or at least what I've been doing, is looking at a "reference infantry target" and "reference vehicle/MC target" and working in both directions (backward toward the attacker and forward toward the real target) to see what our to hit rolls and armor saves should be.

Let me run through some examples of how I did this with my marine list:

I've been using Toughness 4, roughly, as the infantry reference, and Toughness 7-8 or AV 11-12 as the armored vehicle reference.

So a marine with a bolter hits on a 3+, wounds on a 4+, this is a 1/3 chance of wounding, so AP5+ works perfectly.

On defense, the marine is right at our reference toughness. We can leave the armor save alone at 3+. A guardsman should be a bit weaker, so we can make their save 6+. A plague marine on the other hand should be more durable than our reference toughness; their armor save is already as high as I'd like to go, so I'd give them a 6+ or 5+ Invulnerable save instead of bumping their armor save up.

Now a marine with a heavy bolter should definitely be AP4+ EA(2). We can make a judgement call on whether it should get AT6+, I would go either way. A krak missile in a marine's hands could be AP2+/AT4+, because Macro Weapon feels too strong.

Note the huge boost in durability for armored infantry against this weapon due to the lack of a 40k-style AP system. Do we give the krak missile Macro Weapon? Do we bring in an AP system? Do we implement something else? Do we reduce armor saves across the board, closer to their equivalent Epic values? Open question.

And finally, vehicle armor. One of the changes I would make to the core rules is allowing different saves on different facings for War Engines. A Predator tank might have a 3+ save from the front, a 5+ on the sides, and none on the rear, with Damage Capacity 3. A Rhino would then be 5+/5+/- DC3. Land Raider could be 4+ all around, reinforced armor, DC4. This leaves room at the very top for ridiculous units like Imperial Knights, much as I hate their existence in the game. Having a save gives a boost in vehicle durability in some cases, but things like MW on weapons like lascannons might reduce durability in others.

This is all a bit fast and loose, off the top of my head, but you can see where I'm going with it. There aren't a lot of tools to work with but there are enough to get the desired effect while ditching most of the 40k special snowflake rules.

Long story short, we can get closer to 40k than bolters that hurt tanks just because their equivalent Epic unit happens to hurt tanks.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 The Wise Dane wrote:

Thank you, that's exactly what I wanted to say

Let me run through some examples of how I did this with my marine list:

I've been using Toughness 4, roughly, as the infantry reference, and Toughness 7-8 or AV 11-12 as the armored vehicle reference.

So a marine with a bolter hits on a 3+, wounds on a 4+, this is a 1/3 chance of wounding, so AP5+ works perfectly.

On defense, the marine is right at our reference toughness. We can leave the armor save alone at 3+. A guardsman should be a bit weaker, so we can make their save 6+. A plague marine on the other hand should be more durable than our reference toughness; their armor save is already as high as I'd like to go, so I'd give them a 6+ or 5+ Invulnerable save instead of bumping their armor save up.

Now a marine with a heavy bolter should definitely be AP4+ EA(2). We can make a judgement call on whether it should get AT6+, I would go either way. A krak missile in a marine's hands could be AP2+/AT4+, because Macro Weapon feels too strong.

Note the huge boost in durability for armored infantry against this weapon due to the lack of a 40k-style AP system. Do we give the krak missile Macro Weapon? Do we bring in an AP system? Do we implement something else? Do we reduce armor saves across the board, closer to their equivalent Epic values? Open question.

And finally, vehicle armor. One of the changes I would make to the core rules is allowing different saves on different facings for War Engines. A Predator tank might have a 3+ save from the front, a 5+ on the sides, and none on the rear, with Damage Capacity 3. A Rhino would then be 5+/5+/- DC3. Land Raider could be 4+ all around, reinforced armor, DC4. This leaves room at the very top for ridiculous units like Imperial Knights, much as I hate their existence in the game. Having a save gives a boost in vehicle durability in some cases, but things like MW on weapons like lascannons might reduce durability in others.

This is all a bit fast and loose, off the top of my head, but you can see where I'm going with it. There aren't a lot of tools to work with but there are enough to get the desired effect while ditching most of the 40k special snowflake rules.

Long story short, we can get closer to 40k than bolters that hurt tanks just because their equivalent Epic unit happens to hurt tanks.

Now I get you a lot better - We were on two different pages I feel

I'll just go through your thoughts as I remember them...

I'd really like it if 3+ and stuff like it is as rare as they come. One of the beautiful parts of E:A to me is that most things have relatively low saves, but weapons aren't too powerful, as to capitalize on it. There's something cool over only killing three models in a unit, but ending up suppressing further three, and so feel the psychological effect of your attack on your opponent's unit through gameplay I'd much rather take the Reinforced Armour rule to use, mostly since it works in combination with Macroweapons, and so gives a feeling of "AP", something I don't think is necessary in a game like this, where armour generally is lower. Reduction of saves is, to me, a unique thing, not something everyone should have.

Talking about that, I really don't like the idea of different sides having different saves. It just creates so many issues! How do you decide a side of a Carnifex? What about a Talos Pain Engine? It gives points for playing safe with your War Engines, which, concerning gamefeel, really is a shame. My biggest issue, tho, is that it doesn't do anything for tactical play the way the Crossfire rule does for the Epic ruleset. Not only does it give additional Blast Markers, it also reduces the save of the attacked unit (so a 4+ Re-roll. becomes 5+ re-roll, or maybe just 5+ with a Macroweapon.). It isn't as meticulous as working with facings, and rewards a combination of hardy Anvil units to take the brunt of a War Engine, and fast Flanking units to make use of it. With facings, you just need a fast unit and a few Meltabombs - All in your own turn.

So, to give an example of what you could do with, say, a Dreadnought, you could give it 6 DC, and give it a generic 4+, no Improved Back Armour (that's for the Siege 'Nought). A Macroweapon will punch right through it, but it has so many DC that it can take a beating, and while it won't just shrug off hits, it can keep going for a while against regular attacks. I will always like quantity over quality when it comes to rolling dice and counting Wounds, because it gives more of a feel of actual progression. Give it a (3x 4+ AP/5+ AT, R: 24')' Assault Cannon and a Titankiller (1d3) Dreadnought Power Fist, plus a Small Arms +1 EA Stormbolter , and you're golden.

@The Wise Dane, I think we're in closer agreement than maybe you realize. Your assault cannon stats are exactly where I would put them too (right on!) and we have similar ideas on what we want to see in terms of gameplay. The beauty of E:A isn't killing things, it's suppressing them. And I want to keep all the same special rules you do: of course I want to keep Macro Weapons and Reinforced Armor, of course I want to keep Crossfire. Pretty much any rule you name, I want to keep it the same, and only rarely do I think we would need to add or change something.

Armor facings are one of those things I think we might want to add (it reinforces the benefits of the Crossfire rule, it shouldn't replace it). It means vehicle facing matters, which I actually like about 40k. It also means we can give rock-solid armor facings on some vehicles while still leaving them vulnerable from different angles. You get a much wider range of possibilities than you do with only the -1 modifier for Crossfire (which again, I want to keep). And it's easy to handle the armor facings on a Carnifex - they'd be identical all around. But it's not a huge deal to me.

Some other things you're suggesting are maybe not so well thought out currently. I mean, your dreadnought's assault cannon looks great, and your armor value looks ok, but the Damage Capacity of 6 seems excessive. Your dreadnought is getting 6 attacks in close combat now, and 8 in firefight when you count the stormbolter (a stormbolter you can't shoot unless you're 6" away, by the way, because it's got no weapon profile). I'm guessing the high DC is because you think bolters should be hurting the dread on a 6+, and heavy bolters on a 4+, so you need a lot of margin to soak up hits (But with weapon stats like that, you leave yourself very little room to stat out actual anti-tank weapons). You're right that it's better if vehicles take hits instead of dying early for a more gradual result, but DC6 is excessive. A DC of 4 is probably perfect for a dreadnought, and either 4+ save, or 5+ Reinforced. DC4 gives it an appropriate number of attacks, and it can be plenty survivable if you leave tank killing to actual tank killers.

You also mention you think 3+ should be rare as hen's teeth. I'm guessing you mean the 3+ armor save on the marines, when it's 4+ in Epic. I basically disagree, but let me lay out the problem more explicitly:

We both want lower casualties and more suppression. It's a hallmark of E:A gameplay. But since we're converting 40k units over, we're adding a LOT of moderately effective, high range, anti-personnel weapons. Every Imperial Guardsman is going to have a 60cm (24") range AP6+ weapon (because we literally can't make it any worse). This is roughly the same firepower as an AP5+ autocannon in every other E:A stand, but at a longer range.

Likewise every tactical marine has a 60cm (24") AP5+ weapon. This is twice the firepower of E:A tactical stands, and at a longer range. We can't make it any weaker without making our marines shoot the same as Imperial Guard.

Firepower in general is going to be longer ranged, unless we want to cut everything down to Epic ranges, which starts to feel even sillier than the already short ranges in 40k.

You see the rock we're up against? The main reason to lower the armor saves across the board is to account for the lack of an AP system or some equivalent, but that's much less important than making sure your infantry isn't dying in droves to long range high rate of fire anti-personnel. I'd rather everyone got appropriate armor saves, so let power armor be 3+, and keep 4+ Reinforced the best in the game.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
@The Wise Dane, I think we're in closer agreement than maybe you realize. Your assault cannon stats are exactly where I would put them too (right on!) and we have similar ideas on what we want to see in terms of gameplay. The beauty of E:A isn't killing things, it's suppressing them. And I want to keep all the same special rules you do: of course I want to keep Macro Weapons and Reinforced Armor, of course I want to keep Crossfire. Pretty much any rule you name, I want to keep it the same, and only rarely do I think we would need to add or change something.

Armor facings are one of those things I think we might want to add (it reinforces the benefits of the Crossfire rule, it shouldn't replace it). It means vehicle facing matters, which I actually like about 40k. It also means we can give rock-solid armor facings on some vehicles while still leaving them vulnerable from different angles. You get a much wider range of possibilities than you do with only the -1 modifier for Crossfire (which again, I want to keep). And it's easy to handle the armor facings on a Carnifex - they'd be identical all around. But it's not a huge deal to me.

Some other things you're suggesting are maybe not so well thought out currently. I mean, your dreadnought's assault cannon looks great, and your armor value looks ok, but the Damage Capacity of 6 seems excessive. Your dreadnought is getting 6 attacks in close combat now, and 8 in firefight when you count the stormbolter (a stormbolter you can't shoot unless you're 6" away, by the way, because it's got no weapon profile). I'm guessing the high DC is because you think bolters should be hurting the dread on a 6+, and heavy bolters on a 4+, so you need a lot of margin to soak up hits (But with weapon stats like that, you leave yourself very little room to stat out actual anti-tank weapons). You're right that it's better if vehicles take hits instead of dying early for a more gradual result, but DC6 is excessive. A DC of 4 is probably perfect for a dreadnought, and either 4+ save, or 5+ Reinforced. DC4 gives it an appropriate number of attacks, and it can be plenty survivable if you leave tank killing to actual tank killers.

You also mention you think 3+ should be rare as hen's teeth. I'm guessing you mean the 3+ armor save on the marines, when it's 4+ in Epic. I basically disagree, but let me lay out the problem more explicitly:

We both want lower casualties and more suppression. It's a hallmark of E:A gameplay. But since we're converting 40k units over, we're adding a LOT of moderately effective, high range, anti-personnel weapons. Every Imperial Guardsman is going to have a 60cm (24") range AP6+ weapon (because we literally can't make it any worse). This is roughly the same firepower as an AP5+ autocannon in every other E:A stand, but at a longer range.

Likewise every tactical marine has a 60cm (24") AP5+ weapon. This is twice the firepower of E:A tactical stands, and at a longer range. We can't make it any weaker without making our marines shoot the same as Imperial Guard.

Firepower in general is going to be longer ranged, unless we want to cut everything down to Epic ranges, which starts to feel even sillier than the already short ranges in 40k.

You see the rock we're up against? The main reason to lower the armor saves across the board is to account for the lack of an AP system or some equivalent, but that's much less important than making sure your infantry isn't dying in droves to long range high rate of fire anti-personnel. I'd rather everyone got appropriate armor saves, so let power armor be 3+, and keep 4+ Reinforced the best in the game.

We sure are in more agreement than what I think, geejus! I thought we were on completely different pages!

Anyway, I see where you're getting at with Marines having a 3+ save as a general rule, and I think that's a good idea. This, combined with more and stronger shooting, plus the more empty boards of Epic, will make Marines truly tough mofo's, but not too much so.

I can simply not agree when it comes to side facings, though. I simply do not see how it improves the game at all. In my experience, the different sides of a vehicles is rarely used, since it gives incentive to hiding your vehicle in the back and shooting from afar. In fact, back armour mostly just constitutes as "Melee Facing" for me, since I tend to play Orks most of the time. I think that's a sad way to design a large, imposing model, which should propably be the one kind of unit you could use as Hammers, if you know what I mean. I don't see how the Crossfire rule doesn't already do the exact same thing, but simpler - It literally describes how a unit has issues deciding where to defend themselves from, which leaves them more open fore precise attacks from their enemies. It eliminates some of the more finicky rules of 40k, with facing and suchs, and makes these models more of frontline breakthrough units, which a game like this would otherwise sorely lack. If I can't use a Battlewagon or a Deff Dread as a Hammer unit, what will? Boys are somewhere between Chaff and regular Troops, Nobz are Elites, but none of them just smashes through.

I didn't think the DC value for the 'Nought through, no. I forgot that their DC decides their numbers of attacks in CC and FF, so yeah, that was my bad. What you said seems good enough to fit in with the "Reaper Class Equivelant"

On ranges, I really could care less about realism. In my mind, a game of 40k is a short, but brutal close quarters battle, and so, most weapons are basically used in a reckless manner, unlike at larger ranges, where trigger dicipline is more required. On rules, I have an idea: Simply scrap both Epic and 40k ranges, and decide on a new standard way of metering. If we stay with inches (as much as I dislike them; why can't ya'll just use cm?!), I'd use variations of 5''. A Bolter shoots 20'', an Assault is 10'', a longer ranged weapon, like a Missile, has 30''. CC range is 3''/2'5, movement is 5'' standard. I think this is very important for the game in general, since it is so minded around close quarters fighting, that keeping the old ranges will make the game too spread out, which I feel is often an issue in 40k. As an Ork player, I can reach melee second turn, as in melee range, and while it's fine that it's kinda fast, it shouldn't be so fast as to completely ignore the Iniative rules and the strength of keeping it. Also yeah, a 6'' Firefight looks hella silly.

Given that this would need to see the game be totally rebalanced I would actually advocate giving marines a 4+reinforced armour save. This would certainly make them very survivable to small arms (as they should be) but the larger quantity of macroweapon attacks (presumably plasma guns will be a MW) would still make them manageable.

This would make a Marine squad the equivalent of a Leman Russ company in Epic, tough but still killable. Admittedly they wouldn't have the vulnerability to assaults and pinning issues that LRs have.

Termies would be more difficult as a 3+ reinforced may start to get a little silly, perhaps just make them count as 4+reinforced with a DC of 2 and an invulnerable save?

Range bands for weapons isn't a bad idea to be honest, providing that they are quite strictly adhered to across the board. Something like all Small arms/squad special weapons 24" etc. They would need to be sufficiently long to prevent melee armies becoming disproportionately powerful.

A 12" firefight range would be ideal but that would also have the problem of potentially involving far too many units.

Right, so I've left this alone for awhile while I stalled on making big changes to the CC/FF rules like we discussed.

Wise Dane, I can agree with you (for now) about vehicle facings, but its something that if my group ever started play testing my rules, I would try to add in. I think you're right about it forcing you to play much less aggressively with vehicles, and it mostly gives a way for infantry to kill things in melee since they always hit the rear armor. But I do enjoy the tiny bit of advantage it gives to flanking units and the extra bit of detail on vehicles. It's much harder to set an armor save value if giving your Leman Russ proper front armor means a Land Raider armor save all around.

And SilentPuffin, I think 3+ for power armor and 4+ Reinforced for termi makes the most sense currently. More mathhammer and some play testing might prove otherwise.

For ranges I planned on using 40k ranges for weapons, Epic ranges for movement, and naturally I would switch it all to cm!

Anyway I started thinking about doing work on changes this morning, and suddenly remembered why I wanted to separate CC/FF values from the models in the first place: CC and FF make no distinction between infantry and vehicles. It's fine in Epic where CC and FF are a blend of every conceivable weapon and method a tactical squad would use to kill a tank over the course of a 40k-sized battle.

This is pretty much unacceptable for an actual 40k port though, unless you want bolter-wielding marines, or hell even guardsmen with lasguns, whittling away at any tank in the game with their Firefight attacks. This is pretty much the Age of Sigmar way to do things, and I don't think it can be left alone.

So I see two ways to address this:

Stick as close as possible to Epic's layout, but split CC and FF into AP and AT values. Every unit gets 4 values: FF/AP, FF/AT, CC/AP, CC/AT. This is probably the messiest when you start considering how additional weapons might add/modify attacks in an unintended way.

Use normal weapon profiles for CC/FF instead of dedicated CC/FF values on the models.

The second method is more or less my original method. I know it's a hybrid of Epic and 40k but I think some kind of change in that direction would be necessary.

My proposal was also to apply a CC and FF bonus per unit. This does two things: first it helps show the unit's ability with a ranged weapon in close proximity without needing a separate set of FF stats for each gun (so Tau might get a -1 FF bonus, while marines might get +1). It also lets you differentiate between a chapter master and scout using the same weapon, letting you bring weapons out into a common list for that army.

I know this isn't as elegant as Epic, but it keeps some of the same spirit. If anyone has any other ideas to address this in a cleaner way let me know.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Anyway I started thinking about doing work on changes this morning, and suddenly remembered why I wanted to separate CC/FF values from the models in the first place: CC and FF make no distinction between infantry and vehicles. It's fine in Epic where CC and FF are a blend of every conceivable weapon and method a tactical squad would use to kill a tank over the course of a 40k-sized battle.

This is pretty much unacceptable for an actual 40k port though, unless you want bolter-wielding marines, or hell even guardsmen with lasguns, whittling away at any tank in the game with their Firefight attacks. This is pretty much the Age of Sigmar way to do things, and I don't think it can be left alone.

So I see two ways to address this:

Stick as close as possible to Epic's layout, but split CC and FF into AP and AT values. Every unit gets 4 values: FF/AP, FF/AT, CC/AP, CC/AT. This is probably the messiest when you start considering how additional weapons might add/modify attacks in an unintended way.

Use normal weapon profiles for CC/FF instead of dedicated CC/FF values on the models.

The second method is more or less my original method. I know it's a hybrid of Epic and 40k but I think some kind of change in that direction would be necessary.

My proposal was also to apply a CC and FF bonus per unit. This does two things: first it helps show the unit's ability with a ranged weapon in close proximity without needing a separate set of FF stats for each gun (so Tau might get a -1 FF bonus, while marines might get +1). It also lets you differentiate between a chapter master and scout using the same weapon, letting you bring weapons out into a common list for that army.

I know this isn't as elegant as Epic, but it keeps some of the same spirit. If anyone has any other ideas to address this in a cleaner way let me know.

Well, it's good to see that we agree to at least disagree; and the ranges I can live with. After all, it's not that much of a difference with a inche off every six inches, anyway.

Concerning the issue of regular marines killing tanks; yes, that is totally an issue. However, I can see two additional ways to help it:

- A model can only use it's FF or CC value, if it could actually damage the Vehicle outside of an Assault. So a Marine with a Bolter cannot damage a Leman Russ, since he has no weapon that can actually damage it at range (Krak Grenades ignored on purpose). A Marine with, say, a Lascannon would, however, since it's very likely to be a Macroweapon. Another one, like the afforementioned Assault Cannon, would be able to damage a Vehicle on a 4+, rather than a 5+, because it has an AT value, but uses the FF rule instead. Likewise, a Power Weapon can also damage a Vehicle in CC, since it's an MW (here it becomes interesting to make rules - Do we make Power Fists TK (1), then?)

Or

- A Vehicle (or perhaps only War Engines) simply gains an additional save when struck in FF. So if we say that a Dread has 4+, it would get an 4+ Rerollable, because the weapon is so weak against it.

I like the top one the most - It's easy to remember, and frankly what I had anticipated was the way E:A worked in the first place

So I tested some of these rules the other day with some friends, and if there's one thing to say, it's that Space Marines definately, absolutely shouldn't be more than Armour Save 4+. We tested different kinds of setups (ten Orks vs five Space Marines, twenty Orks vs eight Space Marines), and the Space Marines absolutely wrecked face in an Assault. I kinda like the fact that Space Marines are so hardy, which would really make them act like the more OP story-Marines we know from the books. I'm usually against that, but give them a proper points value, and I'm all for it.

Regardless, I think it'd be fun to try and make up some very light rules for a skirmish game with rules like this. I'd love to make it an accesible game, where a Battle Box (you know, the ones with a Tac unit, a Captain or other leader character and a Dreadnought) is a valid small army. When we're there, we might as well put the point values far down now that there's almost no stats and equipment to keep track off. Kinda like X-Wing I suppose? Like, if we said that a Tac is 6 pt, and a dreadnought could be around 50-60 pt. A normal army could be around 150 pt.

I think one of the weirder rules that needs change is the Crossfire rule. Because unit bases are so small, I think it's going to be difficult to paint that 18'' line from two different units. Then again, it'll mean that larger based units will be easier to put in a Crossfire, where a Independent Character will dodge a Crossfire better.

Also, on the top of my head, some rules:
- Power Weapons should all just be Macroweapons, no change. Standard stuff, Macroweapon, EA 1+. Doubling gives an extra EA 1+ extra of course. Lightning Claws might be better as EA 2+ without Macroweapons rule.
- Power Fists and Thunderhammers are more powerful than Power Weapons, and I think they're better off as Titankiller weapons. TK(1) EA 1+ for a Power Fist, maybe TK(1D3), without EA for Thunderhammers.
- We tested Heavy Bolters and gave them AP 4+/AT 5+, Disrupt. It's weaker, but they can move around, are better at supressing, and should probably be free for a Devastor, or Heavy Weapon toting Tac.
- I think Bolters should have AP 5+/AT 6+. At this size, you need to be able to damage vehicles.
- Krak Grenades don't need a profile I think; it could just allow a unit to use their FF value against Vehicles, the same way Frag Grenades have no rules; the way I see it, the FF value have grenade-throwing included.

Any ideas apart from this? Plasma need a look, and perhaps we should look at commands.

if you took the basic mechanics of Epic, but put them into 40k...

You'd get the Warlord Games world war II board game Bolt Action.
Seriously. It's written by the same ex-GW people, and features essentially the same concepts; issuing orders, pin markers, alternating(ish) activations, etc, with a few slight nods to 40k in the rules (tanks have a damage table rather than just hit points, commands are issued on a 2D6 leadership value).

You can literally use it straight out of the box for an imperial guard versus imperial guard game; you just then need to figure out appropriate traits for space marine/terminator infantry and weapons.

It's a very different beast to 40k, because you don't have a complete turn before your opponent gets to react, and despite shooting being even more lethal (because unarmoured dude in the open vs Heavy Machine Gun is....well, what it should be), assault still works because it's very easy to pin units down even if you don't kill them.

There's also now a sci-fi version, called Beyond The Gates Of Antares.

have a look here:

http://www.warlordgames.com/beyond-the-gates-of-antares/

Just base up your infantry and play Epic with your 40k models.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

Spoiler:

So I tested some of these rules the other day with some friends, and if there's one thing to say, it's that Space Marines definately, absolutely shouldn't be more than Armour Save 4+. We tested different kinds of setups (ten Orks vs five Space Marines, twenty Orks vs eight Space Marines), and the Space Marines absolutely wrecked face in an Assault. I kinda like the fact that Space Marines are so hardy, which would really make them act like the more OP story-Marines we know from the books. I'm usually against that, but give them a proper points value, and I'm all for it.

Regardless, I think it'd be fun to try and make up some very light rules for a skirmish game with rules like this. I'd love to make it an accesible game, where a Battle Box (you know, the ones with a Tac unit, a Captain or other leader character and a Dreadnought) is a valid small army. When we're there, we might as well put the point values far down now that there's almost no stats and equipment to keep track off. Kinda like X-Wing I suppose? Like, if we said that a Tac is 6 pt, and a dreadnought could be around 50-60 pt. A normal army could be around 150 pt.

I think one of the weirder rules that needs change is the Crossfire rule. Because unit bases are so small, I think it's going to be difficult to paint that 18'' line from two different units. Then again, it'll mean that larger based units will be easier to put in a Crossfire, where a Independent Character will dodge a Crossfire better.

Also, on the top of my head, some rules:
- Power Weapons should all just be Macroweapons, no change. Standard stuff, Macroweapon, EA 1+. Doubling gives an extra EA 1+ extra of course. Lightning Claws might be better as EA 2+ without Macroweapons rule.
- Power Fists and Thunderhammers are more powerful than Power Weapons, and I think they're better off as Titankiller weapons. TK(1) EA 1+ for a Power Fist, maybe TK(1D3), without EA for Thunderhammers.
- We tested Heavy Bolters and gave them AP 4+/AT 5+, Disrupt. It's weaker, but they can move around, are better at supressing, and should probably be free for a Devastor, or Heavy Weapon toting Tac.
- I think Bolters should have AP 5+/AT 6+. At this size, you need to be able to damage vehicles.
- Krak Grenades don't need a profile I think; it could just allow a unit to use their FF value against Vehicles, the same way Frag Grenades have no rules; the way I see it, the FF value have grenade-throwing included.

Any ideas apart from this? Plasma need a look, and perhaps we should look at commands.

Well, I'm not especially interested in using Epic rules for a small skirmish game. If you want to make bolters and heavy bolters into (Epic equivalent) anti-tank weapons and give dreadnoughts the stats of (Epic equivalent) Reaver titans to compensate, more power to you.

I think what you'll end up with is a fun skirmish game that's a bit disjointed from the fluff. You're also giving yourself little ability to handle different units and weapons in a reasonable way because you've already wasted so much of the limited stat range available. As the last poster just said, Bolt Action is probably a better starting point for what you want to do.

I'd rather work on a mass battle game, which I think better utilizes Epic's strengths.

But as long as I'm here, I would say leave the actions as they are (I see no issues with them). Or did you mean Imperial Guard orders?

And plasma guns for marines should probably be AP3+ MW. I'll leave it to you to figure out the AT since your armored vehicle stats are completely different from how I would do it.

I have to agree with the above posts.
If you want to play a detailed skirmish game with 40 K minis.
There are lots of good skirmish rule sets you can convert 40k over to.
Beyond the Gates Of Antares, Stargrunt II,No Limits, Chain Reaction II ,Urban War,Tomorrows War, Warzone just to mention a few....

If you want a quick play battle game with 'generic unit interaction', then just use 40k minis with Epic Armageddon rules as is.

If you want more detailed unit interaction, be prepared to add in lots of special rules to get more complexity, with added complication,
OR
Look at changing core game mechanic and resolution methods to cover more detailed unit interaction at the core rules level.

40k is unique, as the ONLY battle game with detailed 28mm models.

The game size should require generic unit interaction ,'Epic type rules '.
But the model size make some players want 'Necromundia type detailed model interaction.'

So the sweet spot is detailed unit interaction, where models in the unit determine unit performance.(Wound /attack markers.)IMO.

Point taken - I see that we had slightly different ideas of what we wanted to do ya'll. Instead of going for a Skirmish ruleset, I think I'll step a little back and help you guys create a mass battle system instead - I'm playing less and less 40k anyway, but I do want to see where a system like this goes, no matter what size the game'll be.

So, as I understand, we're talking standard 40k sized (so Battle-sized), are we going mostly for infantry and tanks starting out, with mechs being mostly Dreadnoughts and such? Geniunly asking; I think I need to be sure I'm on the same side as your guys now

On Plasma, the only real question to ask is how to handle the Plasma Cannon. The way I see it, Plasma is one of the only actual anti-everything weapons in the game, and is so an obvious choice for MW status (MW 4+ perhaps). On the difference between Plasma Pistols and Guns, Pistols would be solely Small Arms, and Guns would be regular weapons, and so work in different ways.

Another thing entirely; can we perhaps let regular Blasts die entirely? I hate them, I don't see how they'd function in a game like this. If grenades have no Blasts in this system (should we perhaps call it something? Warhammer 40,000: Heroes of Armaggedon is my only guess), could we give things like Frak Missiles Large Blasts, but lower damage values instead?

It's not really anti-everything. Plasma weapons notably fail to be anti-AV14.