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.

How do?

Well, Adeptus Titanicus is just around the corner, and that makes me moist in my special places (armpits). I'm all aquiver, and my wallet is already gently weeping at the thrashing yet to come.

But, what of Epic? I mean, we're Nerds Of A Certain Age. You can't just give us Adeptus Titanicus and not the full Epic experience - we're simply not that reasonable!

However, as I've said in other threads, I don't want Adeptus Titanicus to slowly expand into Epic. Oh no. I very much want them to be two different game systems. AT as a Titan specific Skirmish game (closer to a Naval engagement, given how mobility and positioning plays such a crucial role). A game all about God-Enginges chinning, knocking, hoofing and braying each other into the dust - conflicts that literally no other unit type has any business being involved in, as they'll just go squish.

Epic? Epic should be a top down type affair - the experience of a War Lord up in orbit, watching the engagement unfold on the Hololith. Yes it should absolutely involve Titans - but the focus should be on how these massive forces fight together.

And to that end, I want to discuss what elements from the previous editions you'd like to see come back.

Here's mine, in no particular order of importance.

2nd Edition Space Marine/Titan Legions - The army selection method. Yes, yes, yes. I loved the card based approach. Pick a Company Card, then up to 1 Special Card, and 5 (possibly 6?) Support Cards. It made it quick and easy to sort out your collection, and get it on the field. And as a narrative fan, it also helped ensure 'realistic' army compositions.

That's what they looked like, in case anyone isn't familiar.

The importance of Objectives, and 'First Past The Post' victory conditions. Depending on the game size, the winner was 'first to X' VPs. Different units gave different VPs, linked to their value. Objectives held in the end phase gave 5 VP each - but only for that turn. Kept the game fluid and encouraged movement!

Epic 40,000....hahahhahahahahahahahaha. No. Nothing to see here.

Epic Armageddon...ah. Yes. I'll take the Blast Marker implication for suppressing units. And I'll definitely be wanting the AI/AT weapon stats (Anti-Infantry/Anti-Tank). It added the depth of 2nd Ed Space Marines weapon stats, but with a bit of grease to speed the game along. It also typically meant Guadsmen couldn't Lasgun a Landraider to death!

That's the ones that jump immediately to mind. What's your thoughts?

I really like the card system too and would like to see that come back.

Im most curious about what scale they would do. Titanicus is 8mm correct? I wonder how different an 8mm Space Marine would look from a 6mm one.

What I want is a game which fields forces the size of 2nd edition (Imperial Guard infantry companies of 30 stands - that's 150 men), but with a rules set closer to Epic Armageddon or Epic 40,000 - At a pinch I could accept the orders system from 1st/2nd ed, but not the fiddly per-unit firing and melee.

For the sort of scale of command I want, I'm not sure I'd want to be distinguishing every single weapon option - give Space Marine Devastators "heavy weapons", for example- no need to worry about whether it's lascannon, heavy bolters or grav-cannon. Likewise with tanks. I just want to field a Leman Russ company, not worry that there's three basic battle tanks, an annihilator, an executioner and one of 'em's got flamer sponsons. If you must keep the differences in the rules, keep them out of army construction.

I want the focus of the rules to be about command - suppression, morale, issuing orders - rather than about hardware. The command rules from Warmaster, for example, as well as Epic 40,000 and Armageddon's blast marker rules.

what I want?

1st edition, with the army building expansions that were in WD

oh, and a consistant scale

Epic Armageddon with some spit, polish and plastic Tyranids

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Epic 40,000....hahahhahahahahahahahaha. No. Nothing to see here.

Epic Armageddon...ah. Yes. I'll take the Blast Marker implication for suppressing units. And I'll definitely be wanting the AI/AT weapon stats (Anti-Infantry/Anti-Tank). It added the depth of 2nd Ed Space Marines weapon stats, but with a bit of grease to speed the game along. It also typically meant Guadsmen couldn't Lasgun a Landraider to death!

Well, the blast markers and AI/AT rules are Epic 40K innovation. All E:Armageddon did was add more differentiation between units (and within units via weapon load-outs) and polish the rules. However, this resulted in game sizes that were substantially less epic than Epic 40K (i.e. fewer units at the standard battle size).

So, for my part, more Epic 40K type game play and scope.

im happy if they would simply just bring the game back. i returned to the hobby 2 years after specialist ended, and that overall division interested me more then what fantasy and 40k did.
plus there arent THAT many games for 10mm or smaller on the marked.

I would want the suppression mechanic of later releases as well as the accumulated firepower scoring of detachments and the handling of air power. What I really want though is it to handle on a divisional scale, the old card building mechanics were great especially the Chaos and Tyranid variants, made them feel both unique and thematic. Just really don't want heaps of special rules or other things that slow the game down to a crawl (or those horrible Eldar nightspinners).

I liked the Epic 40,000 aircraft rules. Basically, after your aicrcraft had entered and left the battlefield (whether that was a bombing raid, strafing run or landing to drop off troops), it returned to its airbase for a turn to reload. If it had taken non-fatal damage, it took an extra turn to repair, too. Enemy aircraft could go on "interdiction" missions - following the planes back to their base to try and knock it out.

I also liked the Titan Missions from 2nd ed Titan Legions - basically, your titan forces were sufficiently important that their own command hierarchy would assign them their own missions which may or may not exactly link up with what you (as overall battlefield commander) might want. So as well as the 8 objective markers on the table, each titan battle group had its own mission which would grant additional VPs

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I liked the Epic 40,000 aircraft rules. Basically, after your aicrcraft had entered and left the battlefield (whether that was a bombing raid, strafing run or landing to drop off troops), it returned to its airbase for a turn to reload. If it had taken non-fatal damage, it took an extra turn to repair, too. Enemy aircraft could go on "interdiction" missions - following the planes back to their base to try and knock it out.

I also liked the Titan Missions from 2nd ed Titan Legions - basically, your titan forces were sufficiently important that their own command hierarchy would assign them their own missions which may or may not exactly link up with what you (as overall battlefield commander) might want. So as well as the 8 objective markers on the table, each titan battle group had its own mission which would grant additional VPs

Along with the titan missons I also really enjoyed some of the weird custmisation they had, be it their own detachment of troops on board, spotter aircraft, CCW heads etc. If there was a way to do that and streamline it that would be awesome... One could almost say epic

Something that's a nice mix of TITAN LEGIONS and EPIC 40K.

So, keep the excellent and flavorful variety (NO GUNS and BIG GUNS gak!), but use the innovations of later editions.

And, of course, new plastic troops for all, please!

 ingtaer wrote:
I would want the suppression mechanic of later releases as well as the accumulated firepower scoring of detachments and the handling of air power. What I really want though is it to handle on a divisional scale, the old card building mechanics were great especially the Chaos and Tyranid variants, made them feel both unique and thematic. Just really don't want heaps of special rules or other things that slow the game down to a crawl (or those horrible Eldar nightspinners).

I found the Blast Markers and Suppression helped do away with overly special weapon rules.

Night Spinner for instance - just allow it to inflict higher than average Blast Markers. It's a cheap, quick and accurate way to represent it's unique threat.

I think all the editions had some great pros and cons (even Epic 40,000)

AT/SM1: The Heresy setting. I loved it. I loved the grit and detail of the system. An infantry stand meant something. A Rhino meant something. Land Raiders were beasts. And as the rules expanded from the Codex Titanicus to the White Dwarf articles, I never really found units broken.

What was missing was a proper morale system. The one that exists in that system only applies to infantry and only focuses on whether the commander(s) are present.

And you didn't need a huge playing area to play the game.

But it was slow to play. Some of our larger games took several nights to play out. We still loved it though.

SM2/TL: Feels a lot more like a comic book battle than a wargame, and while I scoffed at the simplicity of it at first, I realize today its the best game to break out if you are introducing a noobie to Epic. Lots of unnecessary wording and complicated rules for specific units at times, or just too time consuming. Plus you had to have very specific numbers of models for detachments. Not a huge deal back in the day, but now it would be.

It has a lot of flavor though.

Epic 40,000 - This is really an underrated game. While definitely not my favorite Epic game, its really got some interesting game play. Like how you can inflict more casualties in an assault but still lose the assault. Just about every weird thing that can happen in that game can be explained...

Except for Fire Fights.

Stupidest thing in the world. Two massive detachments could slam into each other, yet the loser only takes a single casualty and then retreats. Right. Plus many weapon rangers were just too short based on the distance many units could travel. Oh, and the Rhino had no firepower. Just basically a taxi.

But the ability to create detachments from your Bitz box: awesome. Especially today when Epic minis can be hard or expensive to hunt down. And the game includes all the rules for the Imperium, Eldar, Orks, Chaos, and Tryanids. A lot of game in that set. Hunt down the Firepower magazines and you have even more.

Great war engine rules too.

Epic A - Such a huge disappointment. Wont get too into it I've done it before. But I was on the playtesting team for this and knew that regardless how fun many players thought it was, that Jervis was making some serious mistakes that would kill the game. But it did have some cool ideas, like formation building. And some terrible ideas, like not being able to split fire. But there just weren't many units for many of the army lists, as the idea was it would be army list driven, and I think that just made them boring. Fan supported online but I don't care.

**************************************************************

So after 4 different systems, everyone has their favorite. I think the most important is allowing for flexibility. I hate boxing players in with limited decisions and telling them it makes for a better game. Stupid. Creativity should be rewarded.

I also have to be honest, that regardless of the scale, I love personality models, like those from SM2/TL. I love the idea that a single hero unit could make an impact on the units around him, or have special rules. I hate just seeing generic models all over the place. I know someone will say that at this scale, a single model like that shouldn't have an impact on the battle, but we are talking about a universe where champions make a huge difference. I think it just adds character to an army too.

Epic Armageddon needed more scenarios. As it is, I've only ever played the tournament scenario using the tournament army lists, which is a bit of a shame. Keep the unit stats, ditch the formation restrictions and you can do everything that 2nd ed or Epic 40,000 could do.


As for the Rhino in Epic 40,000 not having any firepower, fair enough - it has two bolters. A Space Marine stand with five had what, firepower 1? so 2/5 of 1 is … 0, rounded to a whole number.
I never played it enough - was the firefight result you describe something that happened a lot, or just something that could happen? If the latter, then sometimes weird stuff happens, which is OK.

What I want? Detail, Detail, Detail.
Factions should have weapons with specific, colourful templates. Just to mention a few:
Cannonball for the Ork gutbuster gun, Squat rad blast, net templates for Eldar doom weaver, flame template for Chaos cauldron of blood, wave template for Eldar waver serpent and vortex template for vortex missile.
I don´t want to see three generic templates (flamer, small & big blast). These are good for Necromunda but not when the whole 40K universe is at war. Offer us something special this time.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
As for the Rhino in Epic 40,000 not having any firepower, fair enough - it has two bolters. A Space Marine stand with five had what, firepower 1? so 2/5 of 1 is … 0, rounded to a whole number.

Well in AT/SM1, a rhino had two 'vehicle mounted bolters' that had a range of 24 cm and would hit on a 6+. On first fire orders you got a +1 to hit. So having a detachment of Rhinos on an overwatch position wasn't a bad thing. 6 or so rolls of 5+ I will take that. Then SM2/TL came along and they snipped it by saying even though you see two, the combine firepower gives it a (I think) a 6+ to hit and a range of 15cm. By the time Epic 40k came around the Rhino was neutered.

I had some amazing moments with the AT/SM1 Rhino. I once had a beat up tactical detachment in some buildings and their Rhinos watching over a bridge on my flank and my buddy tried to cross it with some Bonecrunchas and boyz. I made some really lucky shots with the missile launchers from my marines to take out two of the Bonecrunchas, and did enough damage with the combined bolter fire from from the marines and Rhinos for him to pull back his boyz. I love seeing that gak. I went back and painted more detail to those Rhinos after that. I love heroic moments.

I never played it enough - was the firefight result you describe something that happened a lot, or just something that could happen? If the latter, then sometimes weird stuff happens, which is OK.

No that was the game mechanic. Any detachments within 15cm got into a firefight. Didn't matter the size of the detachments. You added up the firepower of those within 15cm. So you could have a massive ork mob stretched out over 30cm, but a single Grot stand within 15 cm of 6 Devastator stands, it gets waxed, and the whole mob retreats. That specific exception might sound extreme, but it was stuff like that that made you go, what the? It would kind of make me want to keep my distance and try to settle things from longer range when I could.

I'd want a card system.

I really like netepic and lurk tactics command. Honestly an extremely similar port would be the best they could do.

Another vote for the card system - clean, easy and helpful!

But mostly I just want tiny little Eldar grav tanks. Lots and lots of 'em

In terms of unit detail, I’m happy with the AP/AT take (previously billed as AI/AT. I is for infantry...P is for Personnel). It gives each unit its own niche, without needing to go into too much detail.

And the main reason I favour the card based system is for formal military structures, it helps create the flavour.

Orks were a notable, and workable, exception. Their company cards tended to be Clan cards (not spelled with a K here because SJW. Fight me), and fairly bog standard Boyz. But the support cards, rather than being units in their own right, were mucked in with the Company, representing the anarchic structure of Orky Warhosts.

Sadly, I never did get Hive War, so I can’t wax too lyrical about Tyranid structure. But if dim, uninformed memory serves, it was all about Synapse. The bigger the Synapse creature, the more Broods it could support. Made possible by tessalating Hexagonal Tiles.

But whichever way you butter it, it was an ace system!

My first wish - and this has everything to do with Adeptus Titanicus and nothing with Epic - is for Xenos Titans.

Given that the titan v titan part of the game is going to be set at fairly high rules detail, I'd want any other units to have relatively simple rules so as to not bog down the game.

From an Epic standpoint, what I really want are models!

 schoon wrote:
My first wish - and this has everything to do with Adeptus Titanicus and nothing with Epic - is for Xenos Titans.

Given that the titan v titan part of the game is going to be set at fairly high rules detail, I'd want any other units to have relatively simple rules so as to not bog down the game.

From an Epic standpoint, what I really want are models!

I wouldn't expect any Xenos. There's none really in 30k and my bet is your just going to see scaled down versions of the Titans and heavy vehicles from 30k. It's ridiculously easy to do because of CAD so lowers design costs. Additionally both sides can effectively be represented by the same models which again maximises value offer resource investment. You can't even rely on GW rerelease get models because of the scale differences.

My preference would be for Epic 40k afterwards it was a much more streamlined system and gave a better impression of sweeping formations. I disagree about the comment on firefights as they were there to represent where both sides had hunkered down and were firing at each other to keep one side fixed (think WWI trenches etc). The assaults were there to represent the closer engagement. I think too many people took them for hitting each over the head with a gun because of the similar terminology to 40k. In reality a single assault was more representative of a single 40k game.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Clan cards (not spelled with a K here because SJW. Fight me

I'd need to check Waaagh! The Orks, but I'mm pretty sure it's always been Clans, with a 'C'.

Agree that Epic Armageddon would most likely be a template, as it was probably the best regarded and is still the most popular (at least in the UK) in terms of numbers of players.

Although I do think it's a little like wishing for a Led Zeppelin re-union featuring John Bonham on the drums, and is only marginally less likely. There are just too many lines of miniatures featured in the different factions, I can't imagine that GW would want to dedicate the casting and sculpting time to run the different factions, or at least to get it to anything like the level that had been released previously when Epic was a 'core' game - as we know, the difference here with GW's classic game releases is that Bloodbowl, Necromunda etc. were only ever supporting games, whereas Epic was the 3rd main system and took a lot of store wall space alongside 40k and WHFB.

So I think if there was a re-release you would have a very restricted range.. plus a slightly altered version of Armageddon, which would make me think what is the point?
You can already download (for free) Armageddon rules, which have been playtested and balanced to destruction, there is a thriving community & classic/3rd party miniature range and more coming out all the time.

The only plus point is that it means you would get more youngsters into playing at 6mm scale which would help bolster that community. And, of course you would get new miniatures in 6mm from the last few 40k editions (which as a 40k grognard is a massive downside for me, as I think most of the newer designs of Centurions, Storm Ravens, Primus marines and the like are crap )

Epic Armageddon needed more scenarios. As it is, I've only ever played the tournament scenario using the tournament army lists

This is very true. I would say it's one of the biggest negative points about the official game, although there are plenty of smaller scenarios kicking around and missions that appeared in the Fanatic magazine etc. Outside of a tournament you can also adapt one of the 5 elements of objective scoring and add it to some narrative, think it's fairly easy to do.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Clan cards (not spelled with a K here because SJW. Fight me

I'd need to check Waaagh! The Orks, but I'mm pretty sure it's always been Clans, with a 'C'.

Yes I had a check and it is. Lots of 'C' words are spelt with a 'K' ('kustom', 'kult of speed' etc.) but for Clans it is with a C. I guess that was most certainly a thing back then to be mindful of, and be careful of spelling.

TBH, I don't think it's going to return, not officially.

Wish-thinking?

AT releases and stokes the fire that has continued to burn all these years despite the lack of official support.

I'm hoping that later this year, GW will start seeing some jaw-breakingly stunning Epic-scale battle scenes that integrate all the AT releases, Titans AND terrain, paired with either old-Epic or proxy gear, and that that will somehow have the same effect on them that their studio Epic battlescenes/dioramas had on me way back then. If that makes any sense to anyone other than me ,-)

Like I said, wish-thinking...

 Pacific wrote:
So I think if there was a re-release you would have a very restricted range.. plus a slightly altered version of Armageddon..

Epic Armageddon itself was only supposed to cover a limited area of the galaxy - it was focussed on the 3rd War for Armageddon, which is why it only contained army lists for Space Marines, Steel Legion and Ghazgkull's Horde. A "generic" Imperial Guard army list would presumably have allowed Supreme Command formations without mandatory Chimeras, for example. The Swordwind expansion only provided army lists for the forces in that campaign; the plan was that other expansions would focuson different campaigns, rather like how Battlefleet Gothic originally only provided rules for the forces present during the Gothic War.

AndrewGPaul wrote:Epic Armageddon needed more scenarios. As it is, I've only ever played the tournament scenario using the tournament army lists

This is very true. I would say it's one of the biggest negative points about the official game

Which is rather ironic, given that the game was pushed by Jervis as a narrative, scenario-based game and the army lists were described as being only for tournament play.

You're right ... I've confused the original EA releases with the stuff that the community has added over the years (I know a couple were added ad-hoc in Fanatic magazine but I don't think that many). Community wise, which I think shows how the game was taken up post official support, If you go with the NetEA tournament pack it has 25 different list choices covering 10 factions and covers most of the 40k setting. I believe the unofficial lists cover about 50+ (Squats etc.), and then you've got the Horus Heresy legion lists that have been based on the new FW books.

Another thing ...

If Epic were to come back in all its glory, and cover the entire setting, I'd like it to keep in sync with 40k. The last time that was the case was with 2nd edition Epic and 2nd edition 40k.

For instance, it's been a while since I checked, but do the NetEA lists include the Stormraven, Stormtalon, Stormhawk, Land Speeder Storm, the Stalker AA tank, etc? Or any Primaris units?

Or smaller issues, like the Steel Legion Infantry company not reflecting the company composition as described in the Imperial Guard Codex (No platoon command stands, even if they're just counted as additional infantry stands), or the Epic Armageddon Thunderhawk suddenly carrying more troops than the 40k one.

Some people made cards for Epic:A. It was easy enough, just a different way of presenting the army lists.

An improved Epic:A system would be good. For example 40k has ever more ornate ways of writing weapon names to allow them to be slightly different and designing new units with the constraint of weapons having identical stats is difficult. Making the profiles not as linked between the weapon name and the dice and stuff used would make it more flexible.

Making the armour save system easier with saves written as 4+/3+/6+ showing regular/reinforced/invulnerable to reduce special rules.

And other tweaks.

I think the models and basing should be a bit more varied. So for example Space Marines in stands of 5, Imperial Guard in stands of 10 and Orks in stands of 15+ (what would 20 look like...), certain tanks potentially multi based, etc. to allow you to show numbers without having the problems of lots of units.

And so on.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Another thing ...

If Epic were to come back in all its glory, and cover the entire setting, I'd like it to keep in sync with 40k. The last time that was the case was with 2nd edition Epic and 2nd edition 40k.

For instance, it's been a while since I checked, but do the NetEA lists include the Stormraven, Stormtalon, Stormhawk, Land Speeder Storm, the Stalker AA tank, etc? Or any Primaris units?

Or smaller issues, like the Steel Legion Infantry company not reflecting the company composition as described in the Imperial Guard Codex (No platoon command stands, even if they're just counted as additional infantry stands), or the Epic Armageddon Thunderhawk suddenly carrying more troops than the 40k one.

I would want the opposite of that tbh, but then these days mostly what I want from Specialist Games are refuges from the narrative and aesthetic choices the main studio are making - I'd much rather they use it as an excuse to flesh out another cool "historical" period like the Interregnum or Apostasy. Your preference is far more likely though, heck, I'd be surprised if any new edition of Epic didn't focus heavily on Primaris over old style Marines.

No scale creep. If it has 10mm space marines I won't be buying into it at all. I have way too many thousands of models in 6mm to change now.

Keep the scale and I would buy everything they throw at us.