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've been mainly out of the 40k playing scene for years/several editions now and pretty much only paint one off minis that interest me. Ever since 3rd edition, though, I've had the urge to try a small scale 40k game in the sense of using the old Epic minis available at the time with traditional 40k. I don't think that way now but I'm still intrigued with the idea of using the more abstracted Apocalypse rules with Epic minis instead but I've unfamiliar with the newest incarnation as a player. Has anyone here tried the Apoc rules? I've only watched the how to videos GW put up when it came out and they seemed abstracted enough for use with stands of tiny minis. Are they suitable for use with epic scale and/or based minis? I picked up an entry level resin 3d printer last year and I've been debating trying to print out some 6mm or 15mm scale minis for use with Apoc.

What’s wrong with using Epic rules? Either NetEpic or one of the other rule sets that are available for free online. Have you tried those and decided they’re not suitable?

I haven’t played Apocalypse in 28mm so can’t comment on how it would translate to 6mm.

I've seen some Apocalypse games played few years back. Mostly it looked like a game where you roll dices and remove models without much moving. Epic Armageddon at least is a game where maneuver has a big role. So I don't understand why use apocalypse rule set when epics own is available. Sure I play epic now days and not 40k, so maybe I miss something for sure.

I'd rather play Epic Armageddon with 40k models, provided enough space is available.

El Torro wrote:What’s wrong with using Epic rules? Either NetEpic or one of the other rule sets that are available for free online. Have you tried those and decided they’re not suitable?

I haven’t played Apocalypse in 28mm so can’t comment on how it would translate to 6mm.

Nothing is wrong with them but I was just never a fan. I don't know how much they've changed in the past 10 or so years since I last tried it but it wasn't for me. That's just a preference though.

Hena wrote:I've seen some Apocalypse games played few years back. Mostly it looked like a game where you roll dices and remove models without much moving. Epic Armageddon at least is a game where maneuver has a big role. So I don't understand why use apocalypse rule set when epics own is available. Sure I play epic now days and not 40k, so maybe I miss something for sure.

See above. I'm just curious if the epic style basing is suitable for current Apoc which iirc also uses multimodel basing for units. They seem like a possible fit for each other with apoc being somewhere between epic and "normal" 40k in terms of complexity vs abstraction. I just don't have personal actual play experience with it so figured I'd ask. It may end up being a stupid idea but home 3d printing a great crusade style set of armies in 6mm or 15mm sounds interesting.

Nurglitch wrote:I'd rather play Epic Armageddon with 40k models, provided enough space is available.

Fair enough. Have you played current apoc though? I'm looking for opinions as to whether it's doable with epic minis.

Well, I'd think if you just applied a scale differential it'd work just fine. I have been corresponding with a friend in prison who has got a bunch of people making papercraft 40k at a much smaller scale, and the apoc ruleset worked quite well because all the rules for units were available online, relatively simplified from epic 40k and I was able to send just a fairly small rulebook to get them off the ground.

Basically, it works off an alternating activation system lite, where players activate detachments (and you are incentivized in taking more detachments by them providing special 2nd ed style stratagem cards for you) and squads act like models do in 40k

From what I've seen of epic, that would seem to be ideal considering a single mini represents say 5 space marines.

Commanders do exist in Apoc, captains and librarians and the like, but their importance is somewhat diminished from full scale 40k. I'm not sure how granularized epic became.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reading through the epic rules real quick, current apoc appears to be a 28mm-scale, simplified version.

-Play is still divided into detachment activation (called Formations in epic, but same concept)

-Detachments are still issued an order that all units within must perform (only 3 in current apoc, several more in epic)

-Weapon stats are separated into "Vs infantry" and "Vs Tanks" values, which means that the typical "anti infantry gun = many shots!" wargame convention does not need to be followed, and die rolling can still be fairly simplified.

Basically, to play apoc using epic figures, I'd start by dividing all distance values by approximately 4. Though the actual scale differential is 4-2/3, dividing by 4 makes the common 12" range increments more likely to result in round numbers as compared to dividing by 5. I'd rather space marines move 1.5" and shoot 6" than 1.2" and 4.8".

You can pretty easily play Apoc with epic minis if you just swap inches to cm. Not much more is really needed.

 Hulksmash wrote:
You can pretty easily play Apoc with epic minis if you just swap inches to cm. Not much more is really needed.

This.

 Hulksmash wrote:
You can pretty easily play Apoc with epic minis if you just swap inches to cm. Not much more is really needed.

Agreed - Try it is great

 Hulksmash wrote:
You can pretty easily play Apoc with epic minis if you just swap inches to cm. Not much more is really needed.

Agreed! That was my initial plan back in late 3rd edition when I wanted to put together a "travel" sized 40k set using epic minis with 40k 3rd ed rules. I'd still be doing that with this idea as well as you suggested.

Yes. Some above answers are inaccurate, as the new Apoc is radically different from older Apocs by being a company level mash of various Epic rules with less detail. So if you're looking for a straightforward battle game with a funny mission generator, get Apoc.

I've played a couple of 6 mm games with it (about 250+ power, or some 6000 40k points) and you can either use inches or cm for your measuring depending on how mobile you like your game to be in relation to the scenery.

I would go for NetEpic.. I've just only read the ARamgeddon rueleset once, but the Space Marine ruleset is quite clear, clean and simple.
I have too seen some people playing Apocalypse here but.. the impression was of a lot of unpainted miniatures and people trowing buckets of dice to remove the just after having placed them.
Give Epic a chance! You will not regret!!!

OldManDeda wrote:
I would go for NetEpic.. I've just only read the ARamgeddon rueleset once, but the Space Marine ruleset is quite clear, clean and simple.
I have too seen some people playing Apocalypse here but.. the impression was of a lot of unpainted miniatures and people trowing buckets of dice to remove the just after having placed them.
Give Epic a chance! You will not regret!!!

Again, that is not what the new Apocalypse is like. The new Apocalypse is a game and not a torture device.

OldManDeda wrote:
I would go for NetEpic.. I've just only read the ARamgeddon rueleset once, but the Space Marine ruleset is quite clear, clean and simple.
I have too seen some people playing Apocalypse here but.. the impression was of a lot of unpainted miniatures and people trowing buckets of dice to remove the just after having placed them.
Give Epic a chance! You will not regret!!!

Yeah, then you haven't seen new apoc. A max size ork boyz blob rolls the most dice out of any unit I know of, and the grand total is like...12d6.

It's probably a good idea to use Epic minis if you want to save an awful lot of money - and use that money to do something like buy a family car or pay rent/mortgage for a month!

There are some really great 3rd party producers around now (if you check out Vanguard miniatures many are sold through there), which in turn is helping to keep some of the classic GW mini prices down on eBay, if you want to use those instead.

Personally, I always thought things like titans and super heavies, even tank formations really, work much better at the small scale.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, then you haven't seen new apoc. A max size ork boyz blob rolls the most dice out of any unit I know of, and the grand total is like...12d6.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Again, that is not what the new Apocalypse is like. The new Apocalypse is a game and not a torture device.

I see.. not having ever seen the new ruleset I concur, I cannot give a weighted and sensible opinion.

Still.. I think that a specific ruleset is better for any given scale!

OldManDeda wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, then you haven't seen new apoc. A max size ork boyz blob rolls the most dice out of any unit I know of, and the grand total is like...12d6.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Again, that is not what the new Apocalypse is like. The new Apocalypse is a game and not a torture device.

I see.. not having ever seen the new ruleset I concur, I cannot give a weighted and sensible opinion.

Still.. I think that a specific ruleset is better for any given scale!

Having read through the epic rules, I definitely think there is more potential depth there in terms of gameplay decisions than in current apocalypse. Current apocalypse is kind of like a merging of epic and the higher unit variety and crazy tactic cards of 2nd ed. I would feel pretty limited playing epic with only what - 4 factions to choose from? 5?

The fiddliest thing about translating apoc to epic would be figuring out how to represent commanders, who are a fairly major factor in apoc and I think are pretty much ignored in epic, unless I just didn't see them in my skim through the rules. Obviously you could just rule that their aura effects only work on units in base-to-base contact with them, if you didn't want the fiddly task of measuring 6cm, but I think the game would work fairly poorly with no characters.

In practice, of course, characters tend to sit in transports until they either get where they need to be, or their transport gets destroyed and then they are quickly shot because destroying the character commanding a detachment stops it from drawing a tactic card. They tend to be more like "one time buffs" where you have a psychic tactic card, so you pop your librarian out of his rhino and use the psychic power, or your close-combat jump pack units deep strike in, and your chaplain gets to provide his buff the turn they arrive and fight because next turn he gets his black metal butt shot off.

Epic has pretty much all 40k factions, they are reasonably actively updated by various groups like EpicUK for tournament use. Dozens of army lists out there, really. No lack of variation.

Command units are a big thing in Epics, though less flashy than they are in Apoc. As an example, in Armageddon they allow you to do combined assaults with multiple formations, give command rerolls for the army or boost their fighting chances etc.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Epic has pretty much all 40k factions, they are reasonably actively updated by various groups like EpicUK for tournament use. Dozens of army lists out there, really. No lack of variation.

Command units are a big thing in Epics, though less flashy than they are in Apoc. As an example, in Armageddon they allow you to do combined assaults with multiple formations, give command rerolls for the army or boost their fighting chances etc.

Commanders are pretty non-flashy in apoc, tbh. the biggest and best ones give rerolls to hit to units that are right next to them, that's about it.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Epic has pretty much all 40k factions, they are reasonably actively updated by various groups like EpicUK for tournament use. Dozens of army lists out there, really. No lack of variation.

Command units are a big thing in Epics, though less flashy than they are in Apoc. As an example, in Armageddon they allow you to do combined assaults with multiple formations, give command rerolls for the army or boost their fighting chances etc.

Commanders are pretty non-flashy in apoc, tbh. the biggest and best ones give rerolls to hit to units that are right next to them, that's about it.

I raise you with psykers, Warptime and other shenanigans that will drastically change the situation on the field unless dealt with post-haste

But yeah, all these systems tend to be more about the bigger units than heroes. *takes the form of Indy Neidell* And that, ladies and gentlemen, is modern war.

Heck 8th is so simple mechanics wise we just use it at half ranges/movement and use epic scale minis. you can still find quite a few epic minis on ebay along with the fantastic 6mm stuff from vanguard miniatures , onslaught miniatures, trolls under the bridge (mostly necrons and some IG stuff) and a host of people who 3d print newer units. i picked up a couple stormhawk interceptors in 6mm that way.

this is my marine force with a mix of vanguard, aeronautica and classic epic 40k minis



A great place for epic scale terrain is brigade miniatures.

http://www.brigademodels.co.uk/6mmSF/index.html

That's a very impressive looking force aphyon.

Can I ask where you got those drop pod-looking things from?

I hadn't heard of Brigade Models too - some very reasonably priced terrain there so thanks for that!

So for those who have played both, is epic or apoc closer in complexity to 40k? Which one is more simplified/abstract? I'm not asking which is "better" which tends to be the answer given but rather a comparison of the relative levels of compexity.

40k is not complex (very straightforward turn structure and conflict resolution), but it is complicated by having lots of fiddly bits on the surface which make it somewhat taxing to play. Meant for skirmish forces.

Epic is complex (deeper choice in actions, analysis paralysis with the action economy and terrain interaction), but less taxing to play because the conflict resolution itself is very simple (outside of Engage actions, which take a while to grog). Meant for battalion / brigade size. Abstract, yes, not necessary simple.

Apocalypse is between the aforementioned in complexity. It has deeper action choice than 40k, though less than Epic, but is similarily abstract in its mechanics as Epic which make it very easy to play. Fiddlier details, like the sprawling Engagements of Epic, have been omitted. Meant for company size. More abstract than 40k, simpler than Epic.

Basically 40k slogs in the mechanical minutiae, Epic slogs in the action economy analysis paralysis, Apocalypse takes a happy road in the middle being by far the least taxing of the three to play.

 warboss wrote:
So for those who have played both, is epic or apoc closer in complexity to 40k? Which one is more simplified/abstract? I'm not asking which is "better" which tends to be the answer given but rather a comparison of the relative levels of compexity.

Epic is for sure more complex. It's tough to say which is closer to 40k because both are very different - epic is more complex but it's more complex in stuff like

-Weapon arcs
-Crossfire damage bonuses
-Fleeing/Rallying morale system with additional actions like Marshal
-Randomized barrages
-Overwatch system

I guess that apoc would be closer to 8th in that it doesn't have those things, and it does have stuff like some commanders having familiar auras to 8th ed (captain still makes you reroll 1s to hit, for example)

epic is also somewhat more zoomed-out, I think. For example, in epic, there are two forms of close combat - close combat and firefight, and anything smaller than a squad level heavy weapon is just used in Firefight combat. When you charge in for a close combat, you can choose to engage the enemy in a close-range firefight, or in actual hand to hand melee. So a tactical squad of space marines would be represented ONLY by their heavy weapon, nothing else, bolters just come into play when you do a firefight assault. There is also no wounding roll in epic - you roll a single D6 to see if your weapon both hits and wounds, then the target makes armor saves.

In apoc, things are a little bit more familiar: Models shoot and fight with fixed ballistic and weapon skills as in 40k on a D6, and wound rolls are generally split between an anti-light wound roll and an anti-heavy wound roll. Wound rolls are made on a D12 to increase granularity in a game that includes big titans and little grots.

In general, I like the options that epic provides in terms of strategic options, but it does have a few classic wargaming elements that I always despise.

complaint 1) Roll to see if you can do anything. You have to roll an "Action Test" on your formation to see if it can do anything at all when selected on your turn. There is no instance in my experience when playing wargames where failing one of these kinds of rolls seems fair or logical.

complaint 2) suppression. Morale's main effect in epic is making units not able to do anything, and shooting anything at anything causes morale effects, even if it does no damage.

These two things tend, in my experience playing wargames, to create situations where one player FEELS like he's performed some cool precision strategic maneuver, when instead the dice just decided he got to take several more actions than his opponent did, so he gets to maneuver things around and destroy things while his opponent just has to sit and watch.

Overall, I would compare Epic more closely to somehting like Flames of war than 40k, and Apoc feels like a midway point between that and 40k.

That's not entirely accurate about the action test in Epic Armageddon. If a formation fails its action test, then it can perform a Hold action - the formation can either move or shoot (and must move to get back into formation if it isn't, which would be surprising considering it's where 5th and 8th got their casualty removal - grots are part of Ork formations!).

Also, there's cool things like Supporting Fire, whereby friendly units within 15cm of an enemy unit involved in an Engage action can contribute their Firefight attacks to its resolution.

Likewise in Epic Armageddon formations are composed of units, and for each blast marker on the formation one unit in the formation cannot shoot. Formations receive a -1 to their action test if they have at least one blast marker.

When the number of surviving units in a formation is equal or less than the number of blast markers, the formation is broken. This means they need to take a rally test rather than an action test.

Units can still fight in Engagements even if they have a blast marker.

What this means is that MSU is effectly balanced with FBH (Few Big Hordes). Positioning is huge, and much of the game is working to minimize your opponent's ability to resist you as much as trying to kill their army. Getting a unit into position where it can enable a crossfire or lend supporting fire is so important.

Nurglitch wrote:
That's not entirely accurate about the action test in Epic Armageddon. If a formation fails its action test, then it can perform a Hold action - the formation can either move or shoot (and must move to get back into formation if it isn't, which would be surprising considering it's where 5th and 8th got their casualty removal - grots are part of Ork formations!).

Also, there's cool things like Supporting Fire, whereby friendly units within 15cm of an enemy unit involved in an Engage action can contribute their Firefight attacks to its resolution.

Likewise in Epic Armageddon formations are composed of units, and for each blast marker on the formation one unit in the formation cannot shoot. Formations receive a -1 to their action test if they have at least one blast marker.

When the number of surviving units in a formation is equal or less than the number of blast markers, the formation is broken. This means they need to take a rally test rather than an action test.

Units can still fight in Engagements even if they have a blast marker.

What this means is that MSU is effectly balanced with FBH (Few Big Hordes). Positioning is huge, and much of the game is working to minimize your opponent's ability to resist you as much as trying to kill their army. Getting a unit into position where it can enable a crossfire or lend supporting fire is so important.

Sure. I'm not saying that either is a bad game, and I'm sure that they'd appeal to different people in different ways. There are things about apoc that obviously bother folks a lot (many units being not particularly unique compared to other units, some tactic cards being quite powerful, unique/special actions being tied up in tactic cards rather than on unit datasheets, shallow morale, etc) and there are things about epic that I recognize from other traditional wargames that I've noticed tend to bother me a lot (units getting 'stunlocked' with morale, Roll to Attempt To Do a Thing Then Roll To Do The Thing, opponents being able to randomly get double turns on you, etc).

There are definitely things in there that I think are really cool, and in particular I like that unit range is wayyyyyyy down so maneuver matters a ton more, it's just wrapped up with some stuff that always bugs me in old-school wargames.

On the "roll to attempt a thing", I think that is very neatly baked in as a major, major feature of E:A. It is an old school game, yes, and as such tends to include elements of operational friction unlike most modern games which aren't as keen on the simulationist part. But on the army level, with the zoomed out view, it gives the game a whole lot of design space in representing the way different armies work in the world without a more robust strategy game beforehand.

You can have forces that are always reliable (space marines always succeeding in their first action unless shot at), forces that promote certain actions (knights getting a bonus when getting stuck in) or forces that are more rigid and prone to milling around unless forcefully commanded (imperial guard, renegade militias and such). Besides operating with different reliabilites, the forces are further differentiated by how likely they are to dictate the deployment, how likely they are to get the first action of each round, how they handle pressure and regrouping etc. Making action tests more difficult by taking the initiative and attacking enemy formations before they get the chance (perhaps at an opportunity cost elsewhere) to me feels a lot more relatable with proper battlefield action than many games with perfect command and control do. And then there's representing that command, as you can further try to ensure your command going through by having supreme commanders alive (and disrupting the opposition by trying to eliminate theirs).

the_scotsman wrote:


Epic is for sure more complex. It's tough to say which is closer to 40k because both are very different - epic is more complex but it's more complex in stuff like

Spoiler:

-Weapon arcs
-Crossfire damage bonuses
-Fleeing/Rallying morale system with additional actions like Marshal
-Randomized barrages
-Overwatch system

I guess that apoc would be closer to 8th in that it doesn't have those things, and it does have stuff like some commanders having familiar auras to 8th ed (captain still makes you reroll 1s to hit, for example)

epic is also somewhat more zoomed-out, I think. For example, in epic, there are two forms of close combat - close combat and firefight, and anything smaller than a squad level heavy weapon is just used in Firefight combat. When you charge in for a close combat, you can choose to engage the enemy in a close-range firefight, or in actual hand to hand melee. So a tactical squad of space marines would be represented ONLY by their heavy weapon, nothing else, bolters just come into play when you do a firefight assault. There is also no wounding roll in epic - you roll a single D6 to see if your weapon both hits and wounds, then the target makes armor saves.

In apoc, things are a little bit more familiar: Models shoot and fight with fixed ballistic and weapon skills as in 40k on a D6, and wound rolls are generally split between an anti-light wound roll and an anti-heavy wound roll. Wound rolls are made on a D12 to increase granularity in a game that includes big titans and little grots.

In general, I like the options that epic provides in terms of strategic options, but it does have a few classic wargaming elements that I always despise.

complaint 1) Roll to see if you can do anything. You have to roll an "Action Test" on your formation to see if it can do anything at all when selected on your turn. There is no instance in my experience when playing wargames where failing one of these kinds of rolls seems fair or logical.

complaint 2) suppression. Morale's main effect in epic is making units not able to do anything, and shooting anything at anything causes morale effects, even if it does no damage.

These two things tend, in my experience playing wargames, to create situations where one player FEELS like he's performed some cool precision strategic maneuver, when instead the dice just decided he got to take several more actions than his opponent did, so he gets to maneuver things around and destroy things while his opponent just has to sit and watch.

Overall, I would compare Epic more closely to somehting like Flames of war than 40k, and Apoc feels like a midway point between that and 40k.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Those are the kind of comparisons that I'm missing due to a lack of experience with both systems.

the_scotsman wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
That's not entirely accurate about the action test in Epic Armageddon. If a formation fails its action test, then it can perform a Hold action - the formation can either move or shoot (and must move to get back into formation if it isn't, which would be surprising considering it's where 5th and 8th got their casualty removal - grots are part of Ork formations!).

Also, there's cool things like Supporting Fire, whereby friendly units within 15cm of an enemy unit involved in an Engage action can contribute their Firefight attacks to its resolution.

Likewise in Epic Armageddon formations are composed of units, and for each blast marker on the formation one unit in the formation cannot shoot. Formations receive a -1 to their action test if they have at least one blast marker.

When the number of surviving units in a formation is equal or less than the number of blast markers, the formation is broken. This means they need to take a rally test rather than an action test.

Units can still fight in Engagements even if they have a blast marker.

What this means is that MSU is effectly balanced with FBH (Few Big Hordes). Positioning is huge, and much of the game is working to minimize your opponent's ability to resist you as much as trying to kill their army. Getting a unit into position where it can enable a crossfire or lend supporting fire is so important.

Sure. I'm not saying that either is a bad game, and I'm sure that they'd appeal to different people in different ways. There are things about apoc that obviously bother folks a lot (many units being not particularly unique compared to other units, some tactic cards being quite powerful, unique/special actions being tied up in tactic cards rather than on unit datasheets, shallow morale, etc) and there are things about epic that I recognize from other traditional wargames that I've noticed tend to bother me a lot (units getting 'stunlocked' with morale, Roll to Attempt To Do a Thing Then Roll To Do The Thing, opponents being able to randomly get double turns on you, etc).

There are definitely things in there that I think are really cool, and in particular I like that unit range is wayyyyyyy down so maneuver matters a ton more, it's just wrapped up with some stuff that always bugs me in old-school wargames.

Sure, but if someone took you literally that you have to "Roll to see if you can do anything. You have to roll an "Action Test" on your formation to see if it can do anything at all when selected on your turn. There is no instance in my experience when playing wargames where failing one of these kinds of rolls seems fair or logical" then they wouldn't understand that it's not 'roll to see if you can do anything' but 'roll to see if you can maximize what you want to do.' Failing the action test does not mean a unit is frozen and unable to address the board.

Furthermore, and I'm just harping on this because it's accidental misinformation and that requires over-writing it with useful information, your comment that "Morale's main effect in epic is making units not able to do anything, and shooting anything at anything causes morale effects, even if it does no damage" is actually true because 'unit' in Epic Armageddon refers to what would be called a 'model' in 40k. While a unit may not be able to shoot due to blast markers, its formation will be able to unless it's broken, in which case it can still Rally.