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.

So I've been a huge fan of Epic from back in the days of Adeptus Titanicus, and was even on the Epic Armageddon Playtesting Team. Over the years while I have played a lot of games from a number of companies, Epic has always been one of my favorites. Our old group played AT/SM1 for years, even after SM2/TL came out, and we only reluctantly moved on in order to play units that werent in the original.

We had a lot of fun with SM2/TL. I remember the game being played often in gaming stores all the time. While it lacked a lot of the detail I liked in AT/SM1, it certainly was easier and quicker to play. But I have never really been a person to play with people I dont know, so if my friends werent into the games, I just kept them to myself and painted minis as a hobby.

So I kind of drifted out of gaming for awhile and then Epic 40k came out, and it was firmly rejected by Epic players everywhere. Even I was appauled at the new unit stats and the firepower rating. I did love the new minis, and bought tons of them at discounted rates since no one wanted to do with Epic anymore.

I eventually gave Epic 40k a try, and was really impressed by it. Without a doubt, it is a very interesting game, but abstract to new players, and the set itself didnt do much to create much atmosphere to players who really didnt know the difference between the various units or what they were supposed to do with them. But unlike the other versions, the freedom to make detachments enabled you to use leftovers in your bitz box. Pretty awesome.

When Jervis opened up Epic A for development, I loved the chance, but soon became disappointed in the direction it went in. I really wanted to see Epic return to its former glory, when at a time I could walk into gaming stores and see Epic being played, with multiple Titans and Gargants on each side, and I just didnt see that happening with Epic A. Yes, Epic A did have some cool aspects to it, but in all honesty its also not a great rulebook, and the release schedule for the armies everyone wanted sealed its fate.

So after years of taking a break but collecting here and there, I showed what I had to a couple of friends and they expressed interest in playing. I ran thru the premise of each edition, and decided on SM2/TL because it was a absolute easiest game for a noob to pick up. The result? Excitement.

For all its issues, and there are some with that system, its just straight up easy to play. I wouldnt bother starting out with AT/SM1 because games take too long to play out, nor Epic 40k, while the selection of available units is greater than any other Epic system, its rather abstract, and I just can hide my disappointment with Epic A. So the default became Epic Space Marine.

We're setting up our 5th game soon, and since we are only using what I have available, kind of limited to what I have for it. This means we kind of take liberties to include some extra Special and Support Cards than would be allowed, but who cares. Its been a lot of fun blowing up buildings with infantry in them, titans facing off, and even Rhinos doing some heroic things.

I cant help but wonder if GW just re-released this set - as it was - what the impact would be. I know a lot of people would like to see tweaks, but I would hate to let that get out of control. Just release the game with updated minis and see what happens. I know I would buy it.

Not to sure why Epic A did not grab you, it was a refined version of the original Space Marine. I played a lot of 2nd edition but to be fair by the time it got to Titan legions it was groaning under the weight of datasheets and special rules, still fun but games were not tactical, it was a wall to wall dicefest - witness a IG Heavy Weaoons company when it is in range.

I while ago (seeing battletech quick strike and a range of smaller minis) we tried Ad Titanicus but substituting Imp Knights and Stompas fro the titan models and halving the range - surprisingly it worked quite well. Now a one off boxed set of mini Titans for IMperium, Choas, Eldar and Orks and the old rule set, now wouldn't that be something

There has been a great amount of fan-support of Epic: Armageddon, but I'm not sure I can post a link to the site. The fan-group actually updated the rulebook with all the FAQ's and Eratta put in the right places, and they self-developed lists for every 40K race, which all got playtested by fans on the forum and basically were voted on as "official" or not.

KTG17 wrote:


For all its issues, and there are some with that system, its just straight up easy to play. I wouldnt bother starting out with AT/SM1 because games take too long to play out, nor Epic 40k, while the selection of available units is greater than any other Epic system, its rather abstract, and I just can hide my disappointment with Epic A. So the default became Epic Space Marine.

Have you looked into the fan project NetEpic? The most recent version is a few years old and adds a lot of later Epic and 40K vehicles etc into the Epic:SM rules. There's a revamp underway currently (or there was a few months ago, it was struggling to get off the ground last I looked) to add in rules for 40K stuff that's been released since (which just leaves the problem of finding proxies).

The 2E Space Marine / Titan Legions rules were just like 2E 40k, full of flavour but didn't scale well at all under the weight of so many special rules and very slightly different units. Epic 40k took all the flavour out and left you with a simpler dice-rolling exercise where most units/armies were the same.

The Epic: A rules are the best of both worlds. They've shifted most of the fluff away from units and into simple but effective army-wide special rules that make subtle changes to the main rules. Space Marines really play as a hard-hitting but always outnumbered elite force. Eldar are super-quick but fragile. Orks are strongly encouraged to get stuck in, and so on.
The rules are also structured pretty well, and are easy to learn gradually (look at how the book starts with the basics, then adds on special units, war engines and flyers, each with their own training scenario).
There's lots of tactical depth with simple rules like Overwatch, Crossfire, terrain and retaining the initiative, combined with the IGOUGO turn structure. I would really encourage you to give it a proper try, E:A flows really well as a game and is much more rewarding than the old 2E rules.

The fact you didn't see Epic: A being played in GW stores a decade ago had little to do with the rules, and more to do with GW's corporate direction. At the time they were pushing their LotR IP hard, alongside 40K and WHFB. The Epic project only got some token support, largely in the form of repackaging a lot of old sculpts. It certainly wasn't promoted as hard as their other game systems, which is essential as you need momentum to get people switching to another game. A new starter set would have made a world of difference, as that encourages 2 people to play with a cheap foundation to their army. Unfortunately we got some mostly re-released metals and expensive Forge World minis, which left a high barrier to entry. Poor sales of these expensive models then put the brakes on further releases, and some old favourite armies didn't even see any models. This lack of affordable products was the final nail in the coffin for Epic.

It's ironic that after getting marketing and production support in 1997 but failing due to poor rules, Epic failed again in 2004 after getting good rules but terrible marketing and few supporting products.

I am aware of fan-developed and supported rulesets, so since its inception, we've had 4 official rule systems, and 2 supported (NetEpic, and assuming NetA has some but not sure) for Epic. I haven't got a lot of experience with the fan based ones, but I am a sucker for starter sets and I tend to gravitate towards that then to PDFs downloaded from online. So while I am sure there are really good systems for this scale (even by other manufacturers), there is actually more to a game than rules. 40k and WFB is a testament to that. The vocal majority of the fans of those games really don't like the rules, yet they spend a great deal of time and money playing them, so to me, there is a lot more to a game than just the rules.

For a long time I thought even Epic 40k was better than SM2/TL, but overtime, I realized when introducing these games to people who weren't really gamers, that SM2/TL was quick to set up and play with little explaination. Sure, overtime you can see the issues with any system, and Epic, with 4 different systems (or 6), all have their own flaws. At this point, trying to pick which is the best 'rules' doesnt necessarily mean which is the most fun to play. And it also depends on the type of player, and their expectation of how games should be played.

Some of the things I like about the later versions, such as the effects of blast markers, are indeed cool. On the other hand, I don't miss it them SM2/TL. I can't even say SM2/TL feels like a real wargame, its like a cartoon. However, there is strategy, and its really easy to play out.

You can argue about GW's support and how well they provide it, but at the end of the day, its about money, and if the game didnt sell then it was a dud and deserves to get dropped for something else. GW isnt a charity. When I look back at what was the most successful version of Epic, it was SM2/TL no question. I routinely saw the game being played in all the stores I visited. Argue NetEpic or Epic A is a better ruleset, fine, but it didnt get more players playing the game than SM2/TL, and that is what I am saying. For the same reasons 40k and WFB basically use the same simple system that has mostly remained unchanged the last 20 years, is because I guess it works. Imagine if 40k was overhauled each time. I am sure some would love it. But I am sure you would hit a version that was hated as much as Epic 40k was and look what happened there. I guess GW is saying, if its not broken dont fix it, which is why you only see tweaks. I know game designers want to develop creative rulesets, but sometimes that just isnt what the masses want.

BTW I tried hard to like Epic A, and have been vocal about it on the Tactical Command site, especially over the ridiculous number of army lists people love to create, and there is just too much for me to complain about than to rave. I dont want to kick up a dust cloud over it, I just don't like it.

Hi!

SM2/TL was and probably is the most played version of epic ever. It represents the golden age of epic gaming. I was a hobby story owner back in the day. Epic was a core game, just like WFB and 40k (albeit its little brother compared to the other two), you could literally go anywhere GW games were played and be fairly sure you could get a pickup game for it.

While the future versions were more streamlined and perhaps better designed, I think GW didn't realize that the thing that appeals about epic is the feel of playing a large scale game in the 40k universe. It was the quirks and particularities of each army that made the game.

The latter version sacrificed flavor for speed of play. The majority rejected that premise. I play it BECAUSE of the flavor. If I want a more streamlined and "realistic" there are better rule sets out there than anything GW could ever achieve.

This is why Net Epic is based on SM2. It may have tweaks, adjustments and other "house rules" added over the years, but the core is still based on GW's best selling epic version.

KTG17, rock on man! Keep sharing SM2 with the masses, its still pure gold 22 years after the release of the main boxed set!

Enjoy you gaming!

Primarch1

Probably the biggest thing that I like and the guys I am playing with agree on is the freedom of an individual unit to shoot at anything he wants so long as its in range and arch of fire. I absolutely hate one formation having to dedicate all its fire on a single formation, and worse, deciding as to whether shooting at troops in cover or out in the open (as in Epic40k) or deciding on AP or AT weapons. The latter I am especially bothered with.

There are cool things about the later editions, but the things that bug me the most keep me from enjoying it. Its more fun to have as many options as you can get, as opposed to have them limited and be told it makes for a better game. I dont think it does, and when I am looking at a unit on a board, and the only thing it can shoot at is a unit that isnt part of another formation his unit is shooting at, and I am told it can't shoot at all, does not reflect any kind of common sense or logic.

That being said, I know SM2/TL has its faults. But it has a lot of color, and we're enjoying it.

It also helps I have everything we need lol.