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'm wanting to get back into it with the 3D printer, but not sure which rules to work towards. I have a copy of the 1997 Epic 40k boxed set, and I liked those rules back in the day, but reading through them now it is missing some units that exist now. Some of them could probably be house-ruled in I guess.
NetEpic I was just flicking through the army lists, the rules maybe feel more complex than the old school 1997 Epic? Or is it similar?
There was Epic Armageddon, I thought I had a copy of those rules downloaded somewhere, but now I can't find them.
What do you like? What is played most frequently?
Is 30k Epic common? I was planning on starting with a couple of Marine armies and playing 30k before adding in other factions.
A related but separate question, what about basing? Anything that people use typically, or just a "do as you please" sort of thing? I was thinking of just printing off some models and then sizing a circular base that looks good. I'm printing at 8mm scale, so the old school Epic bases might be a touch small.
This is a tough one! I will be really annoying by sitting on the fence with my answer
Firstly the important thing is in most cases you can 'multi-use' the stuff you are making. So you might need to add a unit or two here or there, or perhaps that command unit has to become a tactical unit, but if you start to play a particular system and don't like it, it's very easy to re-spec to a different version for most armies. So there is nothing to stop you trying the different games and seeing which you prefer.
At least in the UK the most popular version seems to be Armageddon, specifically for tournament play. I would say in some ways it is the most mechanically 'clever' and tactical game GW have ever made. Flanking, cross-fire, trying to soften up an enemy with fire before charging, a great risk/reward mechanic with stealing the initiative. It almost doesn't feel like a GW game at all lol. That being said, if we are after opinions here I find the game a bit too 'sterile'. A friend of mine described it as a range measuring exercise and I kind of get where he was coming from. There is a lot less of the 'character' I found compared to other versions of the game, specifically around how titan combat is handled and the more wacky armies (Orks and Chaos). But as a tournament game it works really well, and especially as the active community has spent a long time balancing the armies.
Epic Space Marine (2nd edition)/Titan Legions - this is my game of choice. My main reason for that is that I love that it gives you as a general the feeling that you are way up above the battle, giving orders. It's quite strategic - you have to place your first fire/advance/charge orders not knowing if you will go first or second, and trying to predict what your opponent will do. So quite often the order tokens flip over at the start of a turn and you give a little cry of despair as your carefully advancing guard unit, that you thought were safe, are about to be ambushed by an incoming Ork mob. Armageddon lets you react directly to what your opponent is doing, which gives you more of a 'feet on the ground' feeling. Epic SM feels a bit more like you are a general looking down - so I guess it is whatever floats your boat in that regard.
But for me the big thing this game has got over other versions is how much fun the likes of Orks, Chaos and Nids are in the game - they are so characterful . With Orks in particular your Cult of Speed will go racing across the board if commanderless, while the Goffs will try and get stuck in. Your guns are either tremendously effective and will ruin everyone or blow themselves up (you will either enjoy this or not!) Chaos have got some really cool cards you can play which simulate how the army operate (Khorne start winning and get more powerful!) while Nids really look and feel like they are being controlled by a hive mind. Even Guard really 'feel' like a Guard army and how you imagine them - with giant companies of infantry and tanks - they will seem unstoppable, until your opponent realises the chain of command is their weakness, while you try to protect it. Marines ostensibly don't feel like an 'elite' unit (no saving throw?!) until you realise how important mobility is in the game for capturing objectives, and other foot-slogging troops look on jealously.
So if you are playing with one of those armies I would say try SM/TL for sure. It's also fairly quick to play if you want larger battles (most infantry units don't have a saving throw and units which lose in melee are killed instantly so less dice rolling).
Finally, I love the titan hit charts and damage in the game. It's so thematic, having a heavily wounded titan trying to cover a retreat (or go down with one lucky reactor shot!) and you'll laugh while a Gargant with no head is still rolling forward firing while it is gradually consumed by fires. Armageddon's 'hit points' system is a lot more dull by comparison.
I haven't really played NetEpic (which is the community made refinement of Epic Space Marine/TL) but apparently it corrects a few of the egregious balancing issues.
Epic 40k I also haven't played much (I am sure Albertorius or another member of the forum can fill you in with that one).
Hope that helps! Epic's a wonderful game and I think definitely the best scale for titans, knights, tank companies and the like, whichever game system you go for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/29 20:12:18
The most direct way to choose a Epic rule set is always pick the best option for you whilst working down this list:
1: Pick the one you like the most.
2: Pick the one the local group is using.
3: Try them all out until you find one you like (or play multiple editions)
This question comes up a lot and it is never an easy question to answer (and anyone answering with a definite answer for a complete stranger is totally wrong by default! ) Its also no bad thing that a single set of miniatures (with some restrictions, as Pacific has mentioned already) lets you play various games all for the low cost of free downloads! The wallet can always appreciate a 'dead' GW game!
Now for my personal take: My favourite edition is Epic 40k (3rd). I can get a bit carried away with talking about epic, but in short its my favourite because of these main things:
It scales really well- meaning that you can play both smaller games and huge mega games in a reasonable time frame!
No Miniature Left Behind! The army creation has amazing flexibility, so no (painted!) miniature needs to be left behind on the shelf! You can paint what you like and won't find that you are a short a stand to complete an army card or to be able to take a certain upgrade.
It puts you in the role of being the general, not just a commander. Its tactical and lets you view the whole table of war and not be focused on a single model/unit (Such as in 'big' 40k) It feels like a war in the 40k universe and not just another skirmish.
Speed. The game is fast to play and the abstracted rules stop it being bogged down in special rules & tokens.
Want to see games with 100+ Rhinos on the table and still play the game in the space of an evening? 3rd does the job nicely. (not to say that you can't play huge games of 2nd or 4th, and people certainly do. But 2nd is sluggish to play those huge games and 4th can get very bogged down)
Very passionate fan base. 3rd has not one, but two dedicated facebook groups, where as all the other groups are more of a mix of editions (even if they all favour one edition over the other!) One fan group and the Epic 40k remastered group where some very good folk are working on updating 3rd to refine the issues with the original rulebook (some of the rules are a bit scattered, possible due to how rushed they where in getting the rules done at the time!) and adding in the additional content we saw from the wealth of new and missed rules after the games release.
I've never been against the other editions, but 2nd I find is too strict with its army creation (especially bad for someone like me that likes to paint all sorts of random models!) and I don't like hundreds of cards, chits, tokens etc unless they are thematic (blast markers, modelled objectives etc)
4th edition has a decent tournament scene and if I was still in the UK, I'd have probably gone back to it to play with other people/groups. However I always found it to look to much like 40k just played with small minis. 3000pts or so seems to be the points value that the game works well at, but the armies are...small, it doesn't feel like an epic battle to me.
Both 2nd and 4th are the most 'Games Workshop-y' of the rules, where as third was the least GW-y game they have ever made. They both had lots of special rules, the need to buy more models to create an army (but selling things in packs of three!) I know Epic 40k release saw huge price increases (and lowering amounts of models!) but I also knew that if I brought a boxset, all those models could be used in the next game!
As for 'missing' units. A lot of stuff got added via the magazines. Some of these were almost lost to time, but a very kingly lad brought copies of all the Epic 40k Magazines and scanned the lot of them and all the rules have been gathered together online now. There is also some fan made army lists which cover newer armies that never saw lists back in 1997. You have Tocos army book II and then you have the stuff being worked on by the E40k remastered group. Whilst you won't find things that cover ever new model from GW (like you might with Epic Armageddons fan lists), the simplicity and abstract nature of Epic 40k means there is enough in the lists to be able to proxy anything newer with rules that exist.
In regards to scale (which is a whole can of worms) AT isn't 8mm. Its a misquote from one of the designers saying that a space marine would be 8mm tall, which makes it 6mm scale. The whole 8mm scale thing is one of those things passed around the internet so much that it became true. GW have never been consistent with scale (Originally Epic was a mix of at least 2 scales) and with things like scale creep, its bound to get worse if they did ever re-release it. The important thing here is to: use what ever you want to use. I love the new AT models, even though they are huge compared to the old ones and have happily used them in place of older titans & knights (I luckily only ever owned Ork super heavies etc so didn't have a huge stash of old knights and titans to replace!)
Basing is pretty much what ever you feel like, within reason. There are some guidelines within the various rule sets, but for the most part people are pretty flexible with what folk use. Unless you are going out your way to make cheesy, rule breaking models/bases, people are pretty relaxed and their isn't much rules lawyering within the Epic community. Following the basics from what ever rules you pick though is a safe bet, and some people even use the smaller flames of war bases in place of the old plastic ones. Your mileage may vary, it can depend on who and where you play.
Epic:A is the 'combined arms' version of Epic. It has a few niggles (high activation armies have an advantage over low activation armies, so this constrains list building somewhat), but is the most playtested.
The French have their own version.
The internet has Net EA which is very similar to EpicUK. In general it has more chrome and more army lists at various stages of testing. You can find this at the specialist arms forum,
From memory in oz Epic 30k is popular.
But I would echo above. Find out what people play in your area/region. You at least have opponents then. Failing that have a gander through the various rules.
The models, as long as you don't go outside of the EpicUK hosted rulebook base dimensions, can be used for any system. After a while you will have a enough for all of them as you can paint an Epic army in a night (before the weekend tournament in my experience).
I'm personally pretty partial to Epic: 40.000 (3rd edition), and it has some advantages in army creation, namely that is much more versatile (you can mix and much much more and play with what you got) and the point costs were decoded a long while ago, so it's pretty easy to house rule just about anything you can think of.
There is a FB group that's been working on a "remastered" version of the rules, ala NetEpic (https://epicremastered.com/core/index.html), with updated army lists and trying to fix the issues the rules had.
Wow, thanks for all the great thoughts, Epic enthusiasts indeed are, erm, enthusiastic, lol.
It seems like Epic:Armageddon and NetEpic both use fixed detachment sizes (e.g. must take X number of Land Raiders, Y number of Terminators, etc), so initially building an army it might be worth working towards those games and then 3rd edition (that's the 1997 one, yeah?) the forces are more flexible so it'll always be easy to make a legal army.
I don't know of any local Epic communities, maybe some exist and I've just never seen them. One of the shops in Melbourne has some 3D printed Epic stuff on display, but he said he doesn't play and just printed/painted it for display. Will have to investigate further.
This is a tough one! I will be really annoying by sitting on the fence with my answer
Firstly the important thing is in most cases you can 'multi-use' the stuff you are making. So you might need to add a unit or two here or there, or perhaps that command unit has to become a tactical unit, but if you start to play a particular system and don't like it, it's very easy to re-spec to a different version for most armies. So there is nothing to stop you trying the different games and seeing which you prefer.
At least in the UK the most popular version seems to be Armageddon, specifically for tournament play. I would say in some ways it is the most mechanically 'clever' and tactical game GW have ever made. Flanking, cross-fire, trying to soften up an enemy with fire before charging, a great risk/reward mechanic with stealing the initiative. It almost doesn't feel like a GW game at all lol. That being said, if we are after opinions here I find the game a bit too 'sterile'. A friend of mine described it as a range measuring exercise and I kind of get where he was coming from. There is a lot less of the 'character' I found compared to other versions of the game, specifically around how titan combat is handled and the more wacky armies (Orks and Chaos). But as a tournament game it works really well, and especially as the active community has spent a long time balancing the armies.
Epic Space Marine (2nd edition)/Titan Legions - this is my game of choice. My main reason for that is that I love that it gives you as a general the feeling that you are way up above the battle, giving orders. It's quite strategic - you have to place your first fire/advance/charge orders not knowing if you will go first or second, and trying to predict what your opponent will do. So quite often the order tokens flip over at the start of a turn and you give a little cry of despair as your carefully advancing guard unit, that you thought were safe, are about to be ambushed by an incoming Ork mob. Armageddon lets you react directly to what your opponent is doing, which gives you more of a 'feet on the ground' feeling. Epic SM feels a bit more like you are a general looking down - so I guess it is whatever floats your boat in that regard.
But for me the big thing this game has got over other versions is how much fun the likes of Orks, Chaos and Nids are in the game - they are so characterful . With Orks in particular your Cult of Speed will go racing across the board if commanderless, while the Goffs will try and get stuck in. Your guns are either tremendously effective and will ruin everyone or blow themselves up (you will either enjoy this or not!) Chaos have got some really cool cards you can play which simulate how the army operate (Khorne start winning and get more powerful!) while Nids really look and feel like they are being controlled by a hive mind. Even Guard really 'feel' like a Guard army and how you imagine them - with giant companies of infantry and tanks - they will seem unstoppable, until your opponent realises the chain of command is their weakness, while you try to protect it. Marines ostensibly don't feel like an 'elite' unit (no saving throw?!) until you realise how important mobility is in the game for capturing objectives, and other foot-slogging troops look on jealously.
So if you are playing with one of those armies I would say try SM/TL for sure. It's also fairly quick to play if you want larger battles (most infantry units don't have a saving throw and units which lose in melee are killed instantly so less dice rolling).
Finally, I love the titan hit charts and damage in the game. It's so thematic, having a heavily wounded titan trying to cover a retreat (or go down with one lucky reactor shot!) and you'll laugh while a Gargant with no head is still rolling forward firing while it is gradually consumed by fires. Armageddon's 'hit points' system is a lot more dull by comparison.
I haven't really played NetEpic (which is the community made refinement of Epic Space Marine/TL) but apparently it corrects a few of the egregious balancing issues.
Epic 40k I also haven't played much (I am sure Albertorius or another member of the forum can fill you in with that one).
Hope that helps! Epic's a wonderful game and I think definitely the best scale for titans, knights, tank companies and the like, whichever game system you go for.
So when you say "Epic Space Marine (2nd edition)/Titan Legions" are you talking about the original books from back then, or is there a remade/fan made/etc version of that? You definitely make the characterfulness sound interesting. The only version I'm really familiar with is the 1997 version ("Epic 40k", I guess?) which has a wonderful simplicity to it, but I've always felt some units aren't well represented in the game either.
RexHavoc wrote: As for 'missing' units. A lot of stuff got added via the magazines. Some of these were almost lost to time, but a very kingly lad brought copies of all the Epic 40k Magazines and scanned the lot of them and all the rules have been gathered together online now. There is also some fan made army lists which cover newer armies that never saw lists back in 1997. You have Tocos army book II and then you have the stuff being worked on by the E40k remastered group. Whilst you won't find things that cover ever new model from GW (like you might with Epic Armageddons fan lists), the simplicity and abstract nature of Epic 40k means there is enough in the lists to be able to proxy anything newer with rules that exist.
Hmm, I wasn't aware stuff got added in magazines. You mean White Dwarf? I wasn't really a big follower of White Dwarf back in the day. Would be curious to track down what they released for it.
In regards to scale (which is a whole can of worms) AT isn't 8mm. Its a misquote from one of the designers saying that a space marine would be 8mm tall, which makes it 6mm scale. The whole 8mm scale thing is one of those things passed around the internet so much that it became true. GW have never been consistent with scale (Originally Epic was a mix of at least 2 scales) and with things like scale creep, its bound to get worse if they did ever re-release it. The important thing here is to: use what ever you want to use. I love the new AT models, even though they are huge compared to the old ones and have happily used them in place of older titans & knights (I luckily only ever owned Ork super heavies etc so didn't have a huge stash of old knights and titans to replace!)
Basing is pretty much what ever you feel like, within reason. There are some guidelines within the various rule sets, but for the most part people are pretty flexible with what folk use. Unless you are going out your way to make cheesy, rule breaking models/bases, people are pretty relaxed and their isn't much rules lawyering within the Epic community. Following the basics from what ever rules you pick though is a safe bet, and some people even use the smaller flames of war bases in place of the old plastic ones. Your mileage may vary, it can depend on who and where you play.
Haha, yeah, by "8mm" I mean "1/4 40k scale" which is what AT and AI seem to be, since 40k is ballpark 32mm for infantry (32mm to the eyes for current SM models, 32mm to the top of the head for IG models) that's roughly 8mm.
So basically I'm printing my Space Marines as 8mm to the eye, which is 8% larger than the "Galactic Crusader" models from Cults3D. When I get to printing up the Guard I'll do them a bit smaller, probably 7mm to the eye.
I figure if GW release Epic again, that's likely what scale it'd be.
So I'm guessing using the Epic:A rules for basing I should be pretty much right? (those say no dimension bigger than 40mm and no dimension smaller than 5mm). 1997 Epic 40k I'm not sure it makes a huge difference as the amount of models that can be fit into an assault is fixed regardless of base size, except for blast templates, where the rules say you need to cover 3 models for it to be considered a hit, which will change depending on how the models are based.
Currently I'm playing with basing options, this is a mocked up 25x25mm base, I'm thinking that might be okay or maybe increase to 30x25 or 30x20 so the models don't look quite so cramped. An old school plastic marine is included as a comparison for scale, the shoulder pads are roughly the same size, haha.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Epic:A is the 'combined arms' version of Epic. It has a few niggles (high activation armies have an advantage over low activation armies, so this constrains list building somewhat), but is the most playtested.
The French have their own version.
The internet has Net EA which is very similar to EpicUK. In general it has more chrome and more army lists at various stages of testing. You can find this at the specialist arms forum,
From memory in oz Epic 30k is popular.
But I would echo above. Find out what people play in your area/region. You at least have opponents then. Failing that have a gander through the various rules.
The models, as long as you don't go outside of the EpicUK hosted rulebook base dimensions, can be used for any system. After a while you will have a enough for all of them as you can paint an Epic army in a night (before the weekend tournament in my experience).
Based on the replies so far I might aim to make armies that are legal for Epic:A or NetEpic but lean towards playing Epic 40k, unless I find a group that's already playing something.
Epic 30k might be popular in Oz, though Oz is pretty big, haha, I haven't found a group locally but I haven't looked terribly hard either yet. HH in regular scale is pretty popular out here in spite of the insane prices we pay for FW stuff.
From what I can see the EpicUK rulebook is just the Epic:A rulebook? Unless there's another version or something I'm missing.
Albertorius wrote: I'm personally pretty partial to Epic: 40.000 (3rd edition), and it has some advantages in army creation, namely that is much more versatile (you can mix and much much more and play with what you got) and the point costs were decoded a long while ago, so it's pretty easy to house rule just about anything you can think of.
There is a FB group that's been working on a "remastered" version of the rules, ala NetEpic (https://epicremastered.com/core/index.html), with updated army lists and trying to fix the issues the rules had.
I'm curious about 3rd edition being decoded? Does someone have a guide to houseruling units somewhere?
I did always like 3rd edition (assuming that's the 1997 one?), but yeah, I always wanted to be able to take assault foot slogging marines (Blood Claws, Despoilers, etc) and felt some units weren't well represented. Like, it'd be nice to have assault oriented Termies that maybe get +1 to assault, or shooty Termies that get +1 to firepower rather the ones in the base rules that are just Tac Marines with a save, and some units felt like their stats didn't represent them well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/02 11:14:17
So when you say "Epic Space Marine (2nd edition)/Titan Legions" are you talking about the original books from back then, or is there a remade/fan made/etc version of that? You definitely make the characterfulness sound interesting. The only version I'm really familiar with is the 1997 version ("Epic 40k", I guess?) which has a wonderful simplicity to it, but I've always felt some units aren't well represented in the game either.
Yes either really. Here is quite a useful guide that was created by IJW (Ian Wargaming Trader).
So I'm taking about 2nd edition (Epic Space Marine 2 and Titan Legions, 1991 and 1994). The fan update of that is NetEpic, which is 95% the same and just blunts some of the balancing issues and allows alternative movement as well as adding some saving throws for infantry, which is taking it back to 1st edition Space marine. If you really want the original stuff you can still get hold of the rulebooks and they're generally not too mental in price (at least not compared to some oldhammer) but otherwise you can just download NetEpic, get all the rules for free and be playing pretty much the same game - including the characterful stuff I mentioned for Orks, Chaos etc. https://netepic.org/ If it's 1997 it sounds like you are referring to 3rd edition
If you're looking for playing groups, you could try the FB group Epic Middlehammer, there is a player locator in that group or you could probably post and it's a pretty active and friendly community
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SMEPIC40K/
From what I can see the EpicUK rulebook is just the Epic:A rulebook? Unless there's another version or something I'm missing.
Yes, same book (though also use FAQ, Errata and their own Tourney tweaks http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp/rules/). Where EpicUK/FR/Net mainly diverge is the army lists, the core rule set is barely touched.
Albertorius wrote: I'm personally pretty partial to Epic: 40.000 (3rd edition), and it has some advantages in army creation, namely that is much more versatile (you can mix and much much more and play with what you got) and the point costs were decoded a long while ago, so it's pretty easy to house rule just about anything you can think of.
There is a FB group that's been working on a "remastered" version of the rules, ala NetEpic (https://epicremastered.com/core/index.html), with updated army lists and trying to fix the issues the rules had.
I'm curious about 3rd edition being decoded? Does someone have a guide to houseruling units somewhere?
I did always like 3rd edition (assuming that's the 1997 one?), but yeah, I always wanted to be able to take assault foot slogging marines (Blood Claws, Despoilers, etc) and felt some units weren't well represented. Like, it'd be nice to have assault oriented Termies that maybe get +1 to assault, or shooty Termies that get +1 to firepower rather the ones in the base rules that are just Tac Marines with a save, and some units felt like their stats didn't represent them well.
Yeah, points costs (with the errata added) were reverse engineered a long time ago, there's a points cost calculator excel sheet in the Epic Remastered FB group where you can create new units and have them be very much in the ballpark of the proper costs:
So when you say "Epic Space Marine (2nd edition)/Titan Legions" are you talking about the original books from back then, or is there a remade/fan made/etc version of that? You definitely make the characterfulness sound interesting. The only version I'm really familiar with is the 1997 version ("Epic 40k", I guess?) which has a wonderful simplicity to it, but I've always felt some units aren't well represented in the game either.
Yes either really. Here is quite a useful guide that was created by IJW (Ian Wargaming Trader).
So I'm taking about 2nd edition (Epic Space Marine 2 and Titan Legions, 1991 and 1994). The fan update of that is NetEpic, which is 95% the same and just blunts some of the balancing issues and allows alternative movement as well as adding some saving throws for infantry, which is taking it back to 1st edition Space marine. If you really want the original stuff you can still get hold of the rulebooks and they're generally not too mental in price (at least not compared to some oldhammer) but otherwise you can just download NetEpic, get all the rules for free and be playing pretty much the same game - including the characterful stuff I mentioned for Orks, Chaos etc. https://netepic.org/ If it's 1997 it sounds like you are referring to 3rd edition
Spoiler:
If you're looking for playing groups, you could try the FB group Epic Middlehammer, there is a player locator in that group or you could probably post and it's a pretty active and friendly community
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SMEPIC40K/
Thanks! That picture is super helpful, I was a bit vague on what fan rules related to which core system.
Yep, 3rd edition (1997) was what I have and what I'm leaning towards, I was just vague on the edition numbers. Though I'm willing to try other editions, I really enjoyed the simplicity of that edition and it seems other editions added layers of granularity that isn't needed for a game of this scale.
I also found scans of the "Firepower" books on the interwebs, I never knew they existed! So that's good, it comes with a lot of potential modifications of rules and whatnot (I love the idea of infantry getting +1 to armour when huddled behind a tank, and tanks getting a CC bonus when the same infantry supports them while being assaulted). Also gives rules for Imperial Knights, so I can integrate some of GW's plastic Knights into my forces (though they are basically just Space Marine Dreadnoughts with a save, lol, they probably deserve slightly more firepower or assault).
The thing tilting me a bit away from 3rd edition is the desire to play HH, and I couldn't find HH army lists or lists that would proxy for HH armies for 3rd edition Epic.
I think my ideal edition is one the has the on-table simplicity of 3rd edition, but does a reasonable job of representing armies and bringing in some of those interesting elements you mentioned in your first post, without getting down to the granularity of caring about what gun an individual unit is equipped with.
From what I can see the EpicUK rulebook is just the Epic:A rulebook? Unless there's another version or something I'm missing.
Yes, same book (though also use FAQ, Errata and their own Tourney tweaks http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp/rules/). Where EpicUK/FR/Net mainly diverge is the army lists, the core rule set is barely touched.
Thanks! I think I'm starting to get the idea of how things the various rulesets fit together now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albertorius wrote: Yeah, points costs (with the errata added) were reverse engineered a long time ago, there's a points cost calculator excel sheet in the Epic Remastered FB group where you can create new units and have them be very much in the ballpark of the proper costs:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The thing tilting me a bit away from 3rd edition is the desire to play HH, and I couldn't find HH army lists or lists that would proxy for HH armies for 3rd edition Epic.
Cool to see all the love for 3rd ed Epic here. I got into it about a decade ago, and at the time there was a lot of lingering ill feeling toward it from players who preferred 2nd ed. (I'm sure there still is, of course.)
@AllSeeingSkink, IIRC the number one most important rules clarification for 3rd ed Epic was the revision to the Anti-Tank weapon rule (in Firepower 1). They increased its points cost and ruled that you had to nominate whether to shoot at vehicles or infantry, then hit the closest units of that type--rather than getting to pick off any enemy model you wanted.
That's a great article! I particularly like what the author says in point #2: that in Epic 40,000 the detachment is where the 'flavour' lies, not the individual units. People complained that the units lost their detail and flavour, when in fact it just moved up a level into the groups of units you put together.
I'd never quite realised that until now ... even though I used to have tons of fun coming up with all kinds of custom detachments for my Orks, like Widjet's Wurld Wallopas (mostly Shooty Boyz and Big Gun artillery), Skarbum's Soopa Squad (loads of dead 'ard Nobz riding battlewagons), and Barkdreg's Bashas (a huge footslogging detachment containing everything from Ork Boys to Grots to Stompas to Dreadnaughts to Squiggoths to Flakwagons, so big it was virtually impossible to get it down to half strength). I never did get that planned detachment of tank-hunting Speedstas with Death Rays finished ...
If there was a downside to the incredibly flexible detachment army list system, it was that you had to spend quite a while figuring out your detachments without much idea of how they'd play on the tabletop. I would have liked them to include more example detachments to help new players try things out before they started customising their own.
Zenithfleet wrote: Cool to see all the love for 3rd ed Epic here. I got into it about a decade ago, and at the time there was a lot of lingering ill feeling toward it from players who preferred 2nd ed. (I'm sure there still is, of course.)
3rd edition came out approximately when I started wargaming (started with WHFB and Epic 3rd edition came out soon after). So that might be why I have a soft spot for it, but also the rules are so wonderfully simple. The rulebook is tiny, each army list fit on a page, etc. My main gripes were that some units didn't seem well represented, but if people are open to making custom unit profiles that can be fixed.
@AllSeeingSkink, IIRC the number one most important rules clarification for 3rd ed Epic was the revision to the Anti-Tank weapon rule (in Firepower 1). They increased its points cost and ruled that you had to nominate whether to shoot at vehicles or infantry, then hit the closest units of that type--rather than getting to pick off any enemy model you wanted.
I managed to find the Firepower books online, there's also "Epic Magazine", of which I could find a few but not all of them. If anyone can hook me up with a link or a file, let me know, lol.
In one of the Firepower books there was an idea to make it so infantry hiding behind tanks got +1 to their armour to represent them taking cover, and tanks in assault that were supported by infantry got a bonus to represent the infantry coming forward to protect the tank. Cool idea, I think I'll implement that one in my games.
If there was a downside to the incredibly flexible detachment army list system, it was that you had to spend quite a while figuring out your detachments without much idea of how they'd play on the tabletop. I would have liked them to include more example detachments to help new players try things out before they started customising their own.
It's been a while since I played, but I seem to recall the best way was to put troops of a similar type in a detachment and then add a few support units if necessary (for example have an artillery detachment with a few assault units in support, or have a detachment of mostly high armour high firepower tanks so they all move at a similar rate and all benefit from getting into a good firing position, or a unit of all fast units so they can stay in range of the HQ). Is that basically what you do?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/21 14:45:51
In one of the Firepower books there was an idea to make it so infantry hiding behind tanks got +1 to their armour to represent them taking cover, and tanks in assault that were supported by infantry got a bonus to represent the infantry coming forward to protect the tank. Cool idea, I think I'll implement that one in my games.
If there was a downside to the incredibly flexible detachment army list system, it was that you had to spend quite a while figuring out your detachments without much idea of how they'd play on the tabletop. I would have liked them to include more example detachments to help new players try things out before they started customising their own.
It's been a while since I played, but I seem to recall the best way was to put troops of a similar type in a detachment and then add a few support units if necessary (for example have an artillery detachment with a few assault units in support, or have a detachment of mostly high armour high firepower tanks so they all move at a similar rate and all benefit from getting into a good firing position, or a unit of all fast units so they can stay in range of the HQ). Is that basically what you do?
Yes all that was to encourage mixed detachments. People quickly came to the conclusion 'mono' (say all predators and similar vehicles) detachments were the best, so the more things to encourage the mixed 40k load outs the better. I think it was infantry stands had to be in base to base contact with a vehicle?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/21 15:08:13
The_Real_Chris wrote: Yes all that was to encourage mixed detachments. People quickly came to the conclusion 'mono' (say all predators and similar vehicles) detachments were the best, so the more things to encourage the mixed 40k load outs the better. I think it was infantry stands had to be in base to base contact with a vehicle?
In the book they described it as being inspired by how tanks and infantry worked together in WW1 and WW2. The tank provided moving cover allowing infantry to advance in areas they otherwise wouldn't be able to, and the infantry stops enemy infantry getting close enough to use anti-tank grenades and RPGs.
But it does have the side effect of encouraging mixed units, without the +1 armour it's likely any infantry will get gunned down before assault happens (because of the way hits are distributed).
Yeah, the infantry stands need to be in B2B contact with the vehicle, so I guess the downside is barrage weapons potentially getting lots of hits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/21 15:15:08
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The thing tilting me a bit away from 3rd edition is the desire to play HH, and I couldn't find HH army lists or lists that would proxy for HH armies for 3rd edition Epic.
Seems like a good starting point, but is it just me or are some things there missing or a bit strange? A LR is 45pts with 2x anti tank, but a Spartan is only 5pts more with 4x anti tank, I kind of like the idea of 4+/5+ anti tank, so the Spartan might be 2x 4+ AT and the Land Raider 2x 5+ AT, rather than the Spartan rocking 4x AT which feels a bit too much for one non-war-machine model in a game like Epic. Destroyers are only 10pts which seems a bit too cheap for a 5+ armour assault 4 unit, you can only take 5 support dudes in a rhino or 5 terminators in a spartan when it should probably be up to 10 (2 units), Despoilers don't exist but I guess they're represented by Destroyers.
Anyway, not to nitpick too much, but it looks like it needs some tweaking, lol.
I drafted up a summary sheet of what I think would be cool for an Epic 30k Space Marines army. The idea was basically deeper army building without adding complexity to the gameplay. Thoughts?
Do people like the idea of having different "grades" of Terminators, Dreads, etc?
I go back and forth on whether Predators and Heavy Weapon squads should have AT options, it may give too many AT options and devalue the regular Land Raider? Also don't want to be in the situation where the players need to closely examine a lot of different squads to see if they're armed with an antitank option.
I do find Rapid Fire makes it hard to get the right feel for units, like surely a squad of Heavy Bolters or a Predator would be more Firepower than a rapid firing tac squad, but at the same time it doesn't really feel right making them Firepower 3 either.
Haven't done any of the superheavies yet.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/09/23 16:24:33
I feel like this chart isn't helpful when half the "selected features" are only relevant to the original product? Like if I'm trying to figure out which version of the rules to use, what do I care that 1st edition came with 6 beetlebacks and expanded polystyrene buildings and plastic marine sprues? I want to know about gameplay, not a product that I will likely never be able to find or purchase NIB.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Has some good tactical rule decisions like crossfire and the different order limitations.
The at,ap,aa weapon split makes list building somewhat important so you have weapons capable of taking on specific unit types. And creates decision making situations during the game.
The way melee is handled is imo a good compromise between a 40k fist fight and a company level close ranged firefight.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The thing tilting me a bit away from 3rd edition is the desire to play HH, and I couldn't find HH army lists or lists that would proxy for HH armies for 3rd edition Epic.
Seems like a good starting point, but is it just me or are some things there missing or a bit strange? A LR is 45pts with 2x anti tank, but a Spartan is only 5pts more with 4x anti tank, I kind of like the idea of 4+/5+ anti tank, so the Spartan might be 2x 4+ AT and the Land Raider 2x 5+ AT, rather than the Spartan rocking 4x AT which feels a bit too much for one non-war-machine model in a game like Epic. Destroyers are only 10pts which seems a bit too cheap for a 5+ armour assault 4 unit, you can only take 5 support dudes in a rhino or 5 terminators in a spartan when it should probably be up to 10 (2 units), Despoilers don't exist but I guess they're represented by Destroyers.
Anyway, not to nitpick too much, but it looks like it needs some tweaking, lol.
Oh, absolutely. This is basically someone's interpretation, and they basically went and counted every twin linked double las as it's own thing.
Honestly, The 2xATs of the LRs are very much overpowered in regular E:40k, so I don't see any problem in lowering them to AT5+ and moving the AT4+ to the Spartans (it's something that's been.
In the Remastered rules, Land Raiders have been reworked as such: Basic profile is the same, Firepower is now Macro Weapon (the old AT renamed so as to avoid issues when used on non-tanks), so it now has just the one shot, is still Transport 2, but to take into account that they are supposed to be the toughest around, they are now Robust, so they have 2 DC now without being a war engine. Cost goes up to 54 points.
I think that would allow some more variation with the Spartans in case of need.
I agree chaos0xomega - I think its just meant as a reference to help people that perhaps used to play the game, but it was 20 years ago and they can't remember which version, rather than as a rules guide. There are some good rule summary notes about if that's what you are after I'll see if I can find a reference.
Re. Hellebore's comment, AT is probably the most popular version of the game in the UK, at least with the communities that are playing tournaments etc.
This thread just seems to have several of the 7 people that play and collect Epic 40,000 posting in it - I joke!!!
For what its worth I really like AT. It has an excellent 'combined arms' element, and I think its probably contains the most potential for tactical planning by the player of any game released by GW - its probably why indeed it is so popular in the tournaments, and especially with all of the community balancing that has taken place over the years its a really tight game now.
Where I think it loses out is that it feels a bit cold and analytical as a gaming experience, and some of the fun/flavourful bits that Space Marine and Titan Legions had are gone. I like to see my Ork weapons explode and kill themselves (following a turn when they were horrendously effective) my Gargant stomp around in circles with no head, or my Cult of Speed race across the board because I forgot to keep some Nobz in command range. Also the more 'abstract' feeling of ordering your troops from way above the battlefield with the orders phase, which suited the scale of combat perfectly.
I guess in AT those things have been replaced by other mechanical elements - perhaps not better per se, they are just very different games.
I guess we are lucky we have a choice of so many systems, all of which I would argue are better designed than modern 40k haha.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I drafted up a summary sheet of what I think would be cool for an Epic 30k Space Marines army. The idea was basically deeper army building without adding complexity to the gameplay. Thoughts?
Do people like the idea of having different "grades" of Terminators, Dreads, etc?
I go back and forth on whether Predators and Heavy Weapon squads should have AT options, it may give too many AT options and devalue the regular Land Raider? Also don't want to be in the situation where the players need to closely examine a lot of different squads to see if they're armed with an antitank option.
I do find Rapid Fire makes it hard to get the right feel for units, like surely a squad of Heavy Bolters or a Predator would be more Firepower than a rapid firing tac squad, but at the same time it doesn't really feel right making them Firepower 3 either.
Haven't done any of the superheavies yet.
So far it looks good, I'd say. The only "problem" I might have with those is that E:40k is designed so that, as a general thing, infantry units use all the same core block wich the is modified via Special abilities (Hero, Save, Assault, etc).
Of course, that's not always the case, as some units are simply too different from the base (aspect warriors, for example), but that was the design theory for it, and from a gaming perspective it allowed players to just learn one or two unit profiles instead of having to know many more.
For example, in the above list praetors and centurions are written as they "should".
Despoilers would be like those but with "+Assault" instead
Assault Squad would be the same but with "+Assault, Jump Packs"
Breachers would be "+Save"
Tactical Support would be "+ Firepower +1" in the Remastered rules
Recon and Scouts would be mostly the same (in E:40k they didn't take into account the armor difference) "+ Infiltrators"
If you want to make terminators more similar to the regular E:40k profile, you could use "+ Assault, Save" for assault ones, "+ Heavy Weapons, Save" for the shooty ones and simple "+ Save" for the regular ones.
The only thing that seems a bit off is the AT heavy support squads, mostly because I don't think there's any infantry units with AT outside of wraithguard, and that has 15cm range. Other than that, well, having multiple versions of dreadnoughts that you'll then need to track dow in game runs a bit counter with the aims of the game, but not insurmountably so.
But as I said, it's mostly presentation in comparison with the regular E:40k default. It looks pretty good so far!
As to Rapid Fire, take into account that is a very potent ability, but also means that the detachment needs to be in Overwatch orders, which will make it mostly stationary, whereas Predators are very mobile and have long range, so they fulfill a completely different role in battle.
Personally, I would remove AT from the heavy support squads and would add separate support weapons for that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/09/26 10:06:46
Albertorius wrote: So far it looks good, I'd say. The only "problem" I might have with those is that E:40k is designed so that, as a general thing, infantry units use all the same core block wich the is modified via Special abilities (Hero, Save, Assault, etc).
Of course, that's not always the case, as some units are simply too different from the base (aspect warriors, for example), but that was the design theory for it, and from a gaming perspective it allowed players to just learn one or two unit profiles instead of having to know many more.
For example, in the above list praetors and centurions are written as they "should".
Despoilers would be like those but with "+Assault" instead
Assault Squad would be the same but with "+Assault, Jump Packs"
Breachers would be "+Save"
Tactical Support would be "+ Firepower +1" in the Remastered rules
Recon and Scouts would be mostly the same (in E:40k they didn't take into account the armor difference) "+ Infiltrators"
If you want to make terminators more similar to the regular E:40k profile, you could use "+ Assault, Save" for assault ones, "+ Heavy Weapons, Save" for the shooty ones and simple "+ Save" for the regular ones.
The only thing that seems a bit off is the AT heavy support squads, mostly because I don't think there's any infantry units with AT outside of wraithguard, and that has 15cm range. Other than that, well, having multiple versions of dreadnoughts that you'll then need to track dow in game runs a bit counter with the aims of the game, but not insurmountably so.
But as I said, it's mostly presentation in comparison with the regular E:40k default. It looks pretty good so far!
As to Rapid Fire, take into account that is a very potent ability, but also means that the detachment needs to be in Overwatch orders, which will make it mostly stationary, whereas Predators are very mobile and have long range, so they fulfill a completely different role in battle.
Personally, I would remove AT from the heavy support squads and would add separate support weapons for that.
Thanks for the detailed reply, sorry for my slow response, I've been a bit sick and haven't had the brain power to work on it.
Yeah, I could do Praetor, Centurion, Despoilers, Assault Squad, Breachers, Recon and Heavy Support squads as simply "tactical + something", I didn't do that because personally I find it a bit easier to follow if those "+" items are baked into the profile, but if people prefer that, it's a pretty easy change to make.
Other than Veterans/Terminators I tried to keep everything so it'd be equivalent to a "+something" from a basic tactical. Vets and Termies I felt were too difficult to capture as only being a tactical + something.
The Scouts I dropped to 4+ armour largely because 30k has both Recon and Scouts as being separate things, so I figured that'd be a way to differentiate them, but maybe it's a bit too much?
I've made a few changes, I removed the AT option for the Heavy Support Squads as you suggested (I figured a squad with 4x lascannons would probably be worthy of an AT rating, but I appreciate maybe that's a bit too much). I've added "Support Weapons" using the same profile that was used in the original Epic Armies Book.
Downgraded the Praetor from being a commander and instead added a "Chapter Master", the idea basically being a Praetor would lead a detachment, the Chapter Master would lead the entire army. I'm not sure if that's the correct titles, I know different Legions have different titles. Also added a Centurion which can be made a Consul (Librarian, Chaplain, or Pathfinder, happy to add more but wasn't sure what other options would work well).
I added a "veteran" squad, which is just Termies without the save, the idea would be between Veterans and Terminators you can represent almost any Legion-specific special troops in either power or terminator armour.
I also downgraded the Land Raider to only 1x AT4+ (compared to previously had 2x AT5+, which is statistically a slight downgrade). I guess my thought there was just to make 4xLascannons = 1xAT4+.
Also had a go at making a detachment sheet. Some of the points come from that calculator from the FB group, some are based on values in the original Epic Armies Book, others are my own guesses or tweaking, but I'd definitely need to do some playtesting to see how balanced things feel. The calculator rates firepower as much more valuable than close combat ability, so some of the assault-focused units "feel" a bit too cheap to me, just from the perspective of an assault focused army (e.g. Space Wolves) might end up like a horde army, lol. But maybe with playtesting my opinion will change.
Still haven't done the superheavies, but the Falchion/Glaive/Fellblade I plan to make the same as the Baneblade/Shadowsword from the original Armies Book, but swap to the critical damage table that was in one of the Firepower magazines and swap weapons based on what feels right (not sure about the Glaive, but the Fellblade I'm thinking Megacannon, the Falchion as a Deathray).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/10/02 07:51:16
Thanks for the detailed reply, sorry for my slow response, I've been a bit sick and haven't had the brain power to work on it.
No problem at all, I just saw your answer ^^
Yeah, I could do Praetor, Centurion, Despoilers, Assault Squad, Breachers, Recon and Heavy Support squads as simply "tactical + something", I didn't do that because personally I find it a bit easier to follow if those "+" items are baked into the profile, but if people prefer that, it's a pretty easy change to make.
More than a matter of preference it was a metter of keeping or not with the original game's assumptions and goals. The original ideas for Epic 40k were 1) being able to play fast with big armies without getting bogged down in minutia and 2) Being able to play mixed detachments without much fuss (as it was originally meant to be played converting your regular 40k 2nd edition armies into detachments).
For that, they decided that the best way to go was to make as many units as possible share the same stats, as it makes mixing units in detachments much easier, and people don't need to remember too many profiles.
This was kept for the most part for infantry, while vehicles tended to have much more varied profiles, but even there they idn0't want to get "bogged down" in minutiae, and decided that, at the play level they were aiming to, there were no "real" differences between a regular Predator or a Pred Annihilator, or between a melee dreadnought and a shooty one (they were just dreadnoughts).
I both agree and disagree with this, as I like Epic 40k being a "big picture" game, but OTOH, some loadouts really change units.
Other than Veterans/Terminators I tried to keep everything so it'd be equivalent to a "+something" from a basic tactical. Vets and Termies I felt were too difficult to capture as only being a tactical + something.
It depends. Do you feel that, at the scale the game plays, veteran marines are all that different from regular marines? Also, take into account that the "default" SM profile is meant to represent a regular 40k Tactical Squad: that is: it's meant to represent a unit with both a special and a heavy weapon, which regular HH tacticals don't use. So, I'm not saying you should change the regular SM profile, but take into account that HHSM veterans are more or less that (or melee specialists), so it might be more interesting to just use tacticals and despoilers, and only add a veteran option for those if you absolutely feel they constitute a significant enough difference. If you do, I'd add the option at a detachment level, I think, with +1 Firepower for veteran tacticals and +1 Assault for veteran despoilers, and I'd be done with it.
The Scouts I dropped to 4+ armour largely because 30k has both Recon and Scouts as being separate things, so I figured that'd be a way to differentiate them, but maybe it's a bit too much?
More like, other than that, is there any other difference between them? In the original game they abstracted their lesser stats because it didn't really matter at that level.
Most of the changes, though, look cool, even if maybe a bit too detailed for me. (Might be fun to add Close Support to the tactical support squads, to make them tactically different, if you feel the need).
Also had a go at making a detachment sheet. Some of the points come from that calculator from the FB group, some are based on values in the original Epic Armies Book, others are my own guesses or tweaking, but I'd definitely need to do some playtesting to see how balanced things feel. The calculator rates firepower as much more valuable than close combat ability, so some of the assault-focused units "feel" a bit too cheap to me, just from the perspective of an assault focused army (e.g. Space Wolves) might end up like a horde army, lol. But maybe with playtesting my opinion will change.
The detachment sheet looks rad, what did you use for it?
As a general thing, firepower is more generally useful and powerful than assault, just by the very nature of the game. It's generally easier to shoot up people than to assault them, and the results are more certain. Plus, you usually have more chances to do it.
Still haven't done the superheavies, but the Falchion/Glaive/Fellblade I plan to make the same as the Baneblade/Shadowsword from the original Armies Book, but swap to the critical damage table that was in one of the Firepower magazines and swap weapons based on what feels right (not sure about the Glaive, but the Fellblade I'm thinking Megacannon, the Falchion as a Deathray).
Sounds good to me!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/04 12:32:45
Our group does something a bit different. we just use index 8th ed 40K with the 3 starting strat that everybody has access to,. we just halve all the ranges for weapons and movement.
Because original 8th is so streamlined it makes army building and game play super easy.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear
aphyon wrote: Our group does something a bit different. we just use index 8th ed 40K with the 3 starting strat that everybody has access to,. we just halve all the ranges for weapons and movement.
Because original 8th is so streamlined it makes army building and game play super easy.
8th is the first one after the overhaul, yeah? So Horus Heresy is based on 7th?
I have thought about playing 40k with Epic models, though I got sucked back into the idea of Epic when I read my old 3rd edition rulebook (which only took an hour or two to read cover to cover, lol). Over on the 3D printing forum I have some 13mm Space Marines, which are pretty good for an inches to centimetres conversion of 40k/30k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/07 11:12:24
Thanks for the detailed reply, sorry for my slow response, I've been a bit sick and haven't had the brain power to work on it.
No problem at all, I just saw your answer ^^
Yeah, I could do Praetor, Centurion, Despoilers, Assault Squad, Breachers, Recon and Heavy Support squads as simply "tactical + something", I didn't do that because personally I find it a bit easier to follow if those "+" items are baked into the profile, but if people prefer that, it's a pretty easy change to make.
More than a matter of preference it was a metter of keeping or not with the original game's assumptions and goals. The original ideas for Epic 40k were 1) being able to play fast with big armies without getting bogged down in minutia and 2) Being able to play mixed detachments without much fuss (as it was originally meant to be played converting your regular 40k 2nd edition armies into detachments).
For that, they decided that the best way to go was to make as many units as possible share the same stats, as it makes mixing units in detachments much easier, and people don't need to remember too many profiles.
This was kept for the most part for infantry, while vehicles tended to have much more varied profiles, but even there they idn0't want to get "bogged down" in minutiae, and decided that, at the play level they were aiming to, there were no "real" differences between a regular Predator or a Pred Annihilator, or between a melee dreadnought and a shooty one (they were just dreadnoughts).
I both agree and disagree with this, as I like Epic 40k being a "big picture" game, but OTOH, some loadouts really change units.
Yeah, I feel like adding a bit of granularity in the units won't slow the game down much, and I guess that was my goal, add a bit more complexity to the army building side without slowing down the game side.
This seemed to be the way Epic was going as more things got added and variants of things started getting unique profiles in Firepower / Epic Magazine.
Also in my mind was to allow people to build different Legions without having a whole heap of Legion-specific units or rules, so I'm adding units that I personally wouldn't include in my army but someone else might. Like, original Epic 40k had a Space Marine Dreadnought that was FP2 and Assault4, but there was the Chaos Dread that was FP1 and Assault5. With the Dreadnoughts I figured it would be easy to see from across the table if a model is armed with 2CC weapons, 1 heavy weapon and a CC weapon, or 2 heavy weapons, so it wouldn't hurt to give players the option of assembling a Dreadnought heavy detachment in those different roles.
So yeah, I guess my thought was basically if I add some more options to the list, people will have more fun building their armies, but once they hit the tabletop they're still effectively an FP value, an Assault value, and an armour value... so the game itself should still go fast.
Having variants of infantry is maybe a step too far just in the sense it's harder to see from across the table and at a glance what an infantry unit is armed with. But the reason I did it was I figured a twin lightning claw terminator squad is pretty fundamentally different to a unit equipped with assault cannons and cyclone launchers, but a Space Wolf player might want the former where an Imperial Fist player might like the latter.
Maybe I'm wrong and it'll bog things down, but I wanted to give people the "feel" of building their Space Marine legion similar to a 30k/40k army without going too silly. Maybe I went too silly
Other than Veterans/Terminators I tried to keep everything so it'd be equivalent to a "+something" from a basic tactical. Vets and Termies I felt were too difficult to capture as only being a tactical + something.
It depends. Do you feel that, at the scale the game plays, veteran marines are all that different from regular marines? Also, take into account that the "default" SM profile is meant to represent a regular 40k Tactical Squad: that is: it's meant to represent a unit with both a special and a heavy weapon, which regular HH tacticals don't use. So, I'm not saying you should change the regular SM profile, but take into account that HHSM veterans are more or less that (or melee specialists), so it might be more interesting to just use tacticals and despoilers, and only add a veteran option for those if you absolutely feel they constitute a significant enough difference. If you do, I'd add the option at a detachment level, I think, with +1 Firepower for veteran tacticals and +1 Assault for veteran despoilers, and I'd be done with it.
The Veterans, yeah, perhaps that's too much granularity, honestly my thought there was any power armoured Legion elites could be caught under that banner (Scarab Occult perhaps?), and I figured an elite Space Marine unit kitted out to fight in CC could probably put up a decent fight against a Genestealer unit or a Hive Tyrant (both of which are Assault 6, so I made the CC variant of the Veterans/Termies to be Assault 5).
I guess your suggestion of +1 firepower for veteran tacs and +1 assault for veteran despoilers would work fine, though I'm not sure it's much less complicated than what I did in terms of combining them with Terminators? In my head I was thinking veterans are like terminators but in power armour so I kind of made them terminators minus save rather than tacticals + something, but either way would be fine.
The Scouts I dropped to 4+ armour largely because 30k has both Recon and Scouts as being separate things, so I figured that'd be a way to differentiate them, but maybe it's a bit too much?
More like, other than that, is there any other difference between them? In the original game they abstracted their lesser stats because it didn't really matter at that level.
Most of the changes, though, look cool, even if maybe a bit too detailed for me. (Might be fun to add Close Support to the tactical support squads, to make them tactically different, if you feel the need).
I guess a criticism I have of the original game is that it didn't represent units as well as they could be, even within the rules available. For example I would like to have seen Striking Scorpions (in 40k they had T3, 3+ save) have a better Armour value than Swooping Hawks (T3, 5+ save). But perhaps for Scouts specifically, in 40k having T4 4+ save versus T4 3+ save isn't worth losing a point of armour over in Epic like I've currently done. There is limitations to the granularity of Epic, and that's one of the good things about Epic, but even within the limited granularity I think some units could have been represented better. Combining Scouts and Recon units into Tactical + infiltrator wouldn't be the worse abstraction though.
I dunno if that makes sense, basically I like the simplicity of the gameplay but would have liked a bit more complexity in the army building, so that's kind of what I've leaned towards for this. Personal preference I guess, would be curious to see what the wider Epic fanbase thinks. To me, there's not a significant difference in giving a unit it's own unique profile versus making it "base unit + a thing", either way I'm still looking up a table for the first few games to remember what different units can do and after a few games I just remember those numbers anyway.
Like, to me, if I were writing Epic Remastered, I wouldn't bother with a special ability that confers +1 armour or +1 assault or +1 firepower, I'd just wrap those abilities up in the unit stats, it feels like wasted space in the "Special Abilities" section of the rulebook for something that could just be put on the unit card, but I thoroughly despise "Universal Special Rules" in 30k/40k so maybe I'm biased
But obviously different people have different desires, I saw the thread on Epic Remastered where a lot of people supported the idea of giving Land Raiders 2 wounds, whereas to me I don't like that idea because it's something that would slow down gameplay and so should be reserved for warmachines, otherwise you start thinking things like maybe Stompas should have 2 wounds also, and Knights, and whatever, whereas I actually like the fact that Epic is streamlined to the point of everything (bar warmachines and the few units with "Save") being removed with only a single roll of a dice.
So even though I like my granularity in army building, once I'm actually playing the game I like the simplicity of "this land raider is unimportant in the context of a whole battle".
Also had a go at making a detachment sheet. Some of the points come from that calculator from the FB group, some are based on values in the original Epic Armies Book, others are my own guesses or tweaking, but I'd definitely need to do some playtesting to see how balanced things feel. The calculator rates firepower as much more valuable than close combat ability, so some of the assault-focused units "feel" a bit too cheap to me, just from the perspective of an assault focused army (e.g. Space Wolves) might end up like a horde army, lol. But maybe with playtesting my opinion will change.
The detachment sheet looks rad, what did you use for it?
Do you mean the layout and stuff? I just wrote it in Word, it's a table where I tweaked the cell size, padding, etc to look like that. My day job is as an engineer, so while I don't profess any great knowledge of Word, I spend far too much time writing technical data based reports and I'm too familiar with the tricks of getting stuff to display the way I want it, lol.
As a general thing, firepower is more generally useful and powerful than assault, just by the very nature of the game. It's generally easier to shoot up people than to assault them, and the results are more certain. Plus, you usually have more chances to do it.
Yeah, that's fair enough, my thought was mainly that a CC focused army would end up being a horde, lol, but I guess it comes down to the person building it, being somewhat balanced is the first goal.
aphyon wrote: Our group does something a bit different. we just use index 8th ed 40K with the 3 starting strat that everybody has access to,. we just halve all the ranges for weapons and movement.
Because original 8th is so streamlined it makes army building and game play super easy.
8th is the first one after the overhaul, yeah? So Horus Heresy is based on 7th?
I have thought about playing 40k with Epic models, though I got sucked back into the idea of Epic when I read my old 3rd edition rulebook (which only took an hour or two to read cover to cover, lol). Over on the 3D printing forum I have some 13mm Space Marines, which are pretty good for an inches to centimetres conversion of 40k/30k.
Yes. index 8th was the first release with full army lists for every faction and only 3 stratagems for the entire game- re-roll dice, auto pass moral, interupt CC order.
rules wise there are only like 6 pages. it was before everything got really crazy. it was to streamlined for normal 40K scale but works great for epic. it usually only takes a couple hours to do a roughly comparable 10K game with epic scale.
The original HH was indeed an improved version of 7th.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear
) Its also no bad thing that a single set of miniatures (with some restrictions, as Pacific has mentioned already) lets you play various games all for the low cost of free downloads! The wallet can always appreciate a 'dead' 
I know Epic 
Epic 40k + INQ6 Project Log 
INQ28/Necromunda/Inquisimunda Log 
