An Epic discussion (mostly my personal memoirs).

[shelfunit.]

This is a Minervan Legion (armored regiment) made entirely of SCP/Exodus Wars minis.
http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/a...n/DSCN0268.jpg
The Russes have had barrel swaps with brass rod, and the Bunkers are scratchbuilds, but there are no GW models in the army. It's not for everyone, and more difficult with non-Imperial races.

However, the two tank companies and Baneblade company would cost $160 from GW. They cost me 44.85GBP/$60 from EW.

Yet again I must eat my words (a bit ) - those models look great as a group of Imp guard vehicles - I think it's the regimented uniformity of them, combined with the great looking conversions.
Looking again at the Steel Crown minis, there are a number of troops that could be used in epic - there are infantry that could be used as squats and necrons, as has been shown by Spectrar Ghost - vehicles and lots of infantry that can be used as Imp guard and dreadnaughts.

Brilliant stuff!

[shelfunit.]

Just been looking on the GW website and they are listing all epic minis as "8mm" - I always thought Epic was 6mm scale Am I missing something weird here, or are the current GW models different?

[Irisado]

Just been looking on the GW website and they are listing all epic minis as "8mm" - I always thought Epic was 6mm scale Am I missing something weird here, or are the current GW models different?

If you're referring to the infantry, then the newer plastic infantry tends to be larger, albeit not by much, than the older Space Marine era plastic infantry.

[Hedgehobbit]

I'm one of the few people around that actually prefer the 3rd ed E:40k rules to the others. I like the complex army lists and the fact that it is fast enough that you can play huge battles in a short time.

But, I never played 2e so I didn't have any expectations going into 3e.

[shelfunit.]

I'm one of the few people around that actually prefer the 3rd ed E:40k rules to the others. I like the complex army lists and the fact that it is fast enough that you can play huge battles in a short time.

But, I never played 2e so I didn't have any expectations going into 3e.

Excellent - I was hoping we would have a third edition fan on here. I too enjoy making complex army lists (primarily in warhammer) and love having as many options in units as possible. The problem for me was that in 2nd ed (and apparently 4th ed too) it felt that the company card was the unit and the support/special cards were the unit upgrade options - in my opinion a massive battle scale system needs as little paper work and reading multiple weapons charts as possible, and the almost 40K level of individual stand detail and weapon choices on dreadnaughts etc made what should have been a huge scale game, be forced into a small scale skirmish game because of the book keeping required.
Also the vast change from 2nd to 3rd (partially covered above) drove me away - it wasn't like the change between warhammer 5th - 6th or 7th - 8th - basically everything changed - and for no apparent reason. It was like GW had looked at (what was) their 3rd core system, which was selling well, and instead of making the small adjustments in rules and points values - which happens between various editions of warhammer - and just re-wrote everything from scratch - which as far as I can tell, none of the 2nd edition players wanted.

[Starchild]

Also the vast change from 2nd to 3rd (partially covered above) drove me away - it wasn't like the change between warhammer 5th - 6th or 7th - 8th - basically everything changed - and for no apparent reason. It was like GW had looked at (what was) their 3rd core system, which was selling well, and instead of making the small adjustments in rules and points values - which happens between various editions of warhammer - and just re-wrote everything from scratch - which as far as I can tell, none of the 2nd edition players wanted.

I never played a single game of 3rd edition Epic (I was mainly turned off by the disgusting Titan models they released for it.... <puke> ) but my understanding is that GW ripped off the entire ruleset from another company, namely DirtSide (iirc). Why they chose to do so when they already had a perfectly usable ruleset, I'll never know. Maybe they killed off the game intentionally.

I played second edition Space Marine and Titan Legions for years. I loved Space Marine. It was a fantastic game, partly due to the rules, but also due to the high quality models and characterful army lists. Titan Legions, however, rather killed Space Marine for me. Introducing the Imperator Titan, Mega Gargants, Titan Battle Groups, and various flyers took the game too far away from regular infantry and vehicles, making it much less enjoyable to play, skewing the game in favour of Orks and Space Marines in particular, and turning the game into something more akin to titans versus titans with infantry there as nothing but cannon fodder, or objective holders struggling to survive.

Hmmm, my gaming group at the time never had an issue with the power level of the mega titans, mainly due to our #1 house rule. One of our friends was a WW2 buff, so he couldn't understand why infantry had to merely stand next to an objective to take it. So our rule was that each objective had to be placed on top of a building, and infantry units had to spend one full movement phase to physically enter a building and take an objective.

The result was that we always used lots of infantry, even in games where Titan Battle Groups, Imperators, etc. were present. I was pleased to see a similar game mechanic in the PS3 game Endwar, in which infantry are very vulnerable out in the open. Also in Endwar it takes time to actually enter and secure the building, which brought back plenty of Epic nostalgia.


What I miss most of all about 2nd edition Epic however is the turn system. I believe it's the closest GW ever got to true simultaneous combat.

[Inquisitor Kallus]

I never played a single game of 3rd edition Epic (I was mainly turned off by the disgusting Titan models they released for it.... <puke> ) but my understanding is that GW ripped off the entire ruleset from another company, namely DirtSide (iirc). Why they chose to do so when they already had a perfectly usable ruleset, I'll never know. Maybe they killed off the game intentionally.

Hmmm, my gaming group at the time never had an issue with the power level of the mega titans, mainly due to our #1 house rule. One of our friends was a WW2 buff, so he couldn't understand why infantry had to merely stand next to an objective to take it. So our rule was that each objective had to be placed on top of a building, and infantry units had to spend one full movement phase to physically enter a building and take an objective.

The result was that we always used lots of infantry, even in games where Titan Battle Groups, Imperators, etc. were present. I was pleased to see a similar game mechanic in the PS3 game Endwar, in which infantry are very vulnerable out in the open. Also in Endwar it takes time to actually enter and secure the building, which brought back plenty of Epic nostalgia.


What I miss most of all about 2nd edition Epic however is the turn system. I believe it's the closest GW ever got to true simultaneous combat.

That, and LOTR/WOTR. The problem i had with 'Space Marines was that, if you wanted to play really big games, it got out of hand with all the special rules.

[Irisado]

Hmmm, my gaming group at the time never had an issue with the power level of the mega titans, mainly due to our #1 house rule. One of our friends was a WW2 buff, so he couldn't understand why infantry had to merely stand next to an objective to take it. So our rule was that each objective had to be placed on top of a building, and infantry units had to spend one full movement phase to physically enter a building and take an objective.

It depended on the armies you took. Orks versus Marines was okay, because both armies had access to the large Titans/Gargants and multiple battle groups. Imperial armies could all use battle groups too, so they were not too badly off.

My Eldar struggled badly against all that firepower though, and just didn't have enough long range units to counter the Imperator Titan, while Chaos was a joke, it just blew them all to pieces before they got anywhere. Chaos were tough to win with against Imperial armies in the regular game, the Imperator Titan's arrival made it almost impossible, unless you constructed your own Chaos Imperator Titan to face off against it. Then it would have become a case of whichever Imperator Titan went down first would be the decisive factor in who won the game, and that's not what I call strategy and tactics.

[dracpanzer]

We played Epic from the very first days. We still have fond memories of the ramming Land Raiders with Rhino's, knocking buildings over to kill Marines and what not. For us E40k wasn't the deathknell of Epic in our gaming group, somehow it came more in the form of 40kv3. The models got shelved as we delved either into 40k, Napoleonics and then eventually FoW.

Somewhere along the line I sold off a full chapter of Raven Guard. Along with twenty Titans and a full household of Knights. I really wish I hadn't.

We got back into Epic once my son started getting interested in gaming. I still had 4,000 or so Epic SM's languishing in a box in the basement. The first few HH novels got the ball rolling and we're definately into it again. We sampled all the rules out there, and no offense to anyone, opted to use our own version corrupted from our FoW experience. We're getting older, and it helps to use the same basic core rules with a page of modifications so we remember everything =]

My Word Bearers are suffering from exposure on my painting table while the house is undergoing some do it yourself renovations. Never understood why there was a big rush to dump everything Epic from GW before E40k came out. It did lead to some frenzied buying though, didn't want to get stuck with incomplete armies of one version of figure with new ones coming out.

Might Epic suffer from the usual Historical deathknell where players buy an army and continue to play that same army throughout whatever number of rules versions that come out? You'd have to think that if a new edition release didn't spur a flurry of purchases, GW might look to drop it?

[shelfunit.]

Hmmm, my gaming group at the time never had an issue with the power level of the mega titans, mainly due to our #1 house rule. One of our friends was a WW2 buff, so he couldn't understand why infantry had to merely stand next to an objective to take it. So our rule was that each objective had to be placed on top of a building, and infantry units had to spend one full movement phase to physically enter a building and take an objective.

The result was that we always used lots of infantry, even in games where Titan Battle Groups, Imperators, etc. were present. I was pleased to see a similar game mechanic in the PS3 game Endwar, in which infantry are very vulnerable out in the open. Also in Endwar it takes time to actually enter and secure the building, which brought back plenty of Epic nostalgia.

What I miss most of all about 2nd edition Epic however is the turn system. I believe it's the closest GW ever got to true simultaneous combat.

Yes, the alternate activation was amazing, and I'm not sure why they haven't adapted it for all their games - far more "realistic" and balenced. I'm interested by the objective counters house rule you had - personally to encourage more infantry I would like to have only infantry units able to claim objectives (a little like 40K), but that may favour certain armies too much - must think more on this...

That, and LOTR/WOTR. The problem i had with 'Space Marines was that, if you wanted to play really big games, it got out of hand with all the special rules.

I do agree there were a vast number of special rules (that flies in the face of my "book keeping" argument against 3rd ed), but at the time it felt ok, as the basic game was relatively free of them - it seemed that the special rules really only went into over drive with the release of TL, and titan escalation issues.

It depended on the armies you took. Orks versus Marines was okay, because both armies had access to the large Titans/Gargants and multiple battle groups. Imperial armies could all use battle groups too, so they were not too badly off.

My Eldar struggled badly against all that firepower though, and just didn't have enough long range units to counter the Imperator Titan, while Chaos was a joke, it just blew them all to pieces before they got anywhere. Chaos were tough to win with against Imperial armies in the regular game, the Imperator Titan's arrival made it almost impossible, unless you constructed your own Chaos Imperator Titan to face off against it. Then it would have become a case of whichever Imperator Titan went down first would be the decisive factor in who won the game, and that's not what I call strategy and tactics.

I always thought eldar were a difficult race to win with - their titans were especially fragile - I recall massacring a mates phantoms using Spesh Marinz - basically because with the imperator you could throw out a vast amount of barrarge templates - which Eldar titans had absolutely no defence against.

We played Epic from the very first days. We still have fond memories of the ramming Land Raiders with Rhino's, knocking buildings over to kill Marines and what not. For us E40k wasn't the deathknell of Epic in our gaming group, somehow it came more in the form of 40kv3. The models got shelved as we delved either into 40k, Napoleonics and then eventually FoW.

Somewhere along the line I sold off a full chapter of Raven Guard. Along with twenty Titans and a full household of Knights. I really wish I hadn't.

We got back into Epic once my son started getting interested in gaming. I still had 4,000 or so Epic SM's languishing in a box in the basement. The first few HH novels got the ball rolling and we're definately into it again. We sampled all the rules out there, and no offense to anyone, opted to use our own version corrupted from our FoW experience. We're getting older, and it helps to use the same basic core rules with a page of modifications so we remember everything =]

My Word Bearers are suffering from exposure on my painting table while the house is undergoing some do it yourself renovations. Never understood why there was a big rush to dump everything Epic from GW before E40k came out. It did lead to some frenzied buying though, didn't want to get stuck with incomplete armies of one version of figure with new ones coming out.

Might Epic suffer from the usual Historical deathknell where players buy an army and continue to play that same army throughout whatever number of rules versions that come out? You'd have to think that if a new edition release didn't spur a flurry of purchases, GW might look to drop it?

I have to admit my re-interest in epic came via a number of different factors - reading the HH novels was a huge kick in the direction of starting up again - the first 2 novels in the series (in my opinion) seem very atmospheric and well written. Also searching for another game, and being unable to nail down exactly what I wanted (thought about Malifaux, SoTR, Firestorm Armada, Dystopian wars etc) but small models and vast battles brought me back - that and I had a load of epic models laying around in boxes in England (including a number of squats!).
On your last point - I kind of agree, but you could say the same about any of their game systems. Other than introducing new models and making the rules for some models more/less viable on the field some people will just buy one army and play it forever. The difference between Epic and Warhammer (for example) is that warhammer gets new models/army books/editions - but far more importantly - exposure and support. Epic got the new models - but at 6mm subtle differences and aesthetic improvements can be difficult to notice. On top of this only 2 races (Imperials and orks) got the ultra big machines and titan battle groups penalised those who could not afford those extra titans (2 for 1 at titan level is a huge advantage). Then with the rules completely changed the fan base erroded, and the support was dropped. It didn't help that the prices shot up and some of the newer models (titans especially) were design "Mehs".
GW had/have all the resources to make epic a huge (longterm) success. Whilst not cheap to make the sprues, each army needs no more than 2 in total for all basic troop types, all the vehicle molds are already availible - small scale gaming is booming at the minute - see dystopian wars - and looking at the prices some models go for on ebay there is a demand. The current crop of GW churn-and-burn "customers" have not been exposed to epic in any real, meaningful way and with GW desire to promote ever bigger battles, epic scale seems a natural prigression. Sure they won't make as much money selling 6mm as 28mm (the reason they sadly will not re-release) but I can't see them losing any.

One last thing for this post. I previously noted the newer models being advertised as 8mm as opposed to 6mm - does anyone have pics or links to pics of comparison shots between the older and newer epic scale infantry - and possibly of other manufacturers 6mm stuff alongside?
Cheers!

[yabbadabba]

I have played Epic all the way from Adeptus Titanicus through to E:A. First things first was that while Epic as a system has proved popular in places, its never been successful enough, accounting for around 15% of GW sales at its very height (as one of three systems available), and I understand a chunk of that being through Direct/MO. The move to TL was actually a retrograde step, returning Epic to its roots. Unfortunately its sales were already dropping of and I understand that as GW were moving into 32mm in a big way, any thought of mega-titans for other races was put on hold.

Epic suffered, like all the SGs, in being great adult games, with a limited appeal in a company which was heading towards mass teen sales and simplification. In terms of sales, Epic makes a great small industry but under GWs current set up it would quickly become a loss if it was pushed through its retail and trade channels; personally it would be great to see all SGs licenced off. While some have used other companies as examples, lets be honest if Epic was a seller then these guys would be a lot more prominent than they are. Hey ho.

I love Epic. I might have to sell off my Chaos army this summer but I will still have a SM Chapter, several Squat holds of plastics and a stupid amount of IG plastics. I have a Titan Legion (3 Imperators including the Warmonger variant, 8 Warlords, 8 Reavers, 14 Warhounds). When we move to a bigger house then an Epic table will be on the list of musts - along with all the other tables . I love both Blue Space Marine and E:A although I played more games with bSM and have some wicked memories however when E:40K came out it did mark a big difference - we played 6k pts, 6 turns in under 3 hours. This was almost impossible under bSM conditions. Now that was an improvement.

[shelfunit.]

I have played Epic all the way from Adeptus Titanicus through to E:A. First things first was that while Epic as a system has proved popular in places, its never been successful enough, accounting for around 15% of GW sales at its very height (as one of three systems available), and I understand a chunk of that being through Direct/MO. The move to TL was actually a retrograde step, returning Epic to its roots. Unfortunately its sales were already dropping of and I understand that as GW were moving into 32mm in a big way, any thought of mega-titans for other races was put on hold.

As is usual for me I will both agree and disagree here - it was a retro-grade step to go back to TL, but in my opinion only in name. The original TL came with Warlord titans, which were (fairly) seamlessly integrated into the infantry/vehicles of SM - they never felt overpowered for what they were. With the introduction of the ultra-giant titans - mega-gargants and Imperators, they could each take down a warlord sized titan/whole enemy company in one turn, and unless the other player turned up with them it was rarely a contest.
I honestly would like to see the figures for the % split between the games - not doubting you, just interested - 15% when there were (at the time) a large number of games availible - both bloodbowl and man o war being far bigger than they are now is not too shabby.

Epic suffered, like all the SGs, in being great adult games, with a limited appeal in a company which was heading towards mass teen sales and simplification. In terms of sales, Epic makes a great small industry but under GWs current set up it would quickly become a loss if it was pushed through its retail and trade channels; personally it would be great to see all SGs licenced off. While some have used other companies as examples, lets be honest if Epic was a seller then these guys would be a lot more prominent than they are. Hey ho.

Sadly must agree - GW look to have gone past an event horizon in their buissiness model now - even if they were to change, going back to supporting the specialist games, the possible haemorraging of 10-13 year olds would far outstrip the return of the older gamer. But who would GW license the games off to? They do all they can to deny the existance of other companies, why promote another? The only way I could see them doing this is by setting up another company like FW, but for specialist games.

I love Epic. I might have to sell off my Chaos army this summer but I will still have a SM Chapter, several Squat holds of plastics and a stupid amount of IG plastics. I have a Titan Legion (3 Imperators including the Warmonger variant, 8 Warlords, 8 Reavers, 14 Warhounds). When we move to a bigger house then an Epic table will be on the list of musts - along with all the other tables . I love both Blue Space Marine and E:A although I played more games with bSM and have some wicked memories however when E:40K came out it did mark a big difference - we played 6k pts, 6 turns in under 3 hours. This was almost impossible under bSM conditions. Now that was an improvement.

Shame about the chaos, but good luck on any potential move - and hope to see the plog on the table/terrain and any models you haven't got round to painting yet!

Just out of interest what are the "Blue Space Marines" - UltraMarines, or something else?

[yabbadabba]

As is usual for me I will both agree and disagree here - it was a retro-grade step to go back to TL, but in my opinion only in name. The original TL came with Warlord titans, which were (fairly) seamlessly integrated into the infantry/vehicles of SM - they never felt overpowered for what they were. With the introduction of the ultra-giant titans - mega-gargants and Imperators, they could each take down a warlord sized titan/whole enemy company in one turn, and unless the other player turned up with them it was rarely a contest.

I think we have to understand this in a a slightly softer light. If GW had produced more mega-titians then there was a good chance that this affect would have been off-set. Secondly it was a sales poly, and was still done in the time when the studio mind set was "why not?" last seen with Inquisitor. There had been a trend of increasingly harder units - it was smaller in increments but it was there. Finally it was released at a time when players spoke to each other before games, had gentleman's agreements, balance was less of an issue and pick up, tournament style games were frowned upon. And they could be taken out with relative simple tactics. Of course getting to use those tactics was somethign else

I honestly would like to see the figures for the % split between the games - not doubting you, just interested - 15% when there were (at the time) a large number of games availible - both bloodbowl and man o war being far bigger than they are now is not too shabby.

You would have to remember that 15% would have been during the "honeymoon" period of a new game release. As a whole, without the box game releases, I don't think SGs have peaked much above 12% and by the time LotR was due it was around 5% ish.

Just out of interest what are the "Blue Space Marines" - UltraMarines, or something else?

There were two epic boxed games called "Space Marine". The first was black, the second blue.

[AndrewGPaul]

How do dark green Space Marines on a yellow background become "black"?

I never played a single game of 3rd edition Epic (I was mainly turned off by the disgusting Titan models they released for it.... <puke> ) but my understanding is that GW ripped off the entire ruleset from another company, namely DirtSide (iirc). Why they chose to do so when they already had a perfectly usable ruleset, I'll never know. Maybe they killed off the game intentionally.

I can't think of any similarities between Dirtside II and Epic 40,000, other than using 6mm Sci Fi models. As for it being a deliberate attempt to "kill off the game", think about what you're saying. Which is easier; designing a new game, designing a whole new range of miniatures (about the only things that were carried over from 2nd edition Space Marine were the infantry, and even they were on new sprues), manufacturing the moulds, designing the packaging, playtesting the rules and then hoping it fails, or: stopping selling Epic rules and models? The reason Epic 40,000 failed is because Jervis Johnson's taste in games isn't the same as the 2nd edition Space Marine fanbase.

[yabbadabba]

How do dark green Space Marines on a yellow background become "black"?

The box was black, although the cover art was different . And at the time I think Dark Angel Space Marined were still black - but I am colour blind. Anyway its how we all differentiated between them.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KBj3Hj4Z4z...0/P1010001.JPG

[AndrewGPaul]

Nah, they're green, at least to me. Possibly the first example of green Dark Angels. Along with Tony Montana as a Captain,

[yabbadabba]

If I remember right, salamander black at the time had a green base to it. Weird, but there you go.

[shelfunit.]

I think we have to understand this in a a slightly softer light. If GW had produced more mega-titians then there was a good chance that this affect would have been off-set. Secondly it was a sales poly, and was still done in the time when the studio mind set was "why not?" last seen with Inquisitor. There had been a trend of increasingly harder units - it was smaller in increments but it was there. Finally it was released at a time when players spoke to each other before games, had gentleman's agreements, balance was less of an issue and pick up, tournament style games were frowned upon. And they could be taken out with relative simple tactics. Of course getting to use those tactics was somethign else

True enough

You would have to remember that 15% would have been during the "honeymoon" period of a new game release. As a whole, without the box game releases, I don't think SGs have peaked much above 12% and by the time LotR was due it was around 5% ish.

Is that for all specialist games combined? LotR obviously took away a large portion of game/miniature designers time, and combined with the extra space required to fit it into WD probably was the axe that cut specialist game's heads. In some ways it's a shame about the Hobbit being released as otherwise Specialist games might have had a small renaissance (more hope than reality here I think though...)

There were two epic boxed games called "Space Marine". The first was black, the second blue.

First big box game (after Advanced Heroquest) I bought - so long ago now (just recalling the clear plastic measuring rulers will the different weapon ranges marked on them) I forgot the different coloured marines - almost forgot it was HH time as well!

[yabbadabba]

Is that for all specialist games combined? LotR obviously took away a large portion of game/miniature designers time, and combined with the extra space required to fit it into WD probably was the axe that cut specialist game's heads. In some ways it's a shame about the Hobbit being released as otherwise Specialist games might have had a small renaissance (more hope than reality here I think though...)

Yes that was for all systems combined - and remember that during the LotR design time we had WM which was still relatively new, Inquisitor, E:A and a promotion of Mordheim and Necromunda through WD while the miniatures were still in the stores. The value of SGs to GW were not directly financial but once the company was "corporatised" it became simple to look at the sales/profit and shove them into Direct only. Also we did have a couple of years of JJ trying to keep them going too, so they weren't "dropped" but taken out of the retail business.

[Starchild]

Yes, the alternate activation was amazing, and I'm not sure why they haven't adapted it for all their games - far more "realistic" and balenced. I'm interested by the objective counters house rule you had - personally to encourage more infantry I would like to have only infantry units able to claim objectives (a little like 40K), but that may favour certain armies too much - must think more on this...

Actually, that's the way we worked it, sorry I missed that detail. Yes, only infantry could claim objectives in our games, which is another reason why Endwar reminded me of Epic SM.

I can't think of any similarities between Dirtside II and Epic 40,000, other than using 6mm Sci Fi models. As for it being a deliberate attempt to "kill off the game", think about what you're saying. Which is easier; designing a new game, designing a whole new range of miniatures (about the only things that were carried over from 2nd edition Space Marine were the infantry, and even they were on new sprues), manufacturing the moulds, designing the packaging, playtesting the rules and then hoping it fails, or: stopping selling Epic rules and models? The reason Epic 40,000 failed is because Jervis Johnson's taste in games isn't the same as the 2nd edition Space Marine fanbase.

My comment on DirtSide is based on a friend's observation. Having played neither game, I can't say where exactly the two differ or happen to be the same. Every time the subject comes up, he is adamant that the Epic 40,000 rules are a plaguarized ripoff of DirtSide 2.

Regarding killing off Epic, this is GW we're talking about, so unfortunately logic doesn't always apply.

My speculation is that GW manangement knew far in advance that Epic 40,000 would be the final fully supported edition of the game. To that end, they made sure it went out with a bang instead of a whimper. They offered new versions of most of the models (IG tanks, Tyranid slug tanks, recut Eldar sprues, etc. etc.) plus some new units (Eldar Vampire, etc). Then, when they were satisfied that sales of Epic models had peaked, they pulled the plug to make room for other products. Again, this is merely my speculation.

Where they really dropped the ball however was in the redesigned Titan models. Those pieces of crud were never worthy of bearing the Citadel logo, and I can't understand why they were green lighted for release (unless of course they didn't care since the game was doomed from the beginning anyway). I wince every time I see 40k artwork with an Epic 40,000 Walking Office Building Warlord in the background.

Anyway, there were other issues too. Shelf space at retail stores was limited, as it always will be. This supports my opinion that GW deliberately released games with a preset lifespan. I think that Necromunda, Gorkamorka, and Mordheim were released with the understanding that they would be pulled from the shelves after a set number of months. To this list we can add Warmaster, Man 'o War, Battlefleet Gothic, and of course Epic 40,000 (not in any chronlogical order obviously).

I lament what happened to Epic, but at the same time I understand some of the reasoning behind GW's decisions. They opted to phase out the less popular niche games while focusing on the more hot-selling core games. At least we can be assured that what happened to Epic won't happen to 40k or Fantasy, for what it's worth.