Epic Target Demographic

[Easy E]

Unfortunately most of GWs Vets choose to spend their time moaning about a game that wasn't, and still isn't, designed for tournament play.

This part made me LOL.

Truth... truth...

[yabbadabba]

Yeah... I never met a more bunch of obsessed whiny old ..... well anyway that's life

[PANZERBUNNY]

[QUOTE=4. Undoubtedly, but as I said in 1., epic armys just dont seem to capture people as much as 40k. [/QUOTE]

That's because people tend to think fairly "provincial". Wanna model an entire marine chapter with support?

Easily done.

Wanna re-enact the siege of terra or a huge multi player game with hundreds of stands of infantry and tanks?

well...fairly easily done.

It all come down to the attention willing to be given to the game.


If you want fast dice rolls and PAW fulls of miniatures you spent hours and hours painting being removed from the table...
40k is your beast and so is Fantasy.


Have they ever re-released an official skirmish game based on 40k where you design your kill team etc and each guy gains experience and rank? We had necromunda, but that isn't the same.

I think they KNOW that if they released a game with depth, though on a smaller skirmish scale, using the models of the space marine range.....they would lose players from 40k.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Obviously subjective and I disagree.
I can see why you are having a problem. GW games lost touch with reality after 1st Ed WFB.
That's because a fundamental pat of GWs games are the philosophies of fast fun and furious, with the combat phase being more dominant than any other. Hence they would not want defensive fire. The closest they have come is overwatch, and they dropped that sharpish. I could go on with this. The game works fine without it, but it will never be realistic nor will any of GWs games. Even Warhammer Ancient Battles is grossly abstract.

This is a simple case of GW doing what they want, and it not being suitable for you. Right or wrong, uniformed or anything else has nothing to do with it.

Blood Bowl is pretty bang on with realism. An ogre or large muscled creature charging you head on could indeed kill you or rupture your spleen......give it a go.

[yabbadabba]

Blood Bowl is pretty bang on with realism. An ogre or large muscled creature charging you head on could indeed kill you or rupture your spleen......give it a go.

Give what a go?

[Lord Aaron]

I think the Epic players....no, Epic supporters won this thread

[carlisimo]

The most important thing here is that kids are not as interested in Epic scale as they are in 40K scale. Only titans challenge that. I can vouch with that having to hit targets during the release of Titan Legions, E:40k, E:A, Warmaster etc and still massively outselling to kids on 40K. Visual scale impact is really important when talking to new customers, whether kids or adults. For people who have already wargamed or done some modelling, its a different story.

That's what I thought it would be: visual impact. I got into the GW hobby as a teenager, in the late '90s. Epic: 40k had just come out and I really liked the sound of it - I've always been into more big-picture stuff - but 40k figures were just so much cooler. They were also easier for me to get into, because I was already into scale model tanks and planes. For planes the usual scales are 1:72, 1:48, and 1:32, so it was an easier transition.

Among my friends I'm in the minority in liking large-scale battles (the opposite, RPGs, are more popular). In other words, "HeroHammer" appeals to more of my peers. We actually started with the gang-based Specialist Games, and Blood Bowl.

Come to think of it, none of those things are age-dependent. I think 28mm scale is just a better fit for more people, and since most of the people who will give it a try are young, the rules are written for them. Later versions of Epic were written not for adults, but for veterans of the GW hobby, who would happen to be adults just by being experienced. I think it'd be easier to recruit a jaded 40k player who still loves the universe (who doesn't?) than an adult with no GW experience at all.

[Moscovian]

Later versions of Epic were written not for adults, but for veterans of the GW hobby, who would happen to be adults just by being experienced. I think it'd be easier to recruit a jaded 40k player who still loves the universe (who doesn't?) than an adult with no GW experience at all.

A good distinction. There are some younger players out there and it is unfair to say they don't fit into the "Epic" universe. My buddy's 14 year old kid plays Epic and he does a good job of holding his own. He hasn't beaten me yet, but -really- who has?

[Spectrar Ghost]

Anyone playing your Elysians, IIRC.

[Moscovian]

Well, they don't count. ~

[yabbadabba]

Come to think of it, none of those things are age-dependent.

They are when it comes to new customer recruitment, 13 years of selling GWs stuff tells me that, but far less so when you have an established wargamer. In the latter case reasons for choosing a game are far more complex.

[spaint2k]

I'll preface with this: "Epic is designed for experienced wargamers" - Epic Armageddon Rule Book (Design Concept: Ties sub-rule).

It is clear that GW, at least, believed they were doing something different when they designed Epic.

<SNIP>

I wish there was a "like" button specifically so I could point out how well-written I thought this post was - and the several following it.

I played a game of Epic two weeks ago. Despite having played 40K since 1987, I'm still a relative noob at Epic. Several times, both me and my opponent found ourselves looking at the table wondering "what the hell do I do now?" It was amazing, because the question was arising from the growing realization that we were in a remarkably TACTICALLY complex situation and there was no easy way of playing the field to advantage. It was completely unlike 40K.

Suffice it to say that I for one am growing more and more fond of the Epic ruleset. I'll not be starting any more armies for 40K and I'll be focusing any future 40K-universe efforts on this scale. Some of the other points made in this thread (the time spent modelling vs. the time spent playing) are particularly relevant for me, as I realize that more and more I (sadly) just don't have time to paint up 28mm armies.

[borithan]

This. Rick Priestley is on record when designing Blackpowder and Hail Ceasr saying that young gamers prefer complex and intricate solutions to game design problems, while older gamers prefer simpler and abstract rules.

However, I think Epic was designed with Jervis and his gaming group in the studio as the demographic.

I am sure I heard something about the designers of Epic 40k still regarding that as the ruleset that they felt happiest as having designed. However, for various reasons it wasn't as popular as Epic 2nd edition had been and pretty much killed it off as a game GW was willing to properly support (alongside the general move to concentrating solely on the big 2, to which LotR was later added). I thought Epic Armageddon as an attempt at making it have a broader appeal while remaining much more streamlined and simple than earlier editions.

The most important thing here is that kids are not as interested in Epic scale as they are in 40K scale.

I have to say I would probably not have followed that trend (which I agree is a probable factor among many for Epic being less popular). I have always liked... "dinky" things, and Epic scales allow quite "dinky" armies (I just can't think of a better term... cute isn't anywhere close to right... "coolness due to being small" is what I am trying to get across). I just never got into it as it was relegated to Specialist games by the time I got involved in GW. I haven't actually played any epic (but would really like to), but I have collected an army, just it is hard to find others to play with. 40k is just so ubiquetous it is much easier to find people to play against.

The notion of defensive fire certainly isn't new. GW doens't use it. All the strange convolutions they've inflicted on their core games to lessen the effect of assaults is proof that the rules are missing something. My interesting interpretation is that they'd remove a lot of headaches simply by allowing it. Refusing to use it was a mistake.

- I think much of the reasoning about not using it is due to the fact it can lead to very static games. I believe much of the reason for removing overwatch in 3rd edition 40k was because they found that many firepower armies just tended to hunker down in overwatch and wait for the enemy to come to them. Now, there could have been ways to keep it in while encouraging more movement, but removing it entirely may have been simpler (though increasing the movement penalties to shooting, as they did in 3rd edition) didn't make sense in this regard, and there have been further changes to encourage a bit more maneuver. The same could have applied to Epic. If you can be shot in the way in you have much less incentive to charge in for the attack compared to just hunkering down and shooting at them). Also, melee troops have to be effective in some regard (at least in a game which is set in a universe where massive swords are meant to be viable weapons against guns), and so if they could be shot in the way in you massively reduce their utility (not that they couldn't do anything, just shooting would have a significant advanatge to it).


Also, having just looked at the Epic: 40k (not armageddon) rule set, while there is no defensive fire rule as such it is kind of modelled. First, if a unit moves within 10cm of an enemy in the movement phase you get a free shot on them, and they can move no further that phase. That basically means no one is going to get as close as that in the movement phase (I am hard pressed to find a situation where the cost of allowing a free shot is outweighed by the advantage of getting that close). Now, charges in the Assault phase don't get interrupted like this, but the shooting phase comes first, meaning that almost every unit that will want to charge into combat has to face a round of shooting (unless their chosen enemy cannot see them initially or chooses not to... but then you have either been seriously outmaneuvered or made a choice based on the situation on the table). The casualties and blast markers inflicted on the attackers will give the defending unit an advantage in the forthcoming assault. Now, the assaulting unit can shoot aswell (though lots of dedicated assault units have very short ranges and may not be in range), but being on charge orders halves their firepower, and if it is a key engagement the defending player would probably try to get the first shot in, further reducing the assaulter's ability to inflict extra casualties in the shooting phase.

There are some exceptions. Swooping hawks, as eldar infantry move much quicker and their jump-pack ability means they can charge from outside the shooting range of many basic units, and hormagaunts, but even then they would require careful movement to take advantage of this, and heavy-weapons units and many vehicles have a range that means they could still shoot them. Then there are the various forms of fast attack vehicles (like bikes, landspeeder and vypers etc), but most of these will generally be wanting to avoid actually being in the forefront of assaults (probably more interested in supporting them) due to their poor Assault Values. This doesn't apply to Space Marine bikers, but they would require very careful placement to use this. They have 5 cms to work with, which means a slight misjudgement means they can be shot or they fail to get into base contact and don't initiate an assault (and instead face a firefight, where they are likely to be at a disadvantage). The last exception I could find were some of the Greater Daemons, who can be outside almost all non-artillery ranges and still charge... but then they are daemons, and logic doesn't really apply.

[Kealios]

Ive enjoyed reading this thread. Personal arguments aside, it illustrates a lot of things that I value about Epic: Armageddon as a ruleset.

I am 39 and only discovered Epic a few years ago, and I came into it by seeing cool looking 6mm models being displayed on TMP and wanting a set to use them with. After trying a few, I discovered that Epic was the game I had been looking for.

Fast froward a few years to even just last week. Ive bought or looked into 2 or 3 more rulesets (beyond the original batch) that might/could work for 6mm, and Ive found that the more options in a game, the less streamlined it is. Strike Legion holds my attention the most right now, but honestly, E:A is the most streamlined, balanced combined-arms game that I have found. I keep looking because I like "build your own" and dont always want to play in the 40k universe, but I havent found the Holy Grail yet. Until then, E:A is just about perfect for me.

I play 6mm because combined arms is more much more complete that "Hey, let's have a slugfest", and maneuvering over a large area is KEY for a good game, IMHO.

[Verm1s]

Even Warhammer Ancient Battles is grossly abstract.

Couple of questions:

- How does WAB compare compare for strategic and tactical depth? The subject matter's arguably intended for, or at least more appealing to older gamers, but from an inexperienced view the game seems like WFB with no wizards and more weapon rules.

(E.g. As a relative noob at my gaming club, I've seen the old guard sneer a lot about the fantasy game while WAB army lists are neatly lined up and buckets of dice are rolled. Ironic enough I thought, but besides the historical vs. fantasy bias there seems to be resistance against more streamlined historical rulesets too. Fairly frustrating, but I digress.)

- Is it possible to inject any tactical thought or play into a standard game of one of the core rulesets? If so, how well does it go?

I wish there was a "like" button specifically so I could point out how well-written I thought this post was - and the several following it.

Ditto.

[Chaos and Evil]

To streamline WFB and add tactics... Play Kings of War!

[yabbadabba]

Its a rather complicated pair of questions; most people would go down C+E's simplistic route and yet WFB has a very strong tournament following despite its apparent design flaws (which are as much a case of personal preference as it is obvious flaws).

Strategy and tactics are as much a part of WFB as any wargame; however what is missing is the rock/paper/scissors approach (which was a problem 6-7e), nor is there a common base element from which to compare, i.e. not all the armies are one race. Finally its always been written with a design ethic minded of balance, but shying away from the all out tournament mentality. As such sometimes things appear in the rules "just because it should".

One of the key issues when it comes to tactics and strategy is that randomness is, and always has been, a core element of GWs games, and some people don't like it. Those people don't like it when their carefully designed army lists and plans unravel due to luck - and this isa dice based game. The strategy and tactics are there, but if you are not going to ride your luck then you need to be adept and building in redundancy into your plans, because without it your fate is in the lap of the dice gods.

[Zenithfleet]

Apologies for resurrecting this thread (although does it count as necromancy if it's only on page 2?). Just wanted to add my appreciation for Chaos and Evil's argument regarding the different target demographics of Epic and 40K. Good stuff there mate.

One question though: when people say 'Epic is designed for adults', does that include Adeptus Titanicus / Space Marine / Titan Legions? I never played them, but I have the distinct impression that they followed a more 40K-ish approach - tons of detail and complicated rules, but tactically straightforward. Did it appeal to kids more than the later editions? Yabbadabba's comments above suggest it didn't do so well compared to 40K, but others have described it as the 'third core game' of its time, so I'm not sure...

And where does Epic 40K fit into all this? I know it's not the same as E:A, but they do seem to share a fair amount of DNA. Its launch was so famously disastrous that I can't help wondering if part of the issue wasn't just the reduction in detail, but a completely different design ethos. It looks as if Jervis and co. had a market that preferred complex rules, 'chrome' and strategy over tactics (i.e. GW's core playerbase of kids), and with brave but misguided folly tried to convert them to a simple-rules, complex-tactics game - i.e. the sort of thing they themselves, as adult wargamers, preferred to play.

Please note that I'm not trying to offend anyone who loved/loves 'old school Epic' by saying it's a kids' game. Firstly, I don't actually know if it was designed like that (which is why I'm asking). Secondly, I've seen one or two comments here and there on the boards about 'immature adults', but honestly, there ain't nuffin' wrong with liking stuff for kids. Plenty of it is top quality (though YMMV of course): The Hobbit, the Earthsea books, Harry Potter, the Avatar cartoon, Pixar movies, Doctor Who...

And if you were introduced to something as a kid, that goes double. I still love 40K (the universe more than the game) because it hooked me when I was twelve. See CS Lewis's quote about becoming a man and putting away childish things... including the fear of appearing childish and the desire to seem grown up (or something along those lines).

Re people who don't think tactically: I've just started playing Epic (40K), and I'm legendarily tactically impaired, so it's going to be... erm... interesting. I might not like fiddly overcomplicated rules anymore, but when I plonk stuff on the table I want drama, explosions and and general narrative malarkey. I don't much care if I win or lose as long as it's an exciting story. Since my regular opponent is far more tactically minded, I expect the latter is a good thing.

Fortunately, Epic features lots of explosions (actual cardboard ones!), which will doubtless keep me happy as my Orks flee into the hills for the forty-seventh time.

[AndrewGPaul]

1st edition Epic is a product of their time; they came out in the late 80s, when everything had a million look-up charts, and charts that referred to charts that referred to charts. I think GW's entire target audience was somewhat older, too (including, if a contemporary White Dwarf was to be believed, greasy thrash metal bands on tour ...). As to being a "core game"? From what I can see, Epic at the time had a similar status to Blood Bowl and Dark Future; all were boxed games with a hardback expansion book or two and a supporting range of metal miniatures. They all shared the clear plastic range ruler, too, although with different markings.

By way of explanation, Adeptus Titanicus had custom design rules (including Warlords with different speeds, weapons capacities and void shields) and campaign rules allowing for experienced crews and game-to-game experience, while Space Marine allowed for vehicles to have Superficial and Heavy damage before being destroyed, and tracked whether a specific infantry stand had a plasma gun or two meltaguns. At the same time, Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 were also much more detailed, with wizards/psykers having to keep track of their individual store of magic/psychic points as they cast spells and allowing models to have up to eight different digital weapons and a host of non-combat equipment (such as knowing whether your communications officer's radio had a range of 50 or 500km - on a board a scale 200m across). It's just the way things were. Battletech was the same, as were any number of historical games. 2nd edition Space Marine simplified things massively.

[Zenithfleet]

1st edition Epic is a product of their time; they came out in the late 80s, when everything had a million look-up charts, and charts that referred to charts that referred to charts. I think GW's entire target audience was somewhat older, too (including, if a contemporary White Dwarf was to be believed, greasy thrash metal bands on tour ...). As to being a "core game"? From what I can see, Epic at the time had a similar status to Blood Bowl and Dark Future; all were boxed games with a hardback expansion book or two and a supporting range of metal miniatures. They all shared the clear plastic range ruler, too, although with different markings.

By way of explanation, Adeptus Titanicus had custom design rules (including Warlords with different speeds, weapons capacities and void shields) and campaign rules allowing for experienced crews and game-to-game experience, while Space Marine allowed for vehicles to have Superficial and Heavy damage before being destroyed, and tracked whether a specific infantry stand had a plasma gun or two meltaguns. At the same time, Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 were also much more detailed, with wizards/psykers having to keep track of their individual store of magic/psychic points as they cast spells and allowing models to have up to eight different digital weapons and a host of non-combat equipment (such as knowing whether your communications officer's radio had a range of 50 or 500km - on a board a scale 200m across). It's just the way things were. Battletech was the same, as were any number of historical games. 2nd edition Space Marine simplified things massively.

Ah, I see. That makes sense. I've become so used to reminding myself "GW makes stuff for young 'uns" that I'd forgotten they had a different market once upon a time

What about by the time Space Marine rolled around, though? Did it simplify things because that was the general design trend in wargames, or because they were shifting their target market a la 2nd ed 40K?