View Full Version : Epic Conversion,new 40k rule set?

08-01-2008, 19:05
Hi all.
I might be on my own , but I have a reasonable collection of 40k minis, but hardly ever play 40k 4th ed because the rule set is a complete ' let down' IMO,compared to the E.A. rule set.

Now there are some other threads suggesting using the Epic rules more ore less as is , for games of Apoc.(Just adjust the measurments a bit.)

Would anyone else be interested in a attempting a 'full conversion' of E.A to get a 'wargame 'rule set for using our 28mm sci fi figures in? .

So we could switch from the 'grand strategy' of Epic Armageddon to the more detailed tactical interactions of a '40k' scale game.
Without swapping from a wargame, to a 'fun' dice throwing fest. .:D

IMO, we need to increase the amount of detail in the units stats,and decrease the number of order sets, or break down the orders in to individual actions. So we get more 'detailed unit interaction' befiting a '40k scale' wargame.

So for example rather than a unit having AP/AT ratings on weapon we could give them a numerical value
for type of dammage.EG rather than AP we could use suffix A for 'area effect',and instead of AT we could assign a suffix of P for 'penetrating dammage.'

EG, A SM Tac Squad weapons could be.
Small arms.........Bolt Guns ,Dam 8A.Rnge 24''
Support weapon .Heavy Bolter,Dam 6A.Rng 36''
Support weapon ,Melta Gun ,Dam 8P Rnge 12''

If we describe all units survivability simply as armour /resistance to dammage.(AR)
And dammage capacity (DC).

So the above 10 man Tac squad would be AR 4,DC 10,(3+save equivelent,1DC per squad member/wound).

A Rhino could be AR 11/10/10.(Current AV values)
DC 1A+ 2M.
So the vehicle has 1 Dammge Capacity for Armament (A)for its only 'support' weapon,(Storm Bolter.)
And Has 2 Dammage Capacity for Mobility(M)for its rugged propulsion system.(A vehicle with a DC of 2M loses half its speed on the first M hit and becomes immobilised on the second M hit.)

All weapon and armour inter actions could follow the simple 'deduct the AR(Modified) value from the Dammage(modified) to find out effect, (by looking up result on a dammage chart.)

I belive l we can cover all unit -weapon interaction by just using one dammage chart for vehicles and one dammage chart for non vehicle targets.
(The dammage chart just defines how many/much casualties/sytem dammage is taken .And also if the unit suffers from negative moral,supressed,(shaken)neutralised(stunned),route d, or wiped out/destroyed.)

I would like to try to keep the quality , focus and intuativeness of epic rules, but alter them to fit the 'current scale of 40k'.

(I also think continuing to use 'WWII /modern warfare 'as a reference for gameplay , with a suitable sci-fantacy veneer over the top.If we can relate game play to a particular know event type, it makes the games more intuative.)

I am aware of lots of alternative game mechanics /methods, so I would like to discuss basic game mechanics first ,if any one else is interested, that is.:D

Kindest reguards

Chaos and Evil
08-01-2008, 23:14
I did an experiment along these lines (Wrote an army list for Marines). It worked very well... some might say it was more tactically challenging than normal 40k.

09-01-2008, 20:43
What game turn mechanic did you use in your game?

I honestly think if you start with a good wargame like E.A, and then add detail , you have got to end up with a better system than 40k. (Based on a skirmish game RT, and simplified to the point of complete abstraction!:mad:)

I belive the 8 orders '3 action sets' of E.A. are to complex/strategic for the tactical nature of smaller scale combat.

Pehaps the 3orders '2 action sets' of Epic Space Marine might be more suitable?

Are you familiar with the First Fire, Advance, Charge , orders from Epic SM?

I would be very interested in what you did in your experiment...


Chaos and Evil
09-01-2008, 20:54
PM me your email address and I'll send you the core rules / marine army list that we used.

I did cut down the number/ type of orders available.

Actions tests were passed by making a Ld. test. You could retain the initiative but that was at -3 Ld.

10-01-2008, 17:45
Hi C &E.
I was thinking about having more detailed interaction of units,and including moral dammage on the 2 dammage tables.(One dammage table for vehicles ,and one for non vehicles.)
So how many/much casualties /system dammage (armament/mobility),and if the unit is supressed (shaken), neutralised(stunned), or routed,(running away!)

So all units can perform actions eaualy well, Untill they come under fire , at which point units with better leadership (command and moral values) recover far quicker.

I was hoping to have the following stats for all units.

Combat speed, the distance the unit may move up to per action.(If we use First Fire Advance and Charge orders from E.SM, SP x1 for Advance (move and shoot action) and SP x2 for Charge orders.(move +move actions)

Armour/ resistance to dammage value.(AR)
A value to determine how difficult it is to dammage the unit.A representation of armour, toughness, self repairing systems, etc.

Dammage capacity.(DC)
How much dammage a unit can take before it is rendered usless in game terms.Vehicles have DC in Mobility(M) and in Armament.(A), infantry unitd have 1 DC per trooper,or may reflect number of wounds on multiwound monsters M/Cs.(Ogryns, fexes, etc.)

Assault Dammage value.(AD)
How good a unit is in close combat assaults.

The units basic wilingness to fight, and ability to follow orders in battle field situations.

Command value.(CM)
The units ability to infliuence motivate friendly units.

I belive we could keep weapon clasifications to , small arms , suport , ordnance and assault.

Small arms , support weapons and ordnance weapons all have effective range and dammage value and type.
Effect types are Area effect (A) AP in Epic.
Point contact (P ) AT in epic.

EG a SM 10 man tac squad might be..
SP XX cm
AR 4
DC 10
AD 4
ML 8
CM 1

Small arms (bolter) Rnge Xcms dam 8A.
Suport weapon heavy bolter rnge Y dam 6A.
Support weapon Melta gun Rnge Z dam 8P.
Assault wepons (vet sgt power fist +2 AD/+8P)

So infantry units have...
Small arms and /or support weapons .
With a bonus to the units AD if assault weapons are carried by unit leader and or the unit.(Also another P type dammage bonus in assault if this type of weapon are carried, Power fist/claw,thunder hammer ,etc. )

Vehcles have ...
Suport weapons , (1DC A per support weapon)
Ordnance weapons (2 DC A per ordnance weapon)

Support weapons may give a bonus to a vehicles AD.(Which is lost when the weapon is destroyed.)

If a weapon is not 'move and fire' capable , we could simply put 'FF,' or 'Prep' next to its stat.(Used on 'First fire orders' only/Prepare action is use to make the weapon ready to fire, if we use alternating bi-phase single action action game mechanic.)
I have probably not explained this very well..


Chaos and Evil
10-01-2008, 19:03
I removed small arms from my system, we found it wasn't needed.

10-01-2008, 20:42
Hi C&E.
As 'Small Arms dammage value' is the cumulative effect of all the' non support weapons' in an infantry unit.
( I would like to assume an infantry unit keeps all suport weapons throughout the game.If the support weapon carrying trooper is killed /put out of action another (basic)trooper simply picks it up.)

So all casualties in a infantry unit ,( reduction in DC,) will have the effect of reducing the Small Arms dammage .

Eg, reduce Small arms dammage value by 'X' per casualty , or -xcm from range per casualty.
(As 'dammage density' is reduced, then the effecive range decreases.)

To be fair I am simply using WWII/modern war, as a reference for game play.(So the game is related to a real world events ,so becomes easier to understand /intuative.)
And trying to get 'as much 'tactical effect' with the simplest methods I can think of/borrow/adapt.:D

If the game gets to complex I can always cut back on some of the details.;)

(PS I havent got you Email yet.)

Any more thoughts/comments?

Chaos and Evil
10-01-2008, 21:09
I emailed you days ago, your spam filter must have blocked it.

Lord Inquisitor
10-01-2008, 21:16
Of course, you could just play Epic with 40K scale models. Get some bits of card, cut them into stands and blue-tac the 28mm models onto them, adjust the scale appropriately (if you simply use inches instead of cm, that should be about right...)

Now all you need to do is find a suitable playing area...!

10-01-2008, 22:07
I think the following would make epic rules work on 40k scale, and would have the added benifit of keeping the points values for the units the same and mostly accurate.

*Each model is a unit
(So a squad of 5 marines, would be like a formation with 5 marine units)

*Army's must set up an additional 15cm apart (to counteract the increased firefight range)

*Firefight range is 30cm (doubled its epic range, 12" so nearly 40k rapid fire range)

*Units taking an engage action may move twice if they forgo the option of using their fire fight shooting (this way units may still assult in close combat without always getting driven off by the increased range in firefights - so just like the 40k double move charge)

With these rules in place the a 40k scale game would work fine. All thats left is to rewrite most the units to fit.
That is separating 5 complete marine units into one squad of 5 slightly different marines.
Or combining 5 epic tanks into one 40k scale tank, which will require giving the tank dc most the time.
Or adjusting weapon ranges, if you do so you also have to adjust the firepower roll. So if the weapon range is quadrupled the firepower is quartered, or if its doubled firepower is halved, if tripled then fp is divided by 3, or any other similar combination to make weapon ranges more like 40k but not increase the actual effective firepower of the unit.

Some examples:


speed 45cm, armor 4+ (armored vehicle), close combat 6+, firefight 5+, 2 lascannon 180cm AT4+, 5 heavy bolter 90cm AP6+
reinforced armor, thick rear, transport 10 marines/ 5 termies
Damage Capacity 5

Tactical marines squad

1 sargent
speed 15cm, armor 4+, close combat 3+, firefight 3+, boltpistol 45cm AP 5+
3 marine
speed 15cm, armor 4+, close combat 4+, firefight 4+, bolter 60cm AP 5+
1 marine with rocket launcher
speed 15cm armor 4+, close combat 5+, firefight 5+, missile launcher 180 AT 5+

11-01-2008, 19:06
Hi all.
What thoughts do you have on modifying the Epic game turn?
Do you think Epic 'Space Marine's order system is more suitable for the sort of tactical interaction we are looking for?

11-01-2008, 19:20
The old space marine rule of placing order counters, then moving the units in a convoluted order - was a bad rule.
Either I go U go, Or my unit your unit is better.
I really think our aim should just be to stick to the Armageddon rules as closely as possible. House rules are a hard sell. Epic for 40k scale models isn't.

12-01-2008, 12:31
Hi Scratchbuilt.
I was suggesting alternating unit activation between players.If orders are activated in set sequence , they become more of a tactical concideration.
Its just the 'two action set' orders of 'Space Marine' suit a more tactical game than the 'three action set orders' of EA.IMO.

Whats so difficult about activating all the same coloured order counters , before moving onto the next coloured order counters?
At least it is representative of units taking dicisive actions , (First fire and Charge.)

Rather than everthing on one side moves then shoots then assaults,like in 40k !

And EA 'command based' turn system is perfect for the size battles EA has.But as I intend to have far more difference between units,(better than 40k infact,)I wanted the units abilities to have more of an impact on unit interaction.

Do you just want to use EA with 28mm figs instead of 10mm figs?Unit representation in Epic is a bit abstracted for speed of play.(Damn fiddley if you have to move 100 individual Epic scale troopers.:D)

As opposed to 40k where model representation is very exact, but the rules are abstracted for speed of conclusion.

If we use 40k minis/ models we can be more literal in the representation.(We dont have to fix 5 SMs to a tupperware lid.:evilgrin:)

I can understand that you want to keep things as close to EA as possible,but I want to increase the tactical considerations while keeping the rule set focused on units.

However I belive placing counters/ markers next to units is enevitable, if we break away from fixed action sequence turns.(Move then shoot then assault)
And as moral state is important ,replacing action/order counters with 'shaken or stunned 'counters is an easy way do denote the effects of negative moral.IMO.


12-01-2008, 16:58
This might be of an interest to this conversation.


12-01-2008, 19:47
Hi Hena,
Thanks for the link, Ill get in touch with MoK.
I am sure a rule set derived from E.A. is going to be much closer to the sort of game I prefer.