PDA

View Full Version : Epic or Warmaster?



Fenlear
12-05-2009, 02:44
I've seen a lot of people use the analogy that as far as how tactically advance the games are they rate them 40K<fantasy<epic and from what I've seen I'm not about to argue that. Where my question lies is where would Warmaster fall in that analogy. I know it's considered more advanced then the core games but how does it compare to Epic? I've really only played the other 3 and can't speak for Epic. If anyone has played a lot of both and can give an answer that is based on tactics alone and not which fluff you like more I would be most appreciated.

Templar Ben
12-05-2009, 02:47
Actually I really only play BoFA so I am curious how that would fall out as well in the Warmaster, Epic, BoFA, comparison.

Fenlear
12-05-2009, 03:00
I've only ran into BoFA a couple of times but from what I gather it's essentially Warmaster 2.0 They uncluttered the many updates to Warmaster and made it more comprehensive. Main difference is having the 2 default armies rather then 14 different choices with many combinations within them. From that alone I would have to consider it a bit less tactical then Warmaster. I just might have to pick up a BoFA though, it’s about the best bang for the buck of anything in that scale, and most of the stuff would be perfectly usable for Warmaster!

Templar Ben
12-05-2009, 03:04
There was an expansion that gave Smaug and others. I think they were going to add Minis Tirith, Rohan, Morgul, etc. but since sales were not as high they dropped it.

Seville
12-05-2009, 03:08
I have limited experience with both Warmaster and Epic, but I would say that on the whole they are just different from their 28mm counterparts.

Warmaster really has a lot to do with issuing orders and making sure that your orders are carried out. It tries to represent what the chaos and confusion of a real medieval battle would have been like, and I think it succeeds for the most part. It's a pretty good game. Shame I have not been able to play it more.

Epic is a ton of fun, and I find that the armies really play more like they are supposed to in the fluff. Space Marines are not the 3+ armor save sledgehammer that they are in 40k. You truly must use them with finesse and skill to win. They are more of a scalpel, and are surprisingly tough to win with. Guard plays just like it should, it's slow, inflexible, and kinda dumb, but very hard hitting and will win the war of attrition.

Honestly, I would say that in some ways Fantasy is more tactically challenging than either game. 40k is a pretty simplistic dice-fest compared to all of them, really. But both Epic and Warmaster are great fun if you can find anyone to play with you.

Chaos and Evil
12-05-2009, 03:10
I'd rate Warmaster/BoFA (They use essentially the same rules system) as slightly less tactically complex than Epic, due to the somewhat unreliable 'leadership tests for multiple orders' mechanic.

Overally both are more tactically complex than the core game systems, of course.

Osbad
12-05-2009, 09:29
It depends on your definition of "tactical". I would say that Warmaster places a slightly higher importance on the randomness of the "fog of war" than Epic does. Epic tends to have your models moving where you want them to, when you want them to. That means you are trying to outthink your opponent more than your opponent+dice.

If less random is your definition of more tactical (as mine is) then I would say Epic is the most tactical of the 2 game systems.