PDA

View Full Version : Epic 40,000 vs Epic Armageddon



Apologist
07-02-2007, 13:07
The gaming group I'm with has decided to air our old Epic collections; but we're having trouble deciding on whether to use the Epic: Armageddon or Epic: 40,000 ruleset. Can anyone provide a quick argument for or against either?

In addition, we're all very rusty on the size of armies what points value is an average-sized epic game?

Cheers

CyberShadow
07-02-2007, 14:23
You will now get a lot of people (mostly justifiably) telling you that EA is a better system.

Epic40K gives you much more flexibility when constructing your force, allowing you to create formations of almost whatever you want. However, that detail is lacking in the actual game play, with formations massing firepower and simply adding up the dice.

EA is a little more structured in its force creation (which I like) but allows individual units to almost fight as such.

So, it is really up to you. Generally, if you cant decide which way to go, I would download that EA rule book (free from the SG site) and go with that. Normal battles are about 3000 points for both game systems.

Let us know if you have any specific questions.

Apologist
07-02-2007, 15:13
One of the things that the majority of us aren't so keen on is the 'bittyness' of the Armageddon rules – so the firepower table from Epic: 40,000 is actually one of the selling points for us.

I'm looking at putting together a guard force (mirroring my 40k armies, really), so a more flexible squad-based force setup would be cool.

As to specific questions, any chance you could talk me through the pros and cons of a titan-heavy force? I was planning on getting a Warlord and a couple of the support reavers with the multilaunchers(not sure on what these are called any more). How does this tend to pan out in terms of a 3,000pt army?

For reference, the titans would be backed up by a tank company, two infantry companies and a mechanised company – so the reavers are geared up to provide artillery support, while the Warlord goes hunting big things/acts as wicketkeeper.

There's no AA defence, but since my opponents (two ork players and two space marine player) don't have any aircraft, this shouldn't be a problem.

Secondly, a modelling question more than anything else... how do you base epic models? Sand strikes me as too coarse.

Finally, a model question with relation to sizes. The FW super-heavies and flyers are very different sizes to the GW ones – but are they bigger or smaller? How do the FW Leman Russes and Chimerae compare to the GW ones?

Cheers.

Chaos and Evil
07-02-2007, 16:32
One of the things that the majority of us aren't so keen on is the 'bittyness' of the Armageddon rules so the firepower table from Epic: 40,000 is actually one of the selling points for us.

I would go with the 4th edition (Armageddon) ruleset for several reasons.

1 - It's vastly more popular (Easier to get games against opponents outside of your gaming circle).
2 - It's much more detailed (Weapons have distinct firepower types, rather than one big amalgam).
3 - Epic 40,000's rule set is very often blamed as the main reason that Epic 40,000 was so unpopular compared to 2nd edition, and at least personally I find that statement to be quite close to my own opinions (I stopped playing Epic when the 3rd edition came out, mostly because I disliked the new ruleset).
4 - Uh, all the models GW sells are in the correct numbers for E:A detachment sizes.
5 - It's better. :)


As to specific questions, any chance you could talk me through the pros and cons of a titan-heavy force? I was planning on getting a Warlord and a couple of the support reavers with the multilaunchers(not sure on what these are called any more). How does this tend to pan out in terms of a 3,000pt army?

For Epic: Armageddon you could go with the Titan Legions list and take an army that was exclusively Titan-based... which tends to be a very hard army to beat!

However if you want to do a mixed force (IG & Titans) there are currently no official rules for the non-standard configuration Titans (The ForgeWorld ones)... the closest thing would probably be This Experimental Army List (http://elf.planetquake.gamespy.com/Epic/ArmouredRegiment1.3.pdf)... as it's for an Armoured Regiment it seems right up your street!


Secondly, a modelling question more than anything else... how do you base epic models? Sand strikes me as too coarse.

I use very fine beach sand.



Finally, a model question with relation to sizes. The FW super-heavies and flyers are very different sizes to the GW ones but are they bigger or smaller? How do the FW Leman Russes and Chimerae compare to the GW ones?

In general the rule of thumb is:

SG Superheavies & Flyers are in 1:500 scale.

FW Superheavies & Flyers are in 1:300 scale.

Most of the rest of Epic is in 1:300 scale, so the FW versions are the 'correct' size (Which means they're somewhat larger than the SG versions).

Their normal tank units like Chimerae, Russ etc are all near enough the same size as the SG versions... you'll notice the improved detail and stylistic updates sooner than you'll notice any difference in size.

Gen.Steiner
07-02-2007, 17:57
My vote goes to E40K as I prefer the rules, the army list flexibility, and the feel of the game. :)

Malakai
07-02-2007, 19:56
E:A is a far superior game to Epic 40K. I would even go as far as to say I prefer it over my beloved Titan Legions days.

-Malakai

orangesm
07-02-2007, 23:21
Chaos & Evil propping up one of his works ;)

EA has a larger player base is a big thing it is also the addition supported by the community (out of the two you listed, NetEpic is alive and well).

Chaos and Evil
08-02-2007, 07:58
Chaos & Evil propping up one of his works

I am not a pimp. :D

firestorm40k
08-02-2007, 10:15
Seconding C&E and others, you'll find more support for E:A than Epic 40k.

If you want more flexibility in your army selection, I can't see why your gaming group couldn't develop somekind of house-rules whereby you can 'split' the detachments in the E:A army lists, fiddle with the upgrades, and make forces the way you want them.

However, the detachment points-values in E:A are configured according to the size/composition of the detachments, so chopping these about may cause imbalances in the rules.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't have started playing Epic if it wasn't for the E:A ruleset; although I liked the idea of having massed armies of infantry & warmachine, the Epic 40k 'Firepower' system was simply too complicated for my to get my befuddled brain round - hence I like E:A. In E:A too, a Leman Russ shoots like a Leman Russ, which is also cool. :D

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
08-02-2007, 10:53
E:A is a far superior game to Epic 40K. I would even go as far as to say I prefer it over my beloved Titan Legions days.

-Malakai


Agreed, I find E:A to be a more rounded out and realistic game personally. Epic 40k put me off for a long time until the great rules of E:A came around. Not sure if I prefer it to Titan Legions, I treasure that ol boxed game..but id say thats more nostalgia for me.

CyberShadow
08-02-2007, 12:37
As to specific questions, any chance you could talk me through the pros and cons of a titan-heavy force? I was planning on getting a Warlord and a couple of the support reavers with the multilaunchers(not sure on what these are called any more). How does this tend to pan out in terms of a 3,000pt army?

I must admit to not knowing a huge amount about Titan forces. If you are heading in this direction then E40K scores another point. Strangely, Titan rules are more detailed in E40K. In EA, Titans are treated as larger tanks. There were plans to develop the Titan rules further, but SG support got cut and that never happened. In EA Titans have a number of damage points, and a single critical effect (if you roll a six for damage). In E40K, there were a number of damage charts so that you could know bits off the Titan through the game (and watch them explode!).

Titan forces suffer from the benefits and problems that you would expect. They are likely to be out-maneuvred, and considerably out activated (in EA). They are large targets and generally small in numbers. There is a dedicated AMTL (Adeptus Mechanicus Titan Legion) list in development for EA here:

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=22

For Epic infantry, just use finer sand! ;)

Apologist
08-02-2007, 13:02
Thanks all for your input there's a lot of thoughtful posts here!
One criticism I have heard of Epic: Armageddon is that it is geared towards smaller games than Epic: 40,000. My group's interested in eventually playing great big games, with hundreds of troops and tanks, and E:40k's more abstract firepower system seems better-suited to larger games. Would this be a fair point to make?

Having only played two or three games of each system a few years back, I remember being pleased with the abstraction of weaponry into simple 'firepower', while Epic: Armageddon seemed a lot more bitty.

Pulsar
08-02-2007, 13:13
E:A is a bit bitty, but i've found it's also a bit more tactical and less long winded than E40K.

CyberShadow
08-02-2007, 14:00
It is true that E40K probably handles really large games a little better than EA. EA will work with them absolutely fine, but it will take a little longer (not much, though). The core mechanics for EA are developed of games around 3000 to 5000 points. Higher points may not be balanced in the same way.

Chaos and Evil
08-02-2007, 15:17
My gaming group played a mega-battle of 9k points per side a couple months back (Marines & Titans versus Guard & Eldar). The game seemed to go fine even at that large-scale level.

We played on an 8x4 table, and the Eldar / IG won the day. :)

nealhunt
08-02-2007, 15:38
A note on points - E40K point scale is about 1/2 - 3/4 of EA, depending on the unit. Overall, you're probably looking at roughly 2/3 the point total for similar sized forces.

If that makes a difference to you.

Overall, I think EA is a bit better but E40K is an excellent game.

The criticisms of E40K had vastly less to do with the mechanics and more to do with "culture shock" of going from detailed rules for many different units to relatively "generic" units and combined firepower with minimal special rules. BFG, which uses the same engine, didn't have the prior highly detailed (and fiddly) system to be compared with and it was a success.

Gen.Steiner
08-02-2007, 16:07
I'd just like to re-iterate my support for the abstract strategic/tactical feel of E40K. It gives a smoother game which makes you feel more like an army commander rather than a company commander or a micro-manager.

You let your detachments do the nitty-gritty of the fighting, and give sweeping orders to them instead - "Take Hill 293 by 09:20 and push on to the Baran-Hallas crossroads where you will dig in and await reinforcements."

Athmos
09-02-2007, 14:29
well, concerning big game, i'd rather play E:A, if only for the activation system. You don't spend an hour making save rolls (SM2/TL) while your opponent is playing, as in each turn, each player get to use his formation in an alternative order. I played Epic Since AT/SM, a lot of SM2/TL, didn't like E40K much, and E:A is the best for me (actually, there are elements of rules from all systems, and they work very well). Specially, the way vehicules and infantry are treated is very good (AT style, with value against vehicules or infantry), the morale take the best mecanism of E40K (blast markers), you get detailed toHit/saves from SM2/TL, and the system is probably as fluid as E40K (the way "special rules" are rationalised is great too)... to me, it's one of the best ruleset GW have ever let out.

Athmos

KTG
10-02-2007, 04:44
I've been playing Epic since Adeptus Titanicus, and I think each system has its own distinct flavor, pros, and cons. In addition, for someone to say that one rule system is better than another is really based on the kind of game someone likes to play. Epic A has its problems just as the previous versions do.

If you already have an established gaming group, and you want to play big battles, you'll probably enjoy Epic 40k more. Just flipping through the Armies Book garantees that. I've never seen GW pack so many unit stats in a game box besides Warhammer Quest. You can really play Epic 40k for the rest of your life and never get bored making armies and detachments from your bitz box.

On the other hand, if you don't have an established gaming group, then Epic A is the way to go, just because it will be .001% easier finding Epic players (given the state Epic is in). There are only a few core armies, and after a few games your 3000 army really starts to look boring and there isn't much you can add/subtract from your army to really re-invent it. You'll hear someone say, add this formation, etc, but in the end your four Land Raiders are always going to stick together and there is nothing you can do about that. And I don't care what people say about fan supported army lists; I don't use them. If they aren't official GW rules then I don't waste my time. And I am not fond of .pdf files.

If anyone ever says that Epic 40k is bland or too simple, then they have never played the game before. While I love the grit of AT/SM1 for example, and having different stats for a Melta-gun or a Plasma gun, it does take awhile to play out, and in reality really should make very little difference in the outcome of a gun fight. I really think on an Epic scale the firepower rating does give the best representation of what your detachment is capable of.

And of all the systems, Epic 40k has the best Warmachine rules, whether it is a Warlord or a Baneblade. At the same time I hate Epic 40k's firefight rules, and how two 20 unit detachments can fight it our and one will only suffer one casualty and flee. But that is my real only problem with the system. It is by far the most complete Epic system in a box.

Minister
10-02-2007, 23:04
A thought which does occur: would the opinion of the populace at large be that an army selection more in the style of Epic 40K would make Epic Armageddon a better game? Not for tournaments, where the limited selections helps avoid you happening to have a big ol' rock when your opponent brought a load of scisors, but for friendly games?

Also, an related if somewhat off-topic note (yet not worth a thread on its own), what sort of experience systems (if any) have people been using for campaigns?

KTG
11-02-2007, 06:29
To answer part one, I was actually one of the first on the Epic A playtesting team when it was started, and in my early recommendations I described something like the Epic A army lists are now because of how long it took for players to create detachments on the fly in Epic 40k, and that something in the middle should be developed, like having a Tactical Detachment get a Chaplin upgrade for example, or a dreadnought. While I credit the Epic 40k armies book for being so flexible, it doesn't work for quick drop and go games or tournaments. But to be honest I could careless about tournaments since I never play in them. I hate them. I play with friends or I don't play at all. In my groups it was easy to say, come back tomorrow with a 1000 point army. They did the math at home, or tweaked over lists during the week.

But at the same time, I did love SM2/TL simplicity of creating armies. All you had to do was add up the cards. For some reason though I've never gotten tired of SM2/TL though. I guess because a 3000 point army in SM2/TL is far larger than a 3000 point Epic A army, so there is just more variety.

At the same time, while detachments were suggested in AT/SM, individual points were given and players were encouraged to come up with their own detachment designs.

I just think it depends on the players. My biggest thing was how boring the Space Marines felt and played in Epic A, and they tend to be the first army I start with, and then I collect them all. I literally have sizable armies for every army for every previous system of Epic, so I know how they all feel. And with no support for official army lists coming from GW, you basically have 6 published armies with two of them being something that could have been released in Fanatic magazine and not in the Swordwind supplement. Chaos or the Tau should have come out in place of the Baran Seigemasters and the Feral Orks.

So there is another plus for the Epic 40k army book. It has everything, except the Necrons and Tau, and I can play just about any Epic mini just as it is, and not as a 'count as'. You want a daemon army for chaos? Got it. Want a space marine armored division? Got it. Want Titans only? Got it. Want Eldar Flyers only??? Got it. Want Feral orks? Got it. And it goes on and on.

orangesm
11-02-2007, 15:08
In EA the flexibility of detachments relates to the Army List a lot of the time and a Marine Tactical detachment can take a Chaplain and a Dreadnought (or 2). Yes progress is slow to officially release army list. Chaos should be getting 2 army list by the end of the month a Black Legion list and a Cult list as pdfs, because they will probably just be the list.

The armies that do not have official list yet, like the Tau and Tyranids are in development - open development, which you can take part. Both are a fairly solid right now but are still in play-test mode. If you want titans there are 3 list for titan focused armies in development, Adeptus Titanicus, Orkimedies, and a unique Eldar list.

There are Epic minis that are not found in Epic 40k, like the Stormblade and Stormsword from FW. These have rules in the EA collectors section. The list are largely for Tournament play and if you want to create a scenario or have a campaign you can organize your forces however you think they should be organized.

BlackLegion
11-02-2007, 16:19
I started Epic with E40k. It was a fun game but ihated the silly firefights with only 1 casualty at maximum. The firepowertable was dull also. All units felt the same nothing felt special.
Now i pla E:A and never got back to E40k. The only things i miss in E:A are the detailed damage tables for Titans and War engines.

Gaz Taylor
11-02-2007, 20:07
Seeing how you can get Epic:A for free, why not try both systems and make your own mind up. I personally prefer Epic:A as while Epic:40k has flexible lists and works a bit better in larger battles, Epic:A 'feels' better.

DhaosAndy
11-02-2007, 20:59
I would agree with Gen.Steiner, in that I find Epic40K the better game as it gives the feel of being a general officer rather than a micromanager.
Not that I haven't enjoyed all the epic systems but, Epic40K is definately my favourite and by quite a long way too.

danwilkie
12-02-2007, 10:34
There's no AA defence, but since my opponents (two ork players and two space marine player) don't have any aircraft, this shouldn't be a problem.


In the interest of fairness, I should point out thats not STRICTLY true... My marines have a bunch of air support, and so will Chris's Orkses... Just so you're prepared ;)

Apologist
12-02-2007, 10:40
Really? Gits!

Well, I'll have to source some Hydras... or failing that, choke your guns under piles of bodies.

...

Very Big Piles, presumably.

danwilkie
12-02-2007, 16:16
Its been a while since I've played Epic, but from memory the best counter to enemy aircraft as an Imperial player was a squadron of Thunderbolts on Intercept... Thats certainly my intention anyway which is why I only have a pair of hydra's for defending my artillery. Its got the added advantage that you can send them on ground attack missions once the enemy flyers have been eliminated which is a flexibility you don't get with Hydra's.

Half Eldar
17-02-2007, 23:54
Both are excellent games, really. E40k does give you a little bit more of a feel of being a commander watching blips move about; something that is distinctly different about E:A is that while the army lists are not bitty the models are when they hit the table.

My beef with E:A is simply that it is hard to collate all the rules and keep track of them, what is updated, and so on. E40k is a very complete system out of the box - sadly a box I can no longer find and I curse a friend of mine for not buying it with me years ago. If you have the rules for E40k, and heck, even the Epic and Firepower mags, if you feel like, you really have got all you might need, and it is all contained.

KTG
18-02-2007, 23:00
It is amazing how much bitching everyone did when Epic 40k first came out (firepower rating????), especially by those that really never played it. Now it seems to get more nods for being such a complete game out of the box at a time when it is virtually impossible, if not expensive, to start playing SM2/TL from scratch, or being frustrated by lack of options for Epic A.

I picked up two Epic 40k box sets for less than $20 on Ebay just cause they were so cheap a few years ago when Epic was dying, and now I see the same box set selling for around $100, even when you can download Epic A for free.

orangesm
18-02-2007, 23:03
Part of that is that the Epic 40k set does come with a good wide range of minis and the Epic Sprue Terrain and so is good for either EA or Epic 40k.

Chaos and Evil
19-02-2007, 14:41
As a self-contained boxed set the E40k-era set is one of the best GW have ever produced, purely due to the number and variety of different models and scenery pieces it contains.

Dwarf Supreme
19-02-2007, 18:44
As a self-contained boxed set the E40k-era set is one of the best GW have ever produced, purely due to the number and variety of different models and scenery pieces it contains.

I agree. I don't like the E40k rules, but the boxed set was a great value.

Chaos and Evil
20-02-2007, 11:08
Oh yes... noone keeps the rulebooks... but all those lovely minis... :D

Gen.Steiner
20-02-2007, 16:55
Oh yes... noone keeps the rulebooks...

I kept the rulebooks. E:A just isn't my cup of tea, I'm afraid.

MaxORK
21-02-2007, 22:00
I think Epic:40k really lost the feeling of Space marine, which was the first game I played (way back in the day). I think because of this I lost interest in it. I loved the micromanage abilities of Space marine and I am so happy it is back in E:A.

As for Titan rules well;
A. They were better in Space Marine than they were in Epic:40k

&

B. They are bringing new Titan rules to the E:A system.

So the only way is up...Baby!

KTG
22-02-2007, 01:19
No way. The best thing about Epic 40k WAS the war engine rules. Everything about them was listed on a single data card. I started out on AT/SM too, and while I loved the detail for it's time, ever play a game with tanks, infantry, and 5-6 Titans on each side??? It took us 5 nights to play out. We didn't know any better and had fun, but now I would never go through that again.

SM2/TL was a bit of a joke with the titan hit dice, and are the only real gripe I have about the game. Really retarded. The only thing more retarded was the clear template for targeting vehicles in the Rogue Trader days. That was real ********** retarded. But nevertheless in SM2/TL they still retained their variety in the different weapons they could be armed with, and had a nice feel on the battlefield. A definate improvement in the speed it took to play them in the previous version.

Epic 40k may have limited the variety of weapons, but all of the important ones were there. Even playing a small game with just a Reaver, you could feel the Reaver on the table. Then there is still the variety of damage it takes and how it responds to it, and each titan/war engine responds differently. By far my favorite rules. Not too much detail, yet just enough to make things different each time you play them.

Then Epic A comes along and limits the weapons to what is on the model being produced and that's it. And one critical hit response. May speed up the game but Titans just feel like big tanks. I spend $30 and I get that?? If they are changing the rules then it just confirms how right I am.

Epic started out as a game about Titans, and was turned into a game about armies in SM2/TL. I really wished there had been more focus on the Titans in Epic Air War. They are the centerpiece of any army and Jervis blew it stripping down their flavor.

Oh wait I forgot he wanted to do AT3. Please. Don't give me a seperate Titan game. Don't give me an Epic game focusing on mass infantry and vehicles. And don't give me that ridiculous Epic Air War game either. Give me everything in one game. Epic 40k did that the best.

Gen.Steiner
22-02-2007, 10:25
Yeh. What KTG said. :)

BlackLegion
22-02-2007, 21:10
Sorry, but the rules for flyers in E40k where retarded. You placed them on the table, rolled attacks and removed them.
No need to even buy the models. It was a "Look these are my bombers, now i put them back in the transporting case because i don't need the models to play."

KTG
22-02-2007, 22:32
As opposed to what? Running around as skimmers on the table??? Please I hope you don't really believe that. Have you ever seen modern combat footage of aircraft straffing or bombing? Most targets dont even know they are being bombed until they are hit. They are usually hit from so high up they don't hear the engines until they pass. How can you play out arial combat on a piece of terrain that represents about 1km??? Are they going to fly circles around the table??? Come on. I hope you can see how ridiculous that is. Oh crap, he's veering off the table edge! Does that means he's sucked into the warp?

Flyers in SM2/TL behaved more like helicopters than fighters and bombers, and for the purposes of skimmers flying around, I don't see how different they would be than Land Speeders or Falcons. The only exception was the Squat Overlord, which I admit I liked, but for the purposes of realistic aircraft rules it had the best.

So Epic 40k had a very realistic concept of air-to-ground attacks, and even resolving air-to-air as well. Epic is more of a game of land combat, and it's rules for aircraft are always going to be akward. The only part really unrealistic was the speed they re-armed. If you wanted to be really realistic, they wouldn't have had time to come back, as most games were decided by the 4th turn. Even still, you could say the time in-between was for waiting on target info.

So yeah, you could do without any of the flyers if you wanted, but people like the models.

So I suppose you hate the orbital support in Epic A too, since you really don't need an Imperial Cruiser cause it'll never appear on the table-top?

MaxORK
22-02-2007, 23:59
On the air subject I have to agree with KTG, there is no way of making realistic use of air on the table as a constant, I love the Zzooooming over the battlefield thing I think thats ace!


Back to epic40k Vs. The best :D

The main problem I had with Epik 40k was that the FEEL of the game was lost for me, by getting rid of all the specific guns and replacing them with firepower I thought really lost the feel!
I know your argument is that all the 'essential' weapons were displayed with different stats, but you are refering to Titan weapons and things like death strikes.
So to combat that argument E:A is coming up with a new system for adjustable Titan weapons & Titan damage, also you can custom make certain titans to your whim & there are now several varients of titans available so you can buy the custom job you want. If you want the ability to adjust Titan weapons so you can tailor make your force to destroy a different kind of enemy then I say SIR, PLEASE!

So if your saying Epic 40k was a greater game because it had a Titans that really stood out, thats great but may you eat your words and wash them down with hush juice when the new E:A titan rules are released.

...Which should be 2019...& I'll be dead!

Chaos and Evil
23-02-2007, 10:51
'Reaver' was working on an expanded damage tables set for Epic 4th edition that I've been using for months in friendly games (With a minor modification that changed damage results that reduced the number of turns to reducing the overall speed, and change the speed/turns table into 10cm divisions... these changes are going to go into the next version of the rules Reaver compiles).

http://elf.planetquake.gamespy.com/Epic/AT-EACoreRules.pdf


We (My gaming group) use the damage tables in conjunction with the Modular Titan Weapons list:

http://elf.planetquake.gamespy.com/Epic/AM2.11.pdf


When used together, these two documents make for some very cool games that may be what you're looking for!

Malakai
24-02-2007, 02:09
Good stuff C&E. I'll be trying that out next chance I get.

-Malakai

feintstar
17-06-2007, 07:56
Just a query from an epic newbie, do Tau etc. exist in the Epic40K rules format? Where would you find the rules? Is that in the Taros Campaign Forgeworld thingy? Are they any good?

Having never played either, my opinion doesn't count for much, but I'd have to side with the Epic 40Kers. Why? I'm an armchair general, not an armchair captain. I don't think it should matter whether my falcon is armed with a scatterlaser or a starcannon - I'm irritated by micromanagement, which is one of the main reasons I'm fairly uninterested in RTS games.

Furthermore, the detatchments in Epic40K look like 40k armies in their own right, as they should. They provide a truly combined arms approach, which it ultimately ought to - Those EA formations of 6 FirePrisms just look a little odd to me. 6 Fire Prisms plus 2 falcons loaded with aspect warriors and vypers flying in formation - that's more like it.

On the flip side, the Epic40K firefight rules sound daft. Yet the actions system in EA confuses me - I can't comment cos i don't know it yet...

A really interesting conversation though guys, well food for thought.

CyberShadow
17-06-2007, 09:23
Hi. If you are an E40K player, you should take a look here:

http://www.epic40k.co.uk/rules/epic/epicindex.html#tau

The Tau never appeared officially in Epic40K. However, there is an army list for them in the old Epic Magazine, numbers 9 and 10.

You may need to keep an eye out for them on eBay.

All the best.

hereticdave
18-06-2007, 18:04
So dare i take the comparison one step further to include NetEpic in the comparison?

I see some here have already written that if its' not GW they'll not play it but as a noob on the Epic side of things as well it seems to have a fair following along with complete army lists.

Sojourner
19-06-2007, 09:51
I've never played a proper game of either, only some fiddling about with tanks and odds and ends, but I preferred the presentation of Epic 40k. It just seems less...fussy, than Epic A. It's like *blam* "Oh, eight tanks down. Damn." - unconcerned and distanced commanding rather than up close and personal like Armageddon. I am habitually suspicious of any stats that look like they can be...exploited - and the more stats there are, the more potential there is for a player to spot a way of using a game mechanic in a way that isn't in the spirit of the thing. Not cheating, and not even bearding exactly, just a way of using game logic that happens to spoil the atmosphere.

Bombot
19-06-2007, 11:13
I'm not aware of much of that going on in E:A. Some units are better value for the points than others but you get that in all games.

LordoftheMilk
21-06-2007, 18:06
I am a bit biased.

SM/TL was what got me started in wargames , and so I still keep a particular fondness for that game. When Epic 40k came out I was thrilled. I tried out the system and I thought the core system was quite interesting, fluid, and challenging.

After a lot more play, we realised the system was completely imbalanced. Space Marines were just the best army by very far, Eldars were just too fragile, IG infantry was worthless, etc. Mostly due with the fact that armor was the to-hit requirement, with no save for the vast majority of units.

What finally did it, was when we realised that he best army out there was simply X times Land Raider. Just make armies with maximised amounts of Land raiders, some flyers, and you would win versus anything. That's the best Epic 40k army, period. What's the point of a game so simplified, that it's imbalanced and that there is a single unit you can take without any limitation that just owns any other army composition?

E:A has the most impressive, challenging, well-thought rule set of all the versions, with a tad of bittyness (no where compared to 40k or WFB for that matter), that still allows for huge battles in little time.

I Vote Epic: Armageddon!

Sojourner
22-06-2007, 12:53
Milk, heaven forbid that you actually exercise some self-control and play with armies that are interesting and balanced for the sake of a fun game, rather than minmaxing to hell and exploiting the system! Who's fault is it that you play the game in a way that isn't fun? Land Raiders are supposed to be all-powerful - which is just as well since a balanced, realistic space marine army would have a maximum of half a dozen and quite possibly none at all.

Dwarf Supreme
22-06-2007, 16:36
So dare i take the comparison one step further to include NetEpic in the comparison?

I see some here have already written that if its' not GW they'll not play it but as a noob on the Epic side of things as well it seems to have a fair following along with complete army lists.

NetEpic is fan-created, based on SM2/TL. If you like SM2/TL, you'll probably like NetEpic even more. I view it as an enhancement. Some of the quirks have been smoothed out. The biggest change is that players alternate when moving detachments. Also, order counters aren't revealed until a detachment actually does something. However, as you mentioned, a lot of players won't even consider it since it doesn't have GW's official stamp of approval.

LordoftheMilk
22-06-2007, 19:10
Milk, heaven forbid that you actually exercise some self-control and play with armies that are interesting and balanced for the sake of a fun game, rather than minmaxing to hell and exploiting the system! Who's fault is it that you play the game in a way that isn't fun? Land Raiders are supposed to be all-powerful - which is just as well since a balanced, realistic space marine army would have a maximum of half a dozen and quite possibly none at all.

Sure you can add House rule self limitations...

That doesnt change the fact that the core system is so simplified that troop type choices are nearly irrelevant, and that the armies have no balance against themselves!

Have you ever played the game?

Capt_Ithuriel
02-07-2007, 01:37
I am a huge fan of Epic: Armageddon because of one thing: Objectives. The game is about victory conditions, not just rolling dice. Just lining up across from your opponent and shooting until dead is not only not the best way to win, but is more than likely going to cause you to lose. That was the problem with E:40k, Marines (esp land raiders) were just hands down better at the number-crunching dice rolling that wiping out the other side was a viable strategy.

I also like how in E:A that a "firefight" between two forces is suppose to coincide with a game of 40k, so if you wanted to be really crazy (like our group was) you could "zoom in" and play games of 40k to represent what was going on. It took forever, but was a great load of fun.

smaul
19-07-2011, 20:52
The armies that do not have official list yet, like the Tau and Tyranids are in development - open development, which you can take part. Both are a fairly solid right now but are still in play-test mode.

where can we get a copy of these lists and will they be making figs for them does anyone know?

currently my 11 year old son and I are going to play 2nd edition SM, but Id be willing to move to EA if they support it with figs and some product.

Its near impossible for me to find Tyranids for my son so he can field a small army right now. :(

Chaos and Evil
19-07-2011, 21:23
You should drop on over to the Tactical Command web forum:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/index.php

It's the most active Epic forum on the web.

Arnizipal
20-07-2011, 11:06
Thread closed for four-year threadomancy.

Arnizipal,

++ The Warseer Moderation Team ++