Specialist Arms Forum
Epic => [Epic] Epic Armageddon & Epic 40K Discussion => Topic started by: Steel Rabbit on November 06, 2010, 03:50:10 AM
-
Just curious to see what version everyone prefers. Post your reasons why, too (if you feel like it...)
I'm not familiar with the non-GW Epics so forgive me if I missed one other than Net Epic and Heresy. I've combined some of the editions if you feel that playing with both of them enhanced the game, or the editions are listed by themselves if you played them so.
-
For me its Epic Armageddon but only because I dont know the others. :)
-
Indeed. I got in at E:A so simple choice there.
(11k+ of IG
8k+ of Orks
8k+ of Eldar
and 5k+ of Space Marines.)
-
I preferred the rules simplicity of SM/TL. Until it got to the point where every unit had some new special rule. But the core rules were great.
I'm not familiar with all the choices above.
-
In order, mine would be:
EA
E40K
SM/TL
I've never played NetEpic, though from what I've read, they fixed all the things that made me think SM/TL is a weak game. If I had someone around who was interested, I would probably give it a try.
-
I posed this question because, though Epic is my favorite wargame of them all, I've been having a bit of a crisis regarding it lately. I think Epic Armageddon is the most solid version of the game (an already solid series), and I enjoy playing it, but in my eyes it's incomplete. Why they decided to fill Swordwind with another guard and ork army instead of finishing off Chaos and the Tyranids is beyond me. That is, precisely, the problem. All those experimental rules were nice, but at the end of the day I enjoy holding a finished project.
I said as much to my game group (which includes a Chaos and Tyranid player), and we've decided to try out NetEpic as an alternative (what with us not having any of the old Space Marine/Titan Legions stuff, and Epic 40,000 being too simplistic for our tastes). Worst case scenario: we go back to playing Epic Armageddon with the trial rules for two of our players, which isn't that bad at all; Best case scenario: we find a system of Epic that is (in our eyes) complete and fun to play.
-
When GW moved over to the new template they forgot to bring over the EA Chaos lists (BL and LatD). Those were "official" and I have them if you'd like them.
Tyranids never got to "official/finished", but the list is up on TacComms:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=15112
The latest BL and LatD lists are there too:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=19001
Epic: Xenos will have a Phase III Tyranid list in it along with a Squat, Demiurg and Ordos Xenos list. It won't be official but it will be a fan-made, hard-copy product.
-
Interesting. I never heard of Epic: Xeno.
I think the problem was also that the .pdfs just looked so lame, and didn't include many of the older models my game group owns. At least NetEpic has pictures and is in color. I'll keep an eye out for that book you mentioned, though. And thanks alot for the links!
-
The plan, at this point, is to publish it next August. PDFs should be available well before then though.
-
You may like to check out Epic:Raiders:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/epic/raiders.html
And Epic: Siege:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/epic/siege.html
Both are available in downloadable or printed form.
-
I do have 2 opinions/requests for Epic A:
Space Marine 2nd Ed introduced a whole wealth of new units into the game that had direct effect on the game for many years to come. Epic A has carried on this tradition to a small degree, but one of the most frustrating things that I remember is that there were models released for Exodite Eldar. There is a Savage Ork list that was published in Sword wind, but no Exodites? Honestly! What a missed opportunity.
You have the molds, you have the miniatures, why not dust them off and release them GW?
Again, in 2nd ed Knights were released in the 1990s. There has been a resurgence of interest in Knights since the release of Mechanicum the book and the popularity of Apocalypse. Why are Eldar and Imperial Knights not back in the game yet?
Again, you have the molds, why not dust them off and blister them again?
A simple request from a man who was fond of his 1990s space marine games. Thanks.
-
You have the molds, you have the miniatures, why not dust them off and release them GW?
Actually, they don't. Many years ago GW had a big purge, where they destroyed a bunch of old molds and the bronzes/greens. Exodites and Knights were among the molds destroyed.
Also, some of the models really weren't all that great. Since quality is big part of GWs branding plan, I suspect they'd rather keep them off the market than sell weak minis. The damage to their image wouldn't be worth the money they'd make. They would want to re-sculpt them to bring them up to their more recent standards, which is cost-prohibitive for something that doesn't sell any more than Epic does.
If you're interested in Epic Armageddon, there are fan lists for Exodites available on the EpiComms boards. There are also several lines of 6mm "dino-rider" models that could be used to kit-bash an exodite force. Several people have.
There is also an ongoing Adeptus Mechanicus list development at EpicCmms that covers imperial knight armies. I'm sure your input would be welcome.
Finally, there is an Eldar Titan Legions list available that makes use of the Eldar Knight models. It's probably the roughest of those I mentioned, but if you just want friendly games it should work. As with the others, I'm sure your input would be welcomed.
-
For me its Epic Armageddon but only because I dont know the others. :)
Same here...
-
I started with the original AT and worked my way through to EpicA (yes I'm old ;) ) and I have to say that as much as I enjoy playing EpicA it's SM2 that I have the fondest memories of because there were just so many armies and units in the game. Each unit felt useful (we'll ignore Madboyz ;) ), and you could vary your armies quite a bit and still have close battles. I think the best thing was the system scaled to HUGE battles reasonably easily. I still feel that EpicA, as solid a ruleset as it is, is still a bit bland. Ok it's not Epic40k levels of bland but it still seems to be missing something in terms of flavour.
So, there we go. :)
And as a noob to this forum I have to say that the post verification is a huge pain!
-
And as a noob to this forum I have to say that the post verification is a huge pain!
Yes, but it is just the first post. From then on we are more willing to accept that you are not a robot.
I have to throw my hat in with EA as well. For me, Epic has been a wildly swinging pendulum until the latest version.
First edition was a great game, and something extremely strategic, and was a game that you could completely immerse yourself in, but the depth and slow play made it's appeal very limited. It's probably my second favourite version.
Second edition is the one that I am least familiar with. I was out of wargaming largely at this point, and the bright colours that 40K was going through and the utter lack of detail in Epic miniatures just turned me away (see, for example, the second edition Vindictators). It seemed to react to the deep detail of first edition and reflect the younger focus of GW at the time by making the game more cartoony. Also, from reports, I feel that the game became about individuals leading units, not the units so much, and I have always been a fan of massed blocks of standard troops and the strategy in this type of battle.
Third edition gets a lot of bad press. In my opinion, the issue with third edition is that GW were attempting to appeal to the non-Epic players, and that was the biggest problem. They wanted a strategic game that played fast and brought across the movement of units across a battlefield and looked at things at a macro level. If you view third edition in the same way that a documentary on any WWII battle is viewed - movements, battalions destroyed, strategic goals - then it's a great game. However, the existing Epic player base largely played it because of the 40K background and the cinema, and this macro view watered down a lot of the specific issues that they enjoyed, while non-Epic players who may have liked it didn't even look at it because it was Epic. I think that the game would have done really well if it was called something else or produced by a different company. My third favourite version.
Epic Armageddon finally finds a happy medium for a lot of people. The game doesn't play as quickly as third edition, has less detail than first edition and has less cinema centric character moments than second edition, but at the same time it plays quick enough to be fluid, has enough detail to clearly be from the 40K background (and in many ways reflects the 40K background betted than 40K itself) and has epic moments when formations clash in battle.
-
Yes, but it is just the first post. From then on we are more willing to accept that you are not a robot.
Gotcha. :)
First edition was a great game, and something extremely strategic, and was a game that you could completely immerse yourself in, but the depth and slow play made it's appeal very limited. It's probably my second favourite version.
First edition was great and I loved watching the system grow through WD but the speed of play was a killer for my group at that time playing in the evening. Second edition allowed enormous battles that could play out in 2-3 hours with 2-4 players.
Second edition is the one that I am least familiar with. I was out of wargaming largely at this point, and the bright colours that 40K was going through and the utter lack of detail in Epic miniatures just turned me away (see, for example, the second edition Vindictators). It seemed to react to the deep detail of first edition and reflect the younger focus of GW at the time by making the game more cartoony. Also, from reports, I feel that the game became about individuals leading units, not the units so much, and I have always been a fan of massed blocks of standard troops and the strategy in this type of battle.
The "red" phase at GW and some of the resculpts at that time weren't great, interestingly GW is going through that phase again with very toy like sculpts and paint jobs. I actually own a few of those old breeze block Vindicators, they're *ok* when painted but not a patch on the original first edition sculpts. They are probably the ugliest model from that era though.
As a game second edition did have a number of individuals and special characters but they never swayed the battle that much it was still about hoards of infantry and companies of tanks but it did feel cinematic. I guess the nearest comparison now is it felt a lot like an early RTS game played out with models.
Third edition gets a lot of bad press. In my opinion, the issue with third edition is that GW were attempting to appeal to the non-Epic players, and that was the biggest problem. They wanted a strategic game that played fast and brought across the movement of units across a battlefield and looked at things at a macro level. If you view third edition in the same way that a documentary on any WWII battle is viewed - movements, battalions destroyed, strategic goals - then it's a great game. However, the existing Epic player base largely played it because of the 40K background and the cinema, and this macro view watered down a lot of the specific issues that they enjoyed, while non-Epic players who may have liked it didn't even look at it because it was Epic. I think that the game would have done really well if it was called something else or produced by a different company. My third favourite version.
With Epic40k I think GW were trying to revitalise the system by giving it a radical overhaul/streamline in a similar manner to what they did with 40kV3 and it didn't appeal to many people for the reasons you point out. Our group found it to be too radical a change, we didn't particularly like the mechanics and it didn't take the game where a lot of us wanted the game to go.
The models from that era are absolutely superb though, easily the best GW ever produced imo (I do still rate, and own, a lot of the first edition models).
Epic Armageddon finally finds a happy medium for a lot of people. The game doesn't play as quickly as third edition, has less detail than first edition and has less cinema centric character moments than second edition, but at the same time it plays quick enough to be fluid, has enough detail to clearly be from the 40K background (and in many ways reflects the 40K background betted than 40K itself) and has epic moments when formations clash in battle.
Spot on.
I guess on the bright side there are four official different versions of the game out there and we can still play whichever version we like. :)
-
I loved the second edition of Space Marine personally. I grew up with it, played the most games with it, and, prior to the release of Titan Legions, and the Tyranid expansion, I felt that it was reasonably well balanced (as far as second edition games of any type went), and very enjoyable to play.
I agree that Epic Armageddon does a good job of balancing second edition and Epic 40K, in that the rules are more streamlined, yet the diversity is maintained, so in many respects it's definitely a better game. There are still some areas which I find overly complicated though (e.g. Flyers), and I still have that soft spot for second edition.
-
For me its Epic Armageddon but only because I dont know the others. :)
Same opinion for me.