Should I get involved with Epic Armageddon (or BFG?)

[Snakeb1te]

Eldar
OH I SEE! The boxsets are much like the Baneblade boxset where it comes with different parts for different variants. I didn't realise some ships would come with different parts to choose from. I've taken a better look at the different PDFs. The IN seem to have ready made ships to choose from, Craftworld Eldar have a standard ship and a section on the profile where you have to "choose a prow weapon." The Corsairs have their variety on another page, not on the main profiles, like wargear on the codices. In this case yes then I would agree that there is variety after all. I'd do well to look at army lists to better gauge variety.

That entire Eldar section has really cleared things up for me, I understand them far better now and am in a better position to relay all that to my housemate come army choice time. Golden job thankyou!

Dark Eldar just look crappy. Its k. xD

Tau
Cheers for going ahead and pointing me to the old fleet list I'll have a look around sooner or later.

2010 PDFs
Well if most members agree that they're accepted (I will always check rules before games anyway, I do so even with w40k) then I will accept them too.

I was going to ask about the variety in Necron/Tyranid fleets, but I've had a look myself and noticed the different customisation options there so I don't need to ask anymore.

IN CONCLUSION:

Thanks to all you lovely people I've got all the information I need on BFG in order choose:

- Where to find all rules, including extra FW Tau (with linked fleet list PDF), and massively expanded lists on as of yet unofficial PDFs
- What I can do with the boxes I buy
- The cheaper more accessible armies
- And most importantly, a brief outlook on BFG and how its developed to where it is now, and how it could be in the future (when I am part of it).

As far as BFG is concerned I've got nothing more to ask. I will now keep all this and do a little looking around for the same info regarding Epic: Armageddon, which appears to suffer with even less races, and army lists. I may just postpone that if I manage to convince my housemate to start with BFG for the moment and decide on Epic in a year or two.

Once again, a big thanks to all here. You'll see me again soon, whether it be enquiring about Epic or starting on BFG.

I'll be quietly looking around these forums until then.

[carlisimo_2]

I’ve been playing BFG for a few years and I’ve gotten into Epic recently.  Both are fantastic; while 40k is a great hobby, these two are great games. 

They feel nothing alike though.  Units in Epic can move quite quickly, whereas ships in BFG are slow enough that you need to have a plan and stick to it from the start.  I’m not saying you can do well in Epic without a plan, but you’ll just plain embarrass yourself in BFG if you try to wing it.  BFG games feel more specific, like they’re one small part (the decisive part) of a major battle.  Epic has more back-and-forth, and it feels like a slower-paced game despite the typical match being just three turns.  I have to say I get more of a “general with a God’s eye view” feel from Epic.  Alternating activations helps here, but it’s also because in BFG fleets need to act as one body.  In Epic you’re going after objectives spread all over the board.

The Epic community is strong, but it’s all at the Tactical Command forum (TacComs).  Because GW only released a few official lists, there have been a lot of fan-developed lists (and continuous but tiny revisions to the originals, sometimes with Jervis Johnson’s blessings).  With all due respect, I prefer their approach* to fan-made units and army lists.  They’re more conservative and true to the designers’ original intent, and have refrained from filling in the gaps in any army lists’ capabilities.  They also have quite a few people actually creating models and making them available – they could keep the game going if GW and FW stopped all production.  There are also 6mm miniatures by other companies that work as proxies for a couple of armies.  Unlike non-GW spacecraft, many of them fit in reasonably well, in terms of style.  There’s more available on eBay too, because various versions of Epic have been around since the early ‘90s and they actually sold very well back then. 

*To be precise, the Epic community is split (in a friendly way) even though they’re all present in the same forums.  NetEA is the most prolific and inventive when it comes to changing old lists and writing new ones, and their army lists are the most commonly used in American Epic tournaments (though it’s not really a US-based group).  EpicUK writes re-balanced lists for the UK tournament scene and is more conservative.  FERC does the same in French for France and Belgium.  NetEPIC is totally different – their rules are based on 2nd edition Epic rather than Epic: Armageddon.

On the other hand, BFG has Warp Rift!  Maybe it’s because there’s less overlap with 40k, but the BFG community is strong and seems to have a bigger and more unified presence than Epic’s.  It’s more willing to make big changes, some of which are great (Eldar MMS) and that makes up for the things I’m not such a big fan of (many of the new ships).  It must said that it’s harder to tweak BFG; it’s a tougher and sometimes more awkward game to work with.  The different fleets play much more differently from each other, so balance is a greater challenge.  (The variety in Epic is bland in comparison, though that helps keep things even.)  BFG is also a very pretty game, with a beautifully distinctive aesthetic.  More stylized.  It’s cheaper, terrain is easier to build, and small games are a lot of fun.  Epic isn’t a good fit for skirmishes; no one plays fewer than 2,000 points and 3k is the norm. 

Whatever you end up doing, you’ll enjoy it. 

[Snakeb1te]

I thought no voice would speak out for Epic! I'm glad you posted, thanks for your carefully thought out post.

I'll start off by saying that whether one game has a larger community than the oher matters little to me as I am interested only in friendly battles with my housemate. The only reason it matters at all to me is because the one with the largest community indicates to me which one is more complete out of the specialist games, which I have to say is quite influential to me as I too am not keen on fanmade rules.

Both are fantastic; while 40k is a great hobby, these two are great games.

 

Very interesting quote here. Indeed the gaming part of the hobby is more important to me than really the painting and the miniatures themselves. I'm a wargamer.

So as I said I don't really like fanmade rules, although I've been reassured by Horizon that the 2010 PDFs submitted to GW are generally accepted by most of the BFG community, so in this case I'm not going to stand by GW and claim that they are invalid and until made official. I'm content with that.

Epic is another story however. The extended BFG rules are merely adding in a few nice little tidbits to the wargame, the epic fanmade rules stretch as far as creating rules for the races never even mentioned by GW. Necrons were never part of the range and yet the rules have been made from scratch to incorporate them. I must say I'm not too comfortable with that.

What this means is that for me then, there are only 4 Epic races with good range miniatures and complete army lists. Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Eldar and Orks. I would have been pleased if the Tau from IA3 were included, but it seems those models are no longer sold, so I guess they're gone (I don't really want a whole army of proxies either though perhaps I'll change my mind.) I'll have to consider whether I want these armies against my friend's guard. The only ones I really do NOT want  are the orks, I wouldn't mind the others.


Having played both then, out of interest which is cheaper?

[Carrington]

The counterpoint to your concern about 'fan-made' army lists is that the Epic rules are nicely balanced for tournaments, and these happen fairly often.

As such, a significant number of them are well-tested, some of them more rigorously-tested than GW's 'vanilla' or RAW (rules as written) products.  Further, the Taccomms board has, in many cases, made this testing fairly transparent: vis the ongoing debate over Tyranid Hive fleet Onachus (currently crawling toward version 0.4 after repeated exposure to the game table).

As to the Necrons, check out: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=12551 to get a sense of the flavor of the army, and take a look at the (free download) PDF for Epic Raiders (Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Minervan Armored Legions) http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/epic/raiders2.zip

Also, in terms of available sci-fi miniatures:

www.darkrealmminiatures.com
www.exoduswars.com
www.microworldgames.com
www.plasmablastgames.com
and
khurasanminiatures.tripod.com

The tactical command boards give good reviews on these minis.

[Snakeb1te]

Which tournaments?

Yes perhaps you're right. I do have some sort of mental block from letting me accept fan made rules. I'm not sure why I think GW does such a better job than everyone else when these people are doing it for free and GW not.

Having said that, if like the people in BFG you give me a set of rules which are used by the majority of the Epic community in competitive environments such as the tournaments in Nottingham I will reconsider. I do after all understand that its about the fun to be had. I just dont feel too comfortable swearing loyalty to a product made by internet dudes on a forum who could be being biased towards their army. I argue about the interpretation of rules with a real fire, and to do that I have to believe in them and that they're worth it.

Sorry if that kind of approach sounds a little insane over a game, but some of us were born to be Chaplains or Commissars xD.

[carlisimo_2]

BFG can be cheaper, particularly if you make use of the plastic cruisers for the Imperial Navy or Chaos.  You can buy a well-balanced 1500pt fleet for less than $150, sometimes even less.  Many players are happy at 1500 points.

In Epic the plastic infantry boxes  also offer great points-per-dollar values, especially for Space Marine and Eldar armies, but they make up a smaller part of a balanced army.  You can make an unbalanced 3,000pt army for $150 (just for those two armies; IG or Orks would cost more), but you’d be better off budgeting at least $200.  And Epic has so many unit types that you’ll be sorely tempted to get much more than that.  

Regarding officiality… I’ve been deleting and rewriting this paragraph a few times now because I don’t know how to word it quite right, especially because I haven’t participated in rules or list development.  I hope everyone can take these words with a grain of salt.  

I feel more comfortable with the rules and fan development in Epic.  The core rules are more refined (it’s the 4th edition of GW’s 6mm game, after all) and there’s less variety between armies and fewer special rules.  That makes it easier to balance and easier to understand.  BFG feels rough around the edges, and the fan community is a great job of dealing with that but it means that the core rules feel like they’re in flux.  The turret suppression debate drove me crazy, and it isn’t finished yet.  There are other core rules that still under discussion, like Eldar movement (I think the fan-written MMS rules are great, though I’m uneasy about using unofficial rules too).  There’s a lot of personal interpretation of rules in BFG and I had a hard time getting comfortable with that.  

I kind of feel like that variation and uncertainty are reflected in the fan-written ship types and fleet lists for BFG.  They’re much more original and controversial than any of the Epic army lists approved by NetEA or EpicUK.  I don’t feel comfortable using them, but I do feel comfortable with those Epic lists.  

There are a few factors there.  First, GW intended to release some of those lists.  When GW killed Specialist Games, some of the people involved helped the fan community out.  Jervis Johnson has provided a lot of personal input.  Second, the official GW lists were not intended to be generic lists for their armies.  They didn’t intend for all Space Marine armies to be geared towards aerial + drop pod assaults, or for all IG armies to be so mechanized (it’s the Steel Legion list after all), or for all Eldar armies to be modeled after Biel-Tan’s.  The intent seems to have been to have a wide variety of more specific lists like those.  Third, the community appears to seek a greater level of consensus before approving anything.  Like I said, it feels more conservative to me.  And there are no rules issues.  The rules were updated in 2009 and those changes are incorporated into the .pdfs available on GW's website.  It's just the army lists that change now.

Also, there are people in the Epic community who work magic with making figures available to people who are interested.

*edit* the UK tournament scene seems to use these:
http://epic-uk.co.uk/armylists.shtml

[Snakeb1te]

Ok I've got the gist of the costs involved now, and I have decided that they are irrelevant when it will come to game choice and army choice. I'm going with what I like. Ahh my bank account won't like that, but I feel good

Regarding officiality… I’ve been deleting and rewriting this paragraph a few times now because I don’t know how to word it quite right, especially because I haven’t participated in rules or list development.  I hope everyone can take these words with a grain of salt. 

I feel more comfortable with the rules and fan development in Epic.  The core rules are more refined (it’s the 4th edition of GW’s 6mm game, after all) and there’s less variety between armies and fewer special rules.  That makes it easier to balance and easier to understand.  BFG feels rough around the edges, and the fan community is a great job of dealing with that but it means that the core rules feel like they’re in flux.  The turret suppression debate drove me crazy, and it isn’t finished yet.  There are other core rules that still under discussion, like Eldar movement (I think the fan-written MMS rules are great, though I’m uneasy about using unofficial rules too).  There’s a lot of personal interpretation of rules in BFG and I had a hard time getting comfortable with that. 

I kind of feel like that variation and uncertainty are reflected in the fan-written ship types and fleet lists for BFG.  They’re much more original and controversial than any of the Epic army lists approved by NetEA or EpicUK.  I don’t feel comfortable using them, but I do feel comfortable with those Epic lists. 

There are a few factors there.  First, GW intended to release some of those lists.  When GW killed Specialist Games, some of the people involved helped the fan community out.  Jervis Johnson has provided a lot of personal input.  Second, the official GW lists were not intended to be generic lists for their armies.  They didn’t intend for all Space Marine armies to be geared towards aerial + drop pod assaults, or for all IG armies to be so mechanized (it’s the Steel Legion list after all), or for all Eldar armies to be modeled after Biel-Tan’s.  The intent seems to have been to have a wide variety of more specific lists like those.  Third, the community appears to seek a greater level of consensus before approving anything.  Like I said, it feels more conservative to me.  And there are no rules issues.  The rules were updated in 2009 and those changes are incorporated into the .pdfs available on GW's website.  It's just the army lists that change now.

A valuable insight as player of both games, and I will remember what you said. However whilst I am new to general Fleet fluff I'm not new to 40k fluff so I have the advantage perhaps of being ignorant about the deviations the BFG guys make regarding vessel fluff, so whilst I'll be attentive when gauging the quality of what  are in those PDFs, I'm sure I'll be more tolerant than yourself.

However I will scrutinize the lists/backstory you've posted about Epic very carefully and if I am happy with its overall faithfulness to the background of the hobby as well, I'll accept them too. Especially as you've said that they're utilised for tournaments in the UK. I like an air of "officiality" with the rules I use.

A valuable find. A shame about the absence of Nids and Crons, but I am already happy with what is there.

Thankyou very much Carlisimo you've done for me what fracas and Horizon did for me regarding BFG. Also cheers to Carrington and anyone else who linked me to other miniature sites. I'll see if I can now bring myself to accept "proxies."

Actually one final question; why are there space marine (generic), eldar ork and IG lists on that link? Is it not sufficient to read the ones on the GW site? I feel like I have two codices now, one in the old rules by GW and one used by these tournament guys.

[carlisimo_2]

Those have minor tweaks for balancing.  The documents actually explain the changes, on the last page.  Eldar might’ve changed the most, because they were considered overpowered when they came out.  GW changed a couple of their special rules, which hurt some units more than others (the Scorpion, for example, needed a boost after that).

BFG’s controversial ships aren’t really about the fluff, but about filling gaps in fleet lists that some people think are important to keep.  Or they feel like someone just really wanted their pet creation to be a little more official.  I hope someone chimes in because I know I’m being unfair.

[horizon]

Controversial ships in BFG? The only ship I ever really called horror on was the old Seditio Opprimere but this has been fixed.


Unofficial rules, well in BFG I do not use all rules from 1.5 or the FAQ2010 simply because the one in the original book being the best about it (talking about blastmarkers in contact with ships here). And I've noticed all and every player at least uses one smaller or bigger change.
But if groups no harm is done.

The biggest unofficial rule I/we use is the Eldar MMS rules. Why? Because the official Eldar (Corsair & Craftworld) rules are crap in BFG. In my opinion that is. But for starters I just say use the official rules first, don't like them? The fix exists.

[Snakeb1te]

Those have minor tweaks for balancing.  The documents actually explain the changes, on the last page.  Eldar might’ve changed the most, because they were considered overpowered when they came out.  GW changed a couple of their special rules, which hurt some units more than others (the Scorpion, for example, needed a boost after that).

BFG’s controversial ships aren’t really about the fluff, but about filling gaps in fleet lists that some people think are important to keep.  Or they feel like someone just really wanted their pet creation to be a little more official.  I hope someone chimes in because I know I’m being unfair.

So Eldar as they are in the rules, are over powered, and you believe these PDFs fix that? Same with Space Marines?

This sounds like alteration of original rules to me, which I thought was not occurring. I was under the impression that the PDFs about the established 4 main races were merely compiling the info in a nice format, not that they were also changing rules for balance.

Unofficial rules, well in BFG I do not use all rules from 1.5 or the FAQ2010 simply because the one in the original book being the best about it (talking about blastmarkers in contact with ships here). And I've noticed all and every player at least uses one smaller or bigger change.
But if groups no harm is done.

The biggest unofficial rule I/we use is the Eldar MMS rules. Why? Because the official Eldar (Corsair & Craftworld) rules are crap in BFG. In my opinion that is. But for starters I just say use the official rules first, don't like them? The fix exists.

Oh I thought the BFG PDFs ALSO only added and not changed what was already in the rules.

Horizon are you saying that even you don't use ALL the rules in the material sent to GW?
Also if MMS is movement speed, then that DOES sound like a massive change in gameplay. Whether its intended for balance or diversity, I might agree that it is controversial change, because that would involve altering existing rules.

Hmmhmmhmm

Heresy everywhere.

P.S. Actually my biggest question is regarding the Tau in epic. The UK Epic tournament guys have got a list of codices they've modified, but the Tau one is not designed by them apparently. Is this a tweaked version of the first ever tau list in Imperial Armour vol. 3? Or is it a whole new one altogether. If its the latter, why did they not keep the old one? (If it IS the old one but updated then I'm guessing they did the same with Tau as they did with the other armies and just modified the rules a little and explained why mostly for tourney balancing.)

[carlisimo_2]

Snakeb1te, the Eldar MMS rules are unofficial but worth considering.  The official Eldar rules make for a large proportion of games where they either win by a lot or lose by a lot.  On the other hand, turret suppression is a rule that's changed in an official capacity.

What I meant about Epic is that the rules are not changing anymore.  They were revised in 2009 and that's it.  No one is still pushing for changes to the core rules.  By this I mean chapter 1 of the rulebook - the rules, as opposed to the army lists or units. 

The Eldar army list (which contains the Eldar special rules) changed once.  I'm not sure if it was in 2009 along with the main rules or not.  Pulsar was changed to mean "two shots" rather than D3 hits if the first shot hit, and I think there might've been something else relating to spirit stones.  The documents on the GW website DO include these changes, and they are no longer considered overpowered.  However, the change resulted in internal imbalance, and because of this NetEA and EpicUK gave the Scorpion a boost.  They also address imbalances that already existed, like Warp Spiders being too good and Howling Banshees being too weak.  Tournaments use those changes, so while they're not official you won't get any tournament time unless you adopt them.  Besides, officiality is dead when it comes to Specialist Games.

The official Space Marines list didn't change.  EpicUK changed some points values because everyone was getting bored of seeing the same units in every army (terminators, thunderhawks, & warhounds).  NetEA made the same changes plus one or two more.  I don't consider these to be rules changes, just list changes.

As for Tau... EpicUK has approved the Tau list that NetEA wrote for tournament use.  I don't know its history, but here's some information about how official certain lists are: http://www.players.tacticalwargames.net/tiki-index.php?page=Epic+Armageddon+Army+Lists
Two Chaos lists were official (but SG died before it could release the models), and Tau were "Experimental" which means GW acknowledged the list as more than just a fan list, but it didn't get beyond that before official support ended.  It probably isn't based on Imperial Armor material; I've heard bad things about Forgeworld writers' knowledge of Epic (in terms of rules, not background).


==

Horizon, when I step back into BFG forums after a long absence, I see lots of ship names I don't recognize.  And I see the Seditio Opprimere and lance options in the Space Marines .pdf.  What's going on?

[Snakeb1te]

Are these Eldar MMS rules in the PDFs here?

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw_dULEfC3rbYzUyNjQzZTAtMDZiMS00ZjRlLWJjNzMtYTE5YmNjZjdjODQ1

If not where?

[horizon]

Hey,

Eldar MMS rules (1.9) are here:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/archive/rules/gothic/geldarmms01.html
(ignore the Dark Eldar document).

MMS = move move shoot
official = MSM = move shoot move

You can talk about MMS in another thread (bfg - epx rules section of this forum) if you have questions.

Well, I do not use the blastmarker rules as described in the rulebook 1.5 but as described in the old original book.
And from the new pdf's (your link) I will most likely ignore the Eldar stuff (see MMS).

[CyberShadow]

This is an interesting thread, and one that I have been trying to keep up with.

Firstly, a general note.... If you are looking for a game that is 'complete' and has all official rules produced by GW, then none of the Specialist Games tick that box I am afraid. In general, all of the games were abandoned before they were complete and the incredible SG community have picked up where GW left off in all cases. Now, part of this is because of the way that SG was originally set up. When created, the development of the games was a collaborative process from the very beginning. All SG games had a rules committee consisting of Jervis and a number of key players of the game. Each year, the committee for each game would 'meet' (virtually) and agree on core rules changes and development direction. When GW fell back from SG and their development, these development groups/committees simply continued. For example, BFG has the High Admiralty and EA has that ERC (Epic Rules Committee), and although the membership of these groups may have changed (I think that the HA are the original members but that only nealhunt is retained from the ERC) their mission is unchanged.

With Epic, aside from the ERC, each force had an Army Champion. With so many so work on, official development was limited to Marines, IG, Orks and Eldar, with Chaos added later. Other ACs were appointed by Jervis personally and development happened at TacCmd, with the view that development could be moved to the SG boards when a miniature line was developed and GW were ready to produce the force, and it would be mostly done by that point as well. Unfortunately, the reverse happened, GW pulled back and the official development in the other direction, onto TacCmd, and then the SG boards were also moved to the same location.

I guess that what I am trying to say is that all SG games have a percentage of fan-development. And, this fan development is taken seriously and is not the same kind of fan development that you will usually see in 40K (apologies to any 40K players that I may offend with this). As a community, we are aware that developing serious, balanced and professional lists and rules is something that will make or break the games that we love. I understand the reluctance to accept fan development, and the reasons for this, but it is worth giving it a go with the SG games.

Also, I served as the AC for the Tau for a brief period, so I can hopefully help there. In general, the progression of rules and lists is that the 'most official' are the lists produced in the GW suppliments. The NetEA/TacCmd lists are in a state of development following these examples. The EpicUK lists are developed specifically for the tournament scene in the UK, in a response to the perception that some official or NetEA lists worked better for tournaments with a few minimal alterations. I am sure that EpicUK will produce all lists eventually, and currently the EpicUK Tau writer is also the NetEA Tau AC, so I am hopeful that a single list will be produced for both sets of players.

Development of the Tau has been ongoing since the beginning (I still have the email from Jervis somewhere about the Tau AC). Around version 3.4 of the Tau list, FW produced the IA3 book. This contained a version of the EA Tau list which was extremely similar to version 3.4 of the NetEA Tau list, but with a few alterations in the rules (for example the Manta) and formations changed to meet the current FW Tau pack sizes. All speculation on the origin of the IA3 list will end there, except to say that the NetEA Tau list is now on version 6.4. The IA3 list is generally considered unbalanced in a number of areas. (One example where fan-development is considered an advantage over official, since we can continue to adjust and test.)

For both EA and BFG, the rules are stable. Even GW produces alterations to their core rules gradually, and that process is likely to continue with both EA and BFG, but the games are balanced in their core rules and accepted generally. You can go to someones games club and play the same rules of BFG with only a quick discussion on whether you use MMS, and the new attack craft, reloading and Nova rules. Epic is almost as easy, but a little more complex as the organisation of the rules has meant that there are a few more differences. There are the core GW rules, a set of updates, and a revised rules set, known as the handbook.

Anyway, I am pretty sure that no matter which of the games you decide to pick up, you will be back to pick up the other one shortly after! 

[fracas]

Pick up both epic and bfg