"What was wrong with Epic 40,000? " Topic

It's often stated that Epic 40,000 flopped and I know there's a lot of ill feeling towards it, but what exactly do you think was wrong with it?

The most common criticism I can find among online commentary is that it was too abstracted and didn't differentiate sufficiently between the various types of troops and tanks.

I never found this to be a problem. I thought the level of abstraction was appropriate to the scope of engagement – and this is coming from someone who played a LOT of 2nd ed Epic (now NetEpic) so I'm fully aware of the loss of detail it entailed.

So other than the abstraction, what was the problem? I've been thinking about getting back into Epic recently and even though Epic: Armageddon is free online, the idea of Epic 40,000 still appeals to me. But am I missing something? I only played a few fairly small games around the time of its release. Were there broken mechanics that I just didn't encounter in my limited play?

I loved it.
The only issue I found at the time (15 to 20 years ago ish?) was that much like now, the player with the most money wins.
Out of our group I had the most cash and so bought Imperial Guard and had a bucket load of indirect fire and tanks with as few regular troops as possible.

I very very rarely lost.

EDIT – I think the rules we used were called "Space Marine" at the time.
They came with card buildings with plastic roofs.

It was really the abstraction that was the problem – pretty much anything could kill anything as a result. EG an army of Land Raiders, carrying mainly precision anti-tank weapons, could easily kill hordes of infantry, because the anti-tank stuff was just 'firepower' the same as anti-personnel weapons.

The system worked really well when it was turned into Battlefleet Gothic though!

I'd give Epic:Armageddon a try – it really is one of the best rule-sets of any scale/period I've ever played.

Cheers,
Michael

The problem was that the rules went from ultra micro focused (all the special rules) which did give flavor to very abstract and flavorless. Epic Armageddon is the best set released so far. There aren't really 'killer' armies but they can be somewhat abused. IG are a solid army. but all those indirect fire weapons CAN be readily countered.

Thanks,

John

I agree with John. It was the best of the Epic rules set IMHO. However, it was to much change for most players. I would still play, but most have moved on. The current rules are good, but some armies still need some work (Nids).

I think John Leahy has it – what really went wrong was that it was too big a paradigm shift for Epic players. I suspect that if it was a brand new system (ie. there had been no "previous" Epic game) it would've been a big hit.

We like Epic 40k and we were very happy with the change. Though we started with Space Marine, we got tired of all the special rules for everything. It dragged the game down for us.

Still, I'd agree with others here that Epic Armageddon is the best of bunch.

Yeah, too big a change from the previous editions. Provoked a lot of kneejerk hate just for being different, and the relatively high level of abstraction hurt a bit too – Epic players were used to massive amounts of special rules and unique stat lines. The relatively high prices on the minis (some of the best sculpts ever too, so tempting for old players) was also a sore point. IIRC the game also came out something like 3 years late, with Epic drifting in limbo with no new releases for that whole period – and that was back when the Epic games were the third piece of the GW "Big Game" triad, ages before LotR. Time was Space Marine outsold WFB in the US – long gone now, and you can trace the decline directly to the E40K release.

In hindsight, it really was a good set of rules, though I'd rather play the slightly more polished and less abstract E:Armageddon instead.

Battle Works recounts my memory of Epic 40K quite well.

Epic 40K was my favorite. I'm fine with abstraction, though I wanted War Engines to have a bit more interest. (Anybody remember The Titan Project, from the epic mailing list?) Although the firepower system does smooth some things out, the AntiTank rule was such an elegant approach for a gun that is better vs armor and no help (or worse) against infantry.

Funny that Future War Commander takes the abstraction further, and gets lots of fans. I think the problem for me with that one is that there isn't (that I remember) a good way to make anti-tank weapons, etc. Epic 40K had abstractions but some nifty rules to separate what really needed it.

I playtested Epic Armageddon, and realized along the way that I didn't want to keep track of whether a land speeder had this gun or that one.

And, yes, for anyone who has followed my previous posts on this topic over the years, I _still_ occasionally twiddle with Hex Epic, which is similar to Epic 40K with 4" hexes. I gotta quit fiddling and try it. What I really want to abstract is position. When playtesting Epic A, I realized that I had too many things that influenced exactly where I was putting 6mm figures:
* line of sight
* cover
* keep in range when I want to shoot
* stay out of range if I don't want to be shot
* nearer the enemy to keep from being shut down by blast marker
* farther from the enemy so I won't be among first hit
* close enough to other units to be in cohesion
* far enough from other units to reduce barrage danger

In Hex Epic, you just pick 'em up and put 'em down. The only things I'm thinking about being affected by position within a hex are hits being applied from near to far, and maybe a difference about being on the edge of cover rather than all the way in. But we'll see about that.

andy

I had the problem of wrapping my head around the scale of the game.

And painting those little ground troops were frustrating…

The problem was the shift in the audience. Let's say you're a big Epic 2nd Ed fan. Epic 40,000 is nothing like the game you knew and loved. That was the real issue

I'm not a 40k player, but I did play one game of Epic years ago, and really had fun. It never really took off in my club, or else I probably would have played more.

dead on

too abstracted and didn't differentiate sufficiently between the various types of troops and tanks. add in that the new troop bases let you cheat unit cohesion and close combat became the number one way to fight and it was a game killer.

had no 40k world feeling left at all. but then they turned around and did the same thing to 40K and killed that game around here also.

as in 50 + player a week in the shop to 5 to 10 a week.

Funny that Future War Commander takes the abstraction further, and gets lots of fans.

FWC (and its historical counterparts) didn't have a decade worth of radically different previous editions to compare too. As Dom Skelton said, if E:40K had been the first version to come out, it probably would have been well-received. Instead, it clashed with expectations too much and flopped.

There's nothing inherently wrong with abstracted games, although the balance between detail/abstraction is a matter of subjective taste.

You have to remember that EPic 40k was out when Warhammer was strictly a skirimish game… 2 ed. This was the main reason it flopped. most people were stuck in the min set that the game was meant to be played with several super minis combating another army of the same. When that went away in Epic 40k, people got upset that they could not replicate the hero-hammer on that scale.

Doh !!! Double post !!!

I started with Space Marine in '90 … That still has some good points IMO. I thought SM2/TL was the worse of the attempts, but had some good in it. E40K was a big change, but again, had some good stuff. However, Epic:A is best IMO, if for no other reason, the unit activation system. Which BTW, being old gamers, we institued since SM1, in '90. It just took G/W awhile to figure it out … . And all I do is 6mm Sci-fi, since '90 … I have no probelm with the scale. It is perfect for modern and future wars … And if you have a problem painting in that that scale … thats why they make 54mm for the painting challenged ! And for more input on Epic, go to our Tactical Command site, that is about the best site online for 6mm Sci-fi, especially Epic …

Thanks for all the comments folks, they've been really helpful. It seems that overall, the big concern remains the level of abstraction, and the comparison to previous versions of Epic.

I should maybe have been clearer about my own history with Epic. I started with Adeptus Titanicus, which I was into in a big way (I still think it's a great game for titan-on-titan combat). I never really got into Space Marine 1st edition though.

When Space Marine 2nd edition came out, I built large armies for Eldar, Squats and Chaos and played regularly, though I was never fully satisfied with the system. I stopped before Titan Legions was released.

When Epic 40,000 came along, as I mentioned, I played a few small-ish games and although it was very different to previous versions I thought it had a lot of potential. I'm not usually a fan of heavy abstraction and generalisation of troops – for example, I never took to Hordes of the Things – but it seemed to me that a very simple statline tailored with a short list of universal special rules made a lot of sense at that scale. It's the kind of thing that's gained popularity at skirmish level too now, with Ganesha Games' rules.

I've had a read through the Epic Armageddon rules, but I'm inclined to agree with Andy – I don't really care which gun a land speeder has at Epic scale, or the difference in effect between a missile launcher and a plasma cannon. I'm more concerned with the overall battlefield role. Others' opinions may differ, but if the main sticking point here is subjective appreciation of the level of abstraction I think I'll go ahead and give Epic 40,000 another look.

The only thing that really bothered me about Epic 40,000 was the strip basing. Whatever version of Epic I end up using, or other 6mm SF system (FWC?), I think I'll stick with the old square basing system.

Anyway, thanks again for all the feedback!

Does not matter which bases you use … really … many of us use both …

There was NOTHING wrong with Epic except that as many above say it was NOT Space Marine. I found that to be a very Good Thing and was a huge fan of the game, abstractions and all. And it was big here in NC back then, too. We had regular tournaments every month for years.

Epic Armageddon is equally good, if not better. Many of my friends were play testers for E:A so I watched a lot of games (especially ones with The Lost and the Damned, since my friend Audrey was writing that list) for a year or so. Played a few as well, but my interests had started to sway to historicals then so I wasn't involved nearly as much as during our GW heyday.

I liked the strip basing far better than the square ones, but as Legion says you can use either with no impact on game play whatsoever. It's really all just an aesthetics thing…

For me it was the level of abstaction. In my ork army, for instance, I had collected all of the various types of battlewagons and could customize my force to deal with a variety of tactical problems. It gave the army vastly different feels and tactics based upon what units you took. Epic 40k came along and bang, they were all just battlewagons with a common statline. Boring!!!!!

If Epic40k had been released by Gzg it would have likely been popular. Folks who enjoyed Epic40k say they aren't worried about which weapon a landspeeder had. Well, Space Marine players did. GW learned from Epic40k. Having a major number of Space marine 2 playtesters involved made sure that the flavor missing from it was returned with Epic Armageddon. Altough some of the cool mechanics from Epic40k were also retained.

Now you have a much better set for most Epic players but lousy support from GW and figs priced outside of what most players will pay. I knew it was dead when the plastics went away.

Thanks,

John

people got upset that they could not replicate the hero-hammer on that scale.

Except that the game made claims of this nature, even forcing detachment building to look like a motley 40k army. This level of detail then boiled down to "roll X dice".

It was not simply the abstraction compared to Space Marine, it was the abstraction compared to its own force construction rules.

That it didn't reflect the setting's stated military organizations at this level of conflict didn't help. 40k is an aberration of TO&E for the purpose of getting a mixture of roles in a small table conflict, and Epic 40k carried that idea forward. Editions before and after ignored the aberration of 40k and built from the fluff organizations.

The only thing that really bothered me about Epic 40,000 was the strip basing.

Epic Armageddon specifically allows either strip or square, or any combination, custom size (within limits), or even round.

I don't really care which gun a land speeder has at Epic scale, or the difference in effect between a missile launcher and a plasma cannon. I'm more concerned with the overall battlefield role.

Except of course that the Land Speeder takes on different roles based on its weapon load. Recon, fast flanker, or deep-striking tank-buster, the statline needs to allow each variant to do its job. That the setting hangs the label "Plasma Cannon" on one variant's statline is just shorthand.

Epic 40k came along and bang, they were all just battlewagons with a common statline. Boring!!!!!

This was fairly appropriate to E40k, though, as it was just going to boil the formation down to some number of massed dice anyway.
Under EA, the vast collection of orky vehicles are still boiled down somewhat, but the orks themselves have changed too. You'll have Battlewagons that carry more Boyz, Gunwagons that carry more gunz, Supagunz upgrades should a Mechboy be part of the formation…

Yes but why buy all the vehicle variants if it doesn't translate to battle differences? Variety for visuals I will grant you. Money was brought up earlier. I can tell you that the cost of figures got high. Current prices are insane. And I thought the $39.95 USD Capital Imperialis was too much! lol Luckily I bought up quite a bit when there was a lull in demand.

I almost went the Net Epic route but stopped. I have only played Epic Armageddon twice but it flows well. While not "historical" not allowing IG and Space Marines in the same army was a good change. The combination of IG tanks and artillery with nasty Space Marine ground troops is a tough nut to crack.

I have owned all editions of the game. Space Marine was an all day affair (at least with the armies we had!) I even had the original Adeptus Titanicus set. Gave both to a buddy of mine. He probably has gotten rid of the stuff by now.

We lost a lot of interest in many things GW over the years. Not the least of which were cost hikes and rules changes. Never got into WH or WH 40K because of the codex craze. We have played mostly the alternative GW games including all versions of Epic, Warmaster, Bloodbowl and Man O' War (really loved MoW!) With regards to Epic, we lost desire to play in conjunction with its overall demise as a result of the Epic 40K rules changes. We embraced the rules but the figures stopped selling at stores. I think there was a $2.00 USD price hike on regular packs in one year that didn't help. Maybe GW going public had something to do with this?

But, I still have my Man O' War, lots of Epic and a Warmaster army that I never got around to painting. Obviously I still have hope for the future…

Just to clarify: I already knew that both E40k and E:A permit different basing styles, that's why I said I was going to base in squares. I've never liked the strip bases – just a personal preference.

Folks who enjoyed Epic40k say they aren't worried about which weapon a landspeeder had. Well, Space Marine players did.

Not this one.

Except of course that the Land Speeder takes on different roles based on its weapon load.

The landspeeder was perhaps a poor example for this reason (though as an Old School player, to me a landspeeder is a landspeeder – mine pre-date the current variants).

What I meant was I like the way that in E40k there is, for example, a "heavy weapons" upgrade rule with a fixed effect, rather than getting overly concerned with small differences in range, to hit, etc. for each different type of heavy weapon.

The Strip bases are easier to paint … link link link

What kept me out of the most recent edition is the price of the damn figures. Not the rules.

That and GW was showing major signs of giving minimal support for the game. They never even finished doing out rules for their own fluff….

(though as an Old School player, to me a landspeeder is a landspeeder – mine pre-date the current variants).

Back when only the IG could get one with Plasma?

My experience is limited to Space Marine 2nd through Titan Legions. I collected Marines and IG, one friend had Orks and Squats, while another had the Eldar (nobody bought any Chaos, for some reason). We had a great time with it, with my toughest opponent being the Eldar. Later I collected the Tyranids, and I really enjoyed their addition to the game system. By the end, I felt the system was being weighed down with too many special rules, and some of the later units seemed over-powered.

In the end my friends moved on to other things and local interest waned. I still have my collection and I have fond memories of those old battles, but my gaming time is devoted to other things these days.

Cost for the miniatures and I say that as an adult with the ability to buy things I really want.

2nd, the stores not carrying the miniatures (we can order for you if you want), so no games demo'd either.

Dan

Back when only the IG could get one with Plasma?

I do have those old Rogue Trader landspeeders with multi-melta/meltagun for marines and HPG/heavy bolter for IG, but weirdly, the old Epic marine speeders had plasma – both the plastic one and the original Adeptus Titanicus metal version.

This was of course before the arcane incantations and obeisances necessary to bolt a standard plasma cannon to a standard weapons hardpoint were lost forever…

We played and enjoyed Space marine epic version the most .Many of the games we done were just using those army box sets with me as Orks and an Eldar and Marine player,much fun was had.There was a cool Squat set too which we allied with to match armies.

As I recall we drifted away from the game when extra units were bought with enhanced stats and special rules. then it just became a test bed game for new units and we just slowly stopped playing.

I would have to say the inability of GW to write a decent set of rules.

Rules where things can see stuff even if it should have been out of sight behind a building.

Or my favorite; Eldar Titans are hard to hit due to their distortion fields but you can place a artillery right on top of them destroying them with ease.

First fire armies would usually clean the clock of a pure infantry army.

I do not like Epic Armageddon due to the blast markers rules. But they are better than the initial sets.

But due to GW decision to stop supporting it my Epic stuff has not seen a table top in nearly 15 years.

Who makes/made this cannon? link I assumed it was Forge World but can't spot it on their site.

We started up playing Epic a bit recently… Space Marine 2e because that's what we had the most/best experience with. I even started building up my minimal Ork forces.
Neither of us had ever tried E40K or Armageddon… we might get around to trying them sometime, but I think we'd miss the detail… despite the fact that it takes most all of a Saturday afternoon to play… would probably be more reasonable if we didn't try to use everything we had in one go.

I hear you Venusboys3. However, half the fun playing with your Epic armies was putting all that stuff on the tabletop. I remember some VAST sized Space Marine 2/Titan Legions games we had. One had an IG Company, 5 Warlord Titans and some other troops on one side vs some Squats, Marines and I forget what else on the other. My Squat cyclops was shredding Titan shields each turn along with some Warlords. Yeah, the games lasted a while. But we had a lot of fun. It really is a shame that GW provides such crappy support for Epic. It was hugely popular at one time.

Thanks,

John

I've got mixed feelings about GW's lack of support… Gawd knows if they DID start supporting it again there'd be an awful treadmill of army books and whatnot to keep up with.
I've got NO interest in 'tournaments' or gaming with strangers… so I don't much care about the folks who won't play a game because it is 'dead' (I'm also a fan of original Rogue Trader).
At most I'd like a book of scenarios… occasional new models. The stuff from Exodus Wars, Baccus, Adler, GZG, etc. satisfies my consumer urges.

John,

I so agree with you. We use to get 3-5 individuals per side and run 30,000 – 40,000 point games.

Since I usually used Eldar I learn to give my Titans pilots skills which help keep them alive.

I remember a game where my Eldar Titans were still up and running after the 2nd turn though one did have a cracked plasma core that was more than like to blow. The Eldar player next to me had lost his four Titans by then (three in the first turn).

It provided for great big games.

Yeah, the games could be REALLY huge! We'd play on 10 or 12 feet long tables filled with troops. The games took a long time. A single turn could last an hour or more. My biggest issue was having to fiddle with all the little special rules for various races, vehicles and troop types. It could stop a game cold. Especially Chaos!

Venusboys I only meant support by providing readily available plastic and somewhat reasonably priced figs for the game. The rules already exist. Did anyone actually play Tourneys with Space Marine? That has zero interest for me and the guys I game with. We just loved the mass of cool toys on the tabletop! I need to pull my stuff out again!

Thanks,

John

Just to add my tuppence worth to the discussion:

I started with Space Marine V1. It was fun if a bit rough around the edges. The army creation systems in WD were fiddly but we endured it all because but it finally meant we could play slow games of 40k in 6mm.

Space Marine V2 was superb fun, the army creation was slick, and the rules themselves meant we were playing HUGE exciting battles in a decent timescale. Yes the WD arms race of rules did get completely out of hand near the end of the systems life but we were all having such a blast with the game and all these weird and wonderful vehicles we honestly didn't care. It was a hugely popular game where I was living at the time and we all bought into it heavily.

And then Epic40k came out and could best be described in one word: bland. All of the character and flavour was just sucked out of the game and, unbelievably, the army creation became fiddly again (for me anyway). I didn't want to play what felt like a board game when pushing my 6mm army around. So we ignored it kept on playing Space Marine V2.

EpicA was a different matter though, I think they got the balance about right between providing a more tactical system and retaining the flavour of the earlier Space Marine rulesets. Fan support for EpicA has been great and both the Raiders and Siege books have been worthy additions to the game.

I was an outrider when they released Epic 40K. I have to say that of all the games I demo'd on GW's behalf, this one was the least well received by a considerable margin. I ran a ton of games at game shops and conventions over the course of 6 months and the best response I got was from kids 12 and under.

Everyone has hit on its weak points already, so there's no need for me to rehash them. I'll add that, personally, I didn't like the change in infantry bases from the square shape to the thin rectangular ones. Something about that aesthetic that threw me off.

I loved Space Marine, But Epic 40K resulted in me selling off my huge figure collection as I just couldn't get into the new game.

Cheers!

- Rod

While not "historical" not allowing IG and Space Marines in the same army was a good change. The combination of IG tanks and artillery with nasty Space Marine ground troops is a tough nut to crack.

That is a "tournament" restriction of the lists, as casual EA doesn't care all that much. If you are going by some of the battles described in the fluff (both fiction and the spot bits in rules) a mixed force is still going to be 95% Guard. Nothing says "Hammer of the Emperor" quite like four stands of Terminators appearing around the command bunker your Guard have just drawn its defenders away from…

@Andy Skinner:
That Hex Epic idea sounds great! I also remember disliking how fiddly the game could be for unit positioning. That sort of stuff is best left to the local commanders at this scale.

Let me know if you have any files for Hex Epic that I can steal from.

:)

we enjoyed it but NetEpic grabbed us a lot harder.

The fundamental issue was that "generic armies with abstract rules" doesn't work for the weird and wild setting. For us anyways

Epic 40k was launched in the wrong scale. 6mm or 1:300 is too big for what the game tries to represent. All would have been well if GW had continued with a Space marine game like NetEpic in 1:300 and launched Epic as a 3mm or 1:600 scale game. Just go to link to see how 3mm scale can look. In this way the game would not have been killed by the so called fans.
As an aside, it is interesting how you could have bought Epic40k game boxes for $20 USD after the game was killed by the fat retard fans, but now on e-bay they are being sold for $250. USD

"As an aside, it is interesting how you could have bought Epic40k game boxes for $20 USD USD after the game was killed by the fat retard fans, but now on e-bay they are being sold for $250. USD USD"

Right. Those "fat retard fans" totally should have kept buying parts for a game they didn't like or want anymore. And when stuff becomes niche and rare because it isn't being made anymore that just proves how awesomely valuable it all was when people dumped it.

No wonder the game shrunk back to where it is today.

Well, yes, why not? But then that might just be you, jumping to conclusions. I'm saying if someone had been clever at the time they could have bought a few boxes cheaply, and then sold them at a reasonable profit later. The vast bulk of complaints against this game usually involved the word "flavour". And that seems a bit nonsensical. How much flavour does chess have? Yet it has endured centuries, and will continue to do so long after the last 40k nerd hits the dust. Besides, if someone moans that a great game doesn't have enough flavour, then I can't help thinking that I'm dealing with a fat, zit-encrusted nerd of the sweaty variety who still lives with his mom.
Its a game, not food.

Your last remark doesn't make sense. The game never shrunk, it was rejected by the SM fans rather quickly after release. Aimed at the wrong market, my original point.

But sorry if I offended anyone by the use of terms like "fat" and "retard". Try to understand, if you can: I wasn't there in 1997 when the game got bashed by the SM regulars who had been inducted into playing Epic. If I had, you can be sure I would have been unable to stop myself from using a few choice words. If GW had reached the right market at the time the game would not have been withdrawn after 6 months.