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

When GW came out with their last verision of the game they had totally change it and not for the better either.

Changed the basing and many other aspect of the game and that is why it tanked.

I was there and a game that was once fun to play quickly became not fun.

Not sure why GW thought it would be good to change the game so much but they learned very quickly that those who did like playing the prior version did not like playing their latest version.

So it tanked and GW stopped supporting it until they came out with their next set Epic Armageddon.

link

The players took it upon themselves to create NetEpic and expand Epic Armageddon.

The problem with the first set of Epic no one has really came up with a solution on how to handle the overpowering of those armies who had lots of first fire units.

As the individual who had that Imperial Guard army above they rarely lost because after the first turn of first fire their was not much left in their opponent's army.

As for Epic Armageddon it was basically Epic 40,000 with a few rules being cleaned up.

I did not like Epic 40,000 and not not liking the Blast Markers in Epic Armageddon.

But I still have my armies and thinking of rebasing and going with something like this.

link

GW killed the game but they have a track record on doing that.

Because within 5 years after EPIC 40,000 their changes in WFB & 40K caused me to quit those games as well.

"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."

That distinction is pedantic and without a significant difference to the argument. Cry foul all you like but your liking a game doesn't make it worthy of staying on the market. GW condemned it to the wasteland of specialist game status for a reason. Distributors and stores weren't ordering it enough to keep it in stores. Most of the intended audience didn't like it and didn't want it. What you want to believe is "the right market" is far too small to sustain a major brick and mortar retail line. So it went to rot in direct "boutique" sales.

Falconius wrote: "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."

And this has what to do with you calling the fans Fat Retards?

Plonk.

Why did the SM fans/players which I was one of those reject it?

It was not because it was aimed at the wrong market.

Nope, it was due to the total rewrite of the rules and game system.

We did not like it because it was no longer the game that we have been playing for the past 5+ years.

Yes the game did have some issues but what GW did to it in the rewrite did not go over well.

So yes GW did kill the game off because EPIC 40,000 was not received well by the target market, which was the current Epic gamers.

Titan Legions was a great addition to the Epic 40K which came out in 1994 and three year later GW came out with EPIC 40,000.

I can tell you that the gaming group that I was in at the time did quickly stop playing EPIC right after that.

EPIC 40k did have it flaws and was not perfect but a lot of individuals were playing it.

EPIC 40,000 killed the game within six months after it came out in 1997.

There are several reasons for this with one being the new rules sucked and another being GW stop supporting it.

Results another GW game goes the way of the Squats.

@SCAdian: I said sorry and tried to explain that I was taking on a crowd who are long gone in a battle that happened more than a decade ago, and thus shouldn't be taken seriously. You didn't understand. No problem. I don't understand "plonk" eighter. Never mind.

@Mithmee & palaeoemrus: Thanks for the history lesson. You were apparently "there" and I was not. I'm not trying to change the past, but if I may I'd like to slightly change your perspective of the future of this "dead" game. Would any of you be interested in a 3mm game, where you not only have more than one soldier on a base, but multiple soldiers and vehicles on one base? If yes, then the E40k system has many good ideas.

Lets quickly compare one aspect of E:A to E40k:
In the one game you have to roll AT and AP dice seperately and each weapon has a different "to hit" value. You usually end up with a smaller clump of AT dice than AP. The defender gets to roll for armour saves to cancel hits. This is a bit long winded when compared to the other game. Now ask yourself, which system favours the use of armoured vehicles more? For me it is an interesting base for comparison. My answer so far has been that both games achieve the same result in giving a fighting advantage to heavy armoured vehicles. Anyone disagrees?

Wouldn't be interested in a 3mm game since unlike many others who got rid of their Epic stuff I still have mine and have increased the number of armies and 6mm figures.that I own.

Eldar
Space Marine
Imperial Guard
Squats (they are not dead, even though to GW they are)
Orks

But the link I provided to Din of Battle website shows his use of Epic figures going with company/detachment size forces for each stand using FoW type bases.

So around 8 or so figures per base standard and two standard size vehicles per base. Each base is one Company or Detachment.

Means even bigger battles since instead of having around 15-20 stands (or around 100 figures) equals a company like Epic.

These 100 figures are now around 12 Companies.

Once I rebase my current Epic models to this new basing I will have lots of companies/detachments.

I was there, and liked Epic 40K. I tried to expand it, and got in on the Epic A playtesting. I hoped it could go more like what I wanted (tuning Epic 40K), but that's not what the designer or most fans wanted. Turns out Epic A has gotten a ton of great feedback since, so it seems to me to have hit a good mark. It just wasn't what I wanted.

Some of my friends on the old epic list were among the people who didn't like Epic 40K, and so I wouldn't have used any choice words for them. But I do wish that what I liked could have been more successful.

I wouldn't be interested in a 3mm game. Well, I would, but I wouldn't play it, because I've still got a lot of 6mm. And I'm happy with the 6mm scale. But I haven't played with that for years, either.

andy

As for Epic Armageddon it was basically Epic 40,000 with a few rules being cleaned up.

Sorry, but if you think this is the case I can't trust anything else you have to say about rules.

I think the game was too abstract and too intangible for the existing player base to really get into it.

it didn't help that armies felt very "same'ish". 2nd edition could have used some toning down in the weird rules and exceptions, but at least everything felt unique and distinct.

Why not they both use the Blast markers and I have both of these rule sets.

Care Epic Armageddon cleaned up several things from Epic 40,000.

Epic 40,000 was a complete rewrite of the Epic game.

I did not like the Firepower and Blast Markers from Epic 40,000 and Epic Armageddon really did not change this much.

Yes I had issues with Epic due to the First Fire but changing to Blast Markers was not the way to go.

Epic 40,000 died a very quick death and for one very simple reason.

It was not a very good game and the Core players did not like it.

Hi, I was there and had played Space Marine since the 1st set was sold. We played a lot and had fun. There were probably 20 of us locally and I knew many more who didn't game with us.

Epic 40k was too generic for SM fans. Remember Space Marine had all these very specific rules for every army. They could slow a game down but folks tended to like them. I have always believed that if another Company (ala Gzg) had released Epic 40k it would have had a following. It simply wasn't what Space Marine players wanted. I picked up a copy and several new boxes of various races and some new vehicles but only played the rules a time or two. It wasn't improved Space Marine. It was totally different. It also tended to be a little bland. The rules died immediately. Killed the game cold. I have rarely seen a Company shoot themselves so badly as they did.

Epic A is a good set of rules. It's better IMHO than either Space Marine, Epic or Net Epic for games set in the 40k Universe using 6mm armies. It is not the best set of 6mm scifi rules I have ever played. But that's a different point. I also like how blast markers work.

The REALLY sad thing is that other than my son, everyone else either doesn't play anymore or has sold off their armies or use Net Epic or SM. The rules aren't the cheapest to buy when you can find them. Plus it's ink intensive if you print it. Figs aren't cheap when you find them either. For me that's no big deal. I have large armies for everything other than Nids. So Epic gaming is pretty dead around here.

Thanks,

John

I got into 6mm games only 3 years ago, and I was lured by cool new companies making amazing 6mm models. Because of my curiosity, it led me into a fair amount of research, and I landed upon Epic: Armageddon. After playing it a few times, I was blown away at how balanced and, well, for lack of a better word, "EPIC", it felt.

I did slowly start collecting older Epic stuff, including all the Epic 40k rulebooks, and I have the newer NetEpic stuff as well. What I see just doesnt compete with how flavorful and streamlined I think the game system is, and I, for one, really do like the Blast Marker system.

I am always looking for new 6mm rules, because thats just how I am, but Ive made major investments into the 6mm scale and plan on being here for quite some time, and E:A is my poison of choice.

Falconius wrote:

I don't understand "plonk" eighter. Never mind.

"Plonk" generally means that one has put the person plonked (you, in this case) on an ignore list or killfile, and thus won't see any futher comments by him or her.