"Epic games-all units line up and move foward?" Topic

Epic games have always interested me. I used to play the old Final Liberation game. But I never was able to play the miniatures game due to my buddies' lack of interest back in the day.

Ok, here is what bugs me. From all the photos online I've seen of Epic games and in WD magazine back in the day, the games look more like Napoleonic or ancients games, or fantasy games, where units line up side to side across the entire table close to the edge and march forward, even when cities are in the middle of the table.

Is this how people play the game? Is the game designed for this? It just doesn't seem like a modern/sci-fi battle should play out. Or am I missing something?

I've been wanting to ask this for years

It's just the way GW sold the game. The rules don't make you set up like that. We've played Epic since '90, all versions to one level or another. We play the game using modern tactics. Not the GW drivel … But don't get me wrong, I've seen the uninformed "kids" playing like is was the ACW, etc. … as shown in the WD adds, etc. … Don't drink the GW !

Epic is a game of seizing objectives so how the game develops is greatly dependent upon how the objectives are placed.

Since it is also often a competitive game and the players take turn placing the objectives you tend to end up with an even distribution of objectives across the middle of the board. Thus everyone advances to seize those objectives and it looks like two lines moving towards each other.

If you take the competitive nature off of Epic and make it more scenario based it looks more like a normal game of moderns.

It's all about the objectives of the game not the game mechanics or armies.

SM1 was more about Victory Conditions. Objective Markers didn't come out until SM2. Then E40K and Epic:A kept that concept. Regardless, any version does not have to be played like you see in the WD ads.

Ah, Final Liberation! One of my favorite all-time PC games, and probably the game with the best live-action cutscenes ever produced!

Just the opposite. In the Epic Armageddon game we played yesterday, we were all over the place. Both sides had units all the way into the others deployment area, as well as a tough fight going on in the centre. Combined arms tactics really pay off. Check here link For an excellent AAR of that battle, complete with about 80 photos and a detailed commentary. Check the sites sidebar for over a hundred similar AAR/photos of Epic games. The Tactical Command site has these and many more.
Epic Armageddon remains my favourite and most played game because of its modern, fluid tactics, great rules, and armies that play very differently from each other.

I'm not sure why the link isn't working properly. Just click "Home" at the top of the page or "Saim-Hann 4.2" on the sidebar to get you to yesterday's game report. Click "Older Posts" for previous games.

The games I saw played back in the day all looked like Space Napoleonics.

Glad to know the rules don't necessarily go out of their way to reward that sort of behaviour.

In Epic Armageddon (EA) which is the most recent edition (now Net-EA, player community led development), there is a competition format – or tournament scenario, which is how most people seem to play. It gives a good balanced game that also offers multiple ways to win, and you can play to the different strengths of diverse armies. As Bill says, this is certainly not just line up and march forward.

In this tournament scenario, scouts and certain other formations (e.g. many infantry) get to garrison around objectives, up to the middle of the table – thus cities or other hard points will often be garrisoned by these units and you have to shift them out, which often takes a lot of effort. Other units (drop pods, air assault, teleporters) start off table and can come on anywhere. The remainder of formations start up to 15cm in from their side (which can be long sides, short sides, or corners – chosen by the army with the superior Strategy Rating). So, often at least some units will be lined up across the table edges , but sometimes you will see very few formations set up this way, even none sometimes! Then there is the fact that units can move very large distances on the right orders, making for a very fluid and dynamic game. For example see this report:
link

This tournament scenario also involves trying to achieve at least two of five victory conditions, and more than the enemy, by the end of turns 3 or 4. What objectives you go for, and how objectives are placed, depends on your judgement of the strengths of your army relative to the enemy, and your overall plan.
*(Defend the Flag) Defend all three of your own objectives.
*(Blitz) Capture the enemies baseline objective.
*(Take and Hold) Capture any two of your enemies objectives.
*(Break their Spirit) Destroy opponents most expensive formation
*(They Shall Not Pass) Make sure no unbroken enemy units are on your half of the table.

In addition quite a few people also play scenarios, and compilations of balanced scenarios are currently being worked upon on Tactical Command. E.g. see this link:
link
Scenarios offer greater variety, but the tournament scenario is pretty good and well thought out and offers a pretty awesome range of tactics. Even though I'm an active Epic player, to my shame I hadn't even looked at these excellent scenario booklets until right now! But that is part of the joy of Epic – so many great resources developed by players over the years waiting to be discovered, plus new manufacturers making great miniatures (Onslaught, Troublemaker, Microworld, Dark Realm etc), and nice people at Tactical Command (and a few here) willing to help out new players.

It's pretty movement based. You're always trying to secure objectives and kick the enemy off of theirs.

The publicity photos from GW always crammed the table full of figures to make it look cool.

Though to be fair, it's still warhammer, so plenty of melee troops rushing across the field :)

Thanks for the insights guys. Now the game seems to make sense.

The games I saw played back in the day all looked like Space Napoleonics.

Glad to know the rules don't necessarily go out of their way to reward that sort of behaviour.

I think this is another classis case of "Monkey see … Monkey do … It's how GW made a lot of $$$. And it's also why historical gamers make fun of such silly GW inspired poop ! As I said, We played the game using modern tactics. Not the GW drivel … But don't get me wrong, I've seen the uninformed "kids" playing like is was the ACW, etc. … as shown in the WD ads, etc. … Don't drink the GW koolaid !

Epic Armageddon game we played yesterday, we were all over the place. Both sides had units all the way into the others deployment area, as well as a tough fight going on in the centre. Combined arms tactics really pay off. The Tactical Command site has these and many more.
Epic Armageddon remains my favourite and most played game because of its modern, fluid tactics, great rules, and armies that play very differently from each other.

Calico Bill & Markconz … You get 4 And yes, any one interested in Epic or 6mm Sci-if in general should visit Tac Cmd taccmd.tacticalwargames.net often … like daily …

Do the original square infantry bases from Space Marine work well?

Yes, I use both … Just not in the same formation … link

I also use both, sometimes in the same formation when I want to quickly spot special squads, like the one with a commander or the devestator units among my Tac Marines.

That would work too !

Yes I use square, rectangle and round bases. All fine.

"Epic Armageddon game we played yesterday, we were all over the place. Both sides had units all the way into the others deployment area, as well as a tough fight going on in the centre. Combined arms tactics really pay off"

Agree totally – EA is probably the best GW version of the rules for epic ever made. The one rule I think make sit is Crossfire – Get an enemy unit between two of your force's elements, and they take a big penalty, just as surrounded troops should. Ideal for air unit-equipped forces.

The Best thing EA did was use the activation rule. We added that in SM1 based on an old Avalon Hill game rule from "Tobruk" … We played wargames of many types since the '60s … So we knew our way around gaming rules, history, etc. … It just took GW only 9-10 years to figure that out …

In my opinion it depends on the point total you play with and how you spend your points. If you choose to spend your points on three titans and a handful of weaker forces your tabletop presence will not look like Napoleonic's. If you spend all your points on Ork mobs and take all the "free" mobs that go with them you could flood the table with infantry and then it does look like Napoleonic's.

My EA Orks frequently re-enacted the Charge of the Light Brigade. Green tidal waves are boring and slow, but two or three Mad Max charges across the wastes at the same time is great orky fun.

Well it does come down to the gamers' tactical knowledge, history, style, and gaming in general, etc. … Hey if you like playing Sci-fi Napoleonic's, ACW, etc., or Mad Max go for it. But I may make fun of you. But who cares … do what works for you and your crew.

Charging nearly anything at a full group of IG Russ tanks is officially a Bad Idea, but I do play Orks. Bad ideas are what they do.

I also tended to rock my opponents back on their heels despite my losses, and subsequently dominate the board, so…

Regardless of what rules played, I always use combined arms mobile warfare tactics. As I have mentioned previously …