Epic 40,000

Overall score:

When a game has the word "Epic" in its name you know that it’s going for the big stuff, and it really doesn’t get much bigger than Epic 40,000. In Warhammer 40,000 you take control of an army of soldiers, fighting for whatever causes they hold dear. At least, you think it’s an army. Take a look at Epic battles and armies, and you will see the lie. If you were to convert your 2,000 point warhammer 40k army across into Epic terms, you would end up with a reasonably sized detachment. Epic armies consist of at least 2 of these detachments (that’s in a rather small 1k game). The Imperial Guard, who I use, show this particularly well. In 40k you can take artillery tanks such as the Basilisk; in epic, you can have entire detachments of nothing but Basilisks. Infantry detachments often have hundreds of individual soldiers in them.

When you array the army for battle, you appreciate the name—it really is epic in size. This is all due to the titchy scale – the models are in 3-4 mm scale. This means that tanks become like 40k infantry models to move about, titans are like 40k walkers. The infantry are, obviously, too small to be individual models, instead moving around five guys per base. It looks slightly odd, but it is the only feasible option. Besides, it’s stupidly easy to carry about detachments - a lunchbox without padding will do fine for a full army of unpainted models, while padding is necessary for painted metal tanks.

Battles in Epic break away from the GW norm somewhat. Instead of the "I move, shoot, assault then You move, shoot, assault" structure, its "I move, You move, I shoot, You shoot, I assault, You assault", with the first player being randomly determined at the start of each phase. This can make for some interesting decisions: you know that if you move out of cover to get a better line of sight, you might get to shoot first. But you might get shot at first, taking extra casualties. A small change from 40k is the switching from inches to centimeters for the scale. Other changes reflect the increased size of the battles: instead of each unit firing, you add up all the firepower scores in the detachment. You then cross reference this number with the type of target and its cover on a table. This tells you how many hits you scored. Then you roll that number of dice and compare it to the armor value of your target(s). For example, a Leman Russ battle tank has 3 firepower (at range 45 centimeters) and has armor '6'. This means that to wound it, you require a 6 on a D6. Obviously, this makes the tank far more survivable than a Imperial Guard Troop squad, which has armor 3. This system allows you to easily and quickly resolve the shooting phase. However it does feel very abstract and sterile - for example, a Baneblade has firepower 8. That’s it. No mega-Battlecannon rules to look at, no feel of increased power. 4 squads of Imperial Guard have the same firepower. Also, ranges are a single value for all a tank’s guns. That Baneblade is just as effective at 10 cm's as it is at 45 cm's.

Another change from the norm is the addition of a "Firefight" rule. This dictates that, if a detachment is within 15 centimeters of another, all units within 15 cm's of each other get to fight. In the case of multiple detachments, it is all resolved at once. You add up the firepower values of each unit involved (regardless of detachment). Then you roll a D6. Finally you consult a table that tells you a list of modifiers. Your firepower value is converted, on this table, into a modifier—+2 for example. When you have done this, compare your overall score with that of your opponent. The loser takes a blast marker (more on them later), takes a wound on the nearest model in each detachment taking part, and then makes a retreat move—this can be up to 20 cm, but if at the end of the move there is an enemy model within 15 cm's of a unit, the retreating unit is destroyed. It may not sound like much overall, but a firefight going your way can break the enemy line and give you some breathing space. At the least, your opponent will have to spend a turn getting back into position.

Firefights take place after assaults. Assaults also use modifiers and dice-rolling, giving a loser and a winner, but each model involved gets to make a single attack. The amount by which you won or lost shows what you need to roll in order to wound. The armor values are not used here. The loser also gets blast markers added to his detachment and has to make a retreat move. Overall, while assaults do not have quite the same impact that shooting does, it can break detachments and therefore win battles.

The blast marker, however, is my favorite of all the rules in the game. It desperately needs transporting across to 40k in my opinion. They represent the shock and chaos of a battlefield, and the effect that it has on a units ability to fight effectively. Simply put, when you are shot at or take part in firefights or assaults, blast markers are placed on your detachment. While they are there, they reduce your firepower value for shooting, and count as modifiers to your opponent’s roll during firefights and assaults. If you attempt to make the detachment follow special orders such as march or assault, you have to roll over the number of markers on the unit on a D6 (a 6 always succeeds). While having 3 markers on an Infantry detachment isn't going to reduce their firepower much, it can cripple a Shadowsword detachment as it becomes unable to fire the volcano cannons. It can also scupper your plans to assault your marine terminator detachment into the enemy line.

One thing that should be noted is that not all units just have firepower values. Certain types of weapons—anti-tank, artillery and pulsars—have special rules. These are all very simple and effective and give a flavor to otherwise boring shooting phases. These can, as I noted above, be negated by blast markers, which seems fair enough since the more fancy something is, the more likely it is to be knocked off balance by adverse conditions.

And now the bit you have all been waiting for. "What are the Titans and Super Heavies like?" I hear you cry. "They are very nice," is my response. Although they do not have the survivability that I would like (I feel that nothing short of a nuke should be able to take down a Titan) the sheer amount of firepower that they can throw out is just painful. A Titan of the highest order (say Imperiator) has the firepower of a god, able to reduce entire detachments to ash in a single shooting phase. All super heavy stuff has multiple wounds, making them ideal for taking fire. They ignore having to retreat - they simply stand there. Of course, this is where the titan killer weapons come into their own. A Shadowsword is, in my opinion, never going to be used properly in a 40k game. Its gun is simply too big. However, in Epic, its cannon will spell doom for enemy Titans, allowing your other detachments to break the rest of the enemy army.

The rules are very cheap these days—£15 for the rulebook, the battles book (landscapes, scenarios) and the armies book which operates as a codex for all five armies. These armies are: The Imperium (marines, Guard, Navy flyers and Titans), the Eldar, the Orks, the Tyranids and Chaos. The rules for all are virtually identical, barring the Tyranids; the only variation is in the units themselves. You also get all the icons and counters needed for the game. This is where another of my problems with the game come in. In order to determine who goes in which order in each of the phases you draw a counter out of a cup. This seems to me to be distinctly amateurish, and could easily be replaced with dice rolls. In fact, that is what my friends and I do anyway. However, that theme is carried right across the game, and it reminds me too strongly of the second edition of Warhammer 40,000, with all its beardy armies and power gaming possibilities. The entire game is quite reminiscent of 2nd edition—from the troop choices, to the Eldar being nice, to the weird models for the Tyranids. This is not particularly surprising, seeing as how Epic was released a good 2 years before 2rd edition.

Of prime importance in a game is the quality of the models, and it is here that the game shows its biggest cracks. Many of the models are atrocious. Terrible. The tank models are OK to good but the infantry ones are among the worst you will see from GW. The Titans are all terrible as well, although the newer one (the Imperial) warlord and the ones available on Forgeworld (the Reaver and Warhound to date) are quite good. The obvious reason for this is, of course, that only the big super heavy stuff and big numbers of everything else will be noticed. Still, it is quite jarring on the eye at first.

There is, however, a very important fact to consider: Epic is going to be re-released next year. At the moment, the model range is extremely lacking, especially in the Chaos list, and while there are new models being made by Forgeworld, they are only Imperial and (the extremely expensive) Tau. The Tau list is only available in Epic magazine, which I do not, unfortunately, get. Many of the rules I dislike, such as the lack of distinction between tank guns, are going to be rectified in the new version, which will have a lot more support and a stronger range of models (most of which will be re-made, I presume). So my advice is this: if you like the idea of Epic and want to play an army that has a good range of models, get them now. They will be much, much more expensive when the new version comes out. My immense Imperial Guard infantry detachments each cost approximately £0.50 to get. I kid you not. All the infantry in the game cost a pittance now, and while the models are extremely lacking in the infantry department, it will allow you to build up a cheap and big force.

Written by Charlie82 on July 29th, 2002