Illuvitar's comment mirrors my sentiment. Also, add in a little bit of sentimentality. In '95 (when I was 12, by the way) I spent a summer with my England-based side of the family and found 40K 'cuz we were in a book store and I picked up a copy of White Dwarf (issue 186 I think). The figures were cool, and I got the next two issues, as well. I always fondly remembered the Plague Tower, which was introduced in one of those issues. By the time I got back to the US I had a small collection of 40K Eldar and just carried on with that scale. Over the years I got more sick of the game, playing it 'cuz that's what everyone else does, which is why people play Halo, I'm convinced (that is, Halo is a totally mediocre game, but people play it, so more people play it, and so on).

When I stumbled onto this site a few weeks ago it was interesting to see the future of a game held by the players, and any new guy that shows up on the forums is greeted with plenty warm welcomes. While it may be a slightly more elitist system if only for the availability of the figures, you all make it as accessible as possible. The only hate I've really seen is one of the doods on the board hating zeppelins, or something of that sort. I'm sure there's a good story in that, though.

Apoc nailed it.

New stuff is the lifeblood of all the 40K universe games.  

The advantage with Epic is that novel material can be selectively brought in & vetted versus having it suddenly arrive via Codex like a brick through your window.

_________________
WAAARGH!!
The Lost & the Dipped

Ghundra is right, we can filter 40k's "OMG This Si teh Bestest" nonsense through a few level heads to be able to fit the newer units sensibly into Epic.

Thank God GW aren't interested in Epic or it'd have been ruined by Codex Creep by now.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I play both games, but frankly if I packed up the 40k stuff the Epic stuff would probably go too. No matter how you like it, the days of Epic feeding fans into 40k are over. The majority of new Epic players are always going to be coming from 40k unless there is some major shift in GWs busines, and so it's up to Epic to live up to the expectations of 40k players, not vice versa. This does not mean Epic needs to drown in special rules or anything, but the same units should fulfill the same roles in both games, and tactics that are sensible in 40k should be sensible in Epic.

It's because he only get's to play games on Ork worlds...  




Obi-Wan Kenobi, Eps III Final Duel W/ Anakin Skywalker

Do I win a prize Moscovian?  

-----------------

I like Epic and agree with others that we should use 40k as source not as law.

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

Then you will like the next battle report I get together.

World Eaters meet the Death Guard within an abandoned ork settlement.

I did that setup just for you AoC    

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

They are put off playing a game by internet forum opinion? I hope they never get into historical's! (Some of the stuff on the historical gaming forums is dangerous to even read!)

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I have to ask - what tactics? As far as I can tell its burying the enemy under weight of bodies, bullets or special powers, with the tactical element being how much is left in reserve? The recent 'leafblower' US tourny winning army seems to embody this.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I know you're playing a bit, but Epic could also be taken to task for simplicity of tactics - I could easily say it just boils down to burying the enemy under the weight of activations (bodies), war engines (special powers) and aerial assaults (reserves).

Play 40k using 500-1,000 point armies on big tables, and the game changes quite a bit. I do agree that 2,000-3,000 point games on 4' wide tables will just be a couple hours of mindless fun. In big games like that tactics will boil down to how well you prioritize targets and game the objective/kill point system.

What I mean by similar tactics is that, for example, a unit that excels at tearing tanks apart in close assaults tank should fulfill that same role regardless of whether you're playing 40k or Epic.

Ditto ...  

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Yeah, when it boils down to it it is simply maintaining an activation advantage and ensuring the other side is forced off objectives by manoeuvre or damage (don't quite agree with your comparisons though beyond activations and even then activations is a manoeuvre not bayonet advantage).

Your point about 40k may be true, but all I ever see is 1500-2000 on 6x4 which is shoulder to shoulder deployment in many cases. The game seems to be far more about list design than play, perhaps more like a CCG than a wargame.



Gotcha, I tend to think of that as function and yes the units should try and behave the same (though some like marines play very differently on a unit level).

Something else to bear in mind is the 'best' army on many criteria is the Orks, and yet unit wise they are completely different to 40k.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

IMO, Orks in 40k and Epic still play in a very similar way, even though the terminology has drifted. Orks are an army of very similar units, each with slightly distinct weapons. At 40k's level of focus, the differences between those weapons is important, but in Epic there's no way to show it. This is where I'm fine with "blurring" the differences: for example, lootas and big guns fit well as a single unit, likewise burnas and regular boyz, or even tankbustas and nobz.

When something truly distinct shows up, though, it's fun to talk about how it should fit into Epic (much as it used to be fun to think of how all the Epic stuff could fit into 40k), and even play around with modeling/playtesting it. Who doesn't want to play around with stats for Blight Drones, LRPunishers, meltaspam IG Vets, Toxanthropes and Thunderfire cannons just for grins?

'um, out of the official armies, I believe that the Orks actually get the raw end of the deal.

I refer to the burner boyz. They are nowhere to be seen, while other armies have all these specialised units.

Note: not that I am saying that they should be added, just pointing out a fact.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I see what you say, but at the scale of Epic, aren't burnas just one of the reason why Orks have good cc values? It might be fun to play with a distinct burna unit though... basically just a boyz unit that ignores cover saves in assaults?

I guess I'm on both sides of this issue. Some units that aren't in Epic should be, and other units that aren't actually are, we just don't know it.