I look forward to following this project.

_________________
Vanguard Miniatures

Link, http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/

Stockist of:

Vanguard Miniatures
BattleGroup Helios
Onslaught Miniatures
Pyrkol Gaming Markers
Gregster's Lab
Microworld Games
Troublemaker Games

Hi again,

I haven't been idle with this, in fact moredakka and myself have managed to get quite a bit done via emails etc. However the WIP still isn't ready for any sort of "public viewing" yet.

If anyone wants to help with this little endeavor then changes or amendments that you are aware of could be posted on this thread, and we can see if it should be added or not.

In summary so far we have:
Made the turn sequence more interactive, detachments now alternate moving, firing and conducting close combat.
The close combat section has been re-done, units don't have to be actually in close combat, it is now possible to have close range firefights (similar to EA engagements).
The firefight part has been removed.
The updated hit allocation rules have been added, as has the amended antitank rules.
War engines now don't have a separate phase, they are treated like any other detachment.

There are numerous other tweaks and stuff, at some stage I will list all the changes/amendments etc.

Steve

_________________
Little legions, my blog http://stevenkelly1.blogspot.com/

Hi. Still like the mechanics of this version a lot. I'd thought about doing an epic 3.5 (blending the best of ea into the mix) a few years back myself but i eventually got into ea as it was easier to get people interested (which is still an uphill struggle.)

I think the main thing epicA brought (apart from the alternating activations which you have already added it seems) was the spilt of AT/AP fire. I'd always thought this could be incorporated with the units having an AT/AP firepower value which could be chosen/limited by target type... Never actually tried it though.

As for your other tweaks. All sound good. Must admit the CC base to base convention I'd always just seen as a "range" requirement rather than a necessarily denoting actual close combat. Just seem neater than having to measure 15cm all the time.

Must admit I liked the war machines acting last - seemed like slow, plodding but devastating battleships which seemed thematic - but not adverse to the change.

To be honest, I think the thing that needs most work are the army lists. They always seemed unfinished to me. The thing epicA got right was making the armies "feel" different - both by the restrictions of the list organisation (marines in small fragile units, IG in big inflexible but immovable lumps, Orks in any shape that takes their fancy etc) and the army wide special rules (for example hit and run from the eldar) which really adds interest to the game. In 3rd I remember being able to form up huge SM companies of tacticals and land raiders and just completely out gunning the imperial guard. I had a stab a few years back pointing up the EA lists to 3rd Ed points but again never tried it out.

Anyway, looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

BTW. Do you still need the fate cards?

Great idea. Looking forward to it, I loved 3rd edition.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941

Wow, that's not in the doc you sent me. Sounds very interesting, Yorkie!

Hi,

Its very much still a work in progress. lots of things are still up in the air and haven't been decided upon. I really like the clean mechanics of epic40k, and in the short time we have been tinkering with this, alot has changed already. It remains to be seen if this is a good thing or not.

What I dont want is a big re-write, that ends up looking nothing like the original, with lots of little complexities.

Some things in my opinion need updating, some things need to be added or clarified.
In a nutshell there are lots of things we could add and/or change, but should we?

_________________
Little legions, my blog http://stevenkelly1.blogspot.com/

I haven't done any Epic for a long time, but just poked in, and am curious.

What is the main reason why you want to do this? Why not just play Epic 40K? Is it consolidation, or so you can make changes? Not criticizing, just haven't figure out the motivation.

My first impression was that you wanted to make a new version of Epic 40K consolidating the addenda. But the changes you are making are fairly major, not tweaks. So I'm confused.

I think that when AT weapons get allocated front to back, they don't need the extra cost.

If you can find The Titan Project out there somewhere, that was intended to be a fan tweak to Epic 40K. It varied war engine weapons, while keeping the same simplicity of what was there. Mostly a few more trade-offs between firepower and range, that kind of thing. I think we switched some fire arcs for war engines, which I never liked being 180 left and right--we just pivoted them so they cross in front and leave a vulnerable spot in back. Might have made a few more changes.

Since then I have tried bigger changes. I wanted to quit measuring 6mm figures, so I tried 4" or 6" hexes. Changed blast markers some. Tried to unify CC and FF. The rules all "worked", but I didn't make a point to bring in some of the game stuff that made E40K fun. I forget that having movement and shooting rules isn't enough to make a game exciting.

Anyway, good luck. Just wanted to see if I could figure out what you were trying to do, and suggest you look into The Titan Project. I _might_ have the document around somewhere, but am not sure.

andy

yorkie has taken a short break from this project due to real life issues and he would be more qualified to answer your questions. Originally the idea was to update the rule book with all the errata and rule changes plus update the army lists.

But after some debate we decided to try and update the movement and assault phases to make them more interactive just like the shooting phase. Also a few other areas have been tinkered with but nothing has yet been set in stone.

I know i'd be interested in seeing what you did with the system and i'm sure yorkie would be interested to. It's early days on this project yet and all ideas are welcome for consideration.

_________________
Vanguard Miniatures

Link, http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/

Stockist of:

Vanguard Miniatures
BattleGroup Helios
Onslaught Miniatures
Pyrkol Gaming Markers
Gregster's Lab
Microworld Games
Troublemaker Games

I would be interested in seeing the Titan Project changes.

Looks like I'm supposed to be able to attach a file here. This is what I found in my _old_ files.

While I was looking, I also found my list of house rules. Skimmers pop-up a 25cm (check LoS from there). Don't overlap barrage templates until whole detachment is covered. Equal strategy ratings means both units get 3, rather than rolling for one to be considered the higher rating for the match. When removing blast markers, roll 2 dice and take lower, instead of 1d6-1.

I don't know whether any of the people in the credits for this document are on this page, but I hope if they see this, they get a smile.

andy

Hey thanks for this andy i'll take a look.

Also out of personal interest i'd be interested in looking at your hex adaption ideas if you have them on file.

Cheers

_________________
Vanguard Miniatures

Link, http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/

Stockist of:

Vanguard Miniatures
BattleGroup Helios
Onslaught Miniatures
Pyrkol Gaming Markers
Gregster's Lab
Microworld Games
Troublemaker Games

I never really got anything I was delighted with for hexes. I didn't want to draw hexes on my mat or my Geo-Hex terrain. I tried putting washers down in hex centers, and using clumps of terrain where I could. But that took a long time to set up. It did save measuring. I wanted to save the effort of figuring out which tiny little figures could see which other tiny little figures. But using boardgame-style LoS between hexes felt gamey in other ways.

I think I had infantry basically move one 4" hex. A detachment might be spread into adjacent hexes, but you just make sure, as you're moving figures, you don't move any more than their allotment. Vehicles might move three hexes. I think I needed a bit more resolution, so let some vehicles add one hex to either regular move or assault phase move, or equivalently move one less in one of those moves. That was so I could distinguish a Land Raider from a Rhino for speed.

Use the hex instead of a barrage template. I had to adjust here a bit, I'm sure. I think I had each barrage do 1 FP for each model/stand in a hex, up to some number max. More barrages could make that go higher.

Oh, and you have to decide whether you want to still apply hits from nearest to farthest. My goal was to not have to think about the exact placement of 6mm miniatures, whether for movement, cover, shooting, coherency, barrages, etc. The two places I waffled on this were applying hits and assaults.

Count each hex as being all of one kind of terrain. One place that gets tricky is what happens to transports as they unload into buildings. But if you can separate a detachment into adjacent hexes, that works out. I guess you'd need to handle roads in cities, for example.

I think if I had a quick way to scatter hexes over my terrain, I'd have kept trying this. I thought of a projector, of some kind of net. I could have hexes on a ground cloth, but I use a lot of gradual slopes with Geo-Hex, and that usually makes a lot of ground to cover.

andy

I have some of GHQ's 4" terrain maker hexes i acquired some years ago and have started a Hexon II layout that will be used for epic, the hexes on these are 10cms across the flats.

It sounds like you had much the same idea as us that the use of a hex grid would eliminate the need for rulers and templates to. All units would have a number of hexes to regulate movement and ranging. Barrages would cover a whole hex or group of hexes with all units in the hex counting as under a template as per the normal rules.

The core rules can still be used it's only in the movement, ranging and template weapons areas that some tweeking is required.

Anyway thanks for the reply, cheers John

_________________
Vanguard Miniatures

Link, http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/

Stockist of:

Vanguard Miniatures
BattleGroup Helios
Onslaught Miniatures
Pyrkol Gaming Markers
Gregster's Lab
Microworld Games
Troublemaker Games

Ha! Hi Andy, yes I see my name on that document, and remember many long discussions on the old yahoo group . Nice to see you popping in here.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Hi Andy looks like you had a promising start on the titan project. Did it go any further than the document you have posted?

I like the titan weapons firepower for range trade off a very neat idea to add variation to weapons batteries without adding any extra detail to the game, just the sort of thing i'm looking for.

Thanks

_________________
Vanguard Miniatures

Link, http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/

Stockist of:

Vanguard Miniatures
BattleGroup Helios
Onslaught Miniatures
Pyrkol Gaming Markers
Gregster's Lab
Microworld Games
Troublemaker Games