I liked playing BKC and I'm thinking of getting FWC. Is FWC better though than Epic:Armageddon, a game I also enjoy. My question really is, which would you prefer to play? Which is more fun, and why? Thanks.

I haven't played FWC but I have played Warmaster.  While the order system for Warmaster suits the fantasy/historical setting I'm not sure if the order system is the best fit for modeern/future battles. The system can also get very frustrating at times when you get unlucky with the rolls.

I'll be picking FWC up but I don't anticipate on playing it much. It's hard enough to find Epic gamers.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Saying that the WWII and Cold war guys I know love it.

_________________
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 they both have different good points.

Epic A is a fantastic tournament system with a nicely designed tournament scenario.

If FWC plays like BKC/CWC, and I see no reason why it wouldn't then it plays far better as a scenario driven game. The few times I've played meeting engagements the game bogs down with neither side willing to push to break the opposition fearful they will get broken themselves.

I have not got my copy of FWC yet, but from what I've heard it sounds superior to E:A and I can say the same for DRM/SoW rules. At this time ... I'd say E:A IMO, pulls a (weak?)third ... SoW = 1, FWC = 2, and E:A = 3  But, once I get get FWC that may change, but I still see E:A as #3 ...    The fact that E:A is good for Tournaments is of little use to us since we don't play "Tournies" ...    See my previous post about Vegas !!   Of course similar to what Dave said, with the responsibilities of modern life makes it hard to find time to set 4-6 hours aside for gaming ...

_________________
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."

The two systems are really dramatically different and I think that it makes them very difficult to compare.

Epic is primarily a game of weapon system delivery. Each unit has a very detailed weapon listing and the weapons have additional details added to them.

FWC has no real weapons and the units themselves have attack values that are not linked to any specific weapon.

Epic has an initiative system but no real command and control. FWC is very much focused on C&C.

Epic is a fantasy game with sci-fi weapons and really doesn't focus on technology so much. FWC has a particular focus on the differing effects of technology levels and specific technologies. This is something that makes a race like the Tau a lot more interesting in FWC IMO.

The games also play quite differently and I think that Epic players will need a few games before they get a feel for the system and get used to how to command units and lead assaults. Assaults are very different in FWC and are not the mass piling in of troops that Epic has.

I think both games are a lot of fun and people are really going to need to try the game a few times to see what they think

Oh, and leave your expectations about how your "marines" or "orcs" play at the door. The rules have stats for Epic armies but they are not 40K based armies and work differently.

I'll be picking FWC up but I don't anticipate on playing it much. It's hard enough to find Epic gamers.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

That's good intell PG !  THanks !

_________________
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."

One other thing that gamers will need to drop from Epic is thinking of formations in terms of blocks of similar units.

In Epic you tend to use a formation to soften up an assault target and then assault with other troops. In FWC you can soften up the target as part of the action for the "formation" so its often better to build blocks of assault forces that have their fire support as an organic part of them

So instead of one formation of tanks you'd have those tanks as part of the formation of infantry and IFVs. The tanks shoot as the IFVs move into assault and so you get the same effect but in a more realistic fashion

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Hi!

From the point of view of tactics and combined arms approach, I think FWC is the frontrunner.

Oddly enough for me, I actually think FWC and the way it applies its rules and command and control the rules can actually make the diverse armies of the epic universe BEHAVE like the fluff suggests.

Space marines,besides their superhuman traits, do have superior command and control as compared to say IG. Epic rules have never really delved into that aspect very well. In FWC space marines are better lead and it will show in how the army responds.

Also by altering hits, saves and weaponry you can get a better palable difference in the resilience of marines versus IG.

The FWC take on tyranids and how a hive works is probably one of the best I've seen. The rules really make it function like a swarm.

Artillery, air superiority/strikes and how they function are definitely better in FWC and clearly linked to command control (as it should be).

Even abilities from the epic universe like tunnelers, teleport units, snipers and others just work better than the epic analogues.

Both rule sets have a different take on how to represent this scale, so its ultimately a matter of taste which you'd like.

I prefer mechanics tied into command and control with a layer of details to make armies function differently during play. I believe FWC delivers this.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Pardon my ignorance. What does FWC stand for?

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Future War Commander

And yes the warmaster system is all about command and control - and is I think the best ruleset for capturing that to date - at least the most elegant, other systems having such mechanisms but making it damn complex at the same time.

_________________
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

You are in the Future War Commander topic area. This might be a clue :-)

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

since we're comparing.. Is there a comparison between FWC and SM2/TL / NetEpic?

_________________
Designer of Polyversal, currently in development with Collins Epic Wargames.
Twitter: @Weeklywargamer

I didn't want to assume.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

That FWC C&C sounds better all the time ... as I said with every version of Epic, C&C didn't cut it, IMO ...

_________________
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."