Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I heard on another site a rumor that there was a limit for super-heavies/gargantuan creatures, something like only one for every 2000 points. Can anyone confirm/disprove this?

I can't see that being true

Well even if they had a limit on super heavies, one per 2000 points, it's not gonna change much. Seeing the new Khornemower is close to a 1000 points with upgrades.

So i gotta field a landraider with terminators when i field my reaver titan... Okay sounds about fair.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 BrassScorpion wrote:

Khorne consistently has gotten boned in 6th edition both with bad models and bad rules and you were expecting anything different from apocalypse?

Speaking of Khorne getting boned (the only bone he likes is the skull after all), I have not seen a thing about either the Brass Scorpion or the Tower Of Skulls for this new 2nd Edition Apocalypse. Those were two popular conversions for Apocalypse, especially the Brass Scorpion. It would be most annoying to for their to be no datasheets for those in the new Apocalypse.

I built three Brass Scorpions for myself, gave clinics on how to do it, had a builders' guide on the US GW website for the first six months of 2008 and have even built some for other people. There are a lot of expensive Brass Scorpion conversions out there that are going to be collecting dust if they have no datasheet now.

Use the old datasheet.

Talked about this with the friends who play Apoc,( and we try to stay Fluff 'n Fun when playing Apoc, no competitif mindset, only the crazy ideas that we want to do), we agreed that if those two weren't in the new book or on GW site, we would update them to be on par with other Deamon machines; Deamon, It Will Not Die, Deamonforge, and simply convert the SP's into HP's, 1 SP=3 HP.

And also maybe change or limite the D-weapons, din't really discused about it yet.

Apparently the rules for those are in the Collector's edition additional warzone along with things like the plaguereaper so who knows how long till the rest of us get our hands on that. Might be a few months, might be a looooooong arse time.

 Peregrine wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Whats the deal with D strength now?

Now ignores all saves (including invulnerable saves) and save-like abilities (FNP, reanimation protocols, etc) and against non-superheavy vehicles auto-kills on a 2+ instead of just inflicting a penetrating hit. They also strip multiple HP from superheavy vehicles, but the standard competitive apocalypse strategy is still going to be deep striking mass melta to kill superheavies while D-weapon titans erase entire armies of smaller stuff from the table.

Needless to say, anyone who plays apocalypse regularly is going to house rule a D-weapon nerf.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Oh wait...I forgot to read stuff first. FAQ states you can take Invulns against things that allow 'no saves of any kind', and it isn't specifically listed as ignoring Invulns. So here is the ACTUAL difference to D-Weapons:

Against vehicles - Better
Against superheavy vehicles - Better
Against Gargantuans - Better
Against MCs - Worse
Against Infantry(with or without Invulns) - Much Worse

The change is obviously designed to use your Destroyer weapons to target vehicle-style models and take other weapon-types to deal with infantry. Which, if you played any number of Apoc games prior, you can easily realize was the change that needed to be made. The idea that it was meant to kill hard targets but was super-awesome and pulling anything off of the table except for Gargantuan creatures before was making it spammed. Now you can spam D-weapons all you want but those Titanhammer Squads, Fire Dragons, Wraithguard, Nobs, BigNids will rip you a new one if you didn't bring supporting fire units that you didn't need before. It changes Apoc for the better and brings infantry back into the fold.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:


The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Oh wait...I forgot to read stuff first. FAQ states you can take Invulns against things that allow 'no saves of any kind', and it isn't specifically listed as ignoring Invulns.

Citation needed.

Edit: Actual FAQ text:

Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Oh wait...I forgot to read stuff first.

Yup. You sure did.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Against Infantry(with or without Invulns) - Much Worse

But still better than every other weapon type. Sure you need a 2+ to wound now, but so does every other weapon, and those weapons don't ignore all saves. If you want to kill infantry you take D-weapons.

The change is obviously designed to use your Destroyer weapons to target vehicle-style models and take other weapon-types to deal with infantry.

And that's the problem: D-weapons are meant to target ALL vehicles. What GW should have done is make them non-blast weapons so they're only used to kill single high-priority targets like titans/Land Raiders full of HQ death stars/etc. But instead they get even better at removing multiple smaller vehicles with a single shot. So no matter what vehicles you want to kill you take a D-weapon.

Now you can spam D-weapons all you want but those Titanhammer Squads, Fire Dragons, Wraithguard, Nobs, BigNids will rip you a new one if you didn't bring supporting fire units that you didn't need before. It changes Apoc for the better and brings infantry back into the fold.

As xttz already pointed out, the FAQ does NOT say what you think it says. D-weapons ignore invulnerable saves, which means they're still the default solution to removing all those tough elite units. And now they're even better than they used to be, needing a 2+ to wound is more than offset by now ignoring invulnerable saves.

Random but looking through the Sons of the Primarch chart, I see the Word Bearers have potentially one of the most powerful abilities: Take control of an unengaged enemy unit within 24" of the warlord (presumably to represent the unit defecting). There is no mention of this control being temporary.

Somehow get the warlord within 24" and you can take control of an opponent's Titan or their deathstar unit.

Iracundus wrote:
Random but looking through the Sons of the Primarch chart, I see the Word Bearers have potentially one of the most powerful abilities: Take control of an unengaged enemy unit within 24" of the warlord (presumably to represent the unit defecting). There is no mention of this control being temporary.

Somehow get the warlord within 24" and you can take control of an opponent's Titan or their deathstar unit.

Finest Hour abilities last for 1 game turn only, then they expire and the warlords revert to their natural stats. At that point, the control of the enemy unit ends, which is why the last bit about moving it 1" from other models exists in the line.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Against Infantry(with or without Invulns) - Much Worse

But still better than every other weapon type. Sure you need a 2+ to wound now, but so does every other weapon, and those weapons don't ignore all saves. If you want to kill infantry you take D-weapons.

Better than every other weapon type, yes. But worse than before. Before it was remove if under template, unless an Invuln. If you wanted them reduced in power versus infantry, you got your wish. Evidently the only exception would be infantry with Invulns if the wording is no saves of any kind(I still thought this had come up before and was FAQed, maybe that was 5th). If you fire a MUCH cheaper Battlecannon shell at almost every infantry model in the game that isn't in cover, you get the same result as a D-Str weapon...whereas before it was not the case with the auto-wound.

I will agree that most HQ units got hit hard by this change if it is true(those with Invulns). With the added leaning toward Warlords affecting the battle for thematic purposes, the ability to wipe them off the board with a roll 6 or 2-5 followed by a 3+(most HQs have more than 2 wounds afterall) is a bit of a pain.

 Peregrine wrote:

The change is obviously designed to use your Destroyer weapons to target vehicle-style models and take other weapon-types to deal with infantry.

Now you can spam D-weapons all you want but those Titanhammer Squads, Fire Dragons, Wraithguard, Nobs, BigNids will rip you a new one if you didn't bring supporting fire units that you didn't need before. It changes Apoc for the better and brings infantry back into the fold.

And now they're even better than they used to be, needing a 2+ to wound is more than offset by now ignoring invulnerable saves.

I know more than a few infantry models that would disagree with this than would agree. With the change in idea on it ignoring Invuln saves, that changes Titanhammer from the post...and nothing else. Of which you can field a crazy number of those units to threaten the Titan for its own cost.

Spamming D-Str weapons, against anybody who plays Apoc more than once a year, is a sure way to lose. And that is without that player bringing his own D-Str spam to combat it. I've killed far more Titans with Fire Dragons, Wraithguard and mixed in Brightlances than my D-Str weapons from my Revenant or Scorpion. My Nightwings have accounted for more Titan kills than my Scorpion that costs 250 points more than the two of them combined.

With the change in the current meta, as well, I don't see those templated D-Str weapons doing much against the prevalence of flyers.

I still can't believe no one has opened the fortification box yet to give us rules!

rigeld2 wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Oh wait...I forgot to read stuff first.

Yup. You sure did.

Read just fine, thanks for your value added post.

I missed one word in one FAQ that has little bearing on the overall discussion on D-Weapons due to the non-prevalence of Invuln saves in most armies, my appologies.

But thanks for being as useful as usual(Sarcasm).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
I still can't believe no one has opened the fortification box yet to give us rules!

Agreed, I'm eager to see how some of these will fill the Interceptor gap in my Eldar army. Heh

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I missed one word in one FAQ that has little bearing on the overall discussion on D-Weapons due to the non-prevalence of Invuln saves in most armies, my appologies.

It's extremely important because the biggest priority targets (and really, the only infantry worth taking in Apocalypse) tend to have good invulnerable saves. The fact that D-weapons got a bit worse at killing boyz is more than offset by the fact that they got much better at killing terminator death stars.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I still can't believe no one has opened the fortification box yet to give us rules!

Agreed, I'm eager to see how some of these will fill the Interceptor gap in my Eldar army. Heh

I'm picking up the two small ones on Saturday but am dying to find out the rules before then.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
If you wanted them reduced in power versus infantry, you got your wish.

No, I really didn't. They got slightly worse against infantry that don't matter, and much better at removing the best infantry units. The correct way to make them less effective against infantry would have been to remove the blast template so you can only hit one model, but GW would rather make Apocalpyse a game of "buy the biggest titan and win".

I've killed far more Titans with Fire Dragons, Wraithguard and mixed in Brightlances than my D-Str weapons from my Revenant or Scorpion.

Exactly the problem. You use mass melta (preferably deep striking directly to the target) to kill big stuff and D-weapons to remove entire armies from the table. This completely reverses the intended role of having D-weapons be dedicated titan killers.

With the change in the current meta, as well, I don't see those templated D-Str weapons doing much against the prevalence of flyers.

So what? Nobody is saying D-weapons are the only weapon you want in your army, the problem is that any unit that CAN take a D-weapon will take a D-weapon. For example, if you get a titan you arm it with D-weapons, period. You only even consider the other weapon options if you want to go easy on your opponents and avoid the most powerful option. The existence of flyers doesn't change this because none of the units that can carry D-weapons are able to shoot at flyers with any of their possible weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I missed one word in one FAQ that has little bearing on the overall discussion on D-Weapons due to the non-prevalence of Invuln saves in most armies, my appologies.

It's extremely important because the biggest priority targets (and really, the only infantry worth taking in Apocalypse) tend to have good invulnerable saves. The fact that D-weapons got a bit worse at killing boyz is more than offset by the fact that they got much better at killing terminator death stars.

I see it more as:

Those Terminators and other Invuln-save toting infantry that were good at surviving everything have a weakness and the line infantry got more survivable and worth playing. You stated 'the only infantry worth taking in Apoc' based on the prior D-Str rules being a huge factor in that statement. Now that 1 in 6 Ork Boys or Guardsmen can survive the D-Str blast, I feel this will increase their playability.

I will admit that I saw plenty of Terminators in the older edition of Apoc. But I also saw plenty of other infantry that could Flank March(unless houseruled into the ground), Deep Strike, or Mechanize. Also, planting infantry in multiple level ruins did a good job of keeping them alive versus D-Str weapons. Firing the weapon at a group of Guardians in a 3-4 level ruin means the return for invensment is VERY low and not worth putting those kind of shots into the squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Exactly the problem. You use mass melta (preferably deep striking directly to the target) to kill big stuff and D-weapons to remove entire armies from the table. This completely reverses the intended role of having D-weapons be dedicated titan killers.

My D-Str weapons were better spent killing off things like vehicles than infantry. Eldar already did very well versus infantry, but your mileage may have honestly varied there.

 Peregrine wrote:
So what? Nobody is saying D-weapons are the only weapon you want in your army, the problem is that any unit that CAN take a D-weapon will take a D-weapon. For example, if you get a titan you arm it with D-weapons, period. You only even consider the other weapon options if you want to go easy on your opponents and avoid the most powerful option. The existence of flyers doesn't change this because none of the units that can carry D-weapons are able to shoot at flyers with any of their possible weapons.

Plenty of people would bring Plasma Blastguns on Warhounds as it allowed a large template that could affect more units or models, especially with the 6th Edition changes to blast template DMG.

Can't a Warhound Titan take both a Vulcan Megabolter which could shred AV 10-11 flyers well and a Turbolaser Destructor? So "none of the units that can carry D-weapons are able to shoot at flyers with any of their possible weapons" is a bit off at least in this case. I'm pretty surethe Reaver has similar Options on carapace weapons.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
You stated 'the only infantry worth taking in Apoc' based on the prior D-Str rules being a huge factor in that statement. Now that 1 in 6 Ork Boys or Guardsmen can survive the D-Str blast, I feel this will increase their playability.

No, I base it on the time and space constraints. Unless your idea of a standard Apocalypse game is under 5000 points with no time limits you don't bring boyz. It's just too much tedious dice rolling and movement for too little gain, you're going to use up all of your own time limit on units with minimal impact, and your opponents aren't going to enjoy it very much either. The only infantry you ever want to take are units like drop pod sternguard, TH/SS death stars, etc, that have immediate impact with a few models/dice.

Plenty of people would bring Plasma Blastguns on Warhounds as it allowed a large template that could affect more units or models, especially with the 6th Edition changes to blast template DMG.

Those people didn't really know what they were doing then, because the slightly larger template of the plasma blastgun is more than offset by the need to roll to wound/penetrate armor and then get through cover/invulnerable saves. The turbolaser did more damage in virtually every real-world situation.

Can't a Warhound Titan take both a Vulcan Megabolter which could shred AV 10-11 flyers well and a Turbolaser Destructor?

The vulcan megabolter is not an AA weapon. 15 shots with 6s to hit is 2.5 hits, which isn't really a viable threat (especially when a 75-point Hydra does more damage).

Meanwhile you could take a turbolaser and a second turbolaser and actually kill something. I know which one I'd take 100% of the time.

I'm pretty surethe Reaver has similar Options on carapace weapons.

It also has the ability to take a vortex missile or more D-weapons. If you took a megabolter instead of a vortex missile you were either a clueless newbie with too much money to spend, or deliberately making your army weaker so you don't crush your opponents.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
If you wanted them reduced in power versus infantry, you got your wish.

So what? Nobody is saying D-weapons are the only weapon you want in your army, the problem is that any unit that CAN take a D-weapon will take a D-weapon. For example, if you get a titan you arm it with D-weapons, period. You only even consider the other weapon options if you want to go easy on your opponents and avoid the most powerful option. The existence of flyers doesn't change this because none of the units that can carry D-weapons are able to shoot at flyers with any of their possible weapons.

Really? Because neither of my Warhounds have D weapons. And not because I "want to go easy on" opponents, but because I like the look of the plasma blastguns and vulcan megabolters better.

You must play with nothing but power hungry, WAAC donkey caves if you think that's the choices everyone is going to make with their titans or other SHVs.

In the group I played with in FL, before I moved, we rarely saw any D weapons in our apoc games at all.

Edit: And now, having read your next post, I see that you believe that I don't know what I'm doing, or I'm deliberately weakening my army out of charity to my opponent, as those are the only reasons you believe exist for other weapon choices.

Oh, that group I played with in FL? Yeah, there tended to be lots of infantry all over the table, of all kinds.

So, we either really didn't know how to play Apoc...or we really DID know how to play it.

shade1313 wrote:
Really? Because neither of my Warhounds have D weapons. And not because I "want to go easy on" opponents, but because I like the look of the plasma blastguns and vulcan megabolters better.

We're talking about the rules, not what looks pretty on the model. And if you're making gameplay decisions you always take the D-weapons unless you're deliberately weakening your army.

You must play with nothing but power hungry, WAAC donkey caves if you think that's the choices everyone is going to make with their titans or other SHVs.

And you must play with power hungry fluff-at-all-cost donkey caves if you think that everyone is going to choose weak weapons just for the sake of taking weak weapons, or refuse to allow you to proxy the cool looking guns as turbolasers.

Anyway, you're still missing the point. If the game is so unbalanced that you have to depend on the players having unwritten rules to avoid trying too hard to win it's lazy unprofessional game design. GW should have made the weapon options balanced instead of making D-weapons absurdly overpowered and forcing everyone to hope that nobody shows up with D-weapon spam and ruins the game.

I'm so sorry that our playing to have a fun game is offensive to your personal gaming sensibilities.

Edit: I HAVE always felt, however, that they made a gross error in having all of the weapons available to a titan "cost" the same, by allowing the player to choose any that they liked with no variance off of the basic cost of the titan. With no additional cost to obviously more powerful weapons, there's far less incentive for many players to go with options other than the D weapons.

shade1313 wrote:
I'm so sorry that our playing to have a fun game is offensive to your personal gaming sensibilities.

I'm so sorry that my playing to have a fun game is offensive to your personal gaming sensibilities.


Also, you keep missing the point. If you have to depend on unwritten rules about "not trying too hard" to have a fun game then it's incredibly lazy and unprofessional game design. But I guess that's what we should expect from GW.

 Peregrine wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
I'm so sorry that our playing to have a fun game is offensive to your personal gaming sensibilities.

I'm so sorry that my playing to have a fun game is offensive to your personal gaming sensibilities.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

shade1313 wrote:
Edit: I HAVE always felt, however, that they made a gross error in having all of the weapons available to a titan "cost" the same, by allowing the player to choose any that they liked with no variance off of the basic cost of the titan. With no additional cost to obviously more powerful weapons, there's far less incentive for many players to go with options other than the D weapons.

See, now you get it. GW could have easily fixed the balance problem and made mindless D-weapon spam go away, and the fact that they didn't is a problem.

That's really the bottom line - this is a GAME. Not a sport. Groups of friends typically get together, and have fun playing in the style which they all enjoy - some the power hungry, D-weapon loving types, while others like playing back-and-forth infantry and tank apoc battles. Tournaments that rely on balanced (as much as possible anyway) gameplay won't use the apoc format, so again - it's really irrelevant.

D weapons are awesome and absurdly strong. Players with the ability to field them will do so - thankfully there are some strategic assets like vortex grenades, and fortifications like vortex missile silos, that give other players without super heavies access to D weapons as well. Or, as said before, house rule them if they get to overwhelming for anybody to enjoy the game save the person with the biggest guns. (or team up vs that person to even the odds....it's apocalypse after all).

 tetrisphreak wrote:
That's really the bottom line - this is a GAME. Not a sport. Groups of friends typically get together, and have fun playing in the style which they all enjoy - some the power hungry, D-weapon loving types, while others like playing back-and-forth infantry and tank apoc battles. Tournaments that rely on balanced (as much as possible anyway) gameplay won't use the apoc format, so again - it's really irrelevant.

Or you could just have competent professionals write the game, and avoid the problem entirely because there won't be any obviously unbalanced idiocy like D-weapons to exploit. But I guess it's better to have a broken game where the D-weapon spammer shows up to a "back and forth infantry and tanks" game and neither side has any fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
Edit: I HAVE always felt, however, that they made a gross error in having all of the weapons available to a titan "cost" the same, by allowing the player to choose any that they liked with no variance off of the basic cost of the titan. With no additional cost to obviously more powerful weapons, there's far less incentive for many players to go with options other than the D weapons.

See, now you get it. GW could have easily fixed the balance problem and made mindless D-weapon spam go away, and the fact that they didn't is a problem.

I do hope that they've changed that aspect, and introduced different costs to different weapons loadouts. The Khornethingy sheet that we've seen appears to have different costs for various weapons, and I hope that signals the way the other SHVs with weapons options are going to be.

shade1313 wrote:
I do hope that they've changed that aspect, and introduced different costs to different weapons loadouts. The Khornethingy sheet that we've seen appears to have different costs for various weapons, and I hope that signals the way the other SHVs with weapons options are going to be.

According to someone who had access to the book they haven't. The new units have different costs, but all of the old ones still have the same rules for weapon choices. And since the Imperial titans are the worst offenders for D-weapon spam this is really the same as no solution at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
That's really the bottom line - this is a GAME. Not a sport. Groups of friends typically get together, and have fun playing in the style which they all enjoy - some the power hungry, D-weapon loving types, while others like playing back-and-forth infantry and tank apoc battles. Tournaments that rely on balanced (as much as possible anyway) gameplay won't use the apoc format, so again - it's really irrelevant.

Or you could just have competent professionals write the game, and avoid the problem entirely because there won't be any obviously unbalanced idiocy like D-weapons to exploit. But I guess it's better to have a broken game where the D-weapon spammer shows up to a "back and forth infantry and tanks" game and neither side has any fun.

Is it wrong to expect players to communicate with one another and say "hey, man, don't bring those busted titans to our game today." ? Lots of game systems have exploitable parts or loopholes if you look hard enough. Heck, even the Tekken video game series has Eddy Gordo, with which the most untalented of players can just mash buttons and disco-dance themselves into a win. I dunno, maybe that's a bad example but the point is just because players CAN do something un-fun, doesn't mean they should or that they even will.