cody.d. wrote: Well it seems that the base datasheets for armies will be free. (can't remember where I saw that, i think in one of the community posts.)
So it does stand to reason that forgeworld stuff would as well. Which I'm keen for.
Indeed on the community post.
I hope FW stuff wil be released too as well.
At least some FW stuff will be covered for sure. For example, the Tyranid datasheet pack says it's 68 cards, but there are only around 40 unit entries in the codex. That leaves plenty of room for their 9 FW units and maybe even some of the old index stuff like Shrikes.
Of course it is possible that some unit entries have been rejigged to bump those numbers up; i.e. walking & flying Hive Tyrants are now separate units.
If the Imperial Knight box included a regular Knight or the Knight Preceptor kit, I would be much more likely to get it. As it stands, none of the boxes really appeal to me. I don't need more Primaris (at least not the items in that box). I don't need another Knight Castellan. I have not a clue what I would do with six more Kastellan Robots (I would have eight of them) and another stupid Techpriest Dominus (I have four already...).
I might pick up that Chaos Space Marines box though. It seems like a great way to start that army. Or maybe the Necrons box to go with my Forgebane stuff. I dunno. I could just do the responsible thing and buy nothing.
Elbows wrote: The Duncan Knight video made me laugh.
He shows off 8-10 Knights, etc...and then says he needs to grab a bunch more to flesh out the army for Apocalypse. Of course he gets a discount if not damn-near-free...but the idea of "yeah just need to pick up another handful of $140 kits..." shows where this hobby is and how obsessed some people are with throwing cash at something like Apocalypse.
That's just insanity. I'll be more than happy to watch from the sidelines though!
It's even funnier if you actually look closely, he is using the big, expensive FW knights as standard, squatty ones if loadout is any indication. There is having too much money, and there is just saying 'feth it' and burning extra dose just because
Elbows wrote: The Duncan Knight video made me laugh.
He shows off 8-10 Knights, etc...and then says he needs to grab a bunch more to flesh out the army for Apocalypse. Of course he gets a discount if not damn-near-free...but the idea of "yeah just need to pick up another handful of $140 kits..." shows where this hobby is and how obsessed some people are with throwing cash at something like Apocalypse.
That's just insanity. I'll be more than happy to watch from the sidelines though!
It's even funnier if you actually look closely, he is using the big, expensive FW knights as standard, squatty ones if loadout is any indication. There is having too much money, and there is just saying 'feth it' and burning extra dose just because
They aren't standard ones but converted custom ones. Surprising for tournament playes but house rules are a thing
Even if GW/FW doesn't make them I'm sure there will be fan datasheets that don't suck that you can use for some things. I built a Leviathan based on an original apocalyse datasheet from (I think) BOLS.
Necros wrote: Even if GW/FW doesn't make them I'm sure there will be fan datasheets that don't suck that you can use for some things. I built a Leviathan based on an original apocalyse datasheet from (I think) BOLS.
Not to derail the thread, but that Leviathan is freakin' AWESOME
I saw this the other day. Not actually one guy's personal army, though that doesn't make it any less impressive! It's from a commission painter that borrowed back all the imperium stuff they've painted over the last four or so years and added it to their own models, I think just for the photo opportunity. There's a lot more high Res photos on their website, but I don't have the link to hand.
I saw this the other day. Not actually one guy's personal army, though that doesn't make it any less impressive! It's from a commission painter that borrowed back all the imperium stuff they've painted over the last four or so years and added it to their own models, I think just for the photo opportunity. There's a lot more high Res photos on their website, but I don't have the link to hand.
I don't know if I like a second small blast marker turning into a large one. Seems like they could have done something more interesting with a distinction between getting a lot of weak hits on a unit and getting stronger hits. Like lots of small arms fire should require many saves but a better chance of making them, right?
Deck building. Not a word I particularly enjoy reading.
It'll be interesting to see how the game is received at my local store. Can't remember the last time I saw 40k played there.
Mr Morden wrote: I am actually pleasently shocked that Sisters got a faction link
From pages back, but worth quoting. Makes you realize that we are less than six months away from the release of plastic Sisters (Emperor willing ). What a time to be alive.
Even if the rules will only cover what's available in metal now, with the hope that Apocalypse sticks around long enough to update the datasheets towards the end of the year.
Not sure im a fan of the randomness of having a card deck in that fashion [draw X amount etc]. I would rather the cards be used the same way as stradgems [can use whichever one whenever] and then maybe limit the amount you can use per turn / phase or similar.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I don't know if I like a second small blast marker turning into a large one. Seems like they could have done something more interesting with a distinction between getting a lot of weak hits on a unit and getting stronger hits. Like lots of small arms fire should require many saves but a better chance of making them, right?
Yeah, I see where you’re coming from but also I see where having so many blast marker tokens hanging around would be messy. Maybe increase the number to five so you can take four Bolter hits before your unit starts getting its armour compromised (also as an homage to Epic: Armageddon). But keep Destroyer as just outright placing a large BM.
FEARtheMoose wrote: Not sure im a fan of the randomness of having a card deck in that fashion [draw X amount etc]. I would rather the cards be used the same way as stradgems [can use whichever one whenever] and then maybe limit the amount you can use per turn / phase or similar.
Randomizing is probably the only way to avoid the problem stratagems have. There's a handful of good ones, and they have a strict hierarchy of use. Even if you limit it to one use only, you know exactly which one your opponent will play first, which one second, and so on. It gets dull with time.
Plus, GW loves hero-centric armies. Giving you more cards to play if you bring more characters fits with that design ethos.
I much prefer having to construct a deck of possible cards to use, rather than trying to remember to use the one out of dozens of possible strategems when the situation comes up. I mean, I guess part of being "good" at Warhammer 40,000 is knowing all the strategems (yours and your opponents), but as someone who doesn't play every day, even the increasing number of strategems in Kill Team just slows the game down.
From Abaddon's special rule we can infer that saves are taken at the end of the round and usually on a D6 vs large blasts and D12 vs small blasts. It remains to be seen how much stuff you remove for each failed save (I would guess 1 tank or 5 mandudes)
Good spot! Managed to miss that last time.
I think each failed save will do a wound for a smol marker - that's because the Primaris unit is listed as 5 dudes, but with two wounds. Large blast may simply make the save that much harder?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bums.
Reckon I'm going Chaos, lads! Really like the look of the boxed set.
There is more on this in the latest article:
At the end of each turn, in the Damage phase, you then take a saving throw for each blast marker that a unit has but you roll a D12 for each small blast marker and a D6 for each large blast marker! For each failed saving throw the unit gets a damage marker, and when the number of damage markers equals the unit’s Wounds characteristic the unit is destroyed.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I much prefer having to construct a deck of possible cards to use, rather than trying to remember to use the one out of dozens of possible strategems when the situation comes up. I mean, I guess part of being "good" at Warhammer 40,000 is knowing all the strategems (yours and your opponents), but as someone who doesn't play every day, even the increasing number of strategems in Kill Team just slows the game down.
True enough, having your abilities neatly sorted in front of you is convenient. But since both approaches are expressions of Combohammer, which as a design paradigm for Warhammer I dislike, having one doesn't do me any more good than having the other.
CSM pack is incredibly underwhelming. They need to either update the bikes or Squat the unit. The Terminator Lord is ok, but frankly, in light of all the new stuff that's been released (pretty great all of it) it's disappointing to see that the bundle is mostly musty old stuff.
catharsix wrote: CSM pack is incredibly underwhelming. They need to either update the bikes or Squat the unit. The Terminator Lord is ok, but frankly, in light of all the new stuff that's been released (pretty great all of it) it's disappointing to see that the bundle is mostly musty old stuff.
-C6
I'm sorry but what?
A boxed set of 37 miniatures has 7 old miniatures and you're saying it's "mostly musty old stuff"?
It's $170USD for 6x of Bikers($40/3; Direct Only), 1x Chaos Terminator Lord($24.75), and 30 Chaos Space Marines($60/10, brand new). Even combining all three of the "musty old stuff" in terms of price, it still isn't the cost of just the Marines themselves.
catharsix wrote: CSM pack is incredibly underwhelming. They need to either update the bikes or Squat the unit. The Terminator Lord is ok, but frankly, in light of all the new stuff that's been released (pretty great all of it) it's disappointing to see that the bundle is mostly musty old stuff.
-C6
I'm sorry but what?
A boxed set of 37 miniatures has 7 old miniatures and you're saying it's "mostly musty old stuff"?
It's $170USD for 6x of Bikers($40/3; Direct Only), 1x Chaos Terminator Lord($24.75), and 30 Chaos Space Marines($60/10, brand new). Even combining all three of the "musty old stuff" in terms of price, it still isn't the cost of just the Marines themselves.
heck I wish this came out a month ago, I'd have bought it for my CSMs (Now I have eneugh CSM troops I don't need it)
zedmeister wrote: Blast Markers. Pretty much taken Epic's rules and ported it to 40k
Except effect is quite different. Before blast markers caused disruption and were caused by casualties. Here no disruption and instead blast markers are the ones that cause casualties.
Albino Squirrel wrote: I much prefer having to construct a deck of possible cards to use, rather than trying to remember to use the one out of dozens of possible strategems when the situation comes up. I mean, I guess part of being "good" at Warhammer 40,000 is knowing all the strategems (yours and your opponents), but as someone who doesn't play every day, even the increasing number of strategems in Kill Team just slows the game down.
True enough, having your abilities neatly sorted in front of you is convenient. But since both approaches are expressions of Combohammer, which as a design paradigm for Warhammer I dislike, having one doesn't do me any more good than having the other.
But I think drawing randomly, especially if you draw only a few cards per turn (sounds like one base, plus one for each detachment commander still alive if I'm understanding correctly?) will limit the combos you can pull off. But I imagine they will still have plenty of aura abilities, so the game will end up being about overlaying aura bonuses to make your units invincible or powerful enough to wipe out any other unit. But we'll see.
Any info on the size of the Crusade Case XL that's in the price leaks? I'm curious as to how big this is as im running out of storage for my AdMech and have no room left for my Templars.
laam999 wrote: Any info on the size of the Crusade Case XL that's in the price leaks? I'm curious as to how big this is as im running out of storage for my AdMech and have no room left for my Templars.
zedmeister wrote: Blast Markers. Pretty much taken Epic's rules and ported it to 40k
Which is fantastic as Epic Armageddon is fantastic.
But..its not being ported? It's just using the same name yet not the rules. Such a disappointment that they need to throw in more random stuff into Apoc instead of actually design rules. Going to see how it works without the Deck Building element as some of us actually enjoy well designed battles that have us make tactical decisions, rather than "I drew the shoot twice strat and you drew the Advance extra D6!"
I like everything we've seen so far. Which is very rare for me and GW rules
I understand the misgivings people have with deckbuilding and random cards, and GW does tend to obfuscate their inability to balance armies behind a wall of randumb, but some very good games use such mechanics, including GW's own Warhammer Underworlds (which I am convinced they secretly outsourced to FFG or something). So it can be done right (let's hope GW secretly outsourced Apocalypse to FFG or something).
At the end of each turn, in the Damage phase, you then take a saving throw for each blast marker that a unit has but you roll a D12 for each small blast marker and a D6 for each large blast marker! For each failed saving throw the unit gets a damage marker, and when the number of damage markers equals the unit’s Wounds characteristic the unit is destroyed.
So, to my mind, this seems to imply that units retain their full effectiveness until they've been destroyed. The delightful agonies command asset shown in the CSM faction focus also mentions penalties from critical damage, though, which is a form of derading, I suppose.
Still, it seems as though you'll really get some use out of your units. This is what I'm liking most so far.
I agree that the idea of a command asset deck is unlikely to speed up gameplay, though.
catharsix wrote: CSM pack is incredibly underwhelming. They need to either update the bikes or Squat the unit. The Terminator Lord is ok, but frankly, in light of all the new stuff that's been released (pretty great all of it) it's disappointing to see that the bundle is mostly musty old stuff.
-C6
I'm sorry but what?
A boxed set of 37 miniatures has 7 old miniatures and you're saying it's "mostly musty old stuff"?
It's $170USD for 6x of Bikers($40/3; Direct Only), 1x Chaos Terminator Lord($24.75), and 30 Chaos Space Marines($60/10, brand new). Even combining all three of the "musty old stuff" in terms of price, it still isn't the cost of just the Marines themselves.
Lots of foot slogging marines and bikers is not what i have in mind when i hear apocalypse. Three lord of skulls attacking a warhound scout titan, thats apocalyptic.
heck I wish this came out a month ago, I'd have bought it for my CSMs (Now I have eneugh CSM troops I don't need it)
Seriously! You save $114.75(all my numbers are USD at retail price) buying this box at $170. The Bikers and Terminator Lord are $104.75 by themselves.
They could have put Raptors or Terminators or Havocs in, but those are things that people will see on the shelves. Bikers are Direct Only.
So I get why they put Bikers in.
And again, I priced out everything in case anyone is interested:
Spoiler:
Here's the breakdown on prices for stuff individually(in USD):
AdMech--$243
Tau--$285
Necrons--$261
Space Marines--$280
Craftworlds--$267.50[this is assuming $25 on the Spiritseer, which is pretty likely as he's on a 25mm base rather than a 32mm)
Guard--$250.25
Tyranids--$259.25
Orks--$249.50
Knights--$245
Chaos Marines--$284.75
We've seen two conflicting price tags on these discount boxes. One at $170 and one at $160.
That would put, assuming $160 is correct and is MSRP rather than a discounted price, the savings at:
That would be, I think, Epic 40,000 (the one that came in a box with Orks and Space Marines). Epic Armageddon came out later on, as a book on its own with miniatures available separately.
zedmeister wrote: Blast Markers. Pretty much taken Epic's rules and ported it to 40k
Except effect is quite different. Before blast markers caused disruption and were caused by casualties. Here no disruption and instead blast markers are the ones that cause casualties.
We don't know yet, it is possible that they also cause disruptions in the Morale phase or something. One of the assets shown also referenced a "critically damaged" state, that seems to bring some penalties along with it.
One thing I really like about this preview is that it's not just taking the casualties at the end to let everyone play with their toys, but to force some operational friction into the activation phase through uncertainty of results. Normally in games you can concentrate on your priority targets and switch when they are dead, here you have to constantly ask: "have I poured enough fire there, can I switch?" If you want something dead, better go for overkill. If you want lots of things dead, better be prepared for some survivors trudging through the smoke after the turn.
The idea with having small blasts (saved on D12) coalesce into large blasts (saved on D6) is interesting.
Thought experiment: Double the number of wounds on everything. Eliminate blasts as a concept, just track hits inflicted. Anything that says it causes a large blast instead causes two hits. Take all saves on a D6.
The result is statistically equivalent to the system GW just previewed- on a 3+ save, one D12 and one D6 averages exactly half as many failed saves (0.5) as just three D6s (1). What they've essentially done with this mechanic is halve the expected damage output for each unit, presumably either to reduce bookkeeping (number of wounds per unit), or to interact with some other mechanic they've yet to reveal.
laam999 wrote: Any info on the size of the Crusade Case XL that's in the price leaks? I'm curious as to how big this is as im running out of storage for my AdMech and have no room left for my Templars.
Haven't seen anything about this. What is it?
Its listed in the price list but I've not seen anyone mention it.
lord_blackfang wrote: I like everything we've seen so far. Which is very rare for me and GW rules
I understand the misgivings people have with deckbuilding and random cards, and GW does tend to obfuscate their inability to balance armies behind a wall of randumb, but some very good games use such mechanics, including GW's own Warhammer Underworlds (which I am convinced they secretly outsourced to FFG or something). So it can be done right (let's hope GW secretly outsourced Apocalypse to FFG or something).
Anakin: Can deck-buildings elements be balanced in a tactical game?
Palapatine: Not by GW
I don’t see the card element preventing me from picking this up, but I will have my thumb on the trigger for changing how they’re used the first time it interferes with the base game’s balance.
FEARtheMoose wrote: Not sure im a fan of the randomness of having a card deck in that fashion [draw X amount etc]. I would rather the cards be used the same way as stradgems [can use whichever one whenever] and then maybe limit the amount you can use per turn / phase or similar.
Randomizing is probably the only way to avoid the problem stratagems have. There's a handful of good ones, and they have a strict hierarchy of use. Even if you limit it to one use only, you know exactly which one your opponent will play first, which one second, and so on. It gets dull with time.
Considering stratagems are meant as a way to mitigate randomness/bad luck, I dont agree.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I'd imagine there will be a digital version soon enough even if there isn't a physical book only option
But if the game mechanics are based on cards, is it worth picking up a digital copy?
Also, does everyone on a side need a deck, or just the overall warlord?
The army Warmaster (one side’s overall commander) gets to draw cards equal to the number of Warlords (detachment commanders with the character trait) plus one. No mention of extra decks for anyone.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I'd imagine there will be a digital version soon enough even if there isn't a physical book only option
But if the game mechanics are based on cards, is it worth picking up a digital copy?
Also, does everyone on a side need a deck, or just the overall warlord?
The army Warmaster (one side’s overall commander) gets to draw cards equal to the number of Warlords (detachment commanders with the character trait) plus one. No mention of extra decks for anyone.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I'd imagine there will be a digital version soon enough even if there isn't a physical book only option
But if the game mechanics are based on cards, is it worth picking up a digital copy?
Also, does everyone on a side need a deck, or just the overall warlord?
The army Warmaster (one side’s overall commander) gets to draw cards equal to the number of Warlords (detachment commanders with the character trait) plus one. No mention of extra decks for anyone.
So detachment spam is the preferred method in apoc also. Still boggles my mind that GW thinks that *more* commanders in a battle equals a higher degree of organization. They really need to hire some UK veterans :p
Oh look, more RNG idiocy to ruin the game. Just when I was thinking that the new Apocalypse looks like a good idea GW has to go and prove that it's the same old mindless exercise in "do some RNG for 9999 hours" masochism.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I'd imagine there will be a digital version soon enough even if there isn't a physical book only option
But if the game mechanics are based on cards, is it worth picking up a digital copy?
Also, does everyone on a side need a deck, or just the overall warlord?
The army Warmaster (one side’s overall commander) gets to draw cards equal to the number of Warlords (detachment commanders with the character trait) plus one. No mention of extra decks for anyone.
So detachment spam is the preferred method in apoc also. Still boggles my mind that GW thinks that *more* commanders in a battle equals a higher degree of organization. They really need to hire some UK veterans :p
Too many CO can be a problem. Just one on the other hand is a bigger one.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If that's how damage works it seems it's very easy to kill units (Guilliman has 2 wounds?).
But he does have a 2+ save on a d12 or d6. With AP seemingly not a thing. Dude should be able to take a fair bit of firepower. And we don't yet know if you can target characters and the like. He'll probably have some shenanigans.
catbarf wrote: The idea with having small blasts (saved on D12) coalesce into large blasts (saved on D6) is interesting.
Thought experiment: Double the number of wounds on everything. Eliminate blasts as a concept, just track hits inflicted. Anything that says it causes a large blast instead causes two hits. Take all saves on a D6.
The result is statistically equivalent to the system GW just previewed- on a 3+ save, one D12 and one D6 averages exactly half as many failed saves (0.5) as just three D6s (1). What they've essentially done with this mechanic is halve the expected damage output for each unit, presumably either to reduce bookkeeping (number of wounds per unit), or to interact with some other mechanic they've yet to reveal.
I'm definitely curious to see where this goes.
Assuming there are no 7+ saves which you can't save on d6 but can on d12. And weren't primaris marines(the ones sporting power armour) previewed to have 6+? Kinda indicates stuff like IG troopers, orks, gretchin etc are going to have worse than 6+ save don't you think?
Statistically 12 small blast markers vs 9+ save will result in 8 failures. 12 large 12 failures. Your idea would result in 12 failures from small blast markers and 24 from blast markers. I would say that's significant difference.
FEARtheMoose wrote: Not sure im a fan of the randomness of having a card deck in that fashion [draw X amount etc]. I would rather the cards be used the same way as stradgems [can use whichever one whenever] and then maybe limit the amount you can use per turn / phase or similar.
Randomizing is probably the only way to avoid the problem stratagems have. There's a handful of good ones, and they have a strict hierarchy of use. Even if you limit it to one use only, you know exactly which one your opponent will play first, which one second, and so on. It gets dull with time.
Considering stratagems are meant as a way to mitigate randomness/bad luck, I dont agree.
So you can't tell exactly what stratagems your opponents in 40k will be doing? Go and read their codexes more then! As it is you can tell most of the stratagems they will be using just by checking their faction, rest by checking specific army list.
I kind of like l=what I see of the rules so far. That being said I don't understand using both d6s and d12s. You could just roll a d12 and cut the result in half.
Maybe they want to display things as easily as possible? If you have to roll 3 d6 and 7 d12 then it would be easier to have a handful of both. Not saying that's the reason just a possibility.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: With Primaris having a 6+ save, seems very likely anyone lighter will be blatted by large markers though.
This is where I think unit size will heavily decide matters. The preview says "when the number of damage markers equals the unit’s Wounds characteristic the unit is destroyed". That implies you don't remove models like in 40k, just the whole unit at a time. Horde units may well get a 7+ or 8+ save on a D12, but you can make up for it by taking 20-30 models for maximum number of wounds. I think we'll see something like:
10 Boyz = 2 wounds
20 Boyz = 4 wounds
30 Boyz = 6 wounds
So until you do 6 wounds, all 30 of those Boyz keep on fighting. It would be a nice trade-off against just going MSU for maximum detachments & warlords.
laam999 wrote: Any info on the size of the Crusade Case XL that's in the price leaks? I'm curious as to how big this is as im running out of storage for my AdMech and have no room left for my Templars.
Haven't seen anything about this. What is it?
Remember that last Sunday's article was a 'pre-preview' as they're doing another two-week intro period like with Contrast. The full 'Coming Soon' article will be this Sunday and I expect will also include pictures of the new case and datasheet packs.
I was hesitant on the price at first, but then I realised that:
1) Thanks to the free datasheet downloads the box covers everything in a one-time purchase. Unlike 40k you don't need to pickup Index: Imperium or Codex: Titans to use each army you own, and if you do want more D12's you don't need to buy them from GW.
2) While the movement trays are optional, the new plastic GW ones are actually cheaper (and look better) than the MDF ones a lot of smaller hobby shops do. They're something I'd definitely use for 40k games too.
Lance845 wrote: I kind of like l=what I see of the rules so far. That being said I don't understand using both d6s and d12s. You could just roll a d12 and cut the result in half.
No you can't; see the discussion above about saves worse than 6+.
A 7+ save against a small blast marker succeeds 50% of the time. Against a large blast marker, it succeeds 0%. Light units under heavy fire will simply get eliminated. But at least they'll get to shoot back before they die.
It also means you have the choise to make; do you pull back that unit with a small blast marker before it suffers further hits, or leave them in place to draw fire while another detachment attacks?
1) Thanks to the free datasheet downloads the box covers everything in a one-time purchase. Unlike 40k you don't need to pickup Index: Imperium or Codex: Titans to use each army you own, and if you do want more D12's you don't need to buy them from GW.
Is that definitely confirmed? (If it is, thats good news ).
1) Thanks to the free datasheet downloads the box covers everything in a one-time purchase. Unlike 40k you don't need to pickup Index: Imperium or Codex: Titans to use each army you own, and if you do want more D12's you don't need to buy them from GW.
Is that definitely confirmed? (If it is, thats good news ).
they've confirmed free datasheets yes, although IIRC they'll sell books of the more popular stuff for those who like dead tree format.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: With Primaris having a 6+ save, seems very likely anyone lighter will be blatted by large markers though.
This is where I think unit size will heavily decide matters. The preview says "when the number of damage markers equals the unit’s Wounds characteristic the unit is destroyed". That implies you don't remove models like in 40k, just the whole unit at a time. Horde units may well get a 7+ or 8+ save on a D12, but you can make up for it by taking 20-30 models for maximum number of wounds. I think we'll see something like:
10 Boyz = 2 wounds
20 Boyz = 4 wounds
30 Boyz = 6 wounds
So until you do 6 wounds, all 30 of those Boyz keep on fighting. It would be a nice trade-off against just going MSU for maximum detachments & warlords.
I'm thinking it may be Groups Of Five. But I'm saying that on admittedly limited evidence.
That evidence? The movement trays group them into 5s. And the Primaris Datasheet?
Unit Size 5. Wounds 2.
So here, we can confidentally say a unit of 5 Primaris can be a single target. Two failed saves, and those 5 are removed.
Now, how that works when dealing with larger formations? It could be a you suggest, and you simply bump up the number of wounds every time you add another grouping of 5. (So 10 Intercessors would need 4 unsaved wounds, and you remove them all. Only 3, both Groups of 5 remain)
Or, it could be that you just add Groups of 5, and remove one group each time the formation suffers the requisite number of wounds. (So 10 Intercessors suffer 3 unsaved wounds. 1 Group of 5 is removed, the other remains with 1 damage marker).
The way you described does strike as more 'fun' - I really need to pour on the firepower to remove Hordes, and that to makes for a good laugh. But, it's not particularly cinematic. So who knows!
Just wonder how different weapons per squad are going to work. Obviously there's a lot of abstraction, but that talk about a CSM squad with Chainswords or Bolters makes me wonder: What about the special/heavy weapons/squad leader upgrades?
These rules look pretty nice up until now.
Hopefully it will work well at 2000pts too. Normal 40K involves too many dice rolls and overall game time for me at that point limit.
Obviously there's a lot of abstraction, but that talk about a CSM squad with Chainswords or Bolters makes me wonder: What about the special/heavy weapons/squad leader upgrades?
I'd be surprised if they went that granular tbh.
A point extra in SAT or SAP maybe but thats it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Just wonder how different weapons per squad are going to work. Obviously there's a lot of abstraction, but that talk about a CSM squad with Chainswords or Bolters makes me wonder: What about the special/heavy weapons/squad leader upgrades?
The Killa Kan preview in the Ork article showed multiple weapons options, but then the entire squadron could take the same option.
The article does say it is a good idea to load up on rokkits for the 4+ BS, which hints at being able to choose individual loadouts for each Kan.
I'm thinking it may be Groups Of Five. But I'm saying that on admittedly limited evidence.
That evidence? The movement trays group them into 5s. And the Primaris Datasheet?
My assumption (although again with little evidence) is that they'll base unit sizes on the current power level options in 40k:
"This unit contains 1 Intercessor Sergeant and 4 Intercessors. It can include up to 5 additional Intercessors (Power Rating +5)" would translate to two profiles in Apoc:
Then this entry from 40k: "This unit contains 10 Ork Boyz. It can include up to 10 additional Ork Boyz (Power Rating +3) or up to 20 additional Ork Boyz (Power Rating +7)." Would become three profiles:
Ork Boyz (10 models) 2 wounds X attacks
Ork Boyz (20 models) 4 wounds Y attacks
Ork Boyz (30 models) 6 wounds Z attacks
These bundle boxes have come at bad time for me. I still have stacks of plastic from the Christmas battleforces. I might have to just give these a miss and wait for Christmas again to load up on the battleforces. Some of them are so tempting though!
Assumptions are all good, as they're all we've got at the moment!
However, I am somewhat intrigued by the following from the Orky preview....
Orky Preview wrote:How do you get a Snotling to kill a Titan? Simple – it’s all a matter of the force with which you throw it. Big Meks with Shokk Attack Guns are among Apocalypse’s deadliest shooting units, capable of dropping two shots with Destroyer (causing two blast markers on a successful roll to wound) up to 60” away!
That’s enough to nearly scrap an Imperial Knight! What’s more, Big Meks will help keep your vehicles up and running with their Big Mekaniak rule.
Emphasis is mine. So here, we can see the Shokk Attak Gun can lay down up to 4 blast markers. And from the other articles, it seems that would be 4 smol blast markers, swapped out for 2 large blast markers.
And that is seemingly enough to nearly kill an Imperial Knight model.
Does that mean Vehicles are going to have fewer wounds, but a better save?
I'm thinking it may be Groups Of Five. But I'm saying that on admittedly limited evidence.
That evidence? The movement trays group them into 5s. And the Primaris Datasheet?
My assumption (although again with little evidence) is that they'll base unit sizes on the current power level options in 40k:
"This unit contains 1 Intercessor Sergeant and 4 Intercessors. It can include up to 5 additional Intercessors (Power Rating +5)" would translate to two profiles in Apoc:
Then this entry from 40k: "This unit contains 10 Ork Boyz. It can include up to 10 additional Ork Boyz (Power Rating +3) or up to 20 additional Ork Boyz (Power Rating +7)." Would become three profiles:
Ork Boyz (10 models) 2 wounds X attacks
Ork Boyz (20 models) 4 wounds Y attacks
Ork Boyz (30 models) 6 wounds Z attacks
Or each movement tray(5 models) is 1 unit. I find it unlikely unit w and attack stats will change.
However, I am somewhat intrigued by the following from the Orky preview....
Orky Preview wrote:How do you get a Snotling to kill a Titan? Simple – it’s all a matter of the force with which you throw it. Big Meks with Shokk Attack Guns are among Apocalypse’s deadliest shooting units, capable of dropping two shots with Destroyer (causing two blast markers on a successful roll to wound) up to 60” away!
That’s enough to nearly scrap an Imperial Knight! What’s more, Big Meks will help keep your vehicles up and running with their Big Mekaniak rule.
Emphasis is mine. So here, we can see the Shokk Attak Gun can lay down up to 4 blast markers. And from the other articles, it seems that would be 4 smol blast markers, swapped out for 2 large blast markers.
And that is seemingly enough to nearly kill an Imperial Knight model.
Does that mean Vehicles are going to have fewer wounds, but a better save?
Well in last epic main defences vehicles had were generally better saves and needing at weapns. At4+ was less common as ap4+.
Amazing that the jokes are seemingly real now and people are going to play Epic with 40k minis
While I site here and wish for new tinier dudes to play with. My Mooncloon Squigbeasts/mini-trolls and my Nurglings could be heroes or spawns or squiggoths. Battles would've never looked so cute!
PS: Regimental Standard was pretty amazing. Poem (singular) for everyone!
This seems like they are sacrificing the epicness of Apoc for speed of play.
I may be wrong, but having 5 guys with 1 attack and wound on a 6+ save. Just looks very fragile (and another $ generating scheme).
I like the idea of simultaneous damage, at least in the shooting phase. And depending on how it turns out could be something I would like to see in regular 40k play. Could help with alpha striking.
And a baneblade has 5 wounds and a 6+ save. That seems very fragile to me.
Dynas wrote: This seems like they are sacrificing the epicness of Apoc for speed of play.
I may be wrong, but having 5 guys with 1 attack and wound on a 6+ save. Just looks very fragile (and another $ generating scheme).
I like the idea of simultaneous damage, at least in the shooting phase. And depending on how it turns out could be something I would like to see in regular 40k play. Could help with alpha striking.
And a baneblade has 5 wounds and a 6+ save. That seems very fragile to me.
Epic did it for years and Armageddon is still arguably one of the best rule sets ever produced which a lot of this seems based on, just updated. That said they gave baneblades more wounds and slightly less armor (in epic it's got 3 "wounds" but a 4+ rerollable against most most weapons). I'm kinda excited to see what they come up with. And then use epic models with the rules
MY big concern right now is that if Troops are required to hold objectives. but most troops units can wiped with 2 large blast markers. Then how will that balance? Is there some way to protect my troops while holding objectives? Or are the big units going to be important enough that my opponent has to focus on them rather than just wiping my troops and my ability to take objectives?
Take 5 Intercessors shooting at 5 other Intercessors;
one shot (in fact, let's assume Rapid Fire is the same here, so potentially 2 shots), hitting on a 5+ (66%). Damages on a 5+ (66%). The opposing unit then saves on a 6+ against one hit.
The firing unit has a 1/9 chance of missing completely, a 4/9 chance of exactly one hit and a 4/9 chance of exactly two hits
If the firing unit hits once, there's a 2/3 chance it'll inflict a small blast marker and a 5/12 chance the target will fail its save and take a wound. Overall, 4/9 * 4/9 * 5/12 = 10/243 = 4%
If it hits twice, then it's 4/9 chance of 1 wound, 4/9 chance of two. If it only inflicts 1 wound, then it's the same chance to fail a save and cause a point of damage; 4%
if it does two wounds, then there's no chance to save, so the unit takes a point of damage, 44% chance.
Overall, one Marine unit shooting at another will have a roughly 53% chance of inflicting one wound, with no chance to wipe the target out completely.
In 40 it's possible (although unlikely) for the five intercessors to wipe out five opposing Primaris Marines.
5W with a 6+ means you need 12 blast markers (= 6 large blast markers) to destroy it.
It feels fragile, but many units only have 1-2 attacks, that still need to hit and wound, so it will still take a lot of firepower to remove.
Intercessors for instance need a 3+ to hit, but a 8+ to wound (equivalent to a 4+ on a D6), with a single attack per 5 models. So you need 27 units, or 14 in RF range. That's 70 intercessor models. Obviously they're not good anti-tank units but still. I think we need to get used to not rolling buckets of dice.
balmong7 wrote: MY big concern right now is that if Troops are required to hold objectives. but most troops units can wiped with 2 large blast markers. Then how will that balance? Is there some way to protect my troops while holding objectives? Or are the big units going to be important enough that my opponent has to focus on them rather than just wiping my troops and my ability to take objectives?
The main answer to that is going to be Command Assets. We've already seen a few that would help achieve what you want:
Go to Ground doubles the result of any infantry saving throws, allowing the possibility to save even against large blasts.
Divine Intervention lets you change a single dice roll to a result of your choice
Grot Shields for Orks lets them transfer blast markers
We've only seen around a dozen of the 400 different cards. I expect if you want to build an army around stubborn infantry it'll certainly be possible to do so.
This doesn't look as random as people seem to think to me. With a deck of 30 cards, a large selection to choose from (some are bound to duplicate effect), deckbuilding and multiple draw a turn this could be quite an interesting mechanic.
It previews of several new command asset cards (mostly AdMech) and a few datasheets. The Boyz & Intercessor sheets pretty much match what I posted on the last page:
Ork Boyz (10 models) 2 wounds, 1 attacks, Ld5 = 4 power
Ork Boyz (20 models) 4 wounds, 2 attacks, Ld6 = 8 power
Ork Boyz (30 models) 6 wounds, 4 attacks, Ld7 = 13 power
10+ Save
Necron Warriors (10 models) 2 wounds 2 attacks = 6 power
Necron Warriors (20 models) 4 wounds 4 attacks = 14 power
8+ save
Grotz (10 models) 2 wounds 2 attacks = 1 power
Grotz (20 models) 4 wounds 4 attacks = 2 power
Grotz (30 models) 6 wounds 6 attacks = 3 power
They have 11+ save and can take a Runtherd to bump Ld from 4 to 6
edit: it also confirms special / heavy weapons are still around.
Morale checks are taken for damaged units, roll a D6 and add the current # of blast markers. If that beats their leadership, add another damage marker.
Yep looks like all the infantry stands in a unit pool their wounds and only die once enough damage is accumulated to kill the whole lot.
This looks like a super slick system with the one downside that it will be annoying to handle and track all the tokens. Good lord, there's gonna be a lot of tokens. I do appreciate that they all have a little arrow so you can face them towards the unit they apply to.
zend wrote: Wait what am I missing? Why do 10 Necrons get 2 attacks but 10 Orks don’t? Is that a typo or are those shooting attacks?
Some weapons multiply the base attacks for the unit. Ork 'close combat weapons' multiply by two, while Choppas multiply by 3.
Okay that makes sense. So units without melee war gear options are gonna be capped at their base attacks until buff aura/command cards/psychic shenanigans come into play.
I haven't watched the video yet, and I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but do we know what kind of points or power level we're talking about for apocalypse?
Quasistellar wrote: I haven't watched the video yet, and I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere, but do we know what kind of points or power level we're talking about for apocalypse?
It looks like the game uses power levels exclusively, judging from the sample datasheets shown.
Sterling191 wrote: I see we can add chapter tactics to the pile of things that require hitting the lottery to actually use.
But how would you forge a narrative without RNG?
you don't RNG is incrediably important because it adds an element of uncertainty to the game. step back a moment and think about the games you remember years down the road. what stands out about them? in almost every case it's a lucky roll at a critical time allowing you to pull victory from the ajws of defeat, or defeat from the jaws of victory etc. no one remembers that time their abaddon slew a guardsman, but that time you actually killed abaddon the despoiler in melee with a guardsman is gonna be a story worth telling.
Looks like models get to use all their weapons like 40k regular but most units are going to have fewer options.
Also many guns have their own attacks characteristics so a Necron Monolith will always shoot its gauss flayers four times even when critically damaged.
Sterling191 wrote: I see we can add chapter tactics to the pile of things that require hitting the lottery to actually use.
But how would you forge a narrative without RNG?
you don't RNG is incrediably important because it adds an element of uncertainty to the game. step back a moment and think about the games you remember years down the road. what stands out about them? in almost every case it's a lucky roll at a critical time allowing you to pull victory from the ajws of defeat, or defeat from the jaws of victory etc. no one remembers that time their abaddon slew a guardsman, but that time you actually killed abaddon the despoiler in melee with a guardsman is gonna be a story worth telling.
As someone who is not opposed to the moderate use of RNG, or not so moderate use in the case of Orks (8th ed Orks rules are a disgrace...), I think this is actually a terrible example of RNG. As far as I'm concerned a good example of RNG is the dice getting in the way of your plan, but the game allowing you to use your tactical acumen to overcome the setback and still win. Victory hinging on one lucky roll may be memorable, but hardly fun.
The problem with modern GW in general and possibly (we'll see how it works out soon enough) the deck building mechanics of Apocalypse in particular is that if these mechanics are integrated into the foundation of the game, that one lucky, impossible roll that you remember is not a singular occurrence and instead frequently happens. And if that happens too often, what you eventually remember isn't that lucky guardsman who earned himself a medal, but that your opponent drew well and you didn't and you may as well throw the game on turn 2 because it's too late to recover. Maelstrom missions are a pretty good example of this. I remember two things about these missions. One is the single game where I just ignored the objectives because I was severely behind in points at the end of the first turn and only won because I dedicated all my effort to annihilating the enemy army, which is to say I deliberately played against the game mode my opponent and I agreed on. The other one is that the larger part of the games I played with Maelstrom missions were so skewed that if annihilation was not an option, you didn't even need to play past turn 2 just because one side got lucky and the other did not, and no amount of skill or even luck with the dice would help.
That's not an association I want a game to gain. I do actually want to remember those cool moments where the improbably happens, and not how luck, again, decided how the game went instead of the actions of me or my opponent. Good RNG is there to add an element of surprise to the game, not to dominate and decide it. That's just not something you see in modern 40k anymore, though.
We're playing a game with dice and nobody reasonably expects 40k to turn into chess, but for people who actually want to play a game during the actual game instead of building army lists and then just rolling dice to see what happens, GW's offerings in the last decade have been slim. It's not unreasonable to voice complaints about that, because for all the reputation GW deservedly has, tactical gameplay used to be better represented in the past. At least in the sense of classic wargaming rather than the card games with miniatures we have today.
Not sure just how ‘random’ the cards are when you can potentially draw a third of your deck each turn. Build it right and you should have a decent toolset every time.
It's possibly going to suffer the same problems as command points in 40k. You may get a serious divide between factions with access to both fantastic abilities and the matching units to utilize them along with cheap HQs to maximize card draws, and less fortunate armies that can't ally in necessary stuff.
So here, we can confidentally say a unit of 5 Primaris can be a single target. Two failed saves, and those 5 are removed.
Now, how that works when dealing with larger formations? It could be a you suggest, and you simply bump up the number of wounds every time you add another grouping of 5. (So 10 Intercessors would need 4 unsaved wounds, and you remove them all. Only 3, both Groups of 5 remain)
Or, it could be that you just add Groups of 5, and remove one group each time the formation suffers the requisite number of wounds. (So 10 Intercessors suffer 3 unsaved wounds. 1 Group of 5 is removed, the other remains with 1 damage marker).
The way you described does strike as more 'fun' - I really need to pour on the firepower to remove Hordes, and that to makes for a good laugh. But, it's not particularly cinematic. So who knows!
The how to video shows that bigger units = more wounds.
We're playing a game with dice and nobody reasonably expects 40k to turn into chess, but for people who actually want to play a game during the actual game instead of building army lists and then just rolling dice to see what happens, GW's offerings in the last decade have been slim. It's not unreasonable to voice complaints about that, because for all the reputation GW deservedly has, tactical gameplay used to be better represented in the past. At least in the sense of classic wargaming rather than the card games with miniatures we have today.
I heartily suggest looking at Adeptus Titanicus, then, because that game is a glorious return for GW on the front of tactically interesting games with no obvious win-moves before the game begins
We're playing a game with dice and nobody reasonably expects 40k to turn into chess, but for people who actually want to play a game during the actual game instead of building army lists and then just rolling dice to see what happens, GW's offerings in the last decade have been slim. It's not unreasonable to voice complaints about that, because for all the reputation GW deservedly has, tactical gameplay used to be better represented in the past. At least in the sense of classic wargaming rather than the card games with miniatures we have today.
I heartily suggest looking at Adeptus Titanicus, then, because that game is a glorious return for GW on the front of tactically interesting games with no obvious win-moves before the game begins
Good to hear. I actually snuck a couple of peeks at the Adeptus Titanicus game happening on the neighboring table last weekend. May have to get a demo game for the full experience.
Man I wish I had a collection of Epic models to try out these rules with, if one of y'all do this will you please provide a link to a video/blog post about it?
Sterling191 wrote: I see we can add chapter tactics to the pile of things that require hitting the lottery to actually use.
But how would you forge a narrative without RNG?
you don't RNG is incrediably important because it adds an element of uncertainty to the game. step back a moment and think about the games you remember years down the road. what stands out about them? in almost every case it's a lucky roll at a critical time allowing you to pull victory from the ajws of defeat, or defeat from the jaws of victory etc. no one remembers that time their abaddon slew a guardsman, but that time you actually killed abaddon the despoiler in melee with a guardsman is gonna be a story worth telling.
Disagree strongly. If the most memorable games you play are only memorable because of fluke dice luck doing something unlikely then TBH that sounds like zero fun. Memories should be about player choices, not just dice randomly rolling at the ends of the bell curve.
Also, its stupid from a fluff point of view that my army needs to RNG to see if they can use all of their abilities. For every game where the dice do something "cool" there will be at least one frustrating game where CCG draws decide that your best troops don't work.
the_scotsman wrote: ....Huh. So until an entire unit is totally destroyed it just sticks around at full strength? interesting. I guess the LD is the drawback here.
Sort of - if they take more than half wounds they are critically injured and get reduced stats.
the_scotsman wrote: ....Huh. So until an entire unit is totally destroyed it just sticks around at full strength? interesting. I guess the LD is the drawback here.
Sort of - if they take more than half wounds they are critically injured and get reduced stats.
Partial damage is also less important in a game where damage doesn't count until both sides have attacked.
They don't mention taking off the blast markers after you roll saves, but I assume that was just an oversight. Maybe there's a step at the end of the turn when you remove them all, since you also need them for the morale roll, which is weird because it kind of just double-punishes you for getting blast markers. You have to save against your save then you have to save again against your morale.
Geifer wrote: It's possibly going to suffer the same problems as command points in 40k. You may get a serious divide between factions with access to both fantastic abilities and the matching units to utilize them along with cheap HQs to maximize card draws, and less fortunate armies that can't ally in necessary stuff.
Wait and see, I think.
- Detachments need to stay in range of their commander
- Detachments are ordered and act as one so if your focus fire detachments get caught off guard by melee you have more units that did not act with full buffs
- Assets still need units the cards reference so spamming a bunch of IG might not be the best play
- It's likely one large blast will wipe a whole unit of IG if 5 Intercessors have 2 wounds and a 6+ save
Mr_Rose wrote: Not sure just how ‘random’ the cards are when you can potentially draw a third of your deck each turn. Build it right and you should have a decent toolset every time.
I had a thought about that, watching the new video.
Each side has a deck of 30 cards, which they can choose from around 300.
Now, one-on-one? You can do proper dirty tricks. But, when it’s a multiplayer game, with mixed factions (such as Imperial Crusade vs Seemingly Unlikely Coalition of Everyone Else)? That’s a bit harder. Sure, you’ll want the ‘best’ cards for each player. And that starts limiting what sort of Ming you can put together.
There is of course a glaring flaw here, at least from what we’ve seen so far. Adeptus Astartes are a popular and varied Faction. So a collective effort comprised of different Chapters are probably going to have and easier time deciding what to keep and what to ditch, due to unbroken Unit Type synergy.
Why would you consider it a flaw if a tighter army comprised of a singular faction benefits more effortlessly from its command than a hodge podge of different things, Doc?
This is definitely an interesting set of rules from what they've shown so far.
Don't see the 'randomness' issue with the cards, as you're building the deck and you're drawing so many cards each turn that any 'luck of the draw' issue should be heavily mitigated.
But I'm torn. I have the same feeling here as I did with the Kings of War ruleset. If you're playing with multiple models for a unit but only removing the whole unit when it has accrued enough damage, then why are we playing at a 32mm scale, where its hard to fit a ton of units onto the table and the ranges are still so compacted? Why not just make these the new Epic rules and make a big push to put out epic-sized models?
The answer is of course if because players already have their 32mm 40k armies built up, so its a much lower bar to entry than having to rebuy everything again at a different scale. Plus, just look at conventions: people are always looking to do giant mega-battles with their 40k minis, and having a super-streamlined ruleset to do that, will make those games so much quicker and easier to play.
Yet, I don't think I can escape the feeling that this *should* be the new Epic rules and they *should* be releasing a whole line of new epic-sized models to accompany this. Maybe its because I love the Epic scale, but I also think it just makes this type of game better when you're able to have enough space on the table to have big armies but still maneuver around.
This is definitely an interesting set of rules from what they've shown so far.
Don't see the 'randomness' issue with the cards, as you're building the deck and you're drawing so many cards each turn that any 'luck of the draw' issue should be heavily mitigated.
But I'm torn. I have the same feeling here as I did with the Kings of War ruleset. If you're playing with multiple models for a unit but only removing the whole unit when it has accrued enough damage, then why are we playing at a 32mm scale, where its hard to fit a ton of units onto the table and the ranges are still so compacted? Why not just make these the new Epic rules and make a big push to put out epic-sized models?
The answer is of course if because players already have their 32mm 40k armies built up, so its a much lower bar to entry than having to rebuy everything again at a different scale. Plus, just look at conventions: people are always looking to do giant mega-battles with their 40k minis, and having a super-streamlined ruleset to do that, will make those games so much quicker and easier to play.
Yet, I don't think I can escape the feeling that this *should* be the new Epic rules and they *should* be releasing a whole line of new epic-sized models to accompany this. Maybe its because I love the Epic scale, but I also think it just makes this type of game better when you're able to have enough space on the table to have big armies but still maneuver around.
I like the way it looks. Playing large games like this already happens and this makes it more fun. And it keeps them from having to print off limited numbers of factions to start with and consume more shelf space at stores. It's win-win in my eyes.
If people don't have the sizes then just bring more people!
Sherrypie wrote: Why would you consider it a flaw if a tighter army comprised of a singular faction benefits more effortlessly from its command than a hodge podge of different things, Doc?
Population and probability, basically.
Marines are far and away the most popular faction, despite being split into subfactions.
And that is reflected in most gaming groups. Any Imperial Crusade type side would, generally, be disproportionately comprised of Astartes.
Everyone else? Well, likely to wind up on the same side of the board. Necrons, Nids, GSC, Eldar and Tau. Mostly banding together out of necessity.
The Imperial side, with more of a common rule, inherently has an advantage.
Yet, I don't think I can escape the feeling that this *should* be the new Epic rules and they *should* be releasing a whole line of new epic-sized models to accompany this. Maybe its because I love the Epic scale, but I also think it just makes this type of game better when you're able to have enough space on the table to have big armies but still maneuver around.
Peregrine wrote: Also, its stupid from a fluff point of view that my army needs to RNG to see if they can use all of their abilities. For every game where the dice do something "cool" there will be at least one frustrating game where CCG draws decide that your best troops don't work.
I imagine Clausewitz must be rolling in his grave at the idea that troops failing to carry out their basic abilities is somehow unrealistic. From a fluff point of view, if there's no friction it's not war, it's just chess with fancy colored pieces.
Whether that makes for a better or worse game is another thing entirely- but I've played games with much less certainty than 40K's perfect information and IGOUGO structure, and I've rarely felt cheated by RNG. Putting stratagems on cards will hardly turn it into something like, say, AK47 Republic, where a third of your army might not show up because a random events table says they got bribed before the battle. I say wait and see how it actually plays out.
Yeah, considering your units always do exactly what you want, and you usually roll tons of dice to even out the probabilities, 40k doesn't seem very random. It would be more realistic to have less control over your troops or have them perform less predictably in most cases. Of course, if you draw random objectives every turn, that kind of throws that out the window.
Sherrypie wrote: Why would you consider it a flaw if a tighter army comprised of a singular faction benefits more effortlessly from its command than a hodge podge of different things, Doc?
Because an army in these big games is normally drawn from several players. It's a hodgepodge of random stuff on both sides, but one side magically gets better rules because the organizer arranged it as imperium vs everything else.
catbarf wrote: Whether that makes for a better or worse game is another thing entirely- but I've played games with much less certainty than 40K's perfect information and IGOUGO structure, and I've rarely felt cheated by RNG. Putting stratagems on cards will hardly turn it into something like, say, AK47 Republic, where a third of your army might not show up because a random events table says they got bribed before the battle. I say wait and see how it actually plays out.
Having also played games with variable control mechanics (Bolt Action and its derivatives, DBA and its derivities, Fistful of Lead and its deritivites, etc.,etc) I think it depends on how the mechanics work. I'd be mostly worried about the weight of fire that can be put out by units in Apoc. If RNG means that I've lost massive chunks out of my force and now can't effectively fight back, it's a problem.
This is definitely an interesting set of rules from what they've shown so far.
Don't see the 'randomness' issue with the cards, as you're building the deck and you're drawing so many cards each turn that any 'luck of the draw' issue should be heavily mitigated.
But I'm torn. I have the same feeling here as I did with the Kings of War ruleset. If you're playing with multiple models for a unit but only removing the whole unit when it has accrued enough damage, then why are we playing at a 32mm scale, where its hard to fit a ton of units onto the table and the ranges are still so compacted? Why not just make these the new Epic rules and make a big push to put out epic-sized models?
The answer is of course if because players already have their 32mm 40k armies built up, so its a much lower bar to entry than having to rebuy everything again at a different scale. Plus, just look at conventions: people are always looking to do giant mega-battles with their 40k minis, and having a super-streamlined ruleset to do that, will make those games so much quicker and easier to play.
Yet, I don't think I can escape the feeling that this *should* be the new Epic rules and they *should* be releasing a whole line of new epic-sized models to accompany this. Maybe its because I love the Epic scale, but I also think it just makes this type of game better when you're able to have enough space on the table to have big armies but still maneuver around.
Sure they *should* be doing Epic this way, but that model range isn't gonna appear overnight. Keep in mind that they're still now working through Adeptus Titanicus releases that were in design & production before they'd sold a single 8mm model. Any additional investment as a result of the higher-than-expected sales last year likely won't be seen until next year. Plus FW will want to flesh out the AT & AI ranges before dipping their toes into Epic itself. I have faith we will see it happen in time, I just don't expect GW to take a big gamble by throwing all their resources towards bringing Epic back in 1 year, when they can gradually build up the range over 4-5. Plus it's much easier to get customers to buy into a large new game project if you've already sold them a bunch of related products like tiny titans, planes and scenery.
In the meantime I'm glad we now have a ruleset like this in 40k. It means my existing giant monsters that haven't seen a tabletop in years can finally roll dice again.
Sherrypie wrote: Why would you consider it a flaw if a tighter army comprised of a singular faction benefits more effortlessly from its command than a hodge podge of different things, Doc?
Because an army in these big games is normally drawn from several players. It's a hodgepodge of random stuff on both sides, but one side magically gets better rules because the organizer arranged it as imperium vs everything else.
Which, as a community organizer, it will be. Every single time. IF there isn't imperial players who have to "turn traitor" to even out the 9 space marine players and 4 people playing any other faction that showed up.
it's almost a universal constant of group 40k event organization.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrookM wrote: I find the music they use more jarring than anything else.
What, snazzy new orleans jazz is not what you most associate with giant games of 40k?
Mr_Rose wrote: I still can’t decide if her exaggerated peppiness is adorable or abrasive…
Abrasive.
One thing I found interesting from the website is the Orkanaught datasheet. Kustom Force Field is a -1 to wound rolls, since AP doesn't seem to be a thing in Apocalypse this would seem to indicated what the now redundent invulnerable saves will become.
Sherrypie wrote: Why would you consider it a flaw if a tighter army comprised of a singular faction benefits more effortlessly from its command than a hodge podge of different things, Doc?
Because an army in these big games is normally drawn from several players. It's a hodgepodge of random stuff on both sides, but one side magically gets better rules because the organizer arranged it as imperium vs everything else.
Which, as a community organizer, it will be. Every single time. IF there isn't imperial players who have to "turn traitor" to even out the 9 space marine players and 4 people playing any other faction that showed up.
it's almost a universal constant of group 40k event organization.
I find myself eternally lucky that our group has a relatively large number of armies covered, though our Apoc armies do tend to be Imperium + Eldar vs Nids or Chaos with Orks thrown in.
Don't know if I missed something in the video, but I didn't catch anything about targeting, specifically dumping a pile of shots on the detachment commanders to make the units out of command on the following turn.
Then spread shots around, and one blast marker each means piles of dead units.
With the stipulation that only character warlords earn additional command assets, I'm gonna assume that detachment warlord simply moves to another unit when the current one is killed. That way sniping out the commander does cause a penalty, but doesn't headshot the whole detachment.
xttz wrote: With the stipulation that only character warlords earn additional command assets, I'm gonna assume that detachment warlord simply moves to another unit when the current one is killed. That way sniping out the commander does cause a penalty, but doesn't headshot the whole detachment.
Or you shoot detachment against detachment, like in Epic. Could even adapt the system they have their - casulties come from the front, morale losses from the back.
Sherrypie wrote: Why would you consider it a flaw if a tighter army comprised of a singular faction benefits more effortlessly from its command than a hodge podge of different things, Doc?
Because an army in these big games is normally drawn from several players. It's a hodgepodge of random stuff on both sides, but one side magically gets better rules because the organizer arranged it as imperium vs everything else.
Which, as a community organizer, it will be. Every single time. IF there isn't imperial players who have to "turn traitor" to even out the 9 space marine players and 4 people playing any other faction that showed up.
it's almost a universal constant of group 40k event organization.
I find myself eternally lucky that our group has a relatively large number of armies covered, though our Apoc armies do tend to be Imperium + Eldar vs Nids or Chaos with Orks thrown in.
The original point wasn't about Imperium, but Space Marines. If the general trend in discussion (not in this one, but around 40k at the moment) is that mono armies should have something that incentivises their use and balances the inherent power of souping (that being the ability to have your cake and eat it too with many types of forces), why not apply the same here too? In general, anyway. If the Imperial side consists of Space Marines only, why it would be bad to have them have a bit more synergy in their Command Assets when the other side filled with three types of xenos and a Chaos player have their diversity as their advantage? That's the design point of view I'm interested about in here, when one side actually isn't that much of a patchwork quilt but a very cohesive force.
As such, I don't actually believe they get that much of an advantage from that shared basis, as the Assets feel more like additional fun rather than seriously fundamental parts of your core effort in the game. But we'll see.
xttz wrote: With the stipulation that only character warlords earn additional command assets, I'm gonna assume that detachment warlord simply moves to another unit when the current one is killed. That way sniping out the commander does cause a penalty, but doesn't headshot the whole detachment.
Or you shoot detachment against detachment, like in Epic. Could even adapt the system they have their - casulties come from the front, morale losses from the back.
Well, all the damage descriptions in the video are per unit, so it seems pretty likely that you target individual units.
With that said, I'd bet dollars to donuts that there is some kind of anti-character sniping rule like there is in 40k 8th.
Also, in one of their articles they did mention that a detachment's commander was just the model with the highest Ld (and if that model is also a character, then it is a Warlord), so I would assume that once you kill a detachment's commander, you just pick another model to be the new detachment commander (the model with the next highest Ld).
Sherrypie wrote: If the Imperial side consists of Space Marines only, why it would be bad to have them have a bit more synergy in their Command Assets when the other side filled with three types of xenos and a Chaos player have their diversity as their advantage?
Because, unlike soup armies in regular games, having mixed armies in Apocalypse is automatic unless you play space marines. You can't have a pure Tau army because there aren't enough Tau players to form an entire 10-player army with tens of thousands of points on the table. Space marines get to have more power, not because of faction design, but simply because they're the most popular army and the least likely to have to be part of a mixed team. And if you design space marines with this in mind then they become too weak when there aren't enough space marine players to form an all-marines team, which is again something the individual player has no control over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sherrypie wrote: As such, I don't actually believe they get that much of an advantage from that shared basis, as the Assets feel more like additional fun rather than seriously fundamental parts of your core effort in the game. But we'll see.
Based on what we've seen so far I'd disagree with you. They look powerful so far and GW's history with making 8th edition revolve around the asset CCG reinforces my expectation that assets will be very important. Which of course makes the RNG factor unacceptable.
@Peregrine, you're probably right in that marines are less often mixed up than other (especially non-imperial) forces. I still like the idea in principle, in that cohesion brings command synergies where diversity brings flexibility. A nice tradeoff, designwise, if neither effect is obscenely pronounced.
On the RNG factor, I'd still say that it's reasonably mild given you get to first build a deck (thus mitigating the chance of any duds), which isn't that large, and then draw multiple cards every turn. It's not hard to draw the entire deck during a larger game or simply houserule the RNG away by allowing the players to choose what cards they get every turn while still being limited by the number they can draw if it feels better for the group.
I can see the cards being an issue mainly if one tries to scale the rules down for smaller points, but I'd still want to see the whole set before declaring anything too strongly.
I know it's early to tell, but if this ruleset is good enough, will we see more Apoc games played over 8th edition? Apart from the dodgy music, the video has showed off a pretty interesting base rule set.
In the how to play video there's an AdMech card shown which lets you pick a specific asset from your deck then re-shuffle the rest of the pack. I'll be surprised if they're the only faction who can bypass the usual draw mechanics like that.
Peregrin's thesis is certainly true in most cases (I'm sure there are local gaming areas where Orks, just for example, are the most commonly played race but Space Marines account for 60% of sales) it's not really something you can design around though. it's also, of course, an open question if 60% of 40k players play space marines as their primary army that they'd bring to an apoclypse game. I suspect in practice you'll not often see pure space marine armies. guard knights and any number of various imperial armies are VERY popular after all. in fact I suspect the most common apoc games are going to be Imperium vs Imperium.
So, is this correct; when making shooting attacks, you multiply the attack characteristic by the models in a unit, but when resolving damage taken, you dont multiply the wounds? :/
As a huge fan of the Apocalypse, i'm really looking forward to this, the Power levels, command assets, orders..
Are you getting that from the video? The text articles don't give enough information to decide, but given that the profile shown is for bolt rifles, plural, I would suggest you're not correct. One stand makes one shooting attack.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The "In the box2 section of the new website https://warhammer40000.com/apocalypse/ shows a couple of datasheets. The only one we can see in full is the Morkanaut, but you can just make out that the Harlequin Troupe has three stat lines listed; one for five models, one for 10 and one for 12 (which is an unusual number. Presumably it'll be clearer in context, perhaps that's how characters are added to units.
Spreelock, no. The individual models don't really count as such, so a block of five guys might shoot out with one die for an example. The scale of the game has shifted to unit level, which makes the system playable at such large numbers of models.
Spreelock wrote: So, is this correct; when making shooting attacks, you multiply the attack characteristic by the models in a unit, but when resolving damage taken, you dont multiply the wounds? :/
No. A unit has a set number of attacks, in some (most? all?) cases changing with the number of models in the unit. Check the video at around 2:40 to see the datasheet for Necron Warriors. Then, you'll get a number of attacks depending on the weapon, with some weapons specifying 'user' as the number of attacks.
So, 10 Necron warriors will roll 2 dice when shooting their gauss flayers, 20 warriors will roll 4 dice.
Once the unit of 10 has received 1 damage marker (= half its wounds characteristic), it will only roll 1 die. The unit of 20 will be down to 2 dice once it's received 2 damage markers.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Are you getting that from the video? The text articles don't give enough information to decide, but given that the profile shown is for bolt rifles, plural, I would suggest you're not correct. One stand makes one shooting attack.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The "In the box2 section of the new website https://warhammer40000.com/apocalypse/ shows a couple of datasheets. The only one we can see in full is the Morkanaut, but you can just make out that the Harlequin Troupe has three stat lines listed; one for five models, one for 10 and one for 12 (which is an unusual number. Presumably it'll be clearer in context, perhaps that's how characters are added to units.
The Harlequin Troupe maxes out at 12 in 40K (presumably because there's 6 in a box), from what we've seen so far min and max sizes for squads are matching those in 40K.
Voss wrote: Don't know if I missed something in the video, but I didn't catch anything about targeting, specifically dumping a pile of shots on the detachment commanders to make the units out of command on the following turn.
Then spread shots around, and one blast marker each means piles of dead units.
This is conjecture, but in Age of Sigmar, your highest-leadership model automatically becomes "your general" whenever the general you've chosen for your army is killed. This is because the equivalent of 40k's Stratagems (at least most of the ones I've read) require you to use them on a unit within a certain distance from your general.
I would guess that detachments in apoc will work a similar way: Your Warlord will be the model with the highest LD, chosen by you in case of a tie, or any Character if you so choose, and if it is a Character it will confer benefits to your command pool thingy (the number of cards you draw). But if they die, another model in the detachment will just become the warlord until the detachment is destroyed.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Are you getting that from the video? The text articles don't give enough information to decide, but given that the profile shown is for bolt rifles, plural, I would suggest you're not correct. One stand makes one shooting attack.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The "In the box2 section of the new website https://warhammer40000.com/apocalypse/ shows a couple of datasheets. The only one we can see in full is the Morkanaut, but you can just make out that the Harlequin Troupe has three stat lines listed; one for five models, one for 10 and one for 12 (which is an unusual number. Presumably it'll be clearer in context, perhaps that's how characters are added to units.
Watch the example for making attacks closely with the Ork Boyz, and you'll see that they have attacks 2 when at 10-man, the "X3" stat on their choppas gets highlighted, and 6 dice are shown on the screen for their attacks.
All basic squad-level weapons will be done this way, with you making a number of attacks based on the Attacks stat of your unit (which also goes down when your unit is Critically Damaged).
For the Primaris Marines example, presumably Rapid Fire will work the same way as it does in base 40k, so a unit of 5 Primaris Intercessors would roll 1 die at range, and 2 dice at half range for their bolt rifles.
I'd like to note that you can see from the Harlequin Troupe datasheet shown that "Troupe Pistols" and "Troupe weapons" are the only two options.
That's amazing. They actually managed to make Harlequins MORE homogenous and generic than they are in 8th edition
Anyone want to take a bet that the distinction between Grav-guns Plasma Guns Flamers Meltas Multi-Meltas Missile Launchers Heavy Bolters Lascannons and Plasma Cannons will be preserved for marines, but the distinction between a shuriken pistol and a fusion pistol is "Eh, it's just one of those weird clown eldar weapons, who cares, they're basically all the same."
Our gaming group plays a lot of 2v2 and 3v3 games. Because 8th is so slow and hard at massive points we always dropped everyone's points to around a 1000.
With Apoc, it looks like we can go standard 2000 each. Can anyone tell at all what min point game will work for Apoc? (1v1 and higher)
I wonder how unbalanced the factions will be without Command Assets. I’d like to see if it’s possible to play without them, and revert Psyker powers back to normal 40k style.
Da-Rock wrote: Our gaming group plays a lot of 2v2 and 3v3 games. Because 8th is so slow and hard at massive points we always dropped everyone's points to around a 1000.
With Apoc, it looks like we can go standard 2000 each. Can anyone tell at all what min point game will work for Apoc? (1v1 and higher)
No one has even played it yet and it doesn't use 40k points or power level (although I'm sure you could if you wanted)
Tyranid Horde wrote: Don't think it was mentioned, but on the game board in the video, there are a trio of renegade knights nestled nicely into the scene.
Yeah they showed up in some of the pics in the Chaos faction article as well. I'd put money on them coming up for order before the end of July.
That's.. not even a regular game of 40k. It's like a kid bought some used models :p
...and on that note, I think I shall quit while I'm ahead!
Seriously though! Watching the video...you need at least one detachment? And the minimum for a battalion detachment is 3 troop units? And going by the size of the trays, thats 5-10 models in a unit? Hmmm...
Tyranid Battalion detachment
=======================
2 x Genestealer Units( 10 models each )
1 x Hormagaunt Unit( 10 models )
1 x Termagaunt Unit( 10 models )
...thats going to be a power rating of 22, going against a Castallan and 2 Helverins with a 48 rating...oooooooh, nasty. Bugs are gonna be squashed!
But also included a random, irrational and completely unexplained name change.
Even when daemonic legions were actual army lists, they weren't called 'legiones daemonica.' Not sure which Romance language they're trying to offend with that mess.
Includes examples how ++ saves work, Inferno ability, and summoning...
Nitpick: it does none of those things. Daemonic invulnerability is an army special rule that lets them swap 1d6 for 1d12 when making saves, infernal gateway is a tzeentch psyker only command card special power, and the denizens of the warp command card lets you redeploy a dead unit if you roll above their Power on 2d12
*shrug* Bravo for taking colloquial use of the above three terms, and valiantly arguing they aren't 200% adherent to textbook name (and just name, I like how you ignored substance of it still being adding extra unit to the battlefield). Here, have one Captain Obvious point
Edit: Also, I like how in your rush to nitpick you failed to read both my post and the article, I meant Skarbrand example demonstrating (IIRC) for the first time new ability...
AndrewGPaul wrote: Are you getting that from the video? The text articles don't give enough information to decide, but given that the profile shown is for bolt rifles, plural, I would suggest you're not correct. One stand makes one shooting attack.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The "In the box2 section of the new website https://warhammer40000.com/apocalypse/ shows a couple of datasheets. The only one we can see in full is the Morkanaut, but you can just make out that the Harlequin Troupe has three stat lines listed; one for five models, one for 10 and one for 12 (which is an unusual number. Presumably it'll be clearer in context, perhaps that's how characters are added to units.
The Harlequin Troupe maxes out at 12 in 40K (presumably because there's 6 in a box), from what we've seen so far min and max sizes for squads are matching those in 40K.
Yes, but the movement trays take 5 models, hence 12 being a bit strange.
*shrug* Bravo for taking colloquial use of the above three terms, and valiantly arguing they aren't 200% adherent to textbook name (and just name, I like how you ignored substance of it still being adding extra unit to the battlefield). Here, have one Captain Obvious point
Edit: Also, I like how in your rush to nitpick you failed to read both my post and the article, I meant Skarbrand example demonstrating (IIRC) for the first time new ability...
Ok... let me be less polite.
There is absolutely no reason to think the Daemonic Invulnerability army rule is the same as an invulnerable saves.
Summoning refers to absolutely nothing in the article (rezzing a dead unit and summoning new units are very distinct mechanics in 40k), and the inferno tag on Skarbrand's bellow is unexplained, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by referencing the ability that is explained.
I think the safer conclusion is that the ability rules between 40k and Apocalpse have even less of a connection to each other, than the same abilities across editions of 40k do.
It won't be surprising if similar abilities get similar treatment, but given GW's love of special snowflake rules we certainly need to expect strange creative inconsistencies.
*shrug* Bravo for taking colloquial use of the above three terms, and valiantly arguing they aren't 200% adherent to textbook name (and just name, I like how you ignored substance of it still being adding extra unit to the battlefield). Here, have one Captain Obvious point
Edit: Also, I like how in your rush to nitpick you failed to read both my post and the article, I meant Skarbrand example demonstrating (IIRC) for the first time new ability...
Ok... let me be less polite.
There is absolutely no reason to think the Daemonic Invulnerability army rule is the same as an invulnerable saves.
Summoning refers to absolutely nothing in the article (rezzing a dead unit and summoning new units are very distinct mechanics in 40k), and the inferno tag on Skarbrand's bellow is unexplained, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by referencing the ability that is explained.
Combine the Damonic Instability rule with the Kustom Force Field and we can already start to see a pattern where invulnerable saves as we know them aren't a thing in Apocalypse but now do different things for different armies, with -1 to wound for Orks and Daemons always taking saves on a D12, which is useful for large blast markers but not small ones. There's no need to get super picky about terminoligy at this point.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Are you getting that from the video? The text articles don't give enough information to decide, but given that the profile shown is for bolt rifles, plural, I would suggest you're not correct. One stand makes one shooting attack.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The "In the box2 section of the new website https://warhammer40000.com/apocalypse/ shows a couple of datasheets. The only one we can see in full is the Morkanaut, but you can just make out that the Harlequin Troupe has three stat lines listed; one for five models, one for 10 and one for 12 (which is an unusual number. Presumably it'll be clearer in context, perhaps that's how characters are added to units.
The Harlequin Troupe maxes out at 12 in 40K (presumably because there's 6 in a box), from what we've seen so far min and max sizes for squads are matching those in 40K.
Yes, but the movement trays take 5 models, hence 12 being a bit strange.
True, but it looks like the movement trays are there to help rather than be a requirement of the game.
Voss wrote: So the daemons article was interesting....
But also included a random, irrational and completely unexplained name change.
Even when daemonic legions were actual army lists, they weren't called 'legiones daemonica.' Not sure which Romance language they're trying to offend with that mess.
Keyword fix, so that Nurgle Daemons and Daemons of Nurgle and Nurgle Marked Daemons can be different things, and you don't need to worry about your strats also covering Mortarion and Plagueburst Crawlers etc.
Daemons of Chaos codex is it's own faction, so only a few specific things then spread to other daemon or god units, rather than almost every aura that didn't list specific units.
Kinda sad that they only put 1 photo into the whole craftworld article! Makes one wonder if the photographers are all working on something else Eldar related and don't have time or the models setup to be taking photos of "old models" for Apoc I also note that their Apoc kit is all the newer plastics as is the photo - not even a guardian or weapon platform on show
Overread wrote: Kinda sad that they only put 1 photo into the whole craftworld article! Makes one wonder if the photographers are all working on something else Eldar related and don't have time or the models setup to be taking photos of "old models" for Apoc I also note that their Apoc kit is all the newer plastics as is the photo - not even a guardian or weapon platform on show
There are three squads of Guardian Defenders and 1 Storm Guardian squad in the midground. Also, the two FW titans are pretty old now.
I agree one pic is a bit weird though, and the lack of Aspect warriors is conspicuous.
Voss wrote: So the daemons article was interesting....
But also included a random, irrational and completely unexplained name change.
Even when daemonic legions were actual army lists, they weren't called 'legiones daemonica.' Not sure which Romance language they're trying to offend with that mess.
Keyword fix, so that Nurgle Daemons and Daemons of Nurgle and Nurgle Marked Daemons can be different things, and you don't need to worry about your strats also covering Mortarion and Plagueburst Crawlers etc.
Daemons of Chaos codex is it's own faction, so only a few specific things then spread to other daemon or god units, rather than almost every aura that didn't list specific units.
As usual tho, GW went with the worst option of a name. We also can bet it was for copywrite reasons not playability (since so much of 8th is poorly written).
Now, instead of issuing one FAQ that simply states how the demon keyword works across codices you have to issue another faq for every ability that references chaos demons. That's not easier at all.
Voss wrote: So the daemons article was interesting....
But also included a random, irrational and completely unexplained name change.
Even when daemonic legions were actual army lists, they weren't called 'legiones daemonica.' Not sure which Romance language they're trying to offend with that mess.
Keyword fix, so that Nurgle Daemons and Daemons of Nurgle and Nurgle Marked Daemons can be different things, and you don't need to worry about your strats also covering Mortarion and Plagueburst Crawlers etc.
Daemons of Chaos codex is it's own faction, so only a few specific things then spread to other daemon or god units, rather than almost every aura that didn't list specific units.
As usual tho, GW went with the worst option of a name. We also can bet it was for copywrite reasons not playability (since so much of 8th is poorly written).
Now, instead of issuing one FAQ that simply states how the demon keyword works across codices you have to issue another faq for every ability that references chaos demons. That's not easier at all.
It's also a stupid name
or you put out an entire new fething codex. which is proably the plan, since the deamons codeex came out we've gotten a ton of new slaanish stuff and a tiny bit of khorne stuff.
im not so fond of the new rules, they seem really good but not for playing whit 28 mm figures.
why should i put down 5 marines to get what, 1 attack and 2 wounds that allone shows the rules ar written
to be played whit unit stands. thats why you will get the movement trays so they will act like the stand of marines
like epic. and whit all the tokens the table will be full off stuff. all your models en all the tokens, you will see no table any more
i think i will play this whit my epic collection and play old appoc, not perfect but all my models will have an impact on the game
not mutch but 5 marines will have 5 attacks and 5 wounds will they survive better. i dont think so. but thats war
skeleton wrote: im not so fond of the new rules, they seem really good but not for playing whit 28 mm figures.
why should i put down 5 marines to get what, 1 attack and 2 wounds that allone shows the rules ar written
to be played whit unit stands. thats why you will get the movement trays so they will act like the stand of marines
like epic. and whit all the tokens the table will be full off stuff. all your models en all the tokens, you will see no table any more
i think i will play this whit my epic collection and play old appoc, not perfect but all my models will have an impact on the game
not mutch but 5 marines will have 5 attacks and 5 wounds will they survive better. i dont think so. but thats war
Power to you for doing so but epic had 5 marines on 1 base which does 1 attack the exact same? It's just an abstraction based on the scale, the cumulative bullets of the 5 dudes = that 1 die roll, just as in 40k, a clip of ammo for a marine = 1-2 shots.
That one attack is also about as likely to kill 5 enemy dudes as before. The difference is just less bookkeeping over the fact you might kill 3 or 4 of them instead of 5.
Honestly that’s kinda why I feel this version of Apocalypse is a waste of time: It’s just 28mm epic. If I wanted to play epic I’d either dig up old and third party epic materials or wait to see if they make a new version of epic in Titanicus scale.
If I want to play “slapdash mess of far too many 28mm models shoved onto all the game shop’s tables shoved together”, which in my experience stores and clubs tend to do about once a year or so, then I’d rather do so with a system like old apocalypse: A bodged together barely functional patch for regular 40k, because there’s zero point learning a whole different system for such a niche and rarely applied form of play.
The way I see it, it’s just the same kind of abstraction that has been a staple of historical war gaming for decades. Except in skirmish games (which does kind of include 40k), one mini generally doesn’t represent one guy. If that were the case, good luck painting the possibly hundreds of thousands of minis needed to recreate some historical battles, at any scale ... even with contrast paint
So accepting the abstraction that your minis are tokens representing whole groups of combatants, then the big advantage that Apocalypse has over Epic is that you don’t need a whole new collection in a different scale to play it. You’ll now be able to play Kill Team, 40k and Apocalypse all with the same miniatures. That’s got to be a good thing, right?
changemod wrote: Honestly that’s kinda why I feel this version of Apocalypse is a waste of time: It’s just 28mm epic. If I wanted to play epic I’d either dig up old and third party epic materials or wait to see if they make a new version of epic in Titanicus scale.
Yeah if only GW’s design team had your insight and didn’t waste their time designing a game to play with all your stuff or have the whole club get a massive game in. They should have realised that everyone will just rummage through their attic/basement or scour ebay for old models they don’t make any more or buy competitors stuff and play with OOP rulesets or fan-created material. What a bunch of idiots!
changemod wrote: Honestly that’s kinda why I feel this version of Apocalypse is a waste of time: It’s just 28mm epic. If I wanted to play epic I’d either dig up old and third party epic materials or wait to see if they make a new version of epic in Titanicus scale.
Yeah if only GW’s design team had your insight and didn’t waste their time designing a game to play with all your stuff or have the whole club get a massive game in. They should have realised that everyone will just rummage through their attic/basement or scour ebay for old models they don’t make any more or buy competitors stuff and play with OOP rulesets or fan-created material. What a bunch of idiots!
Design team?
Accountants more likely.
"Hey, why not make a game so when you roll 1 dice, 5 models get removed instead of 1, then they'll have to buy 5 times as many figures".
Except minis that large aren’t really ideal for huge scale gameplay. Even if you do push all the tables in the store together, you end up with long narrow battlefield syndrome. Fighting over an unnaturally elongated strip of land because of you made it a sensible shape you wouldn’t be able to reach the centre of the table.
In truth, making 28mm scale epic (a self sufficient game) rather than traditional Apocalpse (a niche playstyle expected to not see much use) is basically a marketing attempt. A hope that some people will buy more minis so that they have a big enough army for apocalypse.
I see this version of Apocalypse also as a way of testing possible future 40K rules. Testing out the use of D12s. Condensing a unit's attacks to the unit level, rather than having the plasmagun guy fire separately. Having weapons actually function differently against large targets vs. small. And so on. I certainly plan to use the movement trays in my regular games whenever possible for the convenience of it.
changemod wrote: Honestly that’s kinda why I feel this version of Apocalypse is a waste of time: It’s just 28mm epic. If I wanted to play epic I’d either dig up old and third party epic materials or wait to see if they make a new version of epic in Titanicus scale.
Yeah if only GW’s design team had your insight and didn’t waste their time designing a game to play with all your stuff or have the whole club get a massive game in. They should have realised that everyone will just rummage through their attic/basement or scour ebay for old models they don’t make any more or buy competitors stuff and play with OOP rulesets or fan-created material. What a bunch of idiots!
Design team?
Accountants more likely.
"Hey, why not make a game so when you roll 1 dice, 5 models get removed instead of 1, then they'll have to buy 5 times as many figures".
Nah, design team. “Hey let’s make this group of 5 dudes just roll 1 die to keep things moving along seeing as there’s hundreds of models on the table”
changemod wrote: Honestly that’s kinda why I feel this version of Apocalypse is a waste of time: It’s just 28mm epic. If I wanted to play epic I’d either dig up old and third party epic materials or wait to see if they make a new version of epic in Titanicus scale.
Yeah if only GW’s design team had your insight and didn’t waste their time designing a game to play with all your stuff or have the whole club get a massive game in. They should have realised that everyone will just rummage through their attic/basement or scour ebay for old models they don’t make any more or buy competitors stuff and play with OOP rulesets or fan-created material. What a bunch of idiots!
Design team?
Accountants more likely.
"Hey, why not make a game so when you roll 1 dice, 5 models get removed instead of 1, then they'll have to buy 5 times as many figures".
You also only shoot once with a squad... to make it faster and to make it possible to play larger games..
changemod wrote: Except minis that large aren’t really ideal for huge scale gameplay. Even if you do push all the tables in the store together, you end up with long narrow battlefield syndrome. Fighting over an unnaturally elongated strip of land because of you made it a sensible shape you wouldn’t be able to reach the centre of the table.
In truth, making 28mm scale epic (a self sufficient game) rather than traditional Apocalpse (a niche playstyle expected to not see much use) is basically a marketing attempt. A hope that some people will buy more minis so that they have a big enough army for apocalypse.
But those same objections have been true of Imperial Guard artillery, fliers, and probably most of the super heavy vehicles. To a certain extent, 40k out grew a reasonable scale for what they’re putting in the game a few editions ago.
Apocalypse, while on paper is better suited to an epic system, is a fair product in practice.
For the tank'n'titan owner clubs out there, they can introduce smaller units into their games without sacrificing game time. If your games are growing beyond 2 squads, 1 HQ character and a Dreadnought then chances are you'll want a simpler system to speed things up. Being a Tyranid player with multiple groups of gaunts and genestealers...this sounds good, especially with the trays. And unlike an epic reboot(as sensible as that would be) the models for all factions are already available - ask the average Titanicus player how they feel about using the same damn five models over-and-over again.
Considering the Apocalypse ruleset is self contained( much like Kill Team ) and responding to the needs of some 40K players, its hard to fault it. Personally, I think its time to switch to epic when fielding anything larger than a land raider, but I do appreciate it when including every kind of player. Not sure how much this ruleset will cost but I might pick up a copy if my Tyranid force grows any larger...
The saves thing is awesome I hope if we get a new AdMech codex with all the new stuff this becomes a faction rule.
Rerollable saves on a D6 is pretty busted though so they will never do that again
I regret to inform you that re-rollable 2+ saves are alive and well and published in recent AoS books, so don't assume GW has any ability to learn from past mistakes
The saves thing is awesome I hope if we get a new AdMech codex with all the new stuff this becomes a faction rule.
Rerollable saves on a D6 is pretty busted though so they will never do that again
I regret to inform you that re-rollable 2+ saves are alive and well and published in recent AoS books, so don't assume GW has any ability to learn from past mistakes
Well they are different rules teams, but they were active in 8th edition too, and quickly got banhammered
I regret to inform you that re-rollable 2+ saves are alive and well and published in recent AoS books, so don't assume GW has any ability to learn from past mistakes
What has that in AoS? I haven't ran into it--or if I had, I don't recall it.
One of the big reasons that those big apoc games are only ever held once a year in many gaming club is because everyone knows it takes a lot of effort to get through a single game. You're spending your whole day, and possibly your whole weekend, ove one table.
The appeal is that now you can have that same game in a couple of hours and still get to feel like your titans are titans and your tanks are tanks and your infantry are infantry.
I think what I'm more interested in is the fact that this is the fourth game GW has put out that's alternating activations.
Underworlds, Kill Team, Age of Sigmar, and now Apocalypse. The only outlier now is 40k.
I hope Apoc is scaleable to 1k+ or that these rules are adapted to 40k. I simply can't afford a large army, (Even 1k is pushing it for me), however all of these rules seem to provide a much better experience to 40k, based on my experience with other wargames and 40k. I simply can't bring myself to play 40k anymore, it's not fun nor engaging, but these rules give me hope. Hopefully I'll be able to play a middle ground between kill team and apoc that's still better than the current 40k ruleset.
Sir Heckington wrote: I hope Apoc is scaleable to 1k+ or that these rules are adapted to 40k. I simply can't afford a large army, (Even 1k is pushing it for me), however all of these rules seem to provide a much better experience to 40k, based on my experience with other wargames and 40k. I simply can't bring myself to play 40k anymore, it's not fun nor engaging, but these rules give me hope. Hopefully I'll be able to play a middle ground between kill team and apoc that's still better than the current 40k ruleset .
There is a high chance that this is just kind of a public-beta test to bring Epic back and/or for 9th edition
Sir Heckington wrote: I hope Apoc is scaleable to 1k+ or that these rules are adapted to 40k. I simply can't afford a large army, (Even 1k is pushing it for me), however all of these rules seem to provide a much better experience to 40k, based on my experience with other wargames and 40k. I simply can't bring myself to play 40k anymore, it's not fun nor engaging, but these rules give me hope. Hopefully I'll be able to play a middle ground between kill team and apoc that's still better than the current 40k ruleset .
There is a high chance that this is just kind of a public-beta test to bring Epic back and/or for 9th edition
I don't really have much love or care for Epic, but I do hope that these is a beta test for 9th. AA, Orders, Damage at the end of the round, ect. These things would be great for 40k. It'd def bring back my love for it.
A new epic is more likely than 9th. With the release of codices for 8th, it's immensely unlikely you'll see a rules set that differs from those books for 3-4 years (if even then). Writing a codex is time consuming and GW isn't going to introduce 9th edition and change the core books of the game.
Just won't happen. So while they could change some core concepts, the codices would still be used in 9th....thus you won't find much transfer from Apocalypse to 9th (or 8.5 or whatever they end up doing in the next year or two).
Then here’s to hoping Apocalypse is fun, relatively well balanced, and has few other crutch gimmicks besides the command cards. It’s probably gonna be a long wait for a new, hopefully Command Point and Stratagem free, edition of regular 40k.
Have they said if the detachment boxes are direct only? They said Limited Quantities, but not whether local stores will be able to order some and I’ve got a lot of credit at my store and my eye on that CSM bundle.
Elbows wrote: A new epic is more likely than 9th. With the release of codices for 8th, it's immensely unlikely you'll see a rules set that differs from those books for 3-4 years (if even then). Writing a codex is time consuming and GW isn't going to introduce 9th edition and change the core books of the game.
Just won't happen. So while they could change some core concepts, the codices would still be used in 9th....thus you won't find much transfer from Apocalypse to 9th (or 8.5 or whatever they end up doing in the next year or two).
They've both done the thing where they keep codexes around between editions and done extremely short lifespans for rulesets. Neither really prevents 9th edition.
zend wrote:Then here’s to hoping Apocalypse is fun, relatively well balanced, and has few other crutch gimmicks besides the command cards. It’s probably gonna be a long wait for a new, hopefully Command Point and Stratagem free, edition of regular 40k.
Well, it seems notable that psychic powers are definitely folded into command cards, even basic, faction defining ones like Doom. The Swordwind card also has all the hallmarks of a Strategem.
That suggests to me that a lot of things are moved into command cards.
Though worryingly, they're selling an extra pack of 100 Command cards as day 1 DLC, so even restricting shenanigans to Command Cards leaves them room to pull nonsense.
From what's in the picture from the first Apocalypse article, the 'Command Assets' pack includes basic Tyranid stuff like The Horror, Necron (Sky of Falling Stars, which involves C'tan) and Custodes (From Golden Light They Come, a teleport, or alternately a reroll) specific cards and a general psychic power.
As far as the boxed sets go, they just say 'limited numbers' but a lot of people have mentioned getting not much at all in local stores for the last couple 'limited numbers' sets (Looncurse and Carrion Empires)
BrianDavion wrote: the boxes shouldn't suffer from looncurse's problems though, I mean let's face it, GW's not exactly got limited stocks of say... Primaris Marines.
Well, not as limited, no. But they do have a limited amount that they're budgeting to sell at less than full price.
What they want people to do is drop $300+ on Saturday on a box + the apocalypse set+ the command assets+maybe dice, trays, etc. So they're willing to take an MSRP reduction for more sales of the ancillary products. (and to get people in a position they feel need to buy more later to make their initial purchase feel justified.
And of course they'll mash that 'limited' button to get the psychology working. They've had a lot of success with it over the last several years. (It helps that the limited sets actually are a good deal by GW standards- I really didn't expect the primaris and chaos marines boxes to be enough of a discount as to actually have a lower cost than 3 of the primary kit plus offer free stuff)
BrianDavion wrote: the boxes shouldn't suffer from looncurse's problems though, I mean let's face it, GW's not exactly got limited stocks of say... Primaris Marines.
Well, not as limited, no. But they do have a limited amount that they're budgeting to sell at less than full price.
What they want people to do is drop $300+ on Saturday on a box + the apocalypse set+ the command assets+maybe dice, trays, etc. So they're willing to take an MSRP reduction for more sales of the ancillary products. (and to get people in a position they feel need to buy more later to make their initial purchase feel justified.
And of course they'll mash that 'limited' button to get the psychology working. They've had a lot of success with it over the last several years. (It helps that the limited sets actually are a good deal by GW standards- I really didn't expect the primaris and chaos marines boxes to be enough of a discount as to actually have a lower cost than 3 of the primary kit plus offer free stuff)
ohh absolutely just I don't expect to have trouble getting ahold of something you really want come saturday. except MAAAAYBE the Knight box
I see a lot of people that want epic back. There's a few problems with that.
A. it cannibalizes from sales that would normally go to larger and larger 40k or Apoc armies, and selling three leman russ tanks is going to make them more money than selling a pack of 3 epic sized leman russ tanks.
B. epic coming out requires Titanicus to do well. Very well. Titanicus has had... one release after the initial flood of models? They also haven't had a single release for it that's outside of the Horus Heresy theme, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
And even if epic does come out, it's going to become another Blood Bowl or Necromunda, where releases are few and far between.
I'd rather see them make a strong game of Apocalypse and then improve on 40k.
Elbows wrote: A new epic is more likely than 9th. With the release of codices for 8th, it's immensely unlikely you'll see a rules set that differs from those books for 3-4 years (if even then). Writing a codex is time consuming and GW isn't going to introduce 9th edition and change the core books of the game.
Just won't happen. So while they could change some core concepts, the codices would still be used in 9th....thus you won't find much transfer from Apocalypse to 9th (or 8.5 or whatever they end up doing in the next year or two).
Well, if they don't, I simlpy hope Apoc scales down well, because I'd much prefer the superior ruleset.
drbored wrote: I see a lot of people that want epic back. There's a few problems with that.
A. it cannibalizes from sales that would normally go to larger and larger 40k or Apoc armies, and selling three leman russ tanks is going to make them more money than selling a pack of 3 epic sized leman russ tanks.
B. epic coming out requires Titanicus to do well. Very well. Titanicus has had... one release after the initial flood of models? They also haven't had a single release for it that's outside of the Horus Heresy theme, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
They're making Aeronautica Imperiallis, highly possibly same scale as Titanicus. Rule collabs might be a possibilities too. They're slowly adding more unit in the game. It's just very slow, like 5-10 years plan. Don't expect thing like infantry, dreadnought, sentinel, or tiny Guilliman, but generally big boys like Baneblade or even xenos warmachine are on the horizon, just not soon.
The other thing that bothers me is the way casualties are handled. The last two versions of Apoc had a big problem with having to remove whole sections of your army if your opponent went first, leading to a "Why did I even bother?" side to things as you just set stuff up onto to take it off at the end of the turn. The casualty removal from NuPoc (no? Too on the nose?) gets rid of the issues of IGOUGO but the abstraction still sees you removing entire units in one go, after seemingly very little back and forth with firepower.
I see people saying that they can't wait to try it with lower point games, but I fear that these games would be over very quickly and come down to nothing more than how many blast markers you can Alpha Strike, leading to super-short games where you spend more time setting up your miniatures than anything else as they are removed by the handful once the game starts.
drbored wrote: A. it cannibalizes from sales that would normally go to larger and larger 40k or Apoc armies, and selling three leman russ tanks is going to make them more money than selling a pack of 3 epic sized leman russ tanks.
I've seen people say this before, but I'm yet to see anything to show it is as being true.
Much as Epicolypse has tickled my fancy? I’m not particularly sure it’s tickled it enough for me to put together a suitably sized army.
Now granted, that’s not the system’s primary aim, selling huge armies from scratch. Rather, it’s a way to let peeps play massive battles in a realistic timescale. And from there, encourage additional sales.
Epic doesn’t cannibalise 40k sales, anymore than because I’ve got 3 Warlords, 2 Reavers, 4 Warhounds, 4 Knight Lancers and 12 Questoris Knights for Adeptus Titanicus means they’ve missed out on selling me, well, the same, but in 40k scale.
Give me a cheap and efficient way to collect an enormous army and I will throw money at it. And that is what Epic is for. Because while I baulk at spending £600 on a 40k Army I’ll only occasionally field in full? £600 on Epic (including my Titans etc)? When I can arrange weekly games?
Since our gaming group plays nothing but 2v2 and 3v3 games we are all incredibly excited to play Apoc as even playing 1000 points each would equal a 2000 point 1v1 game and it has been said it works fine at that level.
I am smiling at all of the people moaning about "why" GW made it 28mm scale instead of Epic......of course I was around when Epic came out and no one was interested "Primarily" because they had to buy a different scale army.....
We all know that these same people would moan about how dumb GW was to release a game system at Epic scale.........always a no win situation with fans.
changemod wrote: Honestly that’s kinda why I feel this version of Apocalypse is a waste of time: It’s just 28mm epic. If I wanted to play epic I’d either dig up old and third party epic materials or wait to see if they make a new version of epic in Titanicus scale.
If I want to play “slapdash mess of far too many 28mm models shoved onto all the game shop’s tables shoved together”, which in my experience stores and clubs tend to do about once a year or so, then I’d rather do so with a system like old apocalypse: A bodged together barely functional patch for regular 40k, because there’s zero point learning a whole different system for such a niche and rarely applied form of play.
Umm so rather than actually have workable rules for big battles you want to use inferior rules that don't convey sense of big battle and just have big mess decided by first turn roll? That's weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: Except minis that large aren’t really ideal for huge scale gameplay. Even if you do push all the tables in the store together, you end up with long narrow battlefield syndrome. Fighting over an unnaturally elongated strip of land because of you made it a sensible shape you wouldn’t be able to reach the centre of the table.
In truth, making 28mm scale epic (a self sufficient game) rather than traditional Apocalpse (a niche playstyle expected to not see much use) is basically a marketing attempt. A hope that some people will buy more minis so that they have a big enough army for apocalypse.
Yes model size is still issue. Light years ahead of big mess of 40k with 10k+ points per side though. You are suggesting deliberately taking inferior product because there isn't better one available. That's odd. I prefer always best you can have with limitations at hand.
Elbows wrote: A new epic is more likely than 9th. With the release of codices for 8th, it's immensely unlikely you'll see a rules set that differs from those books for 3-4 years (if even then). Writing a codex is time consuming and GW isn't going to introduce 9th edition and change the core books of the game.
Just won't happen. So while they could change some core concepts, the codices would still be used in 9th....thus you won't find much transfer from Apocalypse to 9th (or 8.5 or whatever they end up doing in the next year or two).
They've both done the thing where they keep codexes around between editions and done extremely short lifespans for rulesets. Neither really prevents 9th edition.
Think point is these aren't likely going to be stealth beta test for 9th ed as these are big enough it would require rewriting codexes dumping previous ones at once, something GW has done so far only twice in 40k. More likely this is more like 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th so that codexes stay. Which removes huge game changing changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote: I see a lot of people that want epic back. There's a few problems with that.
A. it cannibalizes from sales that would normally go to larger and larger 40k or Apoc armies, and selling three leman russ tanks is going to make them more money than selling a pack of 3 epic sized leman russ tanks.
B. epic coming out requires Titanicus to do well. Very well. Titanicus has had... one release after the initial flood of models? They also haven't had a single release for it that's outside of the Horus Heresy theme, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
And even if epic does come out, it's going to become another Blood Bowl or Necromunda, where releases are few and far between.
I'd rather see them make a strong game of Apocalypse and then improve on 40k.
And it gets money from people who wouldn't buy 40k models. You see that's the mistake GW keeps making assuming everybody wants same thing(40k). They don't. Plenty people want OTHER stuff. GW would get far more money from me with epic than they would get from 40k ever. And even more money by having, grasp shock horror, both.
As for B sigh lead times, lead times, lead times. And actually they have had more than one release after initial 3 months. But they were unlikely to get green light for tons of models in short order right away and instead solid trickle at first. Then when it sold like hot cakes they likely got more budget BUT keep in mind anything green lighted after AT was on sale is still MONTHS ahead at best. That's called lead times.
The other thing that bothers me is the way casualties are handled. The last two versions of Apoc had a big problem with having to remove whole sections of your army if your opponent went first, leading to a "Why did I even bother?" side to things as you just set stuff up onto to take it off at the end of the turn. The casualty removal from NuPoc (no? Too on the nose?) gets rid of the issues of IGOUGO but the abstraction still sees you removing entire units in one go, after seemingly very little back and forth with firepower.
I see people saying that they can't wait to try it with lower point games, but I fear that these games would be over very quickly and come down to nothing more than how many blast markers you can Alpha Strike, leading to super-short games where you spend more time setting up your miniatures than anything else as they are removed by the handful once the game starts.
This is definitely a possibility, but I believe the hope is being able to play with a better ruleset than 40k. Perhaps at lower points simply moving detachment activation to unit activation may do the trick, but it'll have to be seen.
This probably was not mentioned before, but you cannot field more than one supreme command detachment in army, and your warmaster (?) has to be from that detachment.
This was from the video.
Elbows wrote: A new epic is more likely than 9th. With the release of codices for 8th, it's immensely unlikely you'll see a rules set that differs from those books for 3-4 years (if even then). Writing a codex is time consuming and GW isn't going to introduce 9th edition and change the core books of the game.
Just won't happen. So while they could change some core concepts, the codices would still be used in 9th....thus you won't find much transfer from Apocalypse to 9th (or 8.5 or whatever they end up doing in the next year or two).
Well, if they don't, I simlpy hope Apoc scales down well, because I'd much prefer the superior ruleset.
They are releasing datasheets for all the units on Apoc's release though. So they already wrote what would basically be a new edition's worth of Index.
The only thing I worry about at this point is that Apocalypse points costs likely won't ever be updated, so any imbalances will be here forever, and that's the main reason it can't stick as a wholesale replacement for regular 40k. Or does anyone expect any long term support beyond adding datasheets when brand new units are released for 40k?
lord_blackfang wrote: The only thing I worry about at this point is that Apocalypse points costs likely won't ever be updated, so any imbalances will be here forever, and that's the main reason it can't stick as a wholesale replacement for regular 40k.
With the unit rules being free downloads it's arguably easier than ever for GW to amend them as needed. While I don't think they should balance Apoc to the same degree as 40k, it would be nice to see a FAQ / errata to fix any obvious outliers after the first month or two, then tweak things on an annual basis to keep things fresh. Hell, with free unit rules online they could potentially even adjust stats & special rules rather than just power levels.
Presumably as new 40k models & codexes are released (like the upcoming Renegade Knights) they will also receive free Apoc rules too.
Does anyone else think that, units out of command radius get a hard punishment? Even a small Blast marker will destroy instantly a unit, so it only takes a succesful hit and wound roll, and a target unit does not even get an armour save.. :/
Spreelock wrote: Does anyone else think that, units out of command radius get a hard punishment? Even a small Blast marker will destroy instantly a unit, so it only takes a succesful hit and wound roll, and a target unit does not even get an armour save.. :/
The way I understand is that this only happens if a unit is out of command radius for a full turn. They have to receive the 'out of command' marker in the orders phase, and get the action phase to rectify that. As the check is also done at the start of the damage phase before any damage is applied, so there's no chance of an opponent carefully 'picking off' units to put you outside command range. It's quite hard to lose units to this unless you really neglect your unit positioning.
If you happen to end up out of command in the action or damage phase, you have the following turn to avoid it as that unit won't have a marker.
Spreelock wrote: Does anyone else think that, units out of command radius get a hard punishment? Even a small Blast marker will destroy instantly a unit, so it only takes a succesful hit and wound roll, and a target unit does not even get an armour save.. :/
Well, it encourages Commanders. But I expect 'Comms Network - pick a unit. This unit is considered to be in command radius, regardless of distance from a commander model' - or the like, to be a common stratagem card. Certain other model types will be immune too, I expect.
Yeah, they probably have to factions such as tyranids some sort of "synapse" bonus. But some factions, such as tau (having their Crisis commander with fusions elsewhere) this can really make the diffrence.
It is perhaps too soon to tell, but it does feel like they want to make this Apocalypse a thing considering how much stuff they are releasing alongside. For me it feels like GW is now trying to have 40k on all fronts. You have Skirmish in Kill Team, Large Skirmish in Regular 40k, and then you are going to have this. It means that people of all collections have something to play with and rewards people who are willing to have small forces or long time collectors.
There is also another thing that comes with Apocalypse: The artists can now create larger kits for certain playstyles, opening up their creative outlet further.
One weird thing to note: The sniper rule doesnt' say they get to target characters, it says they get to add 2 to the roll. I was kind of working off the hunch that Warlords would work like Generals in AOS. You pick a general, if he's a character he gets "warlord trait" style bonus abilities like in 40k, but he also critically is the focal point from which you use your Stratagem-style abilities. You can ONLY use your tactical re-rolls and your whatevers if you're within 12" of the General.
But if your general dies, the "general" status snaps to your next highest LD model on the battlefield (not the warlord trait, but the ability to use CP on Stratagems comes from that model now). I was kind of assuming that's how Warlord-ship would work in apoc, making blasting the leader character off the table not the go-to way to just straight up remove a detachment.
Characters in AOS can also be freely targeted just with a - to hit if they're within 3" of a friendly unit.
If you don't get 40k style character protection, and removing the warlord from a detachment means the detachment just up and ollies out....boy, I know what models are going to be eating 100% all of my army's firepower in apoc games. Hint: it's not anything but Detachment Warlords!
changemod wrote: Honestly that’s kinda why I feel this version of Apocalypse is a waste of time: It’s just 28mm epic. If I wanted to play epic I’d either dig up old and third party epic materials or wait to see if they make a new version of epic in Titanicus scale.
If I want to play “slapdash mess of far too many 28mm models shoved onto all the game shop’s tables shoved together”, which in my experience stores and clubs tend to do about once a year or so, then I’d rather do so with a system like old apocalypse: A bodged together barely functional patch for regular 40k, because there’s zero point learning a whole different system for such a niche and rarely applied form of play.
Umm so rather than actually have workable rules for big battles you want to use inferior rules that don't convey sense of big battle and just have big mess decided by first turn roll? That's weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: Except minis that large aren’t really ideal for huge scale gameplay. Even if you do push all the tables in the store together, you end up with long narrow battlefield syndrome. Fighting over an unnaturally elongated strip of land because of you made it a sensible shape you wouldn’t be able to reach the centre of the table.
In truth, making 28mm scale epic (a self sufficient game) rather than traditional Apocalpse (a niche playstyle expected to not see much use) is basically a marketing attempt. A hope that some people will buy more minis so that they have a big enough army for apocalypse.
Yes model size is still issue. Light years ahead of big mess of 40k with 10k+ points per side though. You are suggesting deliberately taking inferior product because there isn't better one available. That's odd. I prefer always best you can have with limitations at hand.
28mm epic -is- the inferior product being settled for. The superior product would be 8mm epic for serious play and a patch to regular 40k for Apocalypse because again, the scale is inherently poorly suited for it and it’s played rarely enough that learning a system for it is an unnecessary hassle.
Theoretically you could both have serious epic and 28mm epic, but I don’t really see the point of the redundancy. They don’t sell a 28mm Titanicus ruleset after all.
This also isn't epic at all... beyond window dressings and some common terminology this feels like it's taking all the combo shenanigans, rerolls, RNG to the highest level, auras and general absurd elements of 40k and combining them with nostalgia to get desperate Epic players to drop tons of cash.
If you want to play apoc because it's epic...it's not epic. To think so will only lead to disappointment. Buy apoc because you want a wacky new way to play 40k.
Well, not a lot of new information on the table in the DG+Tsons preview.
one interesting thing I note from the Eldar preview is that the sniper rule is a +2 to hit against CHARACTER models.
Inductively, one can predict that Warlords in apocalypse will work similarly to Generals in Age of Sigmar:
Either a CHARACTER of your choice or the highest-LD model in an army (or in apoc, a detachment) can be the Warlord. if the Warlord is slain, the status of Warlord automatically passes to the highest-LD model still alive.
CHARACTERS unlike in 40k can be targeted but have a universal special rule called Look Out, Sir which conveys a negative to-hit penalty. In Age of Sigmar, this is -1, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was upped to -2 in Apocalypse owing to the powerful longrange weaponry available.
Inferno Boltguns are worse than Bolt Rifles.... Can someone tell me why does GW hate Rubrics Marines so much ?!
Yeah, mows down infantry with ease, haha! It just occurred to me that to take out a unit of 10 Necron warriors (as an example 'cause I know where to find the datasheet preview in the video), you need to score at least three wounding hits.
First wounding hit = small blast
Second wounding hit = small blast becomes large blast, so the save is more difficult (Necron warriors auto-fail). BUT! the unit's still only taking 1 point of damage.
Third wounding hit = another small blast. Now, the unit finally has to take 2 saves.
I'm beginning to wonder whether the apocalyptic scale will actually bring our units greater longevity
H.B.M.C. wrote: I do share Yak's concerns over this new ruleset.
The other thing that bothers me is the way casualties are handled. The last two versions of Apoc had a big problem with having to remove whole sections of your army if your opponent went first, leading to a "Why did I even bother?" side to things as you just set stuff up onto to take it off at the end of the turn. The casualty removal from NuPoc (no? Too on the nose?) gets rid of the issues of IGOUGO but the abstraction still sees you removing entire units in one go, after seemingly very little back and forth with firepower.
I see people saying that they can't wait to try it with lower point games, but I fear that these games would be over very quickly and come down to nothing more than how many blast markers you can Alpha Strike, leading to super-short games where you spend more time setting up your miniatures than anything else as they are removed by the handful once the game starts.
drbored wrote: A. it cannibalizes from sales that would normally go to larger and larger 40k or Apoc armies, and selling three leman russ tanks is going to make them more money than selling a pack of 3 epic sized leman russ tanks.
I've seen people say this before, but I'm yet to see anything to show it is as being true.
I don't see this.
How good are alpha strikes completely depends on the lethality of the game.
At the moment what i'm seeing is that apoc is about as lethal as 40K. 10 necron warriors have about the same problems killing themselves in 40k and in apoc. In apoc they need to land 2,85 blast markers to kill themselves, which means 5 turns of firing not in rapid fire (we still don't know what rapid fire does). In 40K to wipe the squad (ignoring morale) you need 4,5 shots per model, so again 5 turns of firing not in rapid fire.
Inceptors kill themselves much better in apoc, but that is because the bolt rifle has been buffed quite a bit.
Mmmm, I am not sure about the "power level" in this game, but I don't know what to think about a Repulsor beign PL13, Guilliman 15 and then the new Repulsor 24. It makes me think about a 400+ points tank...If that end up beign true, that would assert that GW is the most dumb company ever. XD
the_scotsman wrote: Well, not a lot of new information on the table in the DG+Tsons preview.
one interesting thing I note from the Eldar preview is that the sniper rule is a +2 to hit against CHARACTER models.
Inductively, one can predict that Warlords in apocalypse will work similarly to Generals in Age of Sigmar:
Either a CHARACTER of your choice or the highest-LD model in an army (or in apoc, a detachment) can be the Warlord. if the Warlord is slain, the status of Warlord automatically passes to the highest-LD model still alive.
CHARACTERS unlike in 40k can be targeted but have a universal special rule called Look Out, Sir which conveys a negative to-hit penalty. In Age of Sigmar, this is -1, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was upped to -2 in Apocalypse owing to the powerful longrange weaponry available.
So far we only know about warmaster (just the title) and warlord (highest leadership, that is also a character becomes warlord in each detachment). I'm thinking that the warmaster title passes to a next model (warlord maybe). But it would be ridiculous for everyone being able to target a character, unless its a sniper. Characters are key models for morale and command assets.
Going over the Imperial Guard datasheets, a lot of stuff does not exist, like pistols on officers and special weapons in infantry squads, for the sake of keeping things speedy no doubt.
BrookM wrote: Going over the Imperial Guard datasheets, a lot of stuff does not exist, like pistols on officers and special weapons in infantry squads, for the sake of keeping things speedy no doubt.
For sure! Techpriest Enginseers don't have their pistol either.
LOL! Gotta love it. Your opinion is obviously based on your game style and the limited contact you have in your area. Everyone in our game group and the multiple game shops around here are all buzzing about how much fun it will be.
Of course Tourny only players will be "Meh" because it would require them to play for fun until they can corner the market on stupid Min/Max lists and slap themselves on the back about how awesome they are at life. :-)
Holy gak, they even got all the Forge World stuff done up.
And... it's really well done. This gives me some hope. Renegades and Heretics actually look like a good and fun army to play by this system. Covenants are fixed, milita are fixed, it all looks just better.
Holy gak, they even got all the Forge World stuff done up.
And... it's really well done. This gives me some hope. Renegades and Heretics actually look like a good and fun army to play by this system. Covenants are fixed, milita are fixed, it all looks just better.
Well they fixed the pricing of the militia and the covenants are ACTUALLY bloody functional!
Signs and wonders i tell you!
Holy gak, they even got all the Forge World stuff done up.
And... it's really well done. This gives me some hope. Renegades and Heretics actually look like a good and fun army to play by this system. Covenants are fixed, milita are fixed, it all looks just better.
Well they fixed the pricing of the militia and the covenants are ACTUALLY bloody functional!
Signs and wonders i tell you!
I'll play Apoc at 50 PL if I have to, this is bloody amazing!
Holy gak, they even got all the Forge World stuff done up.
And... it's really well done. This gives me some hope. Renegades and Heretics actually look like a good and fun army to play by this system. Covenants are fixed, milita are fixed, it all looks just better.
Well they fixed the pricing of the militia and the covenants are ACTUALLY bloody functional!
Signs and wonders i tell you!
I'll play Apoc at 50 PL if I have to, this is bloody amazing!
Well, i hope that within the 300 cards are some specific ones for us, altough wouldn't that also include a apo box for us since we would need to get the correct field manual or am i misunderstanding things now?
Edit: do misunderstand things, but normaly the manual is sold with a starter box.
I am now severly considering my purchase plans i had recently.
Reading over tyranids i have to say that i find them a bit plain.
Tyranids are a faction with lot of weird rules, and in apoc that does not translate well.
They are surely functional, but they lose a bit of flavour. What is really cool is that the few quirks left are now quite cinematic due to the apoc rules. The toxic effect now don't have a change of inflicting a mortal wound, they have a chance of asphixiating a whole squad. Same for acid blood.
They also consolidated together a lot of different options, for example the warriors have "bio melee weapons", whatever weapon you give them. This in a way is fine, since i won't have to change loadouts between 40K and Apoc.
Holy gak, they even got all the Forge World stuff done up.
And... it's really well done. This gives me some hope. Renegades and Heretics actually look like a good and fun army to play by this system. Covenants are fixed, milita are fixed, it all looks just better.
I'm astounded.. Tyranid FW units may actually be playable at last! Hierodules are pointed like Land Raider equivalents, the Harridan is a flying Baneblade (faster, less guns, more stabby) and the Hierophant has pretty beefy saving throw.
hm.... I'll have to see some of this stuff in action.
If Sniper truly doesn't grant the abiltiy to target characters even if they're not the closest, and almost all charcters are 1W, then how do you avoid having your characters blown out of the water in Apoc, I wonder?
a couple things you can tease together I've found so far:
-Deep strike is still 9" away (From the preview they placed deep striking units quite close, so I wasn't quite sure)
-Fall Back is still a thing, since Hellions have a rule that references it. If you start the turn in melee, you still have to Fall Back - unclear how that interacts with the new orders system.
Spoletta wrote: Reading over tyranids i have to say that i find them a bit plain.
Tyranids are a faction with lot of weird rules, and in apoc that does not translate well.
They are surely functional, but they lose a bit of flavour. What is really cool is that the few quirks left are now quite cinematic due to the apoc rules. The toxic effect now don't have a change of inflicting a mortal wound, they have a chance of asphixiating a whole squad. Same for acid blood.
They also consolidated together a lot of different options, for example the warriors have "bio melee weapons", whatever weapon you give them. This in a way is fine, since i won't have to change loadouts between 40K and Apoc.
Also mind you I believe we'll see a lot of flavour return in command cards.
Are the unit names for Renegade Knights new? War Dogs for Armigers, Knight Tyrant, and Knight Despoiler? Wonder if that's a teaser for the Renegade Knights codex. Digging through stuff now, went straight for the TItan rules and am really curious to try them out!
Prometheum5 wrote: Are the unit names for Renegade Knights new? War Dogs for Armigers, Knight Tyrant, and Knight Despoiler? Wonder if that's a teaser for the Renegade Knights codex. Digging through stuff now, went straight for the TItan rules and am really curious to try them out!
Yeah, I think it’s a little tease of the Chaos Knights book.
The wording on Crisis Suits seems weird compared to Commanders for the Tau.
For each 3 models this unit contains, it must be equipped with one of the following (Power Rating +1 per Burst Cannon, Cyclic Ion Blaster, Flamer and Plasma Rifle): 3 Airbursting Fragmentation Projectors; 3 Burst Cannons; 3 Cyclic Ion Blasters; 3 Flamers; 3 Fusion Blasters; 3 Missile Pods; 3 Plasma Rifles.
So a Crisis Suit unit, with 3 models, can only get 3 guns?
That makes sense with Apoc's squad scale, but then Commander's get 4 guns, and have a similar cost, (7 for crisis suits, 9 for commander). Just seems weird.
Voss wrote: It's an abstraction. Specific details get lost in the profile for unit-based shooting. It's just the nature of shifting the scale upwards.
Nuts to zip files. Going to have to wait until I'm at a computer again, as mobile devices do not like.
Correct, however, it seems a weird distinction. It makes Commanders power houses and Crisis suits kinda meh. I'm not against it, but I'd rather it be uniform than this where it's just kinda weird.
). What a time to be alive.
